Chapter 4B

Each spring, the divisional dean authorizes searches for the upcoming academic year based on departments’ academic plans and ongoing conversations with the departments. After receiving the divisional dean’s authorization letter, the department submits a search plan to the divisional/SEAS associate dean for approval.

The search plan should address:

• The names of the proposed search committee members, including the chair, who will have primary responsibility for ensuring that the search is broad, wide-ranging, and thorough.
  • The committee ordinarily consists of tenured faculty members and should include a tenured faculty member from another department/SEAS area or Harvard school. Tenure-track faculty in the department may also participate in searches for externally appointed tenured faculty at the discretion of the department. See below for instructions.
  • The department should also ask a representative of the appropriate center, institute, or initiative to serve on or consult with the search committee when there is an overlap in research interests. (Note: Once a final candidate is identified in the search process, former undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral advisors of the candidate should not serve as chair.)
• A copy of the draft advertisement for the position.
• A description of the field or area(s) of the search, as stated in the advertisement. Care should be taken to define the field with sufficient breadth that candidates’ contributions can be understood within an appropriately broad context. The field should not be defined as a narrow subfield.
• The space (office, studio, and/or laboratory) that will house the proposed appointment and any other important resource considerations.

• The process by which candidates will be identified to ensure the creation of the most highly qualified pool of applicants.

Tenure-Track Faculty Participation in Tenured Searches

Tenure-track faculty in the department may also participate in searches for externally appointed tenured faculty at the discretion of the department.

• They may sit on search committees and, in that capacity, see all the materials that the search committee sees, and participate in committee discussions.
• At the stage when the department’s tenured faculty review the finalist’s materials and discuss whether the case should proceed, all departmental tenure-track faculty (i.e., not just any who are serving on the search committee) are allowed to see the finalist’s materials (including external evaluations) and take part in the departmental discussions about the finalist.
• In addition to the departmental discussion noted above, which includes both tenured and tenure-track faculty, the tenured faculty in the department may choose, if they like, to have a final conversation in camera, without any tenure-track faculty present, before voting on whether the case will proceed.
• Voting on tenured appointments (whether in external searches or internal promotions to tenure) remains a right reserved for tenured faculty only. While tenure-track faculty who serve on a search committee for an external tenured professor may participate in any search committee votes (if such occur) on who the short-list or finalist may be, no tenure-track faculty vote, after the department’s discussion of the finalist, on whether the case should proceed to CAP. Only tenured faculty participate in that vote.
• All tenured faculty and all tenure-track faculty in the department are invited to write a confidential letter to the FAS Dean. 

After approval of the search plan by the divisional dean, the department advertises the position and makes inquiries at other institutions.

• All advertising copy must be reviewed and approved by the associate dean for the division/SEAS before it is submitted to the appropriate journals and other venues. Advertisements and inquiries should describe the position broadly and should list a date after which the department will stop accepting applications, or the department can encourage candidates to apply by a specific date, while indicating that applications will be reviewed until the position is filled. At least one form of the advertisement should be published in print. Advertisements should clearly state required documents and must indicate that “Harvard University is committed to equal opportunity and non-discrimination. We seek talent from all parts of society and the world, and we strive to ensure everyone at Harvard thrives. Our differences help our community advance Harvard’s academic purposes. Harvard has an equal employment opportunity policy that outlines our commitment to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, religion, disability, or any other characteristic protected by law or identified in the university’s non-discrimination policy. Harvard’s equal employment opportunity policy and non-discrimination policy help all community members participate fully in work and campus life free from harassment and discrimination.” 
• The dossier for the finalist must include a teaching/advising statement, a service statement, and a research statement. The dossier should also include teaching and advising materials, including a teaching chart ideally listing ten years of courses, any teaching awards, a list of past and present undergraduate and graduate theses supervised [and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant], representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations.
• The advertisement should ask all candidates to submit a curriculum vitae and an authorization form.
• Harvard University is committed to fostering a campus culture where everyone can thrive and experience a sense of inclusion and belonging. Community members are encouraged to model our values of integrity, responsible mentorship, equity, and excellence no matter where they are. To support this commitment, the external finalist for this position will be required to complete a questionnaire regarding misconduct and Harvard will make parallel inquiries to his/her/their current and former employers. View the definitions of misconduct and processes Harvard will use.
• The divisional/SEAS dean and their designees may, as needed, request additional information from or about candidates at relevant points in the search process.
• Candidates should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) letters will not be included in the final dossier.

The department submits a short list of candidates for approval by the divisional dean.

The short list consists of candidates the department has determined are the most qualified for the job in terms of credentials, accomplishments, standing in the field, teaching experience, and field of expertise. 

Note: In developing a short list, if the research interests of the appointment overlap with a center, institute, or initiative, the department should take into account the views of that unit.

The department sends the following to the divisional dean and the associate dean for the division/SEAS:

• The names of the short-list candidates.
• The candidates’ CVs.
• A brief summary of the search process to date.

If approval is granted, the department invites short-list candidates to campus for interviews.

Candidates meet with members of the department. The visits may include formal seminars, lectures, or presentations of working papers, as well as informal meetings with faculty, graduate students, and others. The associate dean for the division/SEAS should be given a list of dates of any seminars, lectures, or presentations.

Following campus visits, the department will select a finalist(s) from the shortlist. Before soliciting external letters, the finalist(s) will be asked to submit, if they have not already done so:

• A research statement.
• A service statement that describes efforts to strengthen academic communities, e.g., department, institution, and/or professional societies.
• A teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate’s philosophy and practices as well as their approach to creating a learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas.
• Teaching and advising materials, including any teaching awards, a list of past and present undergraduate and graduate theses supervised [and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant], representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations (ideally for at least ten years of courses).
• Signed attestation and acknowledgement. 
• Signed authorization to release information. 

The department requests authorization from the divisional dean to solicit external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the blind letter, the recipient list (see Sample Table) and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 5c) before the blind letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter.

The blind letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include:

• A broad description of the field of the search. Care should be taken to define the field with sufficient breadth that candidates’ contributions can be understood within an appropriately broad context. The field should not be defined as a narrow subfield.
• The criteria for appointment to a tenured position at Harvard.
• The comparison list (see below).
• A request that the individuals named be compared, absolutely and relatively.
• A request for names and evaluations of other comparable candidates who in the respondent’s view may have been overlooked.
• An indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to members of the department and others directly involved in the formal review process.
• The deadline for receipt of responses and contact information. (Note: The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the blind letter, not the initial inquiry.)

The comparison list:

• The comparison list includes four to five tenured scholars in the field; in some instances, it may be appropriate to include highly accomplished senior researchers, museum professionals, practicing artists, or others. The list must include at least two full professors. The comparison list should include the finalist(s) and other scholars who are at the forefront of their field. The comparison list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
• The most useful comparison list consists of scholars who themselves meet the standards for tenure within the FAS. (However, no Harvard faculty should be included on the comparison list.)
• The letter should note that the individuals listed have not necessarily been asked if they are willing to be considered and that the list has been selected for the purposes of the department’s own internal evaluation.
• The list should be in alphabetical order and include title/current rank, home institution, year of doctorate and institution, and a link to the scholars’ websites.

The recipient list (See the Sample Table in this handbook):

• The recipient list should include active scholars who are ordinarily full professors within the field or fields in interdisciplinary cases. The recipient list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
• In science and engineering cases, some of the external reviewers may be prestigious senior researchers from corporations or research institutes, rather than universities.
• In certain arts and humanities cases, some of the external reviewers may be well-established museum professionals or practicing artists.
• The list (see Sample Table) should be in alphabetical order and include title/current rank, home institution, year of doctorate (if available), a link to the scholar’s website, email address, whether the scholar has been any comparand's Ph.D. advisor, postdoctoral advisor, or co-author, and the rationale for including each scholar on the list. 

(Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry)

Once the divisional dean has approved the blind letter, recipient list, and initial inquiry letter, the department chair sends the initial inquiry to scholars on the recipient list.

The initial inquiry email (see the Sample Letter section of this handbook) asks recipients if they would be willing to write a letter, requesting their answer by a specific date.

• The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least 12 to 15 responses for inclusion in the final dossier. The dossier should include a minimum of 10 arm’s length letters. “Arm’s length” means that the evaluator is not a past or present advisor, mentor, collaborator, co-teacher, or other role in close relationship to the candidate(s), as assessed by the divisional/SEAS dean’s office.
• Please take into account that 12 affirmative responses to the initial inquiry may not ultimately result in 12 external evaluations of the candidate(s).
• The inquiry email and all responses from scholars should be included in the final dossier.

Any initial inquiries conducted by phone (and scholars’ responses) must be documented for inclusion in the final dossier.

The chair sends the blind letter to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 5b). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the blind letter is sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list.

• The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least 12 to 15 responses for inclusion in the final dossier. These letters are in addition to any letters the department might solicit from past advisors. The dossier should include a minimum of 10 arm’s length letters.
• The names of outside scholars declining to write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these scholars should be included with the other external evaluations.

Note: On an exceptional basis subject to divisional/SEAS dean approval, and only in rare instances where it is essential that the committee hears from someone who is unable to provide their evaluation in a written letter, the committee may gather that person’s evaluation by phone or Zoom. The committee chair will conduct the conversation with a representative from the Office of Faculty Affairs present following a script of questions that is reviewed and approved by the divisional/SEAS associate dean. The notes from this conversation will be included in the dossier. 

After discussing the external letters, the search committee selects a final candidate.

Note: In selecting the final candidate, if the research interests of the appointment overlap with a center, institute, or initiative, the department should take into account the views of that unit.

The search committee drafts a case statement; the tenured members of the department review all materials and discuss the case. All tenure-track members of the department (i.e., not just any who may be serving on the search committee) are also allowed to review all of the finalist’s materials (including external evaluations) and participate in the departmental discussion of the case. Following discussion of the case, the tenured members of the department vote.

• The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the committee’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching and advising, research, and service (see Step 10 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).
• The tenured members of the department and any tenure-track members of the department who wish to participate (including those serving on the search committee) review the draft case statement, the external letters, and all of the candidate’s materials, including the research statement, teaching/advising statement, and service statement, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. The department should assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for tenure within the FAS. As part of this discussion, the department should assess the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), the candidate’s trajectory, and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. 
• As mentioned in Step 1, in addition to this discussion including tenured faculty and any interested tenure-track faculty, the tenured faculty in the department may choose to have another, final conversation in camera, without any tenure-track colleagues present, before the vote.
• The tenured members of the department vote on whether the case is strong enough to proceed. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the tenured faculty in the department. As mentioned in Step 1, voting on tenured appointments (whether in external searches or internal promotions to tenure) remains a right reserved for tenured faculty only.

After a favorable vote, the chair asks all tenured and tenure-track members of the department, including those on the search committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

These letters express the faculty members’ views on the appointment and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) and the ad hoc committee, as appropriate.

(For inclusion in the dossier, letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.)

The case statement is finalized by the department chair, for review by the divisional/SEAS dean.

The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the search committee, for review by the divisional/SEAS dean (see Step 11) should include the following sections:

• A one-paragraph executive summary of the candidate’s contributions and the department’s recommendation.
• Background and context: A description of the candidate’s area and how it fits into the department’s academic plan. Include information about how this appointment would relate to FAS/SEAS faculty working in similar or adjacent intellectual fields. Describe the teaching needs that the appointment would address.
• Summary of the search process:
  • List key dates, such as and not limited to:
    • The dates of search committee meetings and departmental meetings about the case
    • Visits or other interactions with short list candidates
    • The date that the department sent requests for external letters.
  • Include copies of correspondence and advertisements and records of telephone conversations.
• Comparands: Provide a list of names, home institutions, and links to each comparand's home page, with a brief rationale for each comparand. Explain how this comparand list reflects an appropriately broad definition of the field.
• External letter writers:
  • Describe the logic underlying the composition of the external letter writer group, especially in cases where the candidate is multidisciplinary.
  • Describe how many letters were solicited, how many requests were declined, how many letters were received, and inferences from the pattern of responses.
• The intellectual case for the candidate:
  • A summary of the candidate’s scholarly contributions.
  • An analysis of how these contributions meet the intellectual criteria for tenure, including the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), an indication of the candidate’s trajectory, and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. This analysis should clearly draw on both the external letters (including comparison of the candidate with the comparands) and the considered judgments of departmental faculty. Short quotes from the letters may be included but should not substitute for robust analysis of the letter contents and their relation to the department’s deliberations. Please directly address any letters that provide negative evaluations of the candidate.
• Teaching, advising, and service:
  • An evaluation of teaching and advising effectiveness in a variety of settings with both undergraduate and graduate students (and postdocs as relevant)
  • An evaluation of the candidate's service to the department, home institution, and broader academic community and their efforts to strengthen their academic communities
• If available, a link to a videotaped talk (ideally, the candidate's job talk or a suitable alternative).
• A comparison of the candidate with all other leading candidates, and reasons why the other leading candidates were not chosen.
• A summary of the department's discussions of the case.
• Strengths and weakness: A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case as noted in the external evaluations and the internal conversations of both the search committee and the department. This analysis of strengths and weaknesses should reflect in-depth and rigorous committee and departmental deliberations of the candidate’s entire dossier.
• Departmental vote: A record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally.
• Signatures: An indication of the primary author of the statement.

Note:  The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review.

The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the associate dean for the division/SEAS.

• Please securely send one digital copy of the following materials to the associate dean. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform. For a full checklist of what the dossier should include, please see the dossier checklist.
  • 1 digital PDF of the dossier.
  • Separate from the dossier, 1 digital PDF of student teaching evaluations.
  • Separate from the dossier, 1 digital PDF of publications and (in book fields) all significant reviews. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included.) In art-making fields, 1 digital PDF (if available) of creative works and all significant reviews.
  • 1 digital Excel document (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) containing ad hoc committee membership recommendations.

The divisional/SEAS dean and associate dean will review the dossier, including close attention to the case statement. If the case statement needs further work, the associate dean will convey feedback to the department, along with any questions or feedback about the other materials.

Notes: 

• The divisional/SEAS dean and/or their designee and the Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning can ask for changes to the dossier at any time. After submission of the dossier, the divisional/SEAS office, the Office for Faculty Affairs, and the FAS Dean reserve the right to request additional information, including internal and/or external letters of evaluation should it be deemed necessary to obtain more information relevant to the review process. 

  • Once the associate dean confirms that the dossier and materials are complete, the department then sends 1 digital PDF of the dossier to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs.

  • The divisional/SEAS dean may decide that the case is not strong enough to forward to the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP), in which case the divisional/SEAS dean notifies the department chair in writing within a reasonable time frame.

• All digital materials must be sent securely. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS on the next step for the dossier, which can include the following:

(1)   The case is sufficiently strong to forward to the President

(2)   CAP needs further information or the department needs to modify the case statement before the Dean decides whether to forward the case to the President, or

(3)   The case is not strong enough, and CAP advises the Dean to turn down the tenure case. In the latter case, the Dean notifies the department in writing within a reasonable timeframe.

The President or Provost reviews the case.

This review usually, but not exclusively or necessarily, takes the form of an ad hoc committee, presided over by the President, the Provost, or the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty. An ad hoc review is one aspect of the decision-making process. The President or Provost may also consult with internal and external scholars who are not involved in the ad hoc review to provide greater context for the President’s deliberations. In order to protect the candidate and the integrity of the process, all aspects of the President’s deliberations, including the timing and the type of ad hoc, are strictly confidential.

If the President decides to convene an ad hoc committee, it is assembled by the divisional dean and the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty. The committee ordinarily consists of two to three active, full professors from outside Harvard, two to three active, tenured professors at Harvard (from a department other than the one making the recommendation), the President or Provost, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty, and the divisional dean responsible for the case. When appropriate, an external member may be a prestigious senior researcher from a corporation or research institute, a well-established practicing artist, or a renowned museum professional. In considering the ad hoc membership, external letter writers are ordinarily avoided because the dossier already includes the views of these scholars. The committee ordinarily hears from three to four faculty witnesses, including the department chair, the search committee chair, and other faculty. The candidate’s former undergraduate or graduate thesis advisors or postdoctoral advisors should not ordinarily serve as witnesses.

Note: External letter writers who sent no, or little, response to a department’s request for a letter may be considered to serve on the ad hoc committee.

The President decides whether to approve the appointment and announces his decision.

After evaluating all of the information gathered throughout the process, the President makes the final decision regarding all tenure appointments and writes a letter with his decision to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

If the decision is favorable, the offer of appointment is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

The offer letter (drafted in consultation with the divisional dean by the Office for Faculty Affairs) contains information on title, appointment, salary, housing, benefits, responsibilities, research funding, leave policies, limitations or conditions, and special arrangements (including joint or affiliate appointments). The Office for Faculty Affairs makes any revisions to the offer letter. When appropriate, the dean for faculty development will work with a center, institute, or initiative to develop a supplementary letter for the candidate that describes the resources available through the center. The candidate’s acceptance of the offer must be made in writing to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

If the offer is accepted, the final dossier is compiled, and the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by Office for Faculty Affairs.

• The Office for Faculty Affairs provides all documentation for processing, with the exception of the I-9 form and any necessary payroll documents. Completion of an I-9 on or before the appointment start date and submission of any other necessary documents is required of all new employees, or after a break in service of one year or more. Questions about I-9 completion should be directed to FAS Central Payroll for faculty appointed through FAS or SEAS Office for Faculty Affairs for faculty appointed through SEAS.

The department administrator will remind the faculty member to sign digitally the Harvard University Participation Agreement by the start of their appointment.

In rare cases, a tenured professor search may coincide with the recruitment of a specific candidate (a “targeted” search). In these instances, departments may skip steps 2 and 3 in the above process. Departments may send an optional initial inquiry letter (which should not include the candidate’s name), followed by a blind letter. Additional materials such as curricula vitae and publications (or copies of creative works) are not sent out with the blind letter. The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the blind letter. As always, the initial inquiry letter, blind letter, and recipient list (see Sample Table) are reviewed by the divisional dean prior to being sent. 

Note: In a targeted search of this kind, the search committee should not be chaired by an advisor of the candidate, but advisors are permitted to serve on the committee.