Description of Process for Initial Appointments, Promotions, and Reappointments

The dean, in consultation with the department chair, shall form a search committee, composed of faculty members from the department in which the position will reside along with, normally, one faculty member from another department in the school. The dean, in consultation with the department chair, shall select one faculty member from the department in which the position will reside to chair the search committee.

Positions to be filled through a search (other than a targeted search) shall start with notice. The text for position descriptions, advertisements, and any other announcement shall be written by the administrator in charge of faculty affairs in consultation with the dean, department chair, and other departmental faculty as appropriate. The position description shall be posted on the GSD website and advertised in appropriate national and international media (journals, websites, etc.) to ensure the widest knowledge of the position’s availability.

The search committee and the administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall develop an outreach strategy for generating a long list of candidates without regard to anyone’s perceived availability. The search committee shall contact faculty members at other academic institutions as well as practitioners to secure names of potential candidates. Faculty members from the department in which the position will reside, along with relevant faculty members from other GSD departments and Harvard faculties, shall be asked for names of potential candidates. Potential candidates identified by the search committee as desirable who have not applied for the position shall be contacted and invited to apply. The chair of the search committee and the administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall monitor the process to ensure that special efforts are made to identify and bring the position to the attention of underrepresented classes of potential candidates, including women and minorities. The administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall ensure that all applications received are processed appropriately and that any additional information on the candidates beyond their applications that would help the search committee in its deliberations is assembled.

In exceptional circumstances, a targeted search in which a candidate is identified at the start of the appointments process may be authorized by the provost after a recommendation from the dean in consultation with the senior faculty of the relevant department and the Senior Faculty Council.

The search committee shall carefully review each candidate’s application along with other assembled material and shall develop a preliminary short list of normally at least 8-10 candidates to be invited for 30-minute video conference interviews with the committee. Following the initial interviews, the search committee shall develop a short list of 3-5 candidates to be invited to the School.

Candidates invited to the School shall give presentations and meet with the search committee, other interested faculty, and students. Presentations shall be widely publicized to faculty and students and described as part of a search process unless the search committee and candidate agree that the search aspect of the presentation must remain confidential. The chair of the search committee and administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall solicit faculty and student views about the candidate’s presentation and report the results to the search committee. All senior faculty shall be given the opportunity to meet individually with candidates during their visit, except that only senior faculty of the relevant department shall be given such opportunity in considering appointments of assistant professors in practice. Students will be given an opportunity to meet informally with candidates unless the search committee and candidate agree that the search aspect of the visit must remain confidential. The chair of the search committee and administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall solicit faculty and student views about the meetings and report the results to the search committee.

Following candidate visits, the search committee shall determine which candidate(s) it is seriously considering and seek external letters evaluating them. External letters may take several forms: Blind Letters, Comparison Letters, or Evaluation Letters. Blind Letters ask letter writers to compare and evaluate a list of possible candidates without disclosing which individual(s) may or may not be under consideration for tenure. Comparison Letters ask letter writers to evaluate and compare expressly listed names, including candidate(s) being seriously considered, who are identified in the letter as being under consideration by the search committee, along with other comparable individuals. Evaluation Letters ask letter writers to evaluate the candidate(s) being seriously considered without listing the names of other comparable individuals, although letter writers are invited to make comparisons with other individuals known to the letter writers. In the case of Comparison Letters and Evaluation Letters, dossiers of materials of the identified candidates are provided to the letter writers. The search committee shall normally choose the type of letters based on its evaluation of the candidates, except in tenure cases, which require Blind Letters.
The following guidelines shall be used with regard to external letters:

Professor: 12 or more Blind Letters
Professor in Practice (tenured): 12 or more Blind Letters
Professor in Practice: 10 or more Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Senior Lecturer: 10 or more Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Professor in Residence: 10 or more Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Associate Professor: 8 or more Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Assistant Professor: 4 – 6 Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Associate Professor in Practice: 8 or more Evaluation or Comparison Letters
Assistant Professor in Practice: 4 – 6 Evaluation or Comparison Letters

In cases where a targeted search has been authorized, Evaluation Letters shall be used instead of Comparison Letters. The search committee, in consultation with the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall select external letter writers, who should be prominent scholars and/or practitioners knowledgeable about the field of the candidate(s) who are likely to hold diverse perspectives. External letter writers typically are tenured full professors at peer schools or practitioners who are recognized as at the top of their profession. Candidates shall not be asked to provide names of potential letter writers, other than providing standard references as part of the application process. Letter writers shall be asked to reveal in their letters any advising, professional, collaborating, or personal relationship with any individual named in the letter. Yield from invited letter writers is a factor to consider so the choice of letter writers should be made carefully. The invitation to write a letter sent to letter writers should originate from the dean, department chair, or search committee chair with responses returned to the administrator in charge of faculty affairs.

The search committee shall deliberate and vote on the candidates. The chair of the search committee, in consultation with members of the search committee and the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall prepare the search committee’s report describing the search process, the candidates it considered seriously, a detailed evaluation of the candidates in comparison to one another, and the final vote of the search committee, Specifically the report shall include:

• A detailed description of the notice and outreach procedure, including evidence that women and minority group members were encouraged to apply.
• A description of the overall pool of candidates, the number of women and underrepresented minority candidates, and how the committee evaluated candidates.
• A description of the candidates the committee seriously considered, including those candidates invited to the school, with short summaries of their qualifications. Names and short summaries for the top women and minority candidates should be included.
• A detailed description of the chosen candidate with regard to creative work and teaching, including an explicit comparison of that candidate with others seriously considered and why the committee chose the candidate, an analysis of the external letters, an explanation for how the chosen candidate fits the school’s needs with regard to teaching and creative work, and a description of reasons expressed by any committee members who dissented or abstained from the committee’s vote.
• Information pertinent to affirmative action should be summarized and included with the report.

The search committee report, along with appropriate materials such as curricula vitae and exhibits of creative work assembled by the administrator in charge of academic affairs, shall be submitted to the relevant department for departmental review as the next step in the appointments process.

The department chair shall convene the departmental senior faculty to discuss the report of the search committee and to vote on a candidate. In cases where the departmental senior faculty as a whole served as the search committee, a separate meeting is not necessary. The department chair shall prepare a letter describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty, along with why the department wishes to make such an appointment and the attributes or specialties it was looking for in candidates. The letter, along with the search committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials shall be submitted to the dean and, in cases where the department has voted in favor of a candidate, to the Senior Faculty Council.

In cases where the departmental senior faculty has voted in favor of a candidate, a letter prepared by the department chair describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty, along with the search committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials shall be submitted to the Senior Faculty Council at least one week before the next scheduled meeting. At the meeting, the Senior Faculty Council shall discuss the case and vote at that time or after the meeting. If the vote is taken after the meeting, the dean shall announce the results of the vote at the next Senior Faculty Council meeting. A quorum for attendance shall be met if at least fifty percent of the senior faculty in residence during the semester in question is present. Each member of the Senior Faculty Council shall provide the dean with a brief letter announcing their vote and the reasons for it. Senior faculty members of the candidate’s department are expected to write more detailed letters than senior faculty from other departments. Such letters shall be included with any recommendation that the dean submits to the president or provost.

In cases of appointments to assistant professor in practice, the department chair shall notify the Senior Faculty Council of the department’s decision, but the Senior Faculty Council shall have no role in reviewing the department’s decision.

Upon a favorable vote of the Senior Faculty Council or a vote of the senior faculty of the department in cases of an assistant professor in practice, the dean may approve or reject the vote. If the Dean decides in favor of the appointment, they shall recommend to the president or provost that the candidate be approved for appointment.

Non-tenured appointments of voting faculty members require provostial approval by the Provost’s Appointments Review Committee, which is administered by the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity.

An appointment to a tenured position requires presidential approval. The dean shall confer with the president or the president’s designee and agree upon the form of review and the faculty and/or outside consultation, if any, that will be sought. In those instances where the president or the president’s designee convenes an “ad hoc committee” to advise on the appointment, the dean shall not reveal their recommendation for or against the appointment to the ad hoc committee until after the presidential review has been conducted. At the conclusion of the presidential review, the dean shall recommend to the president or the president’s designee for or against the appointment. The approval of the president or the president’s designee must be obtained before an appointment can begin or be announced.

Promotion reviews for junior tenure-track faculty from assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to professor commence with the formation of a promotion committee to review the case. The dean, in consultation with the department chair, shall form a promotion committee, normally composed of four faculty members from the department in which the position resides along with one faculty member from another department in the school. The dean, in consultation with the department chair, shall select one faculty member from the department in which the position will reside to chair the promotion committee. The promotion committee shall normally be formed at the end of the academic year preceding the candidate’s penultimate year of the existing appointment.

The candidate shall be asked to submit a curriculum vitae, a statement about the candidate’s past accomplishments, a statement about the candidate’s intellectual agenda for the future, and materials documenting the candidate’s creative work in scholarship, design/research work, or professional practice, or a combination thereof.

The candidate shall give a presentation that shall be publicized to faculty and students unless the promotion committee and candidate agree that the promotion aspect of the presentation must remain confidential. The chair of the promotion committee and administrator in charge of faculty affairs shall solicit faculty and student views of the candidate’s presentation and report the results to the promotion committee. All senior faculty shall be given the opportunity to meet individuallywith the candidate. Students shall be given an opportunity to meet with the candidate unless the promotion committee and candidate agree that the promotion review must remain confidential. The chair of the promotion committee and administrator in charge of faculty affairs should solicit faculty and student views and report the results to the promotion committee.

Unless the promotion committee after the presentation is unanimously not in favor of the promotion, letters from at least 8 letter writers in the case of promotion from assistant professor to associate professor and at least 12 letter writers in the case of promotion from associate professor to professor shall be sought. Candidates shall not be asked to provide names of potential letter writers. Reviews for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor shall require evaluation letters and reviews for promotion from associate professor to professor shall require comparison letters. A dossier of the candidate’s materials shall be provided to the letter writers.

The promotion committee, in consultation with the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall select external letter writers, who should be prominent scholars and/or practitioners knowledgeable about the field of the candidate who are likely to hold diverse perspectives. External letter writers typically are tenured full professors at peer schools or practitioners who are recognized as at the top of their profession. Letter writers shall be asked to reveal in their letters any advising, professional, collaborating, or personal relationship with any individual named in the letter. Yield from invited letter writers is a factor to consider so the choice of letter writers should be made carefully. The invitation to write a letter sent to external letter writers should be issued on behalf of the dean or department chair with responses returned to the administrator in charge of faculty affairs.

The promotion committee shall deliberate and vote on the candidate. The chair of the promotion committee, in consultation with members of the promotion committee and the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall prepare the promotion committee’s report that includes the following:

• A detailed evaluation of the candidate’s record of creative work and teaching and proposed future creative work and teaching
• A detailed analysis of the external letters and other indicia of the candidate’s standing in the field
• A description of the promotion committee vote and reasons expressed by any committee members who dissented or abstained from the committee’s vote.

The promotion committee report, along with appropriate materials such as curricula vitae, exhibits of creative work, and teaching evaluations assembled by the administrator in charge of academic affairs, shall be submitted to the relevant department for departmental review as the next step in the promotions process.

The department chair shall convene the departmental senior faculty to discuss the report of the promotion committee and to vote on the candidate. In cases where the departmental senior faculty as a whole served as the promotion committee, a separate meeting is not necessary. The department chair shall prepare a letter describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty. The letter, along with the promotion committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials shall be submitted to the dean and, in cases where the department has voted in favor of a candidate, to the Senior Faculty Council.

In cases where the departmental senior faculty has voted in favor of a promotion, a letter prepared by the department chair describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty, along with the promotion committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials, shall be submitted to the Senior Faculty Council at least one week before the next scheduled meeting. At the meeting, the Senior Faculty Council shall discuss the case and vote at that time or after the meeting. If the vote is taken after the meeting, the dean shall announce the results of the vote at the next Senior Faculty Council meeting. A quorum for attendance shall be met if at least fifty percent of the senior faculty in residence during the semester in question is present. Each member of the Senior Faculty Council shall provide the dean with a brief letter announcing their vote and reasons for it. Senior faculty members of the candidate’s department are expected to write more detailed letters than senior faculty from other departments. Such letters shall be included with any recommendation that the dean submits to the president or provost.

Upon a favorable vote of the Senior Faculty Council or a vote of the senior faculty of the department in cases where only notification of the Senior Faculty Council is required, the dean may recommend or not recommend to the president or provost that the candidate be approved for promotion.

Promotions from assistant professor to associate professor require approval by the Provost’s Appointments Review Committee which is administered by the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity.

An appointment to a tenured position requires the president’s approval. The dean shall confer with the president or the president’s designee and agree upon the form of the review and the faculty and/or outside consultation, if any, that will be sought. In those instances where the president or the president’s designee convenes an “ad hoc committee” to advise on the appointment, the dean shall not reveal their recommendation for or against the appointment until after the presidential review has been conducted. At the conclusion of the presidential review, the dean shall recommend to the president or the president’s designee for or against the appointment. The approval of the president or the president’s designee must be obtained before an appointment can begin or be announced.

Reappointment reviews or appointment reviews for a higher position commence with the formation by the dean and department chair of a review committee, composed of some or all of the departmental senior faculty, to review the case. Review for reappointment or appointment to a higher position shall normally be conducted in the candidate’s penultimate year of the existing appointment. The candidate shall be asked to submit a curriculum vitae, a statement about the candidate’s past accomplishments, a statement about the candidate’s intellectual agenda for the future, and materials documenting the candidate’s creative work in scholarship, design/research work, or professional practice, or a combination thereof.

Unless the review committee is unanimously opposed to the reappointment or appointment to a higher position, evaluation letters from at least 8 letter writers in the case of a reappointment to a second term for an associate professor in practice and from at least 10 letter writers in the case of reappointment or appointment of a senior lecturer or professor in practice without tenure shall be sought. Candidates shall not be asked to provide names of potential letter writers. Such evaluation letters shall ask letter writers to evaluate the candidate without listing the names of other comparable individuals, although letter writers are invited to make comparisons with other individuals known to the letter writers. A dossier of the candidate’s materials shall be provided to the letter writers.

The review committee, in consultation with the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall select external letter writers, who should be prominent scholars and/or practitioners knowledgeable about the field of the candidate who are likely to hold diverse perspectives. External letter writers typically are tenured full professors at peer schools or practitioners who are recognized as at the top of their profession. Letter writers shall be asked to reveal in their letters any advising, professional, collaborating, or personal relationship with any individual named in the letter. Yield from invited letter writers is a factor to consider so the choice of letter writers should be made carefully. The invitation to write a letter sent to external letter writers should be sent on behalf of the dean or department chair with responses returned to the administrator in charge of faculty affairs.

The review committee shall deliberate and vote on the candidate. The chair of the review committee, in consultation with members of the review committee and the administrator in charge of faculty affairs, shall prepare the review committee’s report that includes the following:

• A detailed evaluation of the candidate’s record of creative work and teaching and proposed future creative work and teaching
• A detailed analysis of the external letters and other indicia of the candidate’s standing in the field
• A description of the review committee vote and reasons expressed by any committee members who dissented or abstained from the committee’s vote.

The review committee report, along with appropriate materials such as curricula vitae, exhibits of creative work, and teaching evaluations assembled by the administrator in charge of academic affairs shall be submitted to the relevant department for departmental review as the next step in the process.

The department chair shall convene the departmental senior faculty to discuss the report of the committee and to vote on the candidate. In cases where the departmental senior faculty as a whole served as the review committee, a separate meeting is not necessary. The department chair shall prepare a letter describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty. The letter, along with the committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials shall be submitted to the dean and, in cases where the department has voted in favor of the reappointment or appointment to a higher position, to the Senior Faculty Council.

In cases where the departmental senior faculty have voted in favor of reappointment or appointment to a higher position a letter prepared by the department chair describing the discussion and vote of the departmental senior faculty, along with the review committee report, external letters, and other relevant materials, shall be submitted to the Senior Faculty Council at least one week before the next scheduled meeting. At the meeting, the Senior Faculty Council shall discuss the case and vote at that time or after the meeting. If the vote is taken after the meeting, the dean shall announce the results of the vote at the next Senior Faculty Council meeting. A quorum for attendance shall be met if at least fifty percent of the senior faculty in residence during the semester in question is present. Each member of the Senior Faculty Council shall provide the dean with a brief letter announcing their vote and reasons for it. Senior faculty members of the candidate’s department are expected to write more detailed letters than senior faculty from other departments. Such letters shall be included with any recommendation that the dean submits to the president or provost.

Upon a favorable vote of the Senior Faculty Council, the dean may recommend or not recommend to the provost that the candidate be approved for reappointment or appointment to the higher position.

Reappointments or appointments to a higher position of non-tenured senior and junior faculty require approval by the Provost’s Appointments Review Committee which is administered by the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity.