A.    Soliciting External Evaluations

External evaluators play a critical role in the tenure and promotion process by providing an assessment of the standing and reputation of the candidate in his or her field. Prior to the review year, the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator solicits letters of evaluation from leading scholars in the candidate’s field(s), in the names of the Dean and department chair, in order to obtain independent assessments of the quality of the candidate’s work. The CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator sends the requests for external evaluation letters, manages response rates, acknowledges receipt, and places them on the CAS tenure and promotion server as they become available. The Dean’s Office makes the final decision in choosing external evaluators.

A tenure and promotion dossier must include 10-12 high quality external evaluation letters and a promotion to Professor dossier must include at least 6 high quality external evaluation “core” letters as described below. Departments should propose 20 potential external evaluators in tenure cases and 12-15 potential evaluators in promotion to Professor cases to ensure we can collect an adequate number of letters. In some cases, the department may have to propose additional potential external evaluators to achieve the minimum yield.

It is important that the identity of individuals proposed to serve as external evaluators and of those who write letters remains strictly confidential and is not revealed to candidates at any stage.

1. Preferred Characteristics of External Letters

External evaluators must be experts in the candidate’s field and broader discipline who have distinguished standing in their fields, are preferably located in the best institutions in their field, and do not have a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate. Useful letters respond to the questions asked in the solicitation in a detailed way, citing evidence, rather than simply repeating what is in the CV. External evaluators must represent a broad range of expertise and perspectives qualified to judge the candidate’s work and its impact.

If a candidate has a joint appointment with a second department or program or does a significant amount of work in an interdisciplinary field, the range of external evaluators should reflect the different relevant fields. Chairs should consult the chair/director of the relevant other department(s) or program(s) for advice on selecting external evaluators. The department chair is responsible for describing in detail the qualifications of the proposed external evaluators for serving in this capacity and for revealing any known connection between the candidate and proposed external evaluators in the form as asked.

2. Limitations and Restrictions on External Letters

The following categories of individuals should, in general, be excluded from recommended evaluator lists:

• Former mentors of the candidate, particularly graduate and postdoctoral advisors and members of the candidate’s dissertation committee.

• Co-authors of papers or books with the candidate.

• Co-investigators on grants with the candidate.

• Any individual with a close personal relationship with the candidate.

Any potential evaluator who may have had minor professional interactions with the candidate (for example, interaction at a conference) should be listed as a ‘Professional Colleague.’ This type of relationship does not warrant exclusion from the list.

The above exclusions are not appropriate in all cases. For example, papers in some fields have scores of co-authors who do not in fact work closely together and the exclusion of all co-authors of such papers would be neither necessary nor desirable. If the department chair believes that a specific evaluator in a category listed above should be used in a particular case, then the department chair should consult with the appropriate divisional associate dean before submitting the list of recommended evaluators to the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator.

In the cases of new senior hires that require tenure reviews and modified faculty promotion reviews, the department may include up to three evaluators who are not considered arm’s length evaluators.

The list of external evaluators should generally be drawn from institutions that are considered peer or peer-plus. The list of AAU institutions is a good starting place for those that are usually considered peer or peer-plus. In certain cases, the best departments or best individuals in a particular field may be at peer-minus or unranked institutions. This may be particularly the case with regard to international institutions and scholars important as reference sources in promotion to Professor cases. In this situation, the case must be made for the prominence of the department and/or individual. The case should be made in the rationale section of the evaluator list form.

The list of external evaluators may include no more than three individuals recommended by the candidate for tenure and/or promotion. The candidate is not required to make suggestions. These external reviewers should conform to the expectations outlined above.

Under normal circumstances external evaluators must hold a position at least at the rank to which the candidate is applying to be promoted. For a given candidate, it is preferable to limit the number of external evaluators from any one institution. In most cases, CAS will impose a limit of three evaluators from any one institution.

External evaluators should be research-active members of their profession who understand the contemporary standards, approaches and practices of their fields, which means it is preferable to limit the number of writers who are retired. A few emeritus and/or emerita faculty members may be included on the list, but only if they are still active in the field. In most cases we recommend including at least three evaluators from international institutions for promotion to Professor cases. An international reputation is generally expected for promotion to Professor and this is one way to help demonstrate this.

All evaluators should be well justified in the rationale section of the evaluator form. In some cases, exceptions to the above limitations can be made as long as they are justified in this section of the form.

External evaluators should also be well suited to answer the questions put forth in the solicitation letter:

1. What is the scholarly and/or creative work that has earned the candidate national or international recognition? What are the major and distinctive contributions of the candidate’s research? Please provide us with an assessment of Professor XX’s research productivity and the quality and impact of the candidate’s scholarship.

2. How does the candidate compare to others at similar stages in their careers and to the best scholars in the field when they were at a comparable stage? Specific comparisons are helpful to inform our understanding of the candidate’s standing and impact in relevant subfields.

3. How do you view the candidate’s trajectory and future promise?

4. What is your assessment of the candidate’s service to the profession at the local, national or international level at this stage of their career?

5. If you have firsthand knowledge of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher or mentor, including any observations of the candidate’s presentations in academic conferences and seminars, we would appreciate your insights on these activities as well.

6. Finally, we would appreciate your candid opinion as to (a) whether Professor XX should be promoted to Associate Professor with tenure/Full Professor at Boston University and (b) whether Professor XX would be promoted to Associate Professor with tenure/Full Professor at your institution.

3. Additional Considerations for “Core” Letters

For promotion to Professor cases, “core” letter providers must be unquestionably arm’s length, and their letters must address the preponderance of the questions listed above. The department, in consultation with the divisional associate dean and CAS Tenure & Promotion Coordinator, will decide which letters are “core” once all letters are received and prior to the writing of the chair’s report.

We generally limit the number of repeat evaluators from prior tenure and/or promotion cases to three to ensure that we are receiving fresh perspectives and that the emphasis is on post-tenure work, especially when the time between promotion reviews is short. We have found that some repeat evaluators barely revise the letters they sent for previous reviews and it is best to minimize the risk of receiving such letters.

4. Informational Letters

It is also possible to seek additional letters that fall outside these conditions for particular purposes. For example, it is often helpful to request information from co-authors or other collaborators about divisions of labor and the candidate’s specific role and contribution to particular books, papers, grant applications, or other collaborative works. Such letters will be limited to this specific information, as opposed to an assessment of the candidate’s qualifications for tenure. These letters will be distinctly labeled to avoid confusing them with external evaluation letters. These letters will be formally solicited by the chair; a sample solicitation letter can be found in Appendix 1. Candidates must not solicit these letters directly.

5. Summary of Process for Soliciting External Evaluation Letters

a. The chair invites the candidate to suggest up to three appropriate evaluators. The candidate is not required to make suggestions. The chair should also invite candidates to identify potential reviewers with whom the candidate has particular conflicts of interest and therefore might be unable to provide an appropriately unbiased letter. The most likely source of such conflicts of interest would involve personal relationships. Differences of view about scholarly approach or methodology do not constitute conflicts of interest. The chair also ensures that the candidate understands what materials should be provided for the dossier and has sufficient time to compile the materials.

b. For tenure and promotion cases, the department submits a list of 20 potential external evaluators to the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator electronically, and for promotion to Professor cases the department submits a list of 12-15 potential external evaluators.

Chairs should consult with senior faculty in the department or with senior colleagues in cognate fields in other departments within CAS when coming up with the list of potential evaluators. It can also be helpful to consult with colleagues in the field at other institutions, but such consultation should be limited to scholars who would not otherwise be recommended as evaluators themselves. In the case of candidates with interdisciplinary portfolios of work, the chair(s)/director(s) of the other relevant department(s)/program(s) should be consulted. External evaluators should conform to the characteristics described in sections 1-3 of this chapter.

c. In consultation with the department chair, mentors and/or senior colleagues, the candidate compiles a dossier of materials to send to evaluators. The materials included in the dossier should provide evidence of the range, depth, and quality of the candidate’s work to assist the evaluators with their assessment and evaluation letters. This dossier will be sent to evaluators electronically (see section 5d of this chapter). The dossier includes:

• Electronic curriculum vitae (CV): This is the only version of the CV forwarded to evaluators. Especially in the case of candidates for tenure, the department chair or mentor should ensure that the candidate understands how to compile a complete a high-quality CV in the style appropriate for the discipline.

• Portfolio of 5-12 significant publications and papers: In the case of candidates for tenure this includes all significant scholarly books (other than edited volumes with the proviso below), articles, and chapters that are the basis on which the candidate’s scholarship should be judged. Especially in the case of fields that depend largely on the publication of books, candidates for tenure may also submit other significant papers or manuscripts that give external evaluators insights into projects in progress. Publications that are in substantial draft form may be included. In the case of candidates for promotion to Professor, the dossier should include only works that represent progress since the tenure review. Edited volumes are not forwarded to external evaluators unless there is a compelling reason to do so, but candidates may include copies of the title page, table of contents, and any introduction or chapters authored by the candidate. Candidates should consult with the department chair or mentor about what materials to include.

• Research and teaching statements: Candidates for tenure and promotion should submit brief (maximum 2 pp. each) research and teaching statements that provide an overview for external evaluators of their accomplishments, approach, key goals, and future. For promotion to Professor cases, candidates need only submit a research statement, but are welcome to include a teaching statement if they wish. Although evaluators will have access to the CV and the portfolio, the statements help provide context and a coherent overview of the candidate’s work.

d. Format for presenting the dossier to external evaluators:

• Create a WordPress website to house the candidate’s dossier other than books and manuscripts. The CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator is available to meet with department tenure and promotion coordinators to assist in creating these websites. Manuscripts should be printed and bound in preparation for sending to the external evaluators. Books and manuscripts will be sent to evaluators via USPS. Other materials will only be sent in hard copy if requested by an evaluator.

• CAS will reimburse the cost of purchasing up to 25 copies of each candidate’s books that are to be included in the dossier, purchased at the author’s discounted price through the publisher. It is recommended that for tenure and promotion dossiers 20 copies be purchased initially, and for promotion to Professor dossiers 15 copies be purchased. Of those, 3 copies of the candidate’s published book(s) and manuscripts will be used in the CAS and University review processes and will be returned to the candidate after completion of the review. Some publishers take a long time to process and ship orders, so please be sure to order books well in advance of the deadline for submission of the dossier for evaluators.

e. Once the evaluator list has been approved by CAS and the dossier to be sent to evaluators is complete, the Tenure and Promotion Coordinator writes to all evaluators on behalf of the Dean and the chair. Follow-up emails are sent to all evaluators who do not reply to the initial request one week after the initial contact and then again another week later, if necessary. A reminder is sent to all those who agreed to write two weeks before the deadline (sometimes more reminders are sent if requested by the evaluator). If the letter has not been received one week after the deadline has passed and there has been no prior indication from the evaluator that the letter would be late, a follow-up is sent in the Dean’s name. If there is no response to this message, a second follow-up is sent. This second follow-up email message can be sent by the chair directly, using a template that is approved by CAS Faculty Actions, available in Appendix 1.

B.    Soliciting Student Letters of Evaluation (to be completed before the end of the spring Semester)

Letters of evaluation from current and former students (both undergraduate and graduate) must not be solicited by the candidate, but rather should be solicited by the department and included in the dossier. They should represent students from different courses and teaching and mentoring situations. The letters do not need to duplicate the breadth of the course evaluations, which by their nature, reach out to all students for their feedback.  In contrast, the letters of evaluation from a select set of current and former students should represent views from different courses and also sustained teaching engagements and mentoring situations. It may also be appropriate to include letters from postdoctoral associates or other research staff reporting directly to the candidate. Candidates are encouraged to suggest students to be asked for letters, but in order to obtain a more objective reading of student opinions, the department should not rely only on students chosen by the candidate. All solicited letters that are received must be included. For promotion to Professor cases, student letters should be solicited no later than early in the spring semester so they will be available for consideration by the department later in the spring semester. For tenure cases, departments should solicit the letters before the end of the spring semester because it can be difficult to contact or get responses from students during the summer. Departments should aim to include 10-12 student letters.

C.    Developing a Portfolio of Peer Evaluation of Teaching

The department should arrange for periodic peer reviews of Assistant and Associate Professors throughout their time in that rank that involve direct peer observation of teaching. These should be done by colleagues recognized for their skilled teaching, but should not be done by the same individuals each time. Reviewers should first read the syllabus of the individual they are visiting, pick an appropriate date for the visit, and inform the candidate in advance. The reviewer should be present for the entire class and seek to be as unobtrusive as possible. The reviewer should write a summary and evaluative report as soon after the observation as possible, beginning with a description of the class and class session, and moving on to a detailed evaluation of the teaching and apparent learning, and concluding with specific suggestions for improvement. A full peer evaluation of teaching involves more than classroom observation; it also, for example, involves assessing the quality of course materials used in the session. The department should have a mechanism for providing feedback to the candidate in a timely way, due to the developmental aim of these reviews. The reports should be the basis for a discussion of goals and strategies for improvement.

Peer class observations should be completed by faculty higher in rank than the candidate. If no such faculty are available in the department, please consult the tenure and promotion coordinator.

Tenure and promotion dossiers should include at least six peer review reports, including any that were submitted as part of the Mid-Tenure review process. Promotion to Professor dossiers should include at least three peer review reports.