A. Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position

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

(1) Promotion Flowchart: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor
(2) Steps: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
(3) Dossier Checklist: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position
(4) Dossier Sample
(5) Dossier Instructions
(6) Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor
(7) Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor

Note: SEAS follows the same policies as the FAS divisions in tenure reviews. Because SEAS has its own organizational structure as a School within the FAS, the SEAS individuals who perform tenure-review tasks differ at times from the individuals specified in the flow-chart below and in the processes outlined throughout Section 4A. Please see the “Note” following the “Steps” table in 4A2 for more information on SEAS process. You may also consult SEAS for further information.  

(1)  Promotion Flowchart: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor

 Search Flowchart Internal Promotion

 

(2)  Steps: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position

 

Step

Explanation

1

Each spring, department chairs receive from the divisional assistant dean a list of faculty scheduled for review for promotion to tenured professor during the next academic or calendar year

Note: Promotion reviews should ordinarily be completed by the end of the associate professor’s penultimate year of appointment.

Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic.

In addition, the FAS will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year.  Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.

Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). These criteria were in use before the COVID-19 pandemic and have remained unchanged. Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching and advising, and service without any penalty if the faculty member took an appointment extension and/or teaching relief as provided to eligible tenure-track faculty due to the pandemic. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated according to a standard of someone who has had seven years to work towards tenure. All of the work the faculty member has done since they were initially appointed is evaluated as if they have done so on a clock unaffected by the pandemic. Every candidate who has had a pandemic-related extension would receive an adjustment of the type described here, taking into account the specific clock extension they received (e.g., one semester, one year, etc.). Teaching relief granted due to the pandemic works under the same principle. A tenure-track faculty member who was given one course of teaching relief should have their scholarship, teaching and advising, and service evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. These procedures imply that COVID-related clock extensions and/or teaching relief should not be counted against candidates in any way.

Note: Following completion of the steps below, departments submit promotion recommendations no later than March 1 (for “academic-year” appointments ending in June) or October 1 (for “calendar-year” appointments ending in December). If these dates fall on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is the next business day.

Note: This “Steps” table shows suggested timing for tenure-track faculty whose appointments end in June. The “Suggested Timelines” at the end of this chapter also show timing for appointments that end in December.

2

Proximate to July 1 (for academic-year appointments), the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them of the official start of their review

This letter, sent to the candidate close to July 1, informs the candidate that this is the year of their tenure review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1 (for academic-year appointments), and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for eligible candidates to notify their divisional assistant dean that, due to the pending birth or adoption of a child, they would like to receive the FAS’s automatic one-year appointment extension and review postponement that are granted to expecting parents. In particular, expecting parents whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than one month after September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) must notify their divisional assistant dean by September 1 (or the next business day) that they wish to have this automatic appointment extension and review postponement. For more on this policy, please see Chapter 3.H.3. (“For Tenure-Track Faculty: Childcare Appointment Extension and Postponement of Review Policies”) in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

3

In July of the candidate’s penultimate year as an associate professor, the chair and the candidate meet to discuss the tenure review process and materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to provide all of their materials by September 1.

Note:  By the time the candidate comes up for promotion, the department should have had ample opportunities to hear the candidate present his/her/their research. If this has not recently occurred, the candidate should give a talk presenting his/her/their research to the department.

 

The candidate’s materials include:

  • Curriculum vitae, including a complete bibliography. Note: Candidates who opted in Spring 2020 and/or Spring 2021 for an extension of their tenure clock due to the COVID-19 pandemic may include the following language in their c.v.s, if they wish: “Due to substantive disruptions to scholarship, teaching and advising, and service for all FAS tenure-track faculty, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, Harvard University delayed my tenure review by [CHOOSE ONE: two years/one year/six months] [INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE: and gave me one course of teaching relief].”
  • Copies of all publications (including forthcoming) or other scholarly materials, and all significant reviews (in book fields). In art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of all creative works, and all significant reviews. In all cases, indicate which items the candidate would like sent to external reviewers.
  • Teaching and advising materials, including: teaching awards, a list of past and present undergraduate theses supervised, past and present graduate students for whom the candidate has or had primary responsibility, current and former postdoctoral advisees (as relevant, and including those who moved to another group), and representative course syllabi.
  • A teaching/advising statement that describes the candidate’s philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising. In the statement, the candidate should reflect on aspects of their professional progression and on how they have addressed any areas of concern.
  • A research statement.
  • A statement addressing overlap in publications and joint authorship. This statement should make clear: 1) In book fields, in what specific instances the candidate’s publications are partial or significant reiterations of scholarship covered in others of the candidate’s publications (such as articles) and 2) In all fields, in jointly-authored publications, what the candidate’s unique scholarly contribution was. The purpose of this statement is to provide a clearer picture of the candidate’s body of work and, where applicable, the nature of their collaborations with others.
  • Other relevant materials, such as a list of experts in the field whom the department may wish to consult about the review or any experts the candidate feels should not be consulted, with an accompanying explanation. If the candidate prefers, the candidate may provide this explanatory information to the department chair. The candidate may also consult with the assistant dean.
  • The department chair should inform the candidate that the candidate should not solicit letters from students (or postdocs) for inclusion in these materials.

4

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. The committee should include a tenured faculty member from another department/SEAS voting cluster. The request should name the committee chair and other review committee members. Former undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral advisors of the candidate should not chair the committee.
  • When there is an overlap in research interests, the chair should ask a representative of the appropriate center, institute, or initiative to serve on or consult with the review committee.
  • Chairs are also strongly encouraged to include a faculty member from any degree/curricular standing committees in which the candidate has at least a half-time appointment.
  • In addition, the review committee chair should seek an evaluation(s) from the chair(s) of the undergraduate and graduate degree/curricular standing committee(s) of which the candidate is a member. The evaluation(s) should be embedded verbatim into the case statement, accompanied by the review committee’s reflections on the evaluation(s).

5

The 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 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 (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 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.
  • The chair or other designated members of the department are strongly encouraged to attend the candidate’s classes sometime during the candidate's tenure-track appointment.

6

The committee considers all the gathered materials and the department decides whether to proceed with the case

  • After reviewing all the materials, the committee reports its initial findings to the department. The department’s tenured members discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case and decide whether it warrants further review.
  • If the case does not warrant further review, the department must affirm this decision by a recorded vote. The department chair then sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the case that led to the vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate.
  • Note: When a candidate opts, at any stage in the process, to withdraw his/her/their case from consideration, the candidate should state this in a letter to the department chair, which the chair shares with the divisional dean.  Candidates who withdraw their case from consideration, at any stage in the process, will not subsequently be reviewed for internal promotion to tenure.
  • Note: When a tenure review is unsuccessful, whether or not it involves the candidate withdrawing at any stage in the process, the candidate cannot then be appointed instead to another FAS tenure-track position upon the conclusion of their existing FAS tenure-track appointment. An unsuccessful tenure review does not necessarily preclude the possibility of a later appointment as an FAS tenured professor, after, for instance, the candidate has spent time at another institution.
  • Note: If a candidate chooses to undergo a review for promotion to tenure at an earlier time than in the ordinary timetable for tenure reviews, and if that early review is unsuccessful, the candidate’s tenure-track appointment will end one year after the review occurred, superseding the original end-date of the tenure-track appointment.

7a

If further review is recommended, the department requests authorization from the divisional dean to solicit external evaluation letters. With the request, the department should submit a draft of the tenure review letter, the recipient list (see Sample Table), and, if the department chooses to send an initial inquiry (see Step 7b) before the tenure review letter, a draft of the initial inquiry letter

Note: This information should ordinarily be submitted to the divisional dean in October

The tenure review letter (see the Sample Letters section of this handbook) should include:

  • A broad description of the candidate’s field. Care should be taken to define the field with sufficient breadth that the candidate’s contributions can be understood within an appropriately broad context. The field should not be defined as a narrow subfield specific to the candidate’s interests.
  • Identification of the candidate for promotion.
  • The criteria for appointment to a tenured position at Harvard.
  • The comparison list (see below).
  • A request that the individuals named be compared, taking into account the career stages of the comparands and the candidate.
  • A request for a recommendation of whether the candidate merits tenure within the FAS at Harvard.
  • An indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to the senior members of the department and others directly involved in the formal review process.
  • The deadline for receipt of responses and contact information. (Note: The department should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters—dating from the mailing of the tenure review letter, not the initial inquiry—depending on the volume of materials under review.)

The comparison list:

  • The comparison list includes four to five scholars in the candidate’s field who span a range of experiences from the strongest recently tenured scholars to full professors who are well-established leaders in the field; in some instances, it may be appropriate to include highly accomplished senior researchers, curators, artists, or others. The list must include at least two full professors and must have gender diversity. In addition to representing a range of career experience, the comparison list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
  • The comparands listed are not candidates for the position and are listed solely as benchmarks for the candidate undergoing review.
  • The most useful comparison list consists of scholars who themselves meet the standards for tenure within the FAS. (However, no Harvard faculty—excluding the candidate—should be included on the comparison list.)
  • It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity.
  • 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). The recipient list should reflect an appropriately broad definition of the field.
  • It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity.
  • 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 curators or 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 scholars website, email address, whether the scholar has been the candidate's Ph.D. advisor, postdoctoral advisor, or co-author, whether they wrote a letter for the candidate's associate review, and the rationale for including each scholar on the list.

7b

(Optional step, for departments choosing to send an initial inquiry)

In October, once the divisional dean has approved the review 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 12 to 15 responses for inclusion in the final dossier. 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.

8

The chair sends the tenure review letter and candidate materials to all scholars who have replied affirmatively to the initial inquiry email (see Step 7b). If the chair has chosen not to send any initial inquiries, the review letter and candidate materials are sent directly to the scholars on the recipient list. In both cases, the chair requests receipt of external letters by the end of December

  • With the tenure review letter, the department should include the candidate’s CV, research statement, teaching/advising statement, statement on overlap and joint authorship on publications, selected publications and all significant reviews (in book fields)—or, in art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of selected creative works and all significant reviews—and a link to the candidate’s website.
  • The department writes to a number of scholars sufficient to elicit 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.
  • The names of outside scholars declining to write an evaluation should be noted in the case statement. Any explanatory emails/letters from these scholars should be included with the other external evaluations.

9

After discussing the external letters, the review committee drafts a case statement; the tenured members of the department review all materials, discuss the case, and vote (January or February)

  • 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 citizenship (see Step 11 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 assess whether the candidate has met the criteria for tenure within the FAS. As part of this discussion, the department should assess the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), the candidate’s trajectory (whether the candidate has distinguished him/her/their self from his/her/their cohort and is emerging as among the most influential figures in 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. If the department does not believe that the candidate warrants tenure at Harvard, the department chair sends to the divisional dean the current dossier, including a record of the department vote, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the case that led to the vote, and a draft of the letter to the candidate. After divisional dean approval, the department gives the letter to the candidate.

10

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 promotion and will be included in the candidate’s dossier to be reviewed by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) and the ad hoc committee, as appropriate.

(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.)

11

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 review committee, for review by the divisional/SEAS Dean (see Step 12), 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. 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 review process.
    • List of key dates, such as and not limited to:
      • The date  that the department chair/SEAS Dean met with the candidate to discuss the review process and materials that the candidate should submit by the September 1 (for academic-year appointments) or March 1 (for calendar-year appointments) deadline.
      • The dates of review committee meetings and departmental meetings about the case.
      • The date that the department sent requests for external letters.
  • Comparands: Provide a list of names, home institutions, and links to each comparand's home page, with a brief rationale for each comparand. Explain how this comparand list represents an appropriate range of career experience and reflects an appropriately broad definition of the field.
  • 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 tenure, including the impact the candidate has had on the field (e.g., whether the candidate is setting the agenda in the field), an indication of the candidate’s trajectory (how the candidate has distinguished him/her/their self from his/her/their cohort and is emerging as among the most influential figures in 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 the comparands) and the 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), including a summary of advisee feedback from current and former advisees, solicited by the department chair. You may include quotes from the advisee feedback as long as the quotes do not reveal the identity of the advisee.
    • Please describe how many undergraduates, graduate students, and (as relevant) postdoctoral fellows the department contacted for feedback, how many in each category declined to respond, and how many sent feedback.
    • Please describe the candidate’s service to the department, School, University, and broader academic community.
    • As mentioned in Step 4, please include any verbatim evaluation(s) from the chair(s) of the undergraduate and graduate degree/curricular standing committee(s) of which the candidate is a member, accompanied by the review committee's reflections on the evaluation(s). 
  • If available, a link to a videotaped talk (ideally, a talk the candidate gave before coming up for tenure). 
  • 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 review 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.

12

The candidate’s dossier is prepared by the department and sent to the assistant dean for the division by March 1

  • Please send one electronic copy of the following materials 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.
    • 1 electronic PDF of the dossier
    • 1 electronic PDF of student teaching 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. Select "Print Full Reports" tab and download for each course:
        • “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary” (Printable Version (PDF)
        • Student Comments: go to “View Comments by Question” and select "Show Questions." Print out "Whole Course" option.
      • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward,  please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on “Results 2019-20 and later" and log in. Download for each course:
        • Select "View the {term} Individual Report -- Comments included report" and click on the course from the listing.  Download the report.  
    • 1 electronic PDF of publications and (in book fields) all significant reviews. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included. In art-making fields, 1 electronic PDF (if available) of creative works and all significant reviews
    • 1 electronic Excel document (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) containing ad hoc committee membership recommendations

The divisional dean/SEAS Dean and assistant dean will review the dossier, including close attention to the case statement. If the case statement needs further work, the assistant dean will convey feedback to the department, along with any questions or feedback about the other materials.

  • Once the assistant dean confirms that the dossier and materials are complete, the department then sends 1 electronic PDF of the dossier to the ad hoc coordinator in the Office for Faculty Affairs.

Note: While the dossier at this stage in the process used to be submitted to the ad hoc coordinator in hard copies, starting in Fall 2020 please submit this dossier electronically, as Harvard campus conditions due to COVID-19 continue to evolve. Hard-copy submission of the dossier and other materials may possibly resume at a later time, depending on campus conditions.

Note: All electronic materials must be sent via Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu).

13

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 President

(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 President, or

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

14

The President or Provost reviews the case

This review usually, but not exclusively or necessarily, takes the form of an ad hoc committee, presided over by the President or the Provost. An ad hoc review is one aspect of the decision-making process. The President or Provost may also consult with internal and external scholars who are not involved in the ad hoc review to provide greater context for the President’s deliberations. In order to protect the candidate and the integrity of the process, all aspects of the President’s deliberations, including the timing and the type of ad hoc, are strictly confidential.

If the President decides to convene an ad hoc committee, it is assembled by the divisional dean and the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity. The committee ordinarily consists of three active, full professors from outside Harvard, two active, tenured professors at Harvard (from a department other than the one making the recommendation), the President or Provost, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS, the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity, and the divisional dean responsible for the case. When appropriate, an external member may be a prestigious senior researcher from a corporation or research institute, a well-established artist, or a renowned curator. The committee ordinarily hears from three to four faculty witnesses, including the department chair, the search committee chair, and other faculty. The candidate’s former undergraduate or graduate thesis advisors or postdoctoral advisors should not ordinarily serve as witnesses.

Note: External letter writers typically do not serve on the ad hoc committee, although experts who sent no, or little, response to a department’s request for a letter may be considered. In exceptional cases, the department can include in its ad hoc committee recommendations someone who has already submitted a substantive letter.

15

The President decides whether to approve the promotion to tenure and announces his decision

After evaluating all of the information gathered throughout the process, the President makes the final decision regarding all tenure appointments that are forwarded to him for review and writes a letter with his decision to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS.

Note: If, at any point in the review process, the department, the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS advised by CAP, or the President determines that the case should not proceed, the department chair must notify the candidate in writing, with the draft letter to the candidate first approved by the divisional dean.

16

If the decision is favorable, the tenure letter is issued by the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS

The tenure letter contains information on title, appointment, salary, benefits, responsibilities, research funding, leave policies, and limitations or conditions and special arrangements (including joint or affiliate appointments). The tenure letter will be sent to the candidate following a successful review.

17

Unless the candidate informs the deans of their intention to leave, the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by the Office for Faculty Affairs

The Office for Faculty Development provides all documentation for processing.

 


 

Note: As mentioned at the start of Section 4A, some of the tasks in tenure reviews are performed by different individuals in, respectively, SEAS and the FAS divisions. Specifically:

  • In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS solicits materials from the candidate for the dossier and appoints the review committee (see Steps 3 and 4 in the “Steps” table above).
  • The SEAS review committee chair determines how to handle candidate concerns about potential external letter-writers (see Step 3).
  • At points in the process when the tenured members of the FAS department vote, the SEAS voting cluster votes (see Steps 6 and 9). (SEAS voting clusters are subsets of the full SEAS faculty, organized by research discipline, that consider and vote on appointments, promotions, and reappointments at the School level.)
  • The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement (Steps 9 and 11) and signs the final case statement (Step 11).
  • After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS (Step 10).
  • If, at points in the tenure review proces, it is determined that the case will not proceed, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS notifies the candidate in writing. 

Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.

 

(3)  Dossier Checklist: Internal Promotion to Tenured Professor from a Tenure-Track Position

REQUIRED CONTENTS

Note: Starting in Fall 2020, due to evolving Harvard campus conditions, please submit all dossier materials electronically. Hard-copy submission may possibly resume at a later time, depending on campus conditions.

TEXT ON FOLDER LABEL:

[Candidate Name]

[Department Name]

Section

Text on Labeled Divider Tab

Contents

Number of Copies

1

Case Statement

See Step 11 above for details. Case statements must include a record of the department vote, by name, with an “as of” date for the vote tally.

1

 

2

Authorization and Review Start Letters

  • The authorization letter for the review
  • The letter to the candidate marking the start of the review process

1

1

 

3

Curriculum vitae, Statements

  • Candidate’s curriculum vitae and bibliography. Note: Candidates who opted in Spring 2020 and/or Spring 2021 for an extension of their tenure clock due to the COVID-19 pandemic may include the following language in their c.v.s, if they wish:  “Due to substantive disruptions to scholarship, teaching and advising, and service for all FAS tenure-track faculty, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, Harvard University delayed my tenure review by [CHOOSE ONE: two years/one year/six months] [INCLUDE IF APPROPRIATE: and gave me one course of teaching relief].”

1

 

 

  • Teaching/advising statement describing teaching philosophy and practices related to undergraduate, graduate, and (as relevant) postdoctoral teaching and advising; reflecting on aspects of their professional progression and how they have addressed any areas of concern; and including the list of graduate students for whom the candidate has or had primary responsibility

1

 

  • Research statement

1

 

   
  • Statement on publications overlap and joint authorship
1  

4

Teaching materials

  • Summary teaching chart, indicating any semesters on leave and which, if any, courses were taught remotely, whether partially or in full, due to the COVID-19 pandemic

1

 

  • Teaching awards

1

 

  • A list of undergraduate and graduate theses supervised (and postdoctoral advisees, as relevant), if not already included in the CV

1

 

  • Representative course syllabi

1

 

Student evaluations of teaching are sent separately; see “Additional Materials” below.

---

 

5

External Evaluations

1

 

 

1

 

  • A list (see Sample Table) of people from whom the external letters were solicited, including the rationales for their inclusion and indicating (with asterisks) those who replied and (without asterisks) those who did not reply

1

 

  • Copies of all responses received, including those from anyone who declined to give a formal response, with English translations of any written in a foreign language and typed copies of any handwritten letters

1

 

6

Publication information

  • A list of candidate publications chosen by the department to be submitted to the ad hoc committee. E.g.,
    • Selected significant articles and most recent articles (or other works)
    • Significant unpublished manuscript(s)
    • Books
  • In book fields, a list of all significant reviews of the candidate’s publications.
  • In art-making fields, a list of selected significant creative works and most recent works chosen by the department to be submitted to the ad hoc committee, and a list of all significant reviews.

1

 

7

Citation information

In table format (See Sample Citation Table), if appropriate to the field:

  • Total citation count for the candidate and comparands
  • Citation count for each of the candidate’s publications

1

 

 

Additional Materials

Item

Contents

Number of Copies

Student Evaluations of Teaching

All student evaluations from the Qwith each course bookmarked and named by year, semester, course title, course number.

1 PDF sent electronically to assistant dean for the division

 

Publications, Reviews

  • The candidate publications chosen by the department to be submitted to the ad hoc committee. E.g.,
    • Selected significant articles and most recent articles (or other works)
    • Significant unpublished manuscript(s)
    • Books
  • In book fields, all significant  reviews of the candidate’s publications
  • In art-making fields, copies, as appropriate, of selected significant creative works and most recent works chosen by the department to be submitted to the ad hoc committee, and all significant reviews.
  • 1 PDF sent electronically to assistant dean for the division. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included.)
  • In art-making fields, 1 PDF sent electronically to the assistant dean.

 

Ad Hoc Information

Item

Contents

Number of Copies

 

Information on the ad hoc committee

Ad hoc committee membership recommendations in a list from the chair (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) that includes the following:

  • The names of at least 10 active, full professors outside the University who might be asked to serve on the ad hoc committee. It is expected that the list will be diverse, including gender and racial/ethnic diversity, whenever possible. Include members’ title/rank, institution, year of Ph.D. if available, website, telephone, and e-mail address. Please note that the proposed members should not be:
    • External evaluators (except in exceptional cases: see Step 14). 
    • Anyone who may have a conflict of interest with the case (e.g., advisers, coauthors, collaborators)
  • (Optional): scholars that the chair believes should not be on the ad hoc committee, with a corresponding explanation
  • Three or four non-departmental, active, tenured professors from any of the Harvard Faculties who might also serve on the committee
  • Three to four departmental witnesses, including the search/review committee chair, the department chair, and other faculty members who, in some cases, may represent a dissenting opinion

1 Excel document sent electronically to assistant dean for the division

 


 

(4)  Dossier Sample

 Dossier Sample Image

 

 

(5)  Dossier Instructions

Please Read Carefully before Submission of the Dossier:

a.   CAP

The Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) reviews dossiers and makes recommendations to the Dean before the Dean decides whether to forward a dossier to the President for further review. CAP is scheduled to meet most Wednesdays during the academic year (the Office for Faculty Affairs will verify dates and times), and the dossiers are delivered to each CAP member two Fridays before the next meeting.

Note: A dossier is not submitted to CAP until the ad hoc coordinator has received a substantial number of the confidential letters written to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS by each tenured member of the department. Letters should be sent electronically to the ad hoc coordinator, ryoung@fas.harvard.edu.

b.   Submission of Materials to the Assistant Dean

The department should send the following items to the assistant dean for the division by March 1. If materials are received after this date, the case might not be scheduled for an ad hoc review until the following fall. This includes external appointments to tenured professor.

i.      1 electronic PDF of the dossiers

ii.      1 electronic PDF of student teaching evaluations

iii.     1 electronic PDF of publications and (in book fields) all significant reviews. (Articles, reviews, etc. should be included in this PDF. If available, digital copies of books should also be included.) In art-making fields, 1 electronic PDF (if available) of creative works and all significant reviews.

iv.     1 electronic Excel document (see Sample Table of Suggested Ad Hoc Committee Members) containing ad hoc committee membership recommendations

All electronic materials must be sent through Accellion Kiteworks, secure document transfer: filetransfer.harvard.edu. When preparing the dossier, please follow the naming conventions described below in Section d., “How to Prepare an Electronic Dossier,”  to facilitate storing and sharing of files.

Once the assistant dean confirms that the dossier and materials are complete, the department then forwards to the ad hoc coordinator the materials listed in Section c., “Submission of Materials to the Ad Hoc Coordinator." CAP will be scheduled no sooner than two weeks after the final dossier is complete. 

c.   Submission of Materials to the Ad Hoc Coordinator

Please send 1 electronic PDF of the dossier to the ad hoc coordinator (ryoung@fas.harvard.edu):

Note: To preserve confidentiality, departments should not use external copy services to copy external letters and the case statement.

d.   How to Prepare an Electronic Dossier
 

i.   The electronic dossier should be a single PDF document. Assemble the dossier with the seven sections (i.e., Case Statement; Authorization and Review Start Letters; Curriculum vitae, Statements; Teaching Materials; External Evaluations; Publication Information; Citation Information) arranged in the order shown in the sample in Section 4.A.4 (“Dossier Sample”) of this Handbook.

ii.   Naming conventions:

  • The file name of the electronic tenure dossier should contain alpha-numeric characters only (no dashes, commas, slashes, etc.).
  • Please name the file as follows: [Last Name] [First Name] [Department Name] tenure dossier [numerical Month, Date, and Year of dossier submission: XX YY ZZ]. E.g., Smith John Psychology tenure dossier 1 4 15.
  • 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 tenure dossier 1 4 15 rev 1 15 15.

iii.   Please use Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer) to send the completed dossier.

e.   How to Prepare a PDF of Student Evaluations of Teaching
 

i.   Please create a single PDF containing all student evaluations of teaching.

  • 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. Select “Print Full Reports” tab and download for each course:
    • “Course Evaluation and Instructor/TF Summary” (Printable Version (PDF)
    • “Student Comments: go to “View Comments by Question” and select “Show Questions.”  Print out “Whole Course” option.
  • For evaluations from Fall 2019 onward, please go to https://q.fas.harvard.edu/qguide.htm. Click on “Results 2019-20 and later” and log in. Download for each course:
    • Select, "View the {term} Individual Report – Comments included report” and click on the course from the listing.  Download the report.

Insert a bookmark for each course so that readers can move directly to individual courses. Clearly identify each course and its bookmark with the following information: course title, course number, semester and year. For more assembly instructions, please contact the divisional assistant dean with any questions.

ii.   Please use Accellion Kiteworks (secure document transfer) to send the completed document.

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

Departments should retain documents according to  practices recommended by Harvard Archives at https://grs.harvard.edu/ (please log in).

(6)   Suggested Timeline for Standard Academic-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor[17]


Note: Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment. 

Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic. 

In addition, the FAS will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.

Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). These criteria were in use before the COVID-19 pandemic and have remained unchanged. Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching and advising, and service without any penalty if the faculty member took an appointment extension and/or teaching relief as provided to eligible tenure-track faculty due to the pandemic. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated according to a standard of someone who has had seven years to work towards tenure. All of the work the faculty member has done since they were initially appointed is evaluated as if they have done so on a clock unaffected by the pandemic. Every candidate who has had a pandemic-related extension would receive an adjustment of the type described here, taking into account the specific clock extension they received (e.g., one semester, one year, etc.). Teaching relief granted due to the pandemic works under the same principle. A tenure-track faculty member who was given one course of teaching relief should have their scholarship, teaching and advising, and service evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. These procedures imply that COVID-related clock extensions and/or teaching relief should not be counted against candidates in any way.

Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS solicits materials from the candidate for the dossier and appoints the review committee. At points in the process when the tenured members of the FAS department vote, the SEAS voting cluster votes. (SEAS voting clusters are subsets of the full SEAS faculty, organized by research discipline, that consider and vote on appointments, promotions, and reappointments at the School level.) The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement and signs the final case statement. After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.

June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review. 

July 1: July 1 is the official start of the tenure review process. Proximate to July 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their tenure review, that July 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by September 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

Note: If September 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, September 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than October 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.

In July:  The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by September 1.

September 1 (or the next business day, if September 1 is a weekend or a holiday):  Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.

By early September:

  • Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, chairs appoint the review committees.
  • Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors of undergraduates and mentors of graduate students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.

September/October:

  • Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and present the cases to the departments. The tenured faculty members in the departments then discuss and decide whether the cases warrant further review.
  • If the departments are recommending further review, the chairs request divisional dean authorization to collect external evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval drafts of the review letters, proposed recipient lists, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries) the initial inquiry emails.
  • Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. Departments should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.

Early January: Expected date of replies from external scholars.

January/February:

  • Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. 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.
  • If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. Each tenured member of the department submits a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS regarding the case.

March 1: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.

March-June: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, ad hoc committees, and the President, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.

(7)   Suggested Timeline for Calendar-Year Appointments: Departmental Review of Tenure-Track Faculty for Promotion to Tenured Professor[18]


Note:  Reviews for promotion should ordinarily be completed by the end of the penultimate year of appointment.

Note: With the significant disruptions to professional life resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the FAS instituted in Spring 2020 a policy of extensions, allowing then-current tenure-track faculty the option of extending their appointment and postponing their promotion review for one semester or a year, depending on their eligibility. Similarly, FAS faculty whose appointments began in the fall term of 2020 were offered the option to extend their initial appointment by one year. In Spring 2021, recognizing the ongoing impact of COVID-19, the FAS encouraged any interested tenure-track faculty to contact their divisional dean/SEAS Dean if they wished to request an additional year of appointment and tenure-clock extension, for reasons of significant professional and/or personal disruption due to the pandemic.

In addition, the FAS will grant relief from teaching one course for any interested tenure-track colleagues (regardless of dependent-care circumstances) who were on the FAS tenure-track during the 2020-21 academic year and who teach in departments/areas that have a typical teaching load of two courses or more per year. Please see 3.E.3, “Additional Leave and Teaching Relief,” for more information on this one-time teaching relief.

Internal and external evaluators in tenure reviews should evaluate candidates by using the standard criteria for tenure provided in Chapter 4A (the “Description” of tenured professors). These criteria were in use before the COVID-19 pandemic and have remained unchanged. Evaluators should assess a faculty member’s aggregated scholarship, teaching and advising, and service without any penalty if the faculty member took an appointment extension and/or teaching relief as provided to eligible tenure-track faculty due to the pandemic. For example, if a candidate for tenure was given a one-year clock extension and thus came up for tenure in the eighth (rather than the ordinary seventh) year after their initial appointment date, their body of work should be evaluated according to a standard of someone who has had seven years to work towards tenure. All of the work the faculty member has done since they were initially appointed is evaluated as if they have done so on a clock unaffected by the pandemic. Every candidate who has had a pandemic-related extension would receive an adjustment of the type described here, taking into account the specific clock extension they received (e.g., one semester, one year, etc.). Teaching relief granted due to the pandemic works under the same principle. A tenure-track faculty member who was given one course of teaching relief should have their scholarship, teaching and advising, and service evaluated for tenure as if they had taught the course for which they received relief. These procedures imply that COVID-related clock extensions and/or teaching relief should not be counted against candidates in any way.

Note: In SEAS, the John A. Paulson Dean of SEAS solicits materials from the candidate for the dossier and appoints the review committee. At points in the process when the tenured members of the FAS department vote, the SEAS voting cluster votes. (SEAS voting clusters are subsets of the full SEAS faculty, organized by research discipline, that consider and vote on appointments, promotions, and reappointments at the School level.) The SEAS review committee chair prepares the case statement and signs the final case statement. After a favorable vote on the candidate, all tenured faculty in SEAS are invited to write confidential letters to the Edgerley Family Dean of FAS. Please consult SEAS for more details on SEAS procedures.

June: Prior to the beginning of candidates’ penultimate year of appointment, chairs receive letters from the assistant dean for the division indicating which tenure-track faculty (both calendar-year and academic-year appointees) are eligible for review.

January 1:  January 1 is the official start of the tenure review process. Proximate to January 1, the divisional assistant dean sends a letter to the candidate informing them that this is the year of their tenure review, that January 1 constitutes the official start of their review process, that the next step is for the candidate to meet with their department chair to discuss the review process and necessary materials, that the candidate’s materials are due to the department by March 1, and that the steps of the entire review process are available in the FAS Appointment and Promotion Handbook.

Note: If March 1 falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline for the candidate to submit all of their dossier materials to the department is the next business day. In addition, March 1 (or the next business day, as appropriate) is the deadline for candidates whose birth- or adoption-date falls no later than April 1 (or the next business day) to notify their divisional assistant dean that they would like to have the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.

In January:  The chair and candidate meet to discuss the review process and the materials needed for the review. The chair reminds the candidate to submit all of their materials by March 1.

March 1 (or the next business day, if March 1 is a weekend or a holiday):  Deadline for candidates to submit all of their materials to departments, and deadline for eligible candidates to notify their assistant dean that they would like the automatic appointment extension and review postponement that the FAS grants to expecting parents.

By early March:

  • Department chairs request approval of review committee membership from divisional deans. After approval, chairs appoint the review committees.
  • Departments compile summary teaching charts and gather materials on the candidates’ performance as advisors of undergraduates and mentors of graduate students and, as relevant, postdoctoral fellows.

March/April:

  • Review committees consider the candidates’ materials and present the cases to the departments. The tenured faculty members in the department then discuss and decide whether the cases warrant further review.
  • If the departments are recommending further review, the chairs request divisional dean authorization to collect external evaluation letters, submitting for divisional dean approval drafts of the review letters, proposed recipient lists, and (if departments choose to send initial inquiries) the initial inquiry emails.
  • Departments send approved letters to approved recipient lists. Departments should give letter writers at least six to eight weeks to prepare their letters (dating from the mailing of the review letter), depending on the volume of materials under review.

August: Expected date of replies from external scholars.

September:

  • Tenured members of departments review dossiers and vote on whether to recommend promotions. 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.
  • If the recommendations are positive, departments finalize dossiers for submission to Faculty Affairs. Each tenured member of the department submits a confidential letter to the Edgerley Family Dean of the FAS regarding the case.

October 1: Deadline for submission of promotion dossiers to Faculty Affairs.

October-December: Review, as appropriate, by divisional deans, the Committee on Appointments and Promotions, ad hoc committees, and the President, followed by notification to candidates about the outcomes.

[17] This timeline applies to tenure-track faculty whose appointments will end on June 30. Departments may complete the process in a more compressed timeframe, if they prefer, as long as their accelerated timetable allows all parties the full measure of time for completing their tasks and all promotion dossiers are submitted to Faculty Affairs by March 1.

[18] This timeline applies to tenure-track faculty whose appointments will end on December 31 in a future year.  Departments may complete the process in a more compressed timeframe, if they prefer, as long as their accelerated timetable allows all parties the full measure of time for completing their tasks and all promotion dossiers are submitted to Faculty Affairs by October 1.