Approved Sample Letter

FOR INTERNAL TENURE-TRACK CANDIDATES BEING CONSIDERED FOR

REAPPOINTMENT WITHOUT TENURE

(if used)

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear ______:

Dr. ______, now an untenured but tenure-track assistant/associate professor of ______at Duke, is going to be reviewed this year by both our department/program and the School of for reappointment to a second term as assistant/associate professor without tenure. We would be most grateful if you could help us by evaluating Dr. ______'s scholarly achievements. We are providing his/her curriculum vitae, the candidate's intellectual development statement, reprints of publications,
and a few items of work in progress.

Although this review is not for tenure, we hope at this time to compare Dr. ______'s scholarship with that of top scholars at a similar stage of their careers. In this review, we are looking for clear indications that the candidate's performance as scholar and teacher shows not only a high current level of achievement but also the promise to become widely perceived as outstanding. In making your evaluation of his/her accomplishments, please comment upon the following:

1.  Your relationship to the candidate.

2.  The strengths and weaknesses of his/her scholarship, the degree of independence from graduate school mentors, and level of recognition achieved within his/her discipline,. Also, how would you describe the scope, significance and breadth of his/her research interests and activities as they have made original or otherwise significant contributions to the subfield and to the discipline to date?

3.  Dr. ______'s achievements and stature compared to the best scholars in his/her discipline and field who are at similar stages in their careers. In particular, which individuals are viewed as being the top scholars in his/her peer group, and where would you rank this candidate within that cohort?

4.  To assist the review process at the university-wide level, where the dossier will be evaluated by scholars who may not be familiar with this particular field of research, we have been asked to request from you the names of several other experts who would be qualified to provide an objective evaluation. Specifically, who else do you believe would provide the most illuminating and comprehensive evaluation of candidates in this subfield? Who else would be best qualified to evaluate how Dr. ______'s research accomplishments contribute to intellectual issues within the wider field? Within the discipline?

5.  Based on your knowledge of his/her work and the enclosed information, does Dr. _____ appear to be on a tenure vector? How likely is it that Dr. ______would be a strong candidate for reappointment in your university? Would you support such a recommendation?

We also would welcome any additional insights that may be helpful to the department's faculty committee, the dean, and the provost in determining whether or not to renew Dr. ______'s appointment without tenure.

We would appreciate receiving a reply by ______if at all possible. Thank you in advance for taking the time to do this. Your response will be maintained in confidence as stipulated in the enclosed University policy. It is very important to the integrity of our process
that this request be kept confidential.

Sincerely yours,

Department Chair

or Review Committee Chair

Enclosures

(Confidentiality Policy)

(Curriculum Vitae)

(Candidate's Intellectual Development Statement)

(Publications)