Reappointment for Tenure-Track Faculty

Overview

When untenured, tenure-track faculty members (Assistant Professors and untenured Associate Professors) are hired at Lehigh, they are hired for (typically) a three-year initial appointment. In the last year of that appointment (i.e., typically in their third year), the faculty member undergoes a reappointment review to determine whether they will be appointed for a second (typically three-year) period. 

The reappointment review involves input from the tenured members of the candidate’s department, the Department Chair, and the college Dean, as well as a decision by the Provost.

For Department Chairs and other colleagues, the focus should be on providing constructive feedback toward the goal of tenure. The feedback can note gaps in the faculty member’s record to date, but should be presented as constructive rather than punitive. (See Guidance for Department Chairs and Guidance for Internal Faculty Evaluators.) 

The Process

Who Undergoes a Reappointment Review, and When?

Per R&P §2.2.4.1, all untenured faculty members are reviewed every year. During year 3 (by default), this is the reappointment review. During year 6 (by default), this is the tenure review. (This timing may change for various reasons, such as tenure-clock extensions.) During other years, an annual review is conducted.  

How Does the Reappointment Review Process Work?

The reappointment review process begins in the Fall semester for most faculty members, but can begin in the Spring semester if, for example, a faculty member’s start date was in the Spring semester. (See Which Review Cycle Am I On?)

Early in the semester, the Department Chair meets individually with each untenured faculty member who will have a reappointment review, and advises them that the reappointment review will take place. The Chair and the faculty member discuss the materials to be included as part of the reappointment review file. A reappointment review dossier looks much like a tenure dossier. (See Faculty Candidate List of Materials, below.) Many faculty members think of their annual review and reappointment review dossiers as a gradual way to build toward their tenure dossier.

The faculty member supplies most of these materials, but the Chair may also supply materials to be included. If they do, those materials are shared with the faculty member, who has a right to include written comments regarding those materials in the review file. 

The faculty member uploads their reappointment review materials to Interfolio. The deadline for doing so is typically around September 15 for Fall-cycle reviews and January 15 for Spring-cycle reviews. (See Reappointment Review Schedule below for the schedule for the current academic year.)

Next, the Department Chair shares (via Interfolio) the reappointment review file with the faculty involved in the review process. This is typically the tenured faculty members in the department, but may differ, e.g., for small departments or for faculty with joint appointments. The Department Chair meets with the faculty involved in the review to discuss the untenured faculty member’s dossier and their progress toward tenure.

Each faculty member involved in the review process votes on the candidate’s reappointment and writes a letter, addressed to the Department Chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits reappointment, specifically addressing research and scholarship, teaching, and service. Faculty members record their votes in Interfolio and email their letters to the Department Chair. The Department Chair also votes, and writes an individual letter.

The Chair then summarizes the faculty’s evaluation in a separate letter, addressed to the Dean. The Chair provides their summary letter to the candidate. (R&P does not specifically require that the Chair meet with the candidate to discuss the letter, but in practice, most Chairs do.) The Chair may not disclose the statements or opinions of individual evaluators. The candidate either responds in writing to this letter or submits a declination to respond. 

The Chair then forwards the dossier to the Dean. The deadline for doing so is typically around November 15 for Fall-cycle reviews and March 15 for Spring-cycle reviews. The Dean reviews the dossier and makes their own recommendation regarding reappointment. 

If the Dean disagrees with the department recommendation, the Dean meets with the department members who participated in the reappointment review. The purpose of this meeting is to give the Dean an opportunity to clarify their understanding of the departmental recommendation and to have a two-way conversation with the department faculty about what the Dean and department see as key differences.

The Dean then writes a letter, addressed to the Provost, indicating their recommendation and summarizing their reasons for making the recommendation. The candidate receives a copy of this letter and either responds in writing to it or submits a declination to respond. 

Copies of both letters (the Department Chair’s summary letter and the Dean’s letter) and the candidate’s written responses (or declinations to respond) to them become part of the reappointment review file. 

The Dean then forwards the dossier to the Provost. The deadline for doing so is typically around January 1 for Fall-cycle reviews and May 1 for Spring-cycle reviews. The Provost reviews the dossier and makes a decision regarding reappointment. 

If the Provost disagrees with the department recommendation, the Provost meets with the department members who participated in the reappointment review; the Dean attends this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to give the Provost an opportunity to clarify their understanding of the departmental recommendation and to have a two-way conversation with the department faculty about what the Provost and department see as key differences.

The Provost then writes a letter to the candidate informing them of their decision. This is typically done by June 15 for Fall-cycle reviews and August 1 for Spring-cycle reviews. The Provost informs the Board of Trustees of their decision, but the Board of Trustees does not have a formal decision-making role in the process.

Faculty with Joint Appointments

If a faculty member’s MOU specifies a special committee, the special committee participates in all of the meetings of the home department in which the candidate’s portfolio is discussed. 

The procedure is slightly different for faculty with type-1 and type-2 joint appointments, the primary difference being that for type-1, the special committee acts more like an autonomous unit, with voting and a summary letter, whereas for type-2, the special committee acts more like an advisory body to the home department.

In particular, for faculty with type-1 joint appointments:

• The members of the special committee write individual letters, addressed to the special committee chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits reappointment, specifically addressing research and scholarship, teaching, and service. Special committee members record their votes in Interfolio and email their letters to the special committee chair. The special committee chair also votes, and writes an individual letter.
• The special committee chair summarizes the special committee’s evaluation in a separate letter, addressed to the Dean. The special committee chair forwards the summary letter and the individual letters to the Chair of the home department.
• The Chair of the home department shares the special committee summary letter with the candidate at the same time as they share the department summary letter. The candidate writes a response to both letters, or a declination to do so.
• Individual letters from the home department are not shared with the special committee members, and vice versa. (However, the Chair of the home department has access to all of the individual letters.)

For faculty with type-2 joint appointments:

• The members of the special committee write individual letters, addressed to the special department chair, expressing their opinion about whether the candidate merits reappointment, specifically addressing research and scholarship, teaching, and service. The special committee chair also writes such a letter. There is no vote by the special committee. If the MOU specifies that no special committee is to be used, the Chair/Director of the secondary unit provides a letter to the Chair of the home department.
• The members of the home department who are participating in the review receive copies of the special committee individual letters and/or Chair/Director’s letter, and take into account the evaluations in these letters when writing their own individual letters. 
• The summary letter written by the Chair of the home department includes views by both the department members and the special committee or Chair/Director. Members of both the department and the special committee provide feedback on the Chair’s summary letter before it is finalized. 

Materials to Be Submitted

The Office of the Provost requires certain elements to be included in the faculty dossier for reappointment review. Individual colleges may require additional materials; candidates and Department Chairs should consult with their Dean’s office regarding any additional requirements.

Faculty Candidate Materials

CV and Statements

• Curriculum vitae (CV), using the Lehigh CV template.

• Statements on teaching, research, and service, including the significance and impact of the candidate’s own contributions in each of these areas. See the Dossier Materials page for further guidance. Statements may be uploaded as one document or three. Maximum 10 pages for the three statements combined.

Teaching

• Student course evaluation tabular listing. This is provided upon request by the Office of Institutional Data. The listing should include summary reports for all courses the candidate has taught at Lehigh. 
• Student course evaluations. These are available for download at https://go.lehigh.edu/evalkit. Include evaluations from all courses taught at Lehigh.
• Sample course materials (syllabi, tests, assignments, etc.) and any other supporting materials (commendations, student letters, etc.). Maximum 30 pages.

Previous Review Letters

• Annual review summary letters. Include all summary letters since hire.

Joint Appointment Information

(Only for faculty with joint appointments.)

• Memorandum of understanding (MOU). 

COVID Impact Statement

• COVID impact statement. Optional. Maximum 2 pages.

Department Chair Materials

Department Evaluation

• Department faculty individual letters.
• Department summary letter. Department Chair’s summary of department review, addressed to the Dean.
• Candidate’s response to department summary letter, or declination to respond.

Joint Appointment Information

(Only for faculty with joint appointments.)

• Program director letter or special committee summary letter.
• Candidate’s response to program or special committee summary letter, or declination to respond.

College Dean Materials

• Dean’s recommendation letter. Addressed to the Provost, shared with the candidate.
• Candidate’s response to Dean’s letter, or declination to respond.

Reappointment Review Schedule 

The Provost’s office publishes the schedules below each year for each step in the reappointment review process, in order to accommodate the deadline to submit the dossier to the Provost’s Office (December 15 for Fall-cycle reviews, April 1 for Spring-cycle reviews). The Department Chair and/or Dean’s office should inform the candidate and the Provost’s Office about any concerns in meeting the deadline.

The schedules listed below are for the current academic year. Schedules may change from year to year, but the dates are likely to be similar to the current year. See Which Review Cycle Am I On? below to determine whether a given candidate uses Fall- or Spring-cycle reviews.

Confirming Candidates for Review

 

The Review Process

The Provost expects quality checks at each level to ensure that all documents are included in Interfolio to avoid having to send the dossier back for corrections. College-Level Administrators (CLADs) are responsible for completing a full review of the online dossier to ensure that all letters and other materials are uploaded to Interfolio before submitting the dossier to the Dean.

Which Review Cycle Am I On?

If your start date at Lehigh was during the summer, you have a Fall-cycle reappointment review. If your start date was in January, you have a Spring-cycle reappointment review. 

Your review cycle is different for different types of reviews. In particular:

The information above may change if, for example, you take a tenure-clock extension. 

If your start date was not during the summer or January, or if you have any other questions about which cycle you fall under, consult your Department Chair or Associate Dean for Faculty.

Relevant Sections of R&P

• 2.2.7 Reappointment of Tenure Track Faculty
• 2.2.3.1.6 Reappointment [for faculty with joint appointments]

Additional Documents

• Interfolio login page
• Interfolio at Lehigh
• Lehigh CV template

Notes

• This overview is intended to supplement the information contained in Lehigh’s Rules and Procedures of the Faculty (R&P). If there is a discrepancy between the guidance on this page and R&P, the provisions of R&P govern.
• Feel free to contact your Department Chair, Associate Dean for Faculty, the Deputy Provost for Faculty Affairs, or the Director of Faculty Affairs with any questions or concerns.