Document 2
| TO: | Department Chairs in the Natural and Social Sciences |
| FROM: | Carol Thompson |
| DATE: | March 27, 1998 |
Following the Dean’s meetings with department chairs in January, we developed a document (enclosed) that describes both the tenure search and ad hoc committee review processes. Please distribute it as you see fit, but I urge you especially to make it available to your junior faculty members.
The document attempts to summarize the tenure appointment process after departments have carried out their own preliminary reviews. The Dean hopes that each department will soon develop a description of its internal procedures for junior faculty reviews, as recommended in the recent Report of the Standing Committee on Women in the Social Sciences (see except, enclosed). Though the Report addresses the social sciences per se, it urges that all departments should have written procedures to distribute to junior faculty before their review take place. I enclose a copy of the History Department’s procedures as an example. I welcome the chance to review your drafts if it would be helpful.
/mep
Enclosures
cc: Dean Laura Fisher
Dean Jeremy Knowles
THE TENURE APPOINTMENT PROCESS in the FACULTY of ARTS & SCIENCES
The following account of the tenure process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is intended to provide a general description of our search procedures, and how they differ from those of other institutions. It also aims to describe how ad hoc committee reviews are conducted.
Searches:
The formal process for making a tenured appointment in the FAS begins when a department has reviewed its overall field needs and has considered the desirability of making a tenured appointment in a particular area. (This preliminary review varies according to departmental practice, and is not described in this summary.) Sometimes this consideration is occasioned by the promotion review of a junior faculty member. When the preliminary review results in the decision to initiate a tenure search, the chair initiates the formal process by writing to the Dean for a search authorization, describing the field definition and providing the rationale for how the particular field fits into the department’s long-range academic plan. In general, departments are encouraged to develop a field definition that is as broad as possible so as to consider the widest pool of candidates. In deciding whether to authorize the search, the Dean considers both the academic and resource implications of a senior appointment in the specified area.
There are minor differences between searches that arc focussed on the appointment of an outside scholar, and those that encompass a promotion review for a junior faculty member. In both cases, however, the Harvard appointment process differs from that at many other academic institutions at least, in the following respect. Many institutions have a tenure-track system. That is, they hire primarily at the junior level and, at the time of tenure review, they consider only that individual for a senior position, seeking opinion as to whether or not the candidate meets a certain threshold. In the FAS, departments seek to tenure an individual who not only exceeds a certain threshold, but who is judged to be the leading scholar/teacher available in the field.
To identify the best available person, a departmental search committee appointed by the chair normally develops an unranked "comparison list of scholars." This list may contain names from several sources: a) nominations solicited from scholars at other universities; b) those suggested by members of the department; c) those who apply; and, if applicable, d) a junior faculty member who is being reviewed. Listed scholars are not necessarily asked in advance about their interest or availability, but are included on the basis of their standing in the field. The comparison list usually contains 5-7 leading scholars, who are normally within about ten years of one another in terms of academic experience. In some departments, candidates on the comparison list (including a junior faculty colleague being reviewed for promotion) are invited to give a lecture or a departmental seminar.
The comparison list having been established, the department chair or the search committee chair sends a dozen or more letters to leading scholars at other institutions here and abroad, asking for absolute and comparative evaluations of the persons on the list, usually with no indication of whether any particular individual is under explicit consideration. The letter requesting outside evaluations is therefore often referred to as the "blind letter." Blind letter respondents are also asked whether any qualified candidates have been overlooked in the department’s development of the comparison list. If the search encompasses a promotion review, some departments mention in the text of the letter that the search is timed to coincide with the tenure review of the named junior colleague. If the junior colleague has significant work that is yet unpublished, departments may also independently solicit supplementary letters from 2- 3 outside scholars who are asked to evaluate the unpublished manuscript(s).
When the departmental search committee has collected the blind letter responses, it reviews both the blind letters and any supplementary letters, which then become part of the dossier. The dossier also includes a significant amount of the candidate’s published work, and information that the candidate may have been asked to provide, such as evaluations of his or her teaching, a curriculum vitae, and other relevant materials. If, after considering the dossier, the committee recommends that the case should go forward, the chair convenes a meeting of the senior members of the department for a vote. Prior to this meeting, the dossier is made available to all senior members. Some departments schedule two meetings for a tenure consideration, one in which the case is discussed and the other in which the final vote is taken.
If the departmental vote is positive, the department chair forwards the recommendation and the dossier to the Dean of the Faculty, adding a "case statement," which describes the candidate, the search process, and the reasons why the candidate is preferred, and the departmental vote. Senior members of the department are asked to write confidential letters to the Dean, giving an explanation of their votes and their views of the recommendation. These confidential letters become part of the dossier. The complete dossier is reviewed by the Dean and the Academic Deans, who concern themselves mainly with the procedural aspects of the search. Following this step and the acceptance of the dossier, a date is set for an ad hoc committee review.
Ad Hoc Committee Reviews:
The ad hoc committee review consists of a consideration by the President, the Dean of the Faculty, and a small advisory group of field specialists from other universities and Harvard colleagues from related disciplines. This committee is convened solely for the purpose of considering the recommendation being proposed, hence the title "ad hoc" committee. In addition to the President and the Dean, most ad hoc committees consist of three outside experts from other universities, and two from Harvard--ordinarily drawn from within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences--from departments other than the one making the recommendation. The outsiders are experts in the field, and often bring complementary perspectives to the case. The Harvard scholars are usually, though not necessarily, in related fields, bringing a general knowledge of FAS standards, and the experience of having considered tenure cases in their own departments.
The membership of ad hoc committees is determined by an Associate Dean, who is a tenured member of the Faculty. Informed by the general discussion in the meeting of the Academic Deans, the Associate Dean assumes responsibility for a particular case. (The two faculty Associate Deans responsible for setting up ad hoc committees divide each year’s cases between them, although they are not, of course, involved in cases from their own departments.) In determining the list of scholars to be invited for membership on a particular committee, the Associate Dean consults widely, using authorities suggested by the department and others, such as scholars who have written especially thoughtful blind letters, scholars on the recipient list who did not respond, past or present visiting committee members, and other individuals suggested by those who have been consulted. Scheduling and other considerations often lead some scholars to decline the invitation to serve, and the Associate Dean often has to issue multiple invitations to assemble a full committee. Every effort is made to complete the invitation process quickly, although it typically takes two to three weeks to construct a committee. The Dean and the President do not take part in the committee selection process, nor do they know the final membership of the committee until they receive the complete dossier a few days before the ad hoc committee meeting.
Once the committee membership is determined, the dossier is distributed to all members, generally at least two weeks before the meeting. Published work of the candidate is normally included. Each ad hoc committee is chaired by the President with the Dean, the Associate Dean responsible for the case, and the internal and external ad hoc committee members present. The Associate Dean arranges for several departmental "witnesses" who are invited to come before the committee individually. The department chair and (usually) the chair of the search committee are invited, as are other department members who are chosen to ensure that there is a full airing of departmental views concerning the appointment. The function of the ad hoc committee is to advise the President not only on the quality of the candidate, but also on the state of the department and that of the field in which the appointment is proposed.
During the course of the meeting, members of the committee are invited to participate actively - by asking questions of witnesses, as well as by exploring more general questions related to the field. Once the committee has heard from the witnesses, it continues in executive session to discuss the entire case. At the end of this broad ranging discussion, the President asks each member of the committee to summarize his or her views; no votes are taken. At some point following the meeting, after consulting with the Dean, the President makes his decision on the case. On occasion, he may delay to review the material or to seek additional information and advice from inside or outside the University. Having arrived at his decision, the President informs the Dean, who then lets the department chair know of the outcome.
CT 3/26/98