PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF

1
PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF

• Professor Merlin Crossley
• Acting Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

2
Promotion of Academic Staff

• Performance in Research including
• Research
• Scholarship
• Creative Work
• Professional Work
• i.e. R/S/CW/PW
• All applications are assessed only on their
  merits in relation to the criteria for promotion
• Read these carefully and address them explicitly

3
R/S/CW/PW

• Consider the Panels perspective they must
  determine
• What is the nature of research/scholarship/creativ
  e work/professional work in the discipline area?
• What are the indicators for Satisfactory,
  Superior and Outstanding Performance for research
  in the discipline area?
• What level of activity is expected against each
  of the indicators in the discipline area?
• Construct the application to make this easy!

4
R/S/CW/PW

• Program of R/S/CW/PW
• Activity (achievements)
• Recognition Received
• Applause from peers (grants, awards, rave
  reviews)
• Dissemination
• Products/outputs (papers, books, talks,
  performances, commercialization, publicity)
• Leadership
• Contributions to the community of scholars
  (societies, conferences, mentoring, research
  students etc)

5
R/S/CW/PW

• We are a broad institution
• Applicants must clearly explain and demonstrate
  the nature of their Research
• Particularly where the applicant comes from a
  discipline which might need special explanation
• e.g. SCA, Architecture, Music, Performance
  Studies or Mathematics

6
Independent Evidence of Recognition

• Evidence helps the Committee
• Recognition by independent bodies is powerful
• Recognition through Medals and Academic Awards
• Recognition by external Peer Review Granting
  Bodies
• Election to Academies and other distinctions
• Dont simply list briefly explain the
  significance

7
Independent Evidence of Recognition

• Competitive Publications and Presentations
• Publication in top journals or the equivalent
• Explaining the competitive process may be
  important
• There is a real expectation of identifiable
  publication output and sustained output for
  higher levels.

8
How do committees judge publications?

• Publications
• Simply counting the number of publications is not
  a good measure of research performance
• They look for evidence of publication quality
• Citation indices in the discipline (where
  applicable)
• Impact factors of journals (where relevant)
• Critical reviews (copies should be appended)
• It is better to explain about discipline-specific
  citation rates and impact factors than fight
  against them

9
How should we judge grants?

• Competitive Funding
• Peer reviewed grants from recognized schemes
• Size of grants (within discipline limits) may be
  relevant
• Research income is only a proxy measure of
  research merit, however, absence of external
  investment in research could be questioned

10
Presentations

• Presentations
• Presented Lectures/Exhibitions/Performances
• Invited Lectures/Exhibitions/Performances
• Invitations to present points to peer
  recognition (especially if costs are covered)
• International might be seen as superior to local
• Be clear on what constitutes a genuine invitation

11
Other evidence of standing

• Research Administration
• Refereeing papers, membership of review bodies,
  Editorial positions all indicators or peer
  recognition and reputation

12
Other evidence of standing

• Collaborations
• Indicator of research activity and reputation
• Collaborations with international groups,
  especially if funded by peer reviewed grants

13
Other evidence of standing

• Visiting appointments
• Invitations to work with others
• Appointments to external institutions/research
  bodies

14
Leadership and Mentoring

• Professional personnel
• Post-doctoral Fellows (and their destinations)
• Research Associates
• Sabbatical visitors
• Visiting artists/scholars

15
Leadership and Mentoring

• Fostering of research and training
• A record of organising research seminars,
  workshops, conferences
• Research students and their achievements

16
Research only staff

• Research-Only Staff
• Promotion is assessed on the opportunities
  available by virtue of the nature of appointment
• Most Research-only staff generally have no brief
  to become involved in undergraduate teaching or
  administrative matters they may choose to do so
• Research-only staff should have better research
  output than regular academic staff
• Research-only staff must demonstrate outstanding
  performance in research i.e. significantly
  exceeding the criteria for the current level of
  appointment

17
Presentation

• Make the case clearly and succinctly
• Define and relate the application to the
  parameters appropriate for the discipline
• Highlight the evidence which supports the case
  for promotion
• Avoid repetition and seek brevity (tables and
  lists)

18
General issues

• Discipline specific issues
• Occur everywhere, external evidence of recognized
  achievement is your best ally
• Quality versus quantity
• Committee members will really try to judge
  quality and will only judge quantity as a last
  resort (be sure to explain so the quality can be
  appreciated)

19
Specific issues

• Joint endeavours
• Authorship order (this may need to be explained,
  it differs greatly between disciplines)
• Explain your contribution to joint papers,
  conferences, presentations etc (particularly if
  your supervisor is a major player)

20
Key issues

• Impact Factors and Citations
• Explain and provide other evidence of achievement
  and recognition if you are in a low or slow
  citation area
• Cultural cringe
• Is there a value in international activities (and
  having international referees for research)?
• Answer external evidence is good

21
Key issues

• Overlap
• Research students (should they be in research or
  teaching?)
• Journal refereeing (Research or Service?)
• Conference organization (Research or Service?)
• There will always be grey areas but simply decide
  and dont repeat things
• Upward trajectory
• Implicitly demonstrate this if appropriate

22
Hints

• Use numbers and lists
• this helps individual members to draw their
  colleagues attention to specific points
• Demonstrate an upward trajectory if possible