Identifying external letter writers for tenure

[Sun_Worshiper]

I'm looking for advice on identifying external letter writers for tenure. 

For context, I'll submit my file in about a year, at an R1 (mid-tier).  I'm supposed to provide a list of possible writers for my Chair.  I have a good publication record, but I don't have much of a network - my advisor is out of the picture and I'm not great at networking. 

Given my lack of network and my general ignorance about how to select writers, I'm at a loss.  Do I pick big names in my research area?  People I cite?  People my research findings agree with?  I've looked at some articles online (e.g. Professor Is In) and asked my Chair for general advice, but I'm still looking for guidance.... Any suggestions from the board as I start drawing up a list?

[arcturus]

First and foremost, you want people who will write a positive evaluation of your work. If you have not networked, it may be more risky as to whether the people you put on your list are capable of writing good letters, but you can still identify those that are most likely to say positive things. Look at who is citing your work (verify that they are citing in a positive manner, of course!).  Selecting those whose work you cite is also possible, but you do not know if they have read your work and have a positive view, so selecting those that are citing you is a better approach. Also, as a general rule, select those that are full professors at comparable or better institutions. Depending on your institution's culture, selecting one or more "big names" may or may not be a requirement. Know, however, that beyond the department level, only the letterhead of the letter writer will indicate their status. It is better to get letters from those that can write glowing and knowledgeable statements than a terse letter from someone at the top institution in your field. Also, a common question to the letter writer is "would this individual be granted tenure and promotion at your institution." Most folks at the top schools are sufficiently savvy not to answer that question when evaluating candidates at lower tier schools, but you want to be careful about that if you are at a middle-tier R1.

[Liquidambar]

Try asking other colleagues for advice too in case your school has its own peculiarities.  For example, a couple things arcturus says are generally good advice but not as relevant to my own school.  (E.g., our tenure package includes CVs of external letter writers, which we can't see but committees and administrators do, so prestige of the person could matter, not just prestige of their institution.  And we don't ask the "would this person get tenure at your institution" question, although some writers take it upon themselves to answer it anyway.)

My list was mostly people who were prominent in my subfield, who had attended my talks at conferences, and who were friendly with my former mentors.  That way they had some familiarity with my work, and I knew they were decent people.

Try to list some people at a similar type of school so they can put your work in context for the type of school you're at.  (For example, if you were at a SLAC I'd suggest that some of your list be people from SLACs.)  You probably want a mix of comparable schools and more prestigious schools.

[arcturus]

[...] our tenure package includes CVs of external letter writers, which we can't see but committees and administrators do, so prestige of the person could matter, not just prestige of their institution.  And we don't ask the "would this person get tenure at your institution" question, although some writers take it upon themselves to answer it anyway. [...]

The differences between schools are always interesting. I have never been asked to provide a CV when requested to write these letters. And almost all schools for whom I have written (as is also the case at my own school) asked the "would the person get tenure at your school" question. This just emphasizes the need to learn about your local culture even while inquirying about the norm at other schools. If you are at a public R1 you might be able to see the example letter sent to external letter writers. Ours is very formulaic, with little regard to the differences in the various fields. Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about the specific questions asked, since we all know how well faculty are able to follow instructions. Your letter writers will write whatever they think is important and relevant, regardless.

[teach_write_research]

Ask research-peers who in your field wrote for them - they'll have examples of who to ask and who to avoid.

Journal editors who you have reviewed for are usually good people to list. You were selected as a reviewer based on your research expertise and they could put it in context. You've also seen the action letters they write and so you can select based on that.

It can definitely be a stressful process.

[Cheerful]

Review your conference presentations over the years and consider any discussants who were kind and complimentary when discussing your work, kind panelists, kind panel chairs.  All must be tenured. 

People you've cited and whose work you admire.

People who've published in journals where your work has appeared.

Most fields have some meanies and weirdos.  Don't list those people.  List kind people.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Thanks for the advice everyone.  I really appreciate it!

Most fields have some meanies and weirdos.  Don't list those people.  List kind people.

Yes these are the folks I'm hoping to avoid.

[Beebee]

All of the above.

You can also ask other junior-ish faculty in your sub-field who are well-connected about advice; they cannot be letter writers themselves but may have an idea who would be a good person. Each person you talk to may have more insight into the "meanies" out there and who to avoid.

My chair advised me to not include the most obvious names, because the department also comes up with names - so if you think they will come up with a name, leave it to them to "discover". This depends on your procedures and your department itself though.

Good luck!

[Dr_Badger]

I'd like to share how I did approached this without suggesting that my way is the best way for you. 

I did not network very much when I was on the tenure track. I did publish a fair amount. The list of names of prospective tenure reviewers that I supplied to my department was as follows:

-- editor of top-tier journal in my field in which I had published
-- editor of another top-tier journal for which I was guest editing a special issue
-- editor of major book series in my field
-- president of professional association in my field
-- author of an important book related to my work

My department selected three people from this list, none of whom I had ever met in person. My tenure review progressed smoothly to a good outcome. Plus, one tenure reviewer contacted me after the process concluded to congratulate me and ask whether I'd be interested in collaborating. We're now editing a volume together.

Every tenure case is unique, and I'm sure the degree to which networking matters depends on field and department. I'm just posting this to offer *one* example of what the list might look like when one is introverted and has not spent very much time working the room. 

[quasihumanist]

All of the above.

You can also ask other junior-ish faculty in your sub-field who are well-connected about advice; they cannot be letter writers themselves but may have an idea who would be a good person. Each person you talk to may have more insight into the "meanies" out there and who to avoid.

My chair advised me to not include the most obvious names, because the department also comes up with names - so if you think they will come up with a name, leave it to them to "discover". This depends on your procedures and your department itself though.

Good luck!

This.

There were two people I listed whom I didn't know personally, but I was collaborating with their (former) PhD students.

Also, people who have served stints as chair of their departments and weren't disastrous (and, at least in my field, rumors of disastrous departments tend to get around) are usually good choices.

[inframarginal_externality]

I would check if your University has rules or suggestions for who should be a letter writer. I was very concerned to learn that it is strongly suggested at my institution that letter writers be on our list of peer and aspirational institutions AND be from departments that have a PhD program AND be full professors. About half of the departments on the list did not have a PhD program in my field and of those that did, only 75% had my subfield. Two of those departments had no full professors in my subfield. Basically, this left me with zero choice.

[bento]

I would check if your University has rules or suggestions for who should be a letter writer. I was very concerned to learn that it is strongly suggested at my institution that letter writers be on our list of peer and aspirational institutions AND be from departments that have a PhD program AND be full professors. About half of the departments on the list did not have a PhD program in my field and of those that did, only 75% had my subfield. Two of those departments had no full professors in my subfield. Basically, this left me with zero choice.

This is really important advice - make sure you have thoroughly studied all guidelines for tenure recommendations.  For example, my U prohibits collaborators from being writers, and requires a statement from reviewers that they are 'independent'.  It also requires c.v.'s, and recommends AAU/Carnegie 1 institutions.

As a department chair, I aim to have 8 names of potential recommenders, and I must indicate whether they were suggested by the candidate, the committee, or myself.  I usually get 4-5 yeses right away, maybe 1-2 more dribble in, and a few just ignore.  The timing is important: prominent people get asked to write multiples per year, and will start having to refuse.  I aim to have my requests out by mid-April.

This has never happened to me, but if I ever received an obviously cranky and jaundiced letter which didn't appear fair to the candidate, I'd thank the writer but not include it in the packet.

Good luck with it all!