Chapter 7D

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

The search plan should address:

• How the anticipated appointment is expected to serve the curricular needs of the department.
• Any administrative duties the candidate will be expected to perform and whether the lectureship will be held in conjunction with another position in the FAS.
• 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 include at least 3 tenured faculty members. (In the case of a targeted search, former undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral advisors of the candidate should not chair the committee.)
• The space that will house the proposed appointment.

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 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 service statement that describes efforts to strengthen academic communities (e.g., the candidate’s  department, institution, and/or professional societies);
  • teaching and advising materials (including a teaching chart listing courses in reverse chronological order, representative course syllabi, a list of past and present undergraduate students for whom the candidate has primary advising responsibility, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards 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.)
  • In art-making fields, a portfolio of creative work and significant reviews of the candidate's work.

The advertisement should ask all candidates to submit with their original application materials their teaching/advising statement and (as applicable) research statement or pedagogical innovation statement or artistic statement, and service statement describing efforts to strengthen academic communities; the department may request the other teaching materials (and in art-making fields, the portfolio of creative work and significant reviews) only from the finalist.

• Candidates should not solicit student letters, and any unsolicited student letters will not be included in the final dossier.
• The dossier for the finalist must also include at least eight evaluative letters (including recommendation letters). The advertisement may ask candidates to submit up to three recommendation letters with their original application materials; in addition, the department should solicit at least 5-8 more letters from outside scholars either at the short-list stage or once a finalist is selected.

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/pedagogical innovation/artistic statement, 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. 

Candidates meet with members of the department. The visits may include formal seminars, lectures, or master classes, 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 master classes.

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

The finalist’s dossier must include at least eight evaluative letters.

The letter soliciting evaluations should include:

• The criteria for appointment to a senior lecturer 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 voting members of the department/SEAS area 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 people on the recipient list, reviews the evaluative letters received, and drafts a case statement for the finalist.

• The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least eight evaluative letters (including the candidate’s recommendation letters) for inclusion in the final dossier. As up to three of the eight letters are recommendation letters, the department should solicit at least five to eight more letters from faculty outside Harvard at the rank of tenured associate or full professor.
• The names of individuals declining to write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these people should be included with the other evaluations.
• The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the department’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching and advising; as applicable, either 1) research, or else 2) demonstrated record of national leadership in innovation in pedagogy with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) artistic achievement; service; and an evaluation of efforts to strengthen academic communities (see Step 9 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

After reviewing all of the candidate’s materials, members of the department/SEAS area discuss the case and vote.

• The department/SEAS area reviews the draft case statement, all evaluative 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/SEAS area should also assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for senior lecturer.
• All voting members of the department/SEAS area vote on the proposed appointment according to their standard procedures.

After a favorable vote, the chair asks each voting member of the department/SEAS area, 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).

(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:

• Background and context: An explanation of how the appointment serves the needs of the department and how it fits in with the department’s future development and why it is appropriate to make the appointment at the senior lecturer 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 others 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.
    • 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 case for the candidate:
  • A discussion of the finalist’s teaching and advising abilities; as applicable, either 1) research, or else 2) demonstrated record of national leadership in innovation in pedagogy, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) artistic achievement; service; and an evaluation of efforts to strengthen academic communities.
  • A comparison of the candidate with all other leading candidates, and reasons why the other leading candidates were not chosen.
• A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case as noted in the evaluative letters 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.
• A summary of the department's discussions of the case.
• Departmental/SEAS area vote: A record of the department/SEAS area 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 the dossier checklist.

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 Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS on whether the case warrants appointment.

If the decision is favorable, the offer letter is issued by the divisional dean.

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 divisional dean.

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

The Office for Faculty Development submits 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 the extremely rare instance that an Associate Senior Lecturer is being considered for possible appointment to Senior Lecturer, the department follows the process in the table above, with the following differences: It is not necessary to advertise the position, create a short-list, arrange a campus visit, or (in the case statement) compare the candidate to other candidates. In addition, in lieu of the candidate submitting a teaching chart as described in Step 2 above, the department should compile the candidate’s summary teaching chart, and feedback should be gathered on the candidate’s advising, as described in Step 2b below. Please also see step 6b below for additional instructions. 

Step 2b: Summary teaching chart compilation and gathering of information for advising performance.

The department compiles a summary teaching chart and gathers information on the candidate’s performance as an adviser of undergraduates.

• 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.)
• 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.
• 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 students. 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 may request any information regarding the case if questions arise). The emails or letters should not be included in the dossier.
• Members of the committee should observe the candidate’s teaching.

In addition, instead of the letter requirements noted in Steps 2 and 6 above in the external appointment process, departments should observe the letter requirements noted in Step 6b below.

Step 6b: Approved letter sent to scholars. Review committee reviews letters and drafts case statement.

• The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least eight evaluative letters for inclusion in the final dossier.
  • At least two letters can be from tenured Harvard professors outside of the department/SEAS area
  • At least six letters must be from faculty outside of Harvard (at the rank of tenured associate professor or tenured full professor)
• The names of individuals declining to write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these people should be included with the other evaluations.
• The draft case statement for the candidate summarizes the department’s conclusions, including the strengths and weaknesses of the case with regard to teaching and advising; as applicable, either 1) research, or else 2) demonstrated record of national leadership in innovation in pedagogy, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) artistic achievement; and service (see Step 9 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

In years where there is no scheduled review for reappointment, departments will assess teaching and performance of the senior lecturer on an at least annual basis and provide feedback to the senior lecturer, following departmental protocols.

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, representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
• 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 statement regarding, as applicable, either recent accomplishments in research, or else in pedagogical innovation, or else artistic achievement.
• In art-making fields, a portfolio of creative work and significant reviews of the candidate's work. 

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

The committee should consist 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 and administrator, if applicable.

• 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:
  • 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.
• If the candidate is a director of a language program, the department should solicit feedback from all instructors in the language program (e.g., senior preceptors, preceptors, TAs, TFs) about the candidate’s performance as an administrator of the program.
• 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.
  • Review the candidate’s teaching evaluations.

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 and advising; as applicable, either 1) research, or else 2) demonstrated record of national leadership in innovation in pedagogy, or else 3) artistic achievement; and service. 

The committee decides if the case is sufficiently strong to warrant reappointment, 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 and advising; research, or pedagogical innovation, or artistic achievement; and service (see Step 7 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

Members of the department/SEAS area review the materials, discuss the case, and vote on the reappointment.

This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. If the department/SEAS area 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 department sends the dossier to the associate dean for the division/SEAS.

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. The dossier should include:

• A case statement describing the review procedures and 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 theses supervised, representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
• All teaching evaluations not already seen during the last review.
• The candidate’s statement regarding as applicable, either recent accomplishments in research, or else in pedagogical innovation, or else artistic achievement.
• In art-making fields, a portfolio of creative work and significant reviews of the candidate's work.
• 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 divisional dean, with a CAP subcommittee, reviews the dossier, and the divisional dean decides whether to approve the reappointment.

In some cases, the full Committee on Appointments and Promotions may be asked to review individual reappointment dossiers.

Following approval by the divisional dean, the department issues the final signed 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.