A. Full-Time Professors of the Practice

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

a.   Description
b.   Steps

Note: As of the start of academic year 2018-2019, the FAS will not be authorizing new appointments of faculty to the rank of full-time Professor of the Practice. Faculty members who are currently full-time Professors of the Practice continue to retain all the rights and responsibilities of this rank. They also continue to be eligible for possible reappointment, contingent upon review and approval of the Dean, as is customary.

(1)   Reappointment of Full-Time Professors of the Practice

a.  Description

Professor of the practice appointments are reserved for instructors who have a national or international reputation as leaders in educational innovation and are the best in the field in terms of curriculum development, educational reform (such as leading a major curriculum reform), and pedagogy. Their expertise should be demonstrated through major contributions to the educational scholarship in their field. Candidates should ordinarily have a doctorate (with the exception, as appropriate, of appointments in the arts). Although they need not administer a large academic program, they should either chair or be closely involved in departmental or divisional curricular committees. Appointments are ordinarily made for five-year terms and are renewable contingent upon review and approval of the Dean and the Provost. Professors of the practice have voting rights in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and voting rights as senior faculty in the department, except on decisions relating to appointments to the tenured rank.

b.  Steps: Reappointment of Full-Time Professors of the Practice

Note: Professors of the practice appointed prior to 2010 should follow these review procedures, but reviews should be based upon the criteria for the position at the time of appointment.

 

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 theses supervised, representative course syllabi, and evidence of teaching effectiveness, such as teaching awards.
  • A teaching statement that describes the candidate's teaching approach and philosophy.
  • A statement regarding the candidate's pedagogical scholarship, innovation, reform, and/or development.
  • Copies of the candidate’s publications from the last five years, including forthcoming publications.

2

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. 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.
  • All teaching evaluations not already seen during the last review should be collected. (Please include a PDF that contains, downloaded from the Q website, the “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary” and “View Comments by Question” [and choose “View all comment questions in one report”] reports for each course.)
  • 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 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 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 pedagogical scholarship, innovation, reform, and/or development.

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, scholarship, and administrative service, if applicable.

5

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, research, and citizenship (see Step 8 for all of the necessary elements of the final case statement).

6

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

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.  

7

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.)

8

The department sends the candidate’s dossier, including a draft letter for the candidate, to the assistant dean for the division

Please send one electronic copy of the dossier, including a draft letter for the candidate, to the assistant dean via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu).

The dossier should consist of:

  • A case statement describing the review procedures, making the case for the reappointment of the candidate, and discussing the candidate’s teaching effectiveness (including a summary of student feedback solicited by the department chair) and pedagogical scholarship, innovation, reform, and/or development. The case statement should also include 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.
  • The candidate’s curriculum vitae.
  • Summary teaching chart.
  • A teaching 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. (Please include a PDF that contains, downloaded from the Q website, the “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary” and “View Comments by Question” [and choose “View all comment questions in one report”] reports for each course.)
  • The candidate’s statement regarding pedagogical scholarship, innovation, reform, and/or development.
  • Copies of the candidate’s publications from the last five years, including forthcoming publications.
  • 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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

If reappointment is authorized, the department issues a final 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.

Criteria for reappointment for full-time professors of the practice appointed prior to 2010: Professor of the practice appointments are reserved for scholars who have demonstrated excellence in teaching and administration. Full-time appointments to this rank usually involve ongoing responsibility for a specialized instructional program (e.g., technical or language skill). Appointments are ordinarily made for five-year terms and are renewable contingent upon review and approval of the Dean.