Chapter 7C

The department chair writes to the divisional dean requesting authorization for a professor in residence search.

The search plan should address:

• A description of the field or area(s) of the search and a description of the importance of the subfield being requested to the discipline as a whole and how it fits into the department’s academic plan.
• How the anticipated appointment is expected to serve the curricular needs of the department, including the teaching and advising of undergraduate and graduate students, and whether the appointment will be coterminous with a senior administrative position.
• Why this position is best served by a term-limited professorial appointment.
• 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 consists of tenured faculty members. The department should 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.
• The space (office, studio, and/or laboratory) that will house the proposed appointment and any other important resource considerations.

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 deans decide to pursue the appointment, they will seek approval to proceed from the Provost.

After authorization from the Provost and 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 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, 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 [in reverse chronological order], any teaching awards, a list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised [and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant], 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 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. (The department may request the other teaching materials only from the finalist.)
  • A research statement.
  • A service statement describing efforts to strengthen academic communities (e.g., the candidate’s department, institution, and/or professional societies).
• The divisional/SEAS dean 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.

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, teaching/advising statement, and service statement that describes efforts to strengthen academic communities (e.g., the department, institution, and/or professional societies).
• 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.

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 5b) 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.
• The criteria for appointment to a professor in residence 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.
• 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. (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 may be taken directly from the short list or may be built around comparisons to the finalists, depending on the most appropriate course of action.
• 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).
• 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 evaluations for inclusion in the final dossier. These letters are in addition to any letters the department might solicit from past advisors. Please take into account that 12 affirmative responses to the initial inquiry may not ultimately result in 12 external evaluations of the candidate.
• 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 and collaborators.
• The names of outside scholars declining write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these scholars explaining that they could/would not participate in the review should be included with the other external evaluations.

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, discuss the case, and 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 department reviews the draft case statement, the external letters, and all of the candidate’s materials and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case. This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. The department should also assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for professor in residence. As part of this discussion, the department should assess the impact the candidate has had on the field and the candidate’s potential for future contributions.
• 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.

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 (CAP) and the Provost. A dossier is not submitted to CAP for initial review until a substantial number of letters from the tenured members of the department are received.

(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 (and, if applicable, administrative needs) and why this position is best served by a term-limited professorial appointment. 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.
• 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 any 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 professor in residence, including the impact the candidate has had on the field and the candidate’s potential for future contributions. This analysis should clearly draw on both the external letters (including comparison of the candidate with comparands) and 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).
  • Please describe the candidate's efforts to strengthen academic communities (e.g., the department, institution, and/or professional societies).
• If available, a link to a videotaped talk (ideally, the candidate’s job talk or 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.

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 securely 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.

The divisional dean/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. 

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 submission deadline is March 1 for appointments beginning July 1 and October 1 for appointments beginning on January 1.

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 Provost

(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 Provost, or

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

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 offer of appointment is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

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 (drafted in consultation with the divisional dean by the Office for Faculty Development) contains information on title, appointment, salary, responsibilities, etc. The Office for Faculty Development 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 offer is accepted, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by 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.

In rare cases, a professor in residence 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 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.

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 undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and current and former postdoctoral advisees, as relevant, and including those who moved to another research group), representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
• A teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate's philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising. This statement should also detail the candidate’s approach to creating a learning environment in which students are encouraged to ask questions and share their ideas.
• A statement regarding administrative duties, if appropriate.

The chair requests divisional dean approval of a proposed review committee. After approval from the divisional dean, the chair 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.

Department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser of undergraduates and mentor of graduate students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.

• 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 since the beginning of the candidate's appointment should be collected. Please include:
  • 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.
• The review committee should:
  • Solicit feedback from the candidate’s current and former advisees, as appropriate. To gather advisee feedback on advising/mentoring, which should be summarized in the case statement, the department chair (or their designee) either speaks with or writes to the candidate’s current and former students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows, including those who have moved to another research group. If the feedback takes written form, the chair should make clear that the emails or letters will be kept confidential and advisees’ 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 her 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, scholarship, and administrative service, if appropriate.

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, 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 to the candidate, to the associate dean for the division/SEAS.

Please securely send one electronic copy of the dossier, including a draft letter to 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.
• Teaching and advising materials, including a list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant, and including those who have moved to another research group), representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
• All teaching evaluations since the beginning of the candidate's appointment.
• 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.

Note: The candidate should not solicit student (or postdoc) letters, and any unsolicited student (or postdoc) 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 forwards the case to the Provost for final review.

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 divisional dean issues a final letter to the candidate.

• The divisional dean drafts the reappointment letter in consultation with the Office for Faculty Development. 
• The reappointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs.