Chapter 6

Second-Year Reviews of Assistant and Externally-Appointed Associate Professors

Review Process Timeline

For both assistant professors appointed to a five-year term and externally-appointed associate professors, the department’s 2nd-year review of the faculty member should be completed by the end of the second year of the appointment. Please follow steps 1-5 below. The key actions for the review process are as follows:

Peer observation of the faculty member’s teaching should be complete, and the observer(s)’ teaching feedback letter to the candidate should be shared with the 2nd-year review committee, for incorporation into the committee’s overall 2nd-year assessment.
The department chair’s two letters (i.e., one to the divisional dean, summarizing the process, and one to the tenure-track faculty member, offering an overall 2nd-year assessment) have been submitted to the divisional dean, for approval.
- For externally-appointed associate professors only: The department has used the Qualtrics survey (see these instructions) to gather feedback on advising and mentoring.
Subsequent to that divisional dean approval, the department chair’s feedback meeting with the associate professor, providing an overall 2nd-year assessment, has occurred.

Review Steps

The Office for Faculty Affairs (OFA) will provide support and staffing throughout the search and review process for ladder and senior non-ladder appointments.

Step 1: Department conducts the assessment.

The department conducts the assessment in the manner it finds most productive for the tenure-track faculty member.

The second-year review should be completed by the end of the second year of the appointment, and is applicable to assistant professors and those associate professors who were externally appointed. Ordinarily, a small committee of senior colleagues reviews the assistant or associate professor’s teaching, advising, mentoring, research, and service/citizenship to date. This process includes peer observation of teaching, as described in Step 2, and for externally-appointed associate professors, includes collection of confidential feedback from the candidate’s undergraduate advisees, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows. For assistant professors, this feedback is optional.

For assistant professors, the second-year review is the first of potentially three reviews in their time at Harvard; for externally-appointed associate professors, it is the first of potentially two. As such, this review is an opportunity for the tenure-track faculty member and their departmental mentor(s) and department chair to begin thinking together about elements that are common to all of the candidate’s reviews and in relation to which the candidate’s efforts will continuously build over the next several years. The tenure-track faculty member and departmental colleagues who are participating in the second-year review are encouraged to discuss together how to articulate the candidate’s field. They should also assess and discuss, for the tenure-track faculty member’s ongoing development, how that faculty member can heighten their impact in research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship. Those conducting the review should also discuss in specific terms whether the faculty member is receiving effective mentoring.

Given the importance of the field definition and its effect on who the external letter writers (in associate reviews and tenure reviews) and comparands (in tenure cases) are and how a candidate’s case is viewed, the candidate and department can work together over time (ideally from the second-year review onward, and certainly when the candidate is actively preparing for the associate review), to understand and clearly articulate a definition of the candidate’s field. The field definition should be sufficiently broad that the candidate’s impact beyond their own specialization can be determined. For instance, the field definition may situate the candidate’s area of specialization within a broader field; or the definition may speak to the “Venn diagram” of the candidate’s impact, i.e., not only the immediate subfield in which they work, but the adjacent subfields and fields affected by this work.[1]

[1] During a candidate’s review for promotion to associate professor or review for promotion to tenured professor, the department may take into consideration how the candidate defines their field when the department puts together the materials for the candidate’s dossier, but the department can change the field definition as they deem appropriate.

Teaching, advising, and mentoring are distinct categories of activity and assessment. In particular:

Teaching: refers to classroom teaching of undergraduates and graduate students.
Advising: refers to the many ways that faculty provide intellectual guidance to undergraduates and graduate students outside of the classroom, and to postdocs. This includes, and is not limited to, such things as (for undergraduates) senior thesis advising or concentration advising and (for graduate students) dissertation advising, advising on Ph.D. oral exams, etc.
Mentoring: in contrast to the intellectual advising described above, refers to faculty efforts to support the professional development and career development of undergraduate students, graduate students, TFs, and postdoctoral fellows.

The FAS endorses a developmental view of the candidate’s teaching, advising, and mentoring—that these activities are learned over time, and as important as “achievements” in these areas are the effort, thoughtfulness, and willingness to improve that a faculty member demonstrates. The FAS encourages departments to take an expansive view of all the different ways that people can contribute to the teaching, advising, and mentoring missions. Faculty have different strengths and inclinations and contribute to these missions in different ways.

Directions for candidate

The teaching/advising/mentoring statement should provide:

A brief summary description of the candidate’s teaching so far and any advising and mentoring work they did with undergraduate and graduate students, TFs, and postdoctoral fellows; and
An assessment of, and reflection on, their efforts in teaching, advising, and mentoring. Because the FAS takes a developmental view of teaching, advising, and mentoring, the candidate should reflect on aspects of their professional progression and on how they are addressing any areas of concern.

In the statement, they may discuss:

their philosophy/approach to teaching, advising, and mentoring
how the candidate defines effectiveness in each of these areas, and the methods and approaches they use to achieve these
their reasoning and process in forming their teaching portfolio
how they engage with students, advisees, and mentees at various levels (e.g., first-years, concentrators, graduate students, TFs, postdoctoral fellows)
their approach to creating a learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas
any challenges the candidate faced and any modifications made to courses, teaching, advising, and mentoring in response to feedback
any ways the candidate has actively worked to improve their teaching, advising, or mentoring

Given the often interconnected nature of teaching, advising, and mentoring individuals, the candidate is not required to discuss each of these topics in sequence and in separation from each other. However, if this is the case, their discussion should still clearly maintain the distinctions between these activities, as noted above.

Use of advisee-mentee feedback

Required for externally-appointed associate professors; optional for assistant professors: In addition, to gather advisee and mentee feedback on advising and mentoring, which should be addressed in the letter to the candidate following the review, the department chair (or their designee) solicits feedback from the candidate’s current and former undergraduates, graduate students, and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows, including those who have moved to another research group. This list may include informal advisees/mentees designated by the candidate. This feedback is solicited using a Qualtrics survey (see these instructions). The survey questions and accompanying email can be found here [Advisee/Mentee Feedback Email and Questionnaire]. Advisee/mentee responses will be kept confidential, and advisee/mentee names will be redacted (although the dean or their designee may request any information regarding the case if questions arise). Departmental members conducting the review, who receive the redacted advisee and mentee responses, should share a summary of the feedback, without names, with the senior members of the department and the candidate. The advisee and mentee responses, with the names redacted, are shared in their entirety with the divisional/SEAS office, the Office for Faculty Affairs, and the FAS Dean. The full responses should not be shared with the senior members of the department.

Step 2: Review committee chair launches the process for peer observation of teaching.

Early in the 2nd-year review process, the review committee chair launches the process for peer observation of teaching.

Please see the memo, “Peer Observation of Teaching in 2nd-Year Reviews,” for a full description of the process for conducting peer observation of teaching in a 2nd-year review.

Step 3: Department chair reports on the assessment to tenured faculty.

The department chair reports on the overall 2nd-year assessment to senior members of the department.

Step 4: Department chair drafts letters to the divisional dean and the candidate.

The following must be submitted to the divisional dean:

All materials considered in the review (see Step 1).
A letter to the divisional dean describing the review process and summarizing the findings.
The letter to the candidate. This letter conveys advice, including a reminder of mentoring arrangements that have been established within the department for the candidate. The divisional dean reviews the letter before it is sent.
1. To be useful, feedback to the candidate should be candid, constructive, and complete. Cursory, vague, or pro forma feedback does not help the tenure-track faculty member to improve, change course as needed, and effectively prepare for their next promotion review.
2. The department should provide, as appropriate, both positive feedback and concrete suggestions for how the faculty member can improve and heighten their impact in research, teaching, advising, mentoring, and service/citizenship.
3. The peer observer(s)’ teaching feedback letter to the candidate should be incorporated into the department’s overall 2nd-year review feedback letter to the candidate.
4. Departments are also encouraged to provide clear and consistent guidance from the point of hire onward about what a strong teaching portfolio consists of, which should also be conveyed in the feedback letter to the candidate. Teaching portfolios should contain:
  1. Different types of courses to show that the candidate can contribute to a range of teaching needs at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
  2. Courses spanning a range of formats such as (and without needing to be all-inclusive) seminars, lectures in introductory courses, required courses, and electives.
  3. However, the portfolios should not be so broad as to prohibit faculty from teaching a course more than once, as teaching a course multiple times can help to show the trajectory of the candidate’s development.
5. If advisee/mentee feedback was solicited (required for second-year reviews of associate professors; optional for assistant professors), please summarize that feedback in this letter.
The advisee/mentee feedback responses, with names redacted (optional for assistant professor candidates).

If the candidate later stands for a review for promotion – to associate professor in the case of assistant professor, and to tenured professor in the case of externally-appointed associate professor – the feedback letter from the second-year review will be shared with the review committee in the associate or tenure review, respectively. This provides a fuller context for understanding how the candidate has developed and also sheds some light on the mentoring they received.

Please securely send one digital copy of these letters and materials to the divisional dean, cc’ing the associate dean for the division/SEAS. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform.

Step 5: Department chair meets with the assistant or associate professor and submits final documents.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the assessment and provide advice. At the end of the meeting, the department chair gives a signed copy of the letter, which has been reviewed by the divisional dean, to the assistant or associate professor.

Please submit one signed copy of the final letter to the assistant or associate professor to the associate dean for the division/SEAS and to the Appointments Office in the Office for Faculty Affairs.