D. Senior Lecturers

Please scroll down or click on the links below to read about this process.

a.   Description
b.   Search Flowchart
c.   Steps
d.   Dossier Checklist

(2)   Reappointment of Senior Lecturers

(1)   Appointment to Senior Lecturer

a.  Description

These appointments are reserved for instructors who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, as well as extraordinary professional accomplishment in other areas, as indicated below. Senior lecturers ordinarily have either 1) demonstrated that they are exceptional teachers and have taught within the tenured associate or full professor ranks at a university or peer undergraduate institution, with a commensurate scholarly record (or they may be a non-tenured faculty member if their scholarly record is commensurate with that of a tenured faculty member at a university or peer undergraduate institution), or 2) while they may not have tenure-rank experience, have extraordinary teaching records, not only in the classroom, but also as a nationally recognized leader in innovation in pedagogy, and have made high-impact contributions to the academic community, in areas such as (but not limited to) innovative course development, curriculum development, program development, and advising and mentoring, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution. Or, 3) They may be well-established, practicing artists with an artistic record equivalent to the scholarly achievement of a tenured associate or full professor, who have also demonstrated excellence in teaching. Senior lecturers (with the exception, as appropriate, of appointments in the arts) must ordinarily hold a doctorate. Appointments are made for a term of up to five years and are renewable contingent upon review and approval of the divisional dean/SEAS Dean. Senior Lecturers have voting rights as senior faculty in the department, except on decisions relating to ladder appointments or to internal reviews for professors in residence, professors of the practice, and senior lecturers.

 

b.  Search Flowchart: Senior Lecturer

Note: In the rare instance that an Associate Senior Lecturer is being considered for possible appointment to Senior Lecturer, please see the “Note” in 7D1c for the appointment process.

Search Flowchart Senior Lecturer

 c.  Steps: External Appointment to Senior Lecturer

 

Step

Explanation

1

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 and that proactive efforts are made to identify candidates from diverse populations, including women and minorities. 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 process by which candidates will be identified to ensure the creation of the most highly qualified and diverse pool of applicants.
  • 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.

2

The department advertises the position and makes inquiries at other institutions

  • All advertising copy must be reviewed and approved by the assistant dean for the division 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, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, or any other characteristic protected by law.”
  • The dossier for the finalist must include a teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate’s philosophy and practices related to undergraduate teaching and advising; as applicable, either 1) a research statement or else 2) a statement expanding on the candidate’s nationally recognized leadership in innovation in pedagogy and the candidate’s high-impact contributions to the academic community in areas such as, but not limited to, innovative course development, curriculum development, program development, and advising and mentoring, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) a statement describing the candidate's artistic achievement; a statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past, current, and anticipated future contributions in these areas; and 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.) 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 statement on diversity, inclusion, and belonging; the department may request the other teaching materials 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.
  • Harvard is required to solicit and record, when available, each applicant’s gender and racial/ethnic information, which is accomplished through the ARIeS system. Applicants are not required to provide demographic information.

3

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. To build the strongest pool for the short list, the committee should discuss in early and ongoing conversations how to attract diverse applicants, including women and minorities.

The department sends the following to the divisional dean and the assistant dean for the division:

  • 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 statement on diversity, inclusion, and belonging).
  • A brief summary of the search process to date, including discussion of how the demographics of the short list compare to the data in the Departmental EEO Report.
  • The Departmental EEO Report displaying aggregate demographic data from the search. This report, which does not identify characteristics of individual applicants, can be retrieved through the ARIeS system. See Chapter 2 in this handbook for more information on Affirmative Action policies.

4

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

Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please follow Harvard and other guidelines regarding presence on campus, social distancing, etc.

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 assistant dean for the division should be given a list of dates of any seminars, lectures, or master classes.

5

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 voting cluster 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, and the rationale for including each scholar on the list. It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity.

6

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) national leadership in innovation in pedagogy and high-impact contributions to the academic community in areas such as, but not limited to, innovative course development, curriculum development, program development, and advising and mentoring, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) artistic achievement; service; and contributions related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging (see Step 9 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

7

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

  • The department/SEAS voting cluster 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 voting cluster should also assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for senior lecturer.
  • All voting members of the department/SEAS voting cluster vote on the proposed appointment according to their standard procedures.

8

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

9

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; please address the demographics of the pool as displayed in the Departmental EEO Report available in ARIeS.
  • 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 patterm 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) national leadership in innovation in pedagogy and high-impact contributions to the academic community, in areas such as (but not limited to) innovative course development, curriculum development, program development, and advising and mentoring, with outstanding promise of continuing contribution, or else 3) artistic achievement; service; and an evaluation of contributions related to diversity, inclusion, and belonging.
    • A comparison of the candidate with all other leading candidates (in particular, women and minorities), 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 voting cluster vote: A record of the department/SEAS voting cluster 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.

10 The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the assistant dean for the division

Please send one electronic copy of the dossier to the assistant dean via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu). For a full checklist of what the dossier should include, please see the dossier checklist.

11

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.

12

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

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.

13

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

OFD submits all documentation for processing, with the exception of the original I-9 form and any necessary payroll documents, which the FAS financial administrator or the department administrator delivers to Central Payroll. The department administrator will remind the faculty member to sign electronically the Harvard University Participation Agreement by the start of their appointment.

 

 

Note:  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) address the Departmental EEO Report and 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.

2b

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.) 
  • To gather advisee feedback on advising/mentoring, which should be summarized in the case statement, the department chair 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.

6b

The department sends the approved letter to the people on the recipient list, reviews the evaluative letters received, and drafts a case statement

  • The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit at least eight evaluative letters for inclusion in the final dossier.
    • 1 letter must be from Harvard College (e.g., the Office of Undergraduate Education), or, as relevant, the Bok Center for Teaching and Learning or the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. (Note: If the letter is from the Office of Undergraduate Education, the department should ask OUE to send its letter directly to the assistant dean for the division, for review by CAP, as noted in Step 11.  The committee and the department do not review this letter.)
    • At least two letters can be from tenured Harvard professors outside of the department/SEAS voting cluster
    • At least five 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) national leadership in innovation in pedagogy and high-impact contributions to the academic community in areas such as, but not limited to, innovative course development, curriculum development, program development, and advising and mentoring, 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).

 

After a senior lecturer has been appointed:  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.


d.  Dossier Checklist: Senior Lecturers

Please send an electronic copy of the preliminary dossier to the assistant dean for the division (AD), via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu). To facilitate storing and sharing of files, please name the file as follows: a) alpha-numeric characters only (no dashes, commas, slashes, etc.).  b) [Last Name] [First Name] [Department Name] Sr Lecturer dossier [Month, Date, and Year of dossier submission, expressed numerically: XX YY ZZ]. E.g., Smith John Psychology Sr Lecturer dossier 1 4 15.  c) If a dossier is revised and resubmitted, please repeat the original title, followed by “rev” and [Month of resubmission] [Date of resubmission] [Year of resubmission].  E.g., Smith John Psychology Sr Lecturer dossier 1 4 15 rev 1 15 15. Departments should retain documents according to practices recommended by Harvard Archives at https://grs.harvard.edu/ (please log in).

______1.     Case statement (including department/SEAS voting cluster vote by name).

______2.     The Departmental EEO Report displaying aggregate demographic data from the search, available through ARIeS. [not applicable to an appointment of an Associate Senior Lecturer to Senior Lecturer]

______3.     The department’s request for authorization to search (in an external appointment) or to proceed with the process (in a possible appointment of an Associate Senior Lecturer to Senior Lecturer), and the divisional dean’s letter approving the request.

______4.     Candidate’s curriculum vitae.

______5.     Summary teaching chart and teaching/advising materials (e.g., teaching awards, representative course syllabi, list of undergraduates for whom the candidate has primary advising responsibility, and teaching evaluations).

______6.     A teaching/advising statement describing philosophy and practices related to undergraduate teaching and advising.

______7.     As applicable, either a research statement, or else a statement about leadership and innovation in pedagogy and high-impact contributions to the academic community, or else a statement describing the candidate's artistic achievement.

______8.     Statement describing efforts to encourage diversity, inclusion, and belonging, including past, current, and anticipated future contributions in these areas.

______9.     A copy of the letter soliciting external evaluations and the recipient list (see Sample Table), indicating who did and did not reply.

_____10.     At least eight evaluative letters. (For internal appointments of an Associate Senior Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, any evaluative letter from the Office of Undergraduate Education should be sent directly from OUE to the assistant dean for the division, for inclusion in the dossier.)

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

 

(2)  Reappointment of Senior Lecturers
 

 

Step

Explanation

1

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 related to undergraduate teaching and advising.
  • A statement regarding, as applicable, either recent accomplishments in research, or else in pedagogical innovation and other recent high-impact contributions to the academic community, or else artistic achievement.

2

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 voting cluster. The request should name the committee chair and other review committee members.

3

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 a PDF of evaluations:
    • For evaluations prior to Fall 2019, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on “Results Before 2019-20” and log in. Download for each course:
      • “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary”
      • “View Comments by Question” (and choose "View all comment questions in one report")
    • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on “Click here to view course evaluation data” and log in. Download for each course:
      • The comprehensive document titled, "Table of Contents for [Year][Term] Report for Students"
  • 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.

4

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) national leadership in innovation in pedagogy and other high-impact contributions to the academic community, in areas such as (but not limited to) innovative course, curriculum, and program development, and advising and mentoring, or else 3) artistic acheivement; and service. 

5

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 and other high-impact pedagogical contributions, or artistic achievement; and service (see Step 7 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

6

Members of the department/SEAS voting cluster review the materials, discuss the case, and vote on the reappointment

This discussion should be in-depth and rigorous. If the department/SEAS voting cluster 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.

7

After a favorable vote, the department sends the dossier to the assistant dean for the division

Please send one electronic copy of the dossier to the assistant dean via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu). The dossier should include:

  • A case statement describing the review procedure 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) and contributions to the department, as well as 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.
  • 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 and other recent high-impact contributions to the academic community, or else artistic acheivement.
  • 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.

8

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.

9

Following approval by the divisional dean, the department issues the final signed letter to the candidate

  • The department sends 1 electronic PDF copy of the final letter for the candidate, signed by the department chair, to the divisional dean, cc’ing the assistant dean, via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu).
  • The reappointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs.