Review for initial appointment to Professor in the Practice
Professors in the practice will be distinguished practitioners who demonstrate eminence in the field, sustained accomplishment, and sustained activity in their area of practice. They will hold national or international reputations for their innovative and transformational contributions to their practice, through creative work, professional leadership, practice-centered publications, or other demonstrations of significant accomplishment. Exceptional contributions as a practitioner are the basis of evaluation. This appointment is not intended for those whose field of practice is primarily that of teaching or pedagogy. (Faculty Handbook, IV.I)
Conditions and Terms of Appointment
FAS appointments at this rank must be at least half-time. Terms can be for up to five years, with the possibility of reappointment in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. Initial appointment or promotion to this rank will require review by the appropriate Tenure and Appointments Committee and approval of the Yale Corporation.
Please expand or collapse the sections below as needed.
1. Candidate Notification
- If the candidate is internal to Yale, the department chair meets with the candidate to explain the process for the upcoming review.
- The department chair sends the candidate the template letter advising of the review and requesting the necessary materials, with a copy to email@example.com. The Materials Request Letter templates for internal and external candidates may be found in the Instructional (Non-Ladder) Appointments Document Library.
Regarding Fully Joint Appointments:
- In cases involving fully joint appointments, a single unit takes primary administrative responsibility for the search process. That unit should consult with the FAS Dean’s Office regarding the selection of templates and preparation of case materials.
- A fully joint appointment between the FAS and a professional school requires approval through the normal procedures of both the FAS and the professional school in which the appointment is proposed.
2. Initial Review Materials & Case Creation
- The department/program chair’s assistant (or equivalent) creates the Interfolio case for the review, and selects YES when asked the question of whether the candidate will be involved with the review. In the case, the chair’s assistant (or equivalent) then Sends the Case Forward to Notify the Candidate, so that the candidate may upload materials directly.
- The candidate provides the department chair with preliminary materials, which consist of electronic copies of a detailed CV, professional resume, or biography; names of up to three individuals who might serve as “arms-length” referees (persons, to the best of the department’s knowledge, who were or are not teachers/mentors/advisors or others who have a close personal relationship with the candidate); names of up to three individuals whom the candidate believes would not offer a fair assessment of their work; and a brief statement of professional and/or creative interests to help guide the department in its selection of review committee members and referees.
- The department chair and chair’s assistant (or equivalent) schedule a TAC review date by emailing Pam Bosward at firstname.lastname@example.org.
3. Departmental Committee Selection
- The department/program chair selects a departmental faculty review committee, typically composed of three faculty members drawn from the pool of full professors and professors in the practice.
- The department/program chair’s assistant (or equivalent) adds the review committee onto the Department Review Committee step in Interfolio, by adding an ad hoc committee, and adding the faculty members one by one into the committee.
- The department/program chair’s assistant (or equivalent) adds the eligible voting faculty onto the Eligible Voting Faculty step in Interfolio, by adding a standing committee. In order to edit the members of a standing committee, the chair’ assistant should click on Users and Groups under Cases in the left-hand column to maintain their faculty lists by rank.
- Note: the department/program chair’s assistant (or equivalent) may add the department review committee (as an ad hoc committee) or dept chair (as an individual user) onto any step of the case if desired.
4. Referee/Evaluator Selection and Approval
- The FAS Dean and chair of the divisional/area Advisory Committee work with the chair(s) of the appointing department(s) and departmental review committee(s) to choose experts in the candidate’s field(s) to serve as external referees/evaluators.
- The department/program chair (supported by the chair’s assistant or equivalent) prepares an alphabetized list of proposed referees/evaluators and comparators, following the Referee/Evaluator and Comparator Information List Guidelines for Professor in the Practice. Referees/evaluators will be asked to assess whether the candidate meets the criteria for the rank and will also be asked to make explicit comparisons between the candidate and a list of three or more leading practitioners in their discipline(s) at a range of career stages. Five (5) referee/evaluator letters are required (though see the next bullet), and at least three must come from referees/evaluators who have not previously written for the candidate for an appointment at Yale. Ideally, all will hold an “arm’s-length” relation to the candidate (that is, will not have served as the candidate’s teacher, mentor, or research or other collaborator, and will not have a conflict of interest). Please refer to the Guidelines for Arm’s-Length and Fresh Statuses of External Referees/Evaluators for Professor in the Practice.
- In some fields, traditional referee letters may not be a conventional form of professional evaluation. In such cases, five examples of the following are permitted: published reviews or other forms of journalistic criticism, committee or jury reports with appropriate clearance, formal critiques, or other modes of field-specific critical evaluation.
- The department chair proposes the list of external referees and comparators. This proposal is sent to relevant divisional dean, with a copy to email@example.com.
- The divisional dean works with the department chair to approve the lists for referees and comparators. The approval email sent from the divisional dean to the department chair includes a copy to firstname.lastname@example.org and Pam Bosward at email@example.com.
5. Evaluation Solicitation
- The department/program chair (supported by the chair’s assistant or equivalent) prepares two template letters when contacting referees/evaluators, the first to request that they review and submit a letter (the Referee/Evaluator Request Email for Professor in the Practice), and the second after they have confirmed their participation to give them more information on what is expected (the Referee/Evaluator Instructions Letter). Please ensure a deadline date of at least two weeks prior to the Department Faculty Vote date to allow for review.
- The department/program chair (supported by the chair’s assistant or equivalent) submits both template letters to firstname.lastname@example.org with a copy to Jason Zentz at email@example.com for approval.
- An approval email is sent from the FAS Dean’s Office to the department/program chair and chair’s assistant (or equivalent).
- The department/program chair (supported by the chair’s assistant or equivalent) sends the Referee/Evaluator Request Email to the referees as early as possible after receiving template letter approval.
- Chair’s assistants track all referee/evaluator responses for submission according to the TAC Checklist below (i.e. the Referee Response Form and the Referee Preliminary Correspondence), and send reminder emails to potential referees/evaluators who have not responded.
6. Dossier Submission
- The department/program works with the candidate to collect the candidate’s dossier, which includes their CV/resume/bio, service/teaching/practice statements, and representative work. Please refer to the materials submission deadline in the Materials Request Letter. The candidate should upload their dossier directly into Interfolio.
- The chair’s assistant (or equivalent) checks that these materials fall within the required word/page counts as described on the TAC Checklist and requests revisions when necessary.
7. Dossier Transmission to Referees
- After the candidate’s dossier is complete and ready to share, the department/program chair (supported by the chair’s assistant or equivalent) sends the Referee/Evaluator Instructions Letter to referees who have agreed to evaluate the candidate.
- The Referee/Evaluator Instructions Letter should be sent through Interfolio to those referees/evaluators who have agreed to provide a letter or otherwise evaluate the candidate.
- When doing so, the referees/evaluators will only be able to access the case materials if they are added to the request message. Please click the grey File – Add button below the message body text to attach candidate materials. In addition to the candidate’s professional resume, biography, or CV and dossier, referees/evaluators should receive access to the candidate’s service, teaching, and practice statements. To ensure confidentiality, the referees will only be able to view what the administrator attaches to the evaluation request in Interfolio; they will not have access to the full case.
- The chair’s assistant (or equivalent) sends reminder messages via email 2 weeks and 1 week before the final referee/evaluator letter or other evaluation deadline to those who have agreed to but not yet submitted an evaluation.
NOTE: Remember that all recommendation letters, referee letters, or other forms of candidate evaluation should be held in the strictest confidence. Only those faculty members who are allowed to vote on a candidate’s case have permission to view these materials (see the Faculty Handbook Section IV.F.1 for voting policy). The only document that may be shared with those not directly involved with a faculty search, appointment, or promotion is the candidate’s professional resume, biography, or CV.
8. Departmental Review
- The department faculty review the file (including the candidate’s dossier and outside letters or other forms of evaluation) and vote on the appointment. An affirmative vote by the department is required for the case to move forward in the review process. The chair’s assistant (or equivalent) is responsible for submitting the results via the Department Faculty Vote Form to the Interfolio case, and forwarding the case to FAS Dean – Dept Vote (Results) using the instructions above.
- In a fully joint case, an affirmative vote is required by both departments to proceed. Departments must meet to vote separately, and each submit a Department Faculty Vote Form.
- Departmental votes ordinarily take place after all letters or other forms of evaluation have been received from confirmed referees/evaluators; however, if there are outstanding letters or other forms of evaluation, the departmental vote may take place at least one week after the latest deadline provided to any referees/evaluators. There should be at least a four-week window between the departmental vote date and the TAC review date.
9. TAC Case Preparation
- Chair’s assistants (or equivalent) are responsible for completing the TAC Checklist materials in Interfolio prior to the TAC review. Departments should use Interfolio as well for the departmental review process. Please do not print and save old versions of TAC checklists or forms; always refer to the latest versions of all policies, procedures, and documents as found on https://fas.yale.edu/.
- The case must be complete in Interfolio (that is, all the documents in the checklist must be uploaded and steps 1-5 must be complete) THREE WEEKS in advance of the Tenure and Appointments Committee (TAC) meeting.
- STEP 1: Upload (use the Add File button) the Department Faculty Vote Form. *Note: Please eliminate the instructional pages and only upload the final page, which is the vote form. Before sending the case forward, set the Access properties to Administrator Only for this Department Vote document. To set access, click on the square to the left of the document, and a green bar at the top will appear. Click on Settings, and scroll down to select the access level. Now, click Send Forward to the FAS Dean (Dept Vote - Results). Please keep the message checkbox checked to trigger a notification when the case is moved forward. This step starts the process of the TAC review (or ends it if the department vote is no).
- STEP 2: Please continue to upload the required materials from the appropriate TAC checklist while at the step FAS Dean (Dept Vote - Results). Be sure to label each document according to the header of each TAC checklist item whenever possible (candidate uploaded documents can be left named as is if unable to edit). After the Department Faculty Vote Form is reviewed, the FAS Dean’s Office will move the case forward into your Dept. Chair and Chair’s Assistant review step so you and your department chair can view the packet once again before it gets sent to OFAS.
- STEP 3: Verify that the packet is complete – click the Read button to view the packet and check that all documents are uploaded and are legible. For the materials on the TAC Checklist (with the exception of the Department Faculty Vote Form), set the Access property to Administrator & Entire Committee. Please set all other documents to Administrator only, including the Department Faculty Vote Form. Now Send Forward to OFAS.
- STEP 4: At least three weeks prior to the TAC meeting (or as soon as possible), provide any scholarship (e.g., book, article, or manuscript) that is not available electronically that the department would like to make available to TAC members in advance of the meeting where the case will be discussed. Deliver these items to the Assistant Director of Faculty Affairs in the FAS Dean’s Office.
10. TAC Checklist - Professor in the Practice
Please do not print and save old versions of TAC checklists or forms; always refer to the latest versions of all policies, procedures, and documents as found on https://fas.yale.edu/.
For external appointments to Professor in the Practice: as you prepare the Interfolio case materials on the checklist, please begin preparing the Faculty Search Questionnaire (FSQ). No offer can be extended until the FSQ is completed and has received final approval.
Required materials to be uploaded to Interfolio:
- Please upload documents into the case sections shown below. No other sections should be added to any cases. Note: any materials uploaded by the candidate to Candidate Documents are not able to be moved to any other section and should remain as is.
- Please save documents electronically as Adobe PDF, rather than scan hard copies to PDF.
- Please use the standardized names given in bold below. If there are multiple items with the same name, append a number at the end.
- Materials that are for departmental review that are not going to the TAC (i.e., any items not on the list below) should be set to Administrators Only access (click on the checkbox to the left of the item, then settings in the green top toolbar, and scroll down to Administrators Only).
- Materials Request Letter
The template letter advising the candidate of the review and requesting the necessary materials. Please set the security setting to Administrator Only access.
- Department Survey of Field (for external candidates only)
A narrative account of the department’s survey of the field in the initial stages of its search. The statement should detail the department’s broad efforts to identify superb potential candidates and diversify the department and the University.
- Department Case Summary
Use the form provided here.
- Candidate CV, Professional Resume, or Biography ([Name], [Date of Last Revision])
The candidate’s current CV, professional resume, or biography conforming (for external candidates, to the extent possible) to the guidelines specified in the [materials request letter sent to the candidate](internal link: TBD). This document should be the same version that was sent to the referees.
NOTE: For the Service, Teaching, and Practice statements, be sure each statement conforms to the word counts listed. Statements submitted over the word counts should be returned to the candidate for editing prior to the materials being sent to the department review committees.
- Candidate Service Statement
A statement of 250–500 words describing the candidate’s most significant contributions, both formal and informal as reflected in, as applicable, departmental, university, and/or professional service and citizenship
- Candidate Teaching Statement
A statement of 500–750 words describing the candidate’s approach to teaching, advising, and mentoring
- Candidate Practice Statement
A statement of 750–1000 words describing the candidate’s published, produced, performed, created, or other professional representations of their work as well as their future plans
- Principal Modes of Presentation of Work
Please describe the principal modes of publication, production, performance, creation, or professional representation in the candidate’s general area(s) of practice, which will help inform those evaluating the case about the relevant context. Publications, venues, or modes of dissemination or presentation that are emblematic of the best work in the relevant field(s) should be brought to the committee’s attention. (If it is customary in the candidate’s field(s) to present citation information as a way of documenting a publication’s or venue’s prestige and influence, please include that information in the list.) For practitioners of the arts or in emerging, interdisciplinary, or less published fields of study or practice, please describe the principal modes of how research or inquiry is typically conducted and shared with others in the field, as well as a wider audience. This document should be tailored to the candidate’s general area(s) of study, inquiry, or practice but not to the candidate; that is, it should not highlight or evaluate the candidate’s actual history of publication, production, performance, creation, or professional representation.
- Cover Sheet
A cover sheet providing detailed descriptions of each example or excerpt including, as appropriate, page numbers, timing tracking, etc. Examples or excerpts should be numbered.
- Examples or Excerpts of Work
A set of three (3) to five (5) selected examples or excerpts of the candidate’s work that will be reviewed by the entire TAC. These are usually published, produced, performed, created, or other professional representations of work and they should help the committee grasp the range and significance of the candidate’s professional output. Upload each example or excerpt as a separate document or file enumerated 1, 2, 3, etc. These numbers should match the order on the Cover Sheet. Please consult with the FAS Dean’s Office if these examples or excerpts require special consideration in terms of scale, volume, or format.
- Template Letters*
Two template letters: (a) the initial email to potential referees/evaluators asking them to evaluate the candidate, and (b) the follow-up email, which includes the detailed instructions for the review, sent to external scholars, researchers, or practitioners after they have agreed to serve as referees/evaluators. Both letters should be uploaded as one document. It is sufficient to provide only one example of each of the two template letters. Initial referee/evaluator request emails should not be sent through Interfolio, but the follow-up referee instructions letter should be sent through Interfolio to those referees/evaluators who have agreed to write.
- Referee/Evaluator Response Form*
Use the form provided here. Note: The candidate’s suggestion, arm’s-length, and fresh columns must be completed for ALL referees/evaluators, including those who declined or did not provide a letter or other form of evaluation.
- Referee/Evaluator Bio List*
An alphabetized and annotated list of referees/evaluators who were approved by the divisional dean and the FAS Dean’s Office and were asked for letters or other forms of evaluation. After the name, indicate in bold whether the scholar, researcher, or practitioner declined (“declined”), provided a letter or other form of evaluation (“letter”), or agreed but did not provide a letter or other form of evaluation (“agreed but no letter”). The material describing each referee/evaluator should include all of the information described in the Referee/Evaluator and Comparator Information List Guidelines for Professor in the Practice.
- Comparison List
An alphabetized and annotated list of four comparison practitioners - three comparators within about five years of the candidate’s entrance into the profession or of the candidate’s terminal degree year, and an additional aspirational comparator (approved by the divisional dean and the FAS Dean’s Office) - with summaries of their current position, educational background, and professional accomplishments that qualify them as comparison candidates. The material describing each comparator should include all of the information described in the Referee/Evaluator and Comparator Information List Guidelines for Professor in the Practice.
- Referee/Evaluator Preliminary Correspondence*
All preliminary correspondence seeking references (requests and responses), including those from potential referees who declined. Please use the Referee/Evaluator Preliminary Correspondence Template to track and submit all responses. The primary purpose is to collect affirmative responses, declinations, and if declined, the reason for the declination. Please include all correspondence with all referees/evaluators, beginning with their first reply.
- Department Faculty Vote Form
Use the vote form provided here. Please set the security setting in Interfolio to Administrator Only access.
- Evaluation - [Referee/Evaluator Last Name]*
All referee letters or other forms of evaluation received, organized alphabetically by referee/evaluator surname – uploaded as separate documents. Five (5) letters or other forms of evaluation from referees/evaluators are required, and at least three (3) of the letters or other forms of evaluation must be “fresh” (that is, they must come from referees/evaluators who have not previously written for the candidate for an appointment or promotion at Yale). Ideally, all referees/evaluators will hold an “arm’s-length” relation to the candidate (that is, will not have served as the candidate’s teacher, mentor, or research collaborator, and will not have a conflict of interest). The requester should ask that letters or other forms of evaluation be in English whenever possible. Letters or other forms of evaluation submitted in other languages should be sent to the divisional dean for translation, with a copy to firstname.lastname@example.org. After receiving the translation from the FAS Dean’s Office, combine the translation and original language letter into one PDF document, with the English translation first.
- Courses Taught at Yale (only for internal candidates)
A list of all courses taught at Yale with number of instructors and size of enrollments. Chairs’ assistants may retrieve these through Tableau’s Faculty Course Information report, which requires authentication with NetID and password. Click the Semester dropdown on the right, make sure that “All” is checked, click “Apply,” wait for the report to run, and click out of the dropdown. Click the Faculty Member dropdown, click the box next to “All” to uncheck everyone, type in part or all of the faculty member’s last name, and click the box next to the faculty member’s name to check it. Click Download in the upper right corner and click PDF. Leave all the settings intact, and click the green Download button. Upload the downloaded PDF into Interfolio with the naming convention [LastName]_[Courses Taught at Yale].
- Course Evaluations (only for candidates who have taught at Yale)
Course evaluations for the eight (8) most recent semesters (excluding summer terms) for which evaluations are available. Chairs’ assistants may retrieve these through the OCE Faculty Dashboard, where they should select the OCE TAC Report on the top right hand corner of the page, type in the candidate’s name in the Instructor field, wait for the Term box to be filled in (it automatically selects the most recent fall/spring terms, up to 8), and click Search. For each course in the list, click the course number link, save that course’s evaluations page as a PDF with the naming convention [LastName]_[CourseNumber]_[Semester] [Year] (example: Jones_PLSC 100_Spring 2017), and upload each evaluation separately to Interfolio in reverse chronological order, with the most recent semester first. If a chair’s assistant does not have access to the Dashboard, the department chair should contact the Registrar’s Office at email@example.com to request access for the chair’s assistant.
*NOTE: In some fields, traditional referee letters may not be a conventional form of professional evaluation. In such cases, five examples of the following are permitted: published reviews or other forms of journalistic criticism, committee or jury reports with appropriate clearance, formal critiques, or other modes of field-specific critical evaluation. The chair should consult as needed with the divisional dean.
11. TAC Review
- If the departmental vote is positive, the chair presents the case to the relevant Tenure and Appointments Committee (TAC), consisting of the Dean of the FAS, the chair of the relevant area committee, several faculty members from the candidate’s area (Humanities; Social Sciences; Biological Sciences; or Physical Sciences and Engineering), and a faculty member from another area. In Engineering cases, the Dean of SEAS also sits on the committee; in Biological Sciences cases, the Dean of the School of Medicine also sits on the committee.
- If the TAC approves the case, the appointment moves on to the Fellows of the Yale Corporation.
- After an affirmative vote from the TAC, the FAS Dean’s Office will submit the offer or promotion letter to the candidate, with a copy to departmental chairs and staff.
- For initial (external) appointments, department administrators (chair’s assistant or equivalent) as well as search/department/program chairs are responsible for completing and submitting the Faculty Search Questionnaire.
- Department administrators (chair’s assistant or equivalent) are responsible for processing all appointments, reappointments, and promotions in Workday as soon as possible after receiving the appropriate letter from the FAS Dean’s Office, which serves as the supporting documentation. Please refer to the FAS Chart of Required Documents for submission of supporting documents to firstname.lastname@example.org, which lists several links to Workday training guides.