Chapter 7B

The department chair writes to the divisional dean, requesting authorization for a search.

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 must consist of at least 3 members, all at the rank of professor of the practice or above. At least two members must be tenured faculty. As appropriate, the committee may include a faculty member from outside the hiring unit if there is an overlap in research interests.
• How the anticipated appointment is expected to serve the curricular needs of the department.
• The space that will house the proposed appointment.

Note: Because of the special nature of part-time professor of the practice appointments, standard search and documentation procedures do not always apply.

In consultation with the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the divisional dean reviews individual requests in light of divisional priorities and resources (including space). If the search is authorized, the divisional dean will provide a written response to the department, setting out the conditions of the search.

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 is “an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, protected veteran status, disability, genetic information, military service, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, or other protected status.”
• The dossier for the finalist must include 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; a research statement or statement of professional activities from the candidate, and teaching materials (e.g., a teaching chart listing courses in reverse chronological order, any teaching awards, representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations). (Note: In the teaching chart, please indicate which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.) The advertisement should ask all candidates to submit with their original application materials a teaching/advising statement, research/professional activities statement, and a service statement describing the candidate’s efforts to to strengthen academic communities (e.g., their department, institution, and/or professional societies).
• Candidates should not solicit student letters, and any unsolicited student 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. 

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’ materials (e.g., letters of application, CVs, research statement or statement of professional activities, teaching/advising statement, and service statement.
• A brief summary of the search process to date.

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

Ordinarily, all candidates under serious consideration have the opportunity of a campus visit in order to meet with members of the department, in addition to the members of the search committee.

Following campus visits, the department will select a finalist from the short list. Before soliciting external letters, the finalist will be asked to submit teaching materials if they have not already done so (e.g., a teaching chart listing courses in reverse chronological order, any teaching awards, representative course syllabi, and teaching evaluations).

The department selects a final candidate and requests authorization from the divisional dean to solicit external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the letter soliciting evaluations and a recipient list (see Sample Table)

The letter soliciting external evaluations should include:

• The criteria for appointment to a professor of the practice position at Harvard.
• An indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to the senior members of the department and others directly involved in the formal review process.
• The deadline for receipt of responses and contact information.

The recipient 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 the candidate's Ph.D. advisor, postdoctoral advisor, or co-author, and the rationale for including each scholar on the list. 

The department sends the approved letter to the scholars on the recipient list.

• The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least eight evaluative 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.

After reviewing all of the candidate’s materials, including external letters, the department discusses the case and votes.

This discussion should be in depth and rigorous. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the voting faculty. 

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member 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.

(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.

The finalized case statement, prepared and signed by the department chair and the chair of the search committee, should include the following:

• A one-paragraph executive summary of the candidate’s contributions and the department’s recommendation.
• Background and context: An explanation of how the appointment serves the needs of the department and why it is appropriate to make the appointment at the professor of the practice rank. 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.
  • Describe how the finalist was identified.
• External letter writers:
  • A brief description of the logic underlying the composition of the external letter writer group.
• The case for the candidate:
  • An evaluation of the finalist’s teaching/advising abilities and efforts to strengthen academic communities (e.g., the candidate’s department, institution, and/or professional societies).
  • A comparison of the candidate with all other leading candidates, and reasons why the other leading candidates were not chosen.
• A discussion of the strength 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.
• A summary of the department's discussions of the case.
• 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.

Note: The department should secure from applicants at the short-list stage (or from the finalist, if the department’s process does not include a short-list stage) a draft course title, course description, and syllabus for the course(s) that the candidate(s) intend to teach during their first semester, for approval. This information will be included in the finalist’s dossier. (Obtaining this information is not necessary for candidates who would be teaching established courses such as certain language or mathematics courses, etc.)

Please send one electronic copy of the dossier 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 below.

Note:  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.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Dean on whether the correct process has been followed, the dossier is complete, and the case is sufficiently strong. The Dean then decides whether or not to approve the appointment and forward the case to the Provost for approval.

The Provost reviews the case.

The Office for Faculty Affairs forwards the case to the Provost, who makes the final decision on whether or not to approve the appointment.

If the decision is favorable, the Office for Faculty Development prepares and issues the offer letter.

Once approval for the appointment has been granted, the department should ask the individual during the hiring process to confirm the department’s understanding of what the course title, description, and syllabus are. 

The offer letter contains detailed information about the finalist’s administrative and teaching duties. It also makes clear the standards and procedures for reappointment.

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

The Office for Faculty Development 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 electronically the Harvard University Participation Agreement by the start of their appointment.

The department chair requests materials from the candidate during the penultimate year of appointment.

Materials should include:

• A curriculum vitae, including bibliography.
• Teaching and advising materials, including: a list of past and present theses supervised, if applicable, representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards and evaluations.
• 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.
• A research statement or statement of professional activities from the candidate, including a summary of the candidate’s work outside of Harvard in the last five years.

The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee and, following this approval, appoints the committee.

The committee consists of tenured colleagues who will evaluate the case, including a tenured faculty member from another department/SEAS area or Harvard school. The request should name the committee chair and other review committee members.

The department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as a teacher.

• The summary teaching chart summarizes, in reverse chronological order, all courses the candidate has taught, including course titles, enrollments, and overall course scores and instructor scores. (Note: In the teaching chart, please indicate which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
• All teaching evaluations not already seen during the last review should be collected. Please include a PDF of evaluations:
  • 1 electronic PDF of student teaching evaluations
    • For evaluations prior to Fall 2019, please follow the instructions from Harvard FAS Course Evaluations (https://q.fas.harvard.edu/reports-prior-2019-20)

    • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/results-2019-20-and-later.

      • Click on “Click Here to View Your Results Now" and log in.
      • Select user group “Harvard_Faculty_Staff.”
      • Select the “Course Heads-Instructors report” for the specific year/term.
      • Type the course number abbreviation (e.g. COMPSCI 50) in the “Search report title” field and click to search.
      • Download for each course:
        • Select "View the {term} Individual Report -- Comments included report" and click on the course from the listing. Click the (PDF) icon next to the corresponding instructor to download the report.

      Select the “Course Heads-Instructors report” for the specific year/term.

• The review committee should:
  • Solicit feedback from the candidate’s current and former students, as appropriate. To gather student feedback, which should be summarized in the case statement, the department chair (or their designee) either speaks with or writes to the candidate’s students. If the feedback takes written form, the chair should make clear that the emails or letters will be kept confidential and students’ names will be redacted (as is also the case with oral feedback) before the emails or letters are shared with committee members (although the dean or the dean's designee may request any information regarding the case if questions arise). The emails or letters should not be included in the dossier. 
  • Observe the candidate’s teaching.

The committee considers the case. 

The review committee should take into account all aspects of the candidate’s job description, including the candidate’s teaching/advising and scholarship or professional activity.

The committee drafts a case statement and reports its findings to the department.

The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the committee’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching/advising, research or professional activity, and citizenship (see Step 8 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

The department reviews the materials, discusses the case, and votes on the reappointment according to its standard procedures.

This discussion should be in depth and rigorous. A favorable vote does not have to be unanimous but must comprise affirmative votes by a significant majority of the voting faculty. If the department decides against reappointment, the department chair sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate and explains the department’s decision. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate.

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each tenured member of the department, including those on the review committee, to write a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

These letters express the tenured faculty members’ views on the reappointment and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP).

(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 department sends the candidate’s dossier, including a draft letter for the candidate, to the associate dean for the division/SEAS.

Please securely send one electronic copy of the dossier, including a draft letter for the candidate, to the associate dean. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform.

The dossier should consist of:

• A case statement describing the review procedures, making the case for the reappointment of the candidate. It includes an evaluation of the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness (including a summary of student feedback solicited by the department chair); the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regards to teaching/advising, research or professional activity, and citizenship; a summary of the department’s discussions of the case; and a record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally. The case statement should also indicate who authored it and be signed by both the author and the chair. Note: The finalized case statement should be made available to the faculty in the department involved in the review.
• The candidate’s curriculum vitae.
• Summary teaching chart.
• A teaching/advising statement describing 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.
• A research statement or statement of professional activities from the candidate, including a summary of the candidate’s work outside of Harvard in the last five years.
• Teaching and advising materials, including: a list of theses supervised, if applicable, representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
• All teaching evaluations not already seen during the last review.
• A draft letter to the individual, to be reviewed by the divisional dean, discussing the review. The letter covers any concerns about performance and/or need for services that might affect the future. The letter also indicates the dates of reappointment and the schedule for the next review.

Note: The candidate should not solicit student letters, and any unsolicited student letters will not be included in the dossier.

Note:  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.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions reviews the dossier.

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews the dossier and advises the Dean on whether the case warrants reappointment. The Dean then decides whether or not to approve the reappointment and forward the case to the Provost for approval.

The Provost reviews the case.

The Office for Faculty Affairs forwards the case to the Provost, who makes the final decision on whether or not to approve the reappointment.

If reappointment is authorized, the department issues a final letter to the candidate.

• The department securely sends 1 electronic PDF copy of the final letter for the candidate, signed by the department chair, to the divisional dean, cc’ing the associate  dean. Please follow HUIT’s recommended practices for secure document transfer, which can vary by user platform.
• The reappointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs.