Support for Cases - Keele University Web viewpromotion to senior lecturer, senior teaching fellow & senior research fellow. procedures and criteria documentation, types and presentation

PROMOTION TO SENIOR LECTURER, SENIOR TEACHING FELLOW &

SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW

PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA DOCUMENTATION, TYPES AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND

GENERAL GUIDANCE NOTES

Human Resources Department

Lead Director: Director of Human Resources

Date ratified by Council:

Policy issue date:Reviewed: June 2017Policy to be reviewed every 12 months.Date of next review: June 2018

Page 1 of 24

Page 2 of 24

CONTENTS

Introduction Page 3

General Guidance Page 4

Procedures for Promotion to Senior Lecturer Page 5toPage 19

Procedures for Promotion to Senior Teaching Fellow Page 20

Procedures for Promotion to Senior Research Fellow Page 20

Academic Promotion Procedures – General Information Individual Cases for Promotion Secondments Effective Dates for Awards Financial Limits Preservation of Rights Appeals Procedure

Page 21Page 22Page 22Page 22Page 22Page 22

Would candidates please note that cases will only be considered by the Promotions Committees where ALL the required documentation is submitted in the format specified and by the given deadline.

All documentation referred to in this document are available from the HR website. Please contact HR if you have difficulties downloading these.

Candidates are reminded that when preparing your case, consideration should be given to the requirement for input from others i.e. Head of School, Research Institute Director or Dean of Faculty. In planning to meet the submission deadline please take account of the annual leave and/or other commitments that colleagues may have at this time of year.

Page 3 of 24

INTRODUCTION

Success in promotions is not just about the submission. It is about managed career development over a number of years and should be actively considered during SPRE interviews in terms of what it is that needs to be achieved to increase the chances of success.

All relevant evidence will be considered in reviewing applications for promotion, including that based on career experience prior to joining Keele. However staff with less than eighteen months experience at a particular grade will not normally have accrued sufficient experience for a successful case.

Page 4 of 24

GENERAL GUIDANCE

SUPPORT FOR CASESSenior Lectureships

In cases where excellence in Research and Enterprise is claimed the Research Institute Director will provide/contribute to the supporting statement.

Where Research and Enterprise is not one of the ‘excellent’ areas, the Head of School should provide the statement.

The individual providing the statement as above should be the sole signatory to the statement. However, where appropriate the Head of School and Research Institute Director should liaise as to the content of the statement.

Senior Research FellowIn cases for promotion to Senior Research Fellow, Grade 9 the Research Institute Director will provide the supporting statement in liaison with the Head of School where appropriate.

Senior Teaching FellowIn cases for promotion to Senior Teaching Fellow, Grade 9 the Head of School will provide the supporting statement.

NoteIt is the responsibility of whoever is supporting the case to ensure that ‘raw data’/evidence (see section 9, page 9) exists to support claims made in the case.

CLINICAL ACADEMICS

Clinical academics may submit a job plan with their application if they wish the Promotions Committees to take into consideration the time spent on clinical duties. In such cases the committees will expect the same standards and quality of evidence but allow for a lesser quantity to be required.

RESUBMISSIONS

Following an unsuccessful application there is no specific minimum time limit before which an individual may resubmit. However, where resubmission is made within two years, the candidate must indicate key developments since their unsuccessful application. These should be referenced, where applicable, to the Committee’s feedback.

INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS

It is equally applicable in all cases for an individual to nominate him/herself for promotion (see Page 21) and all of the procedures should be read with this in mind.

IMMIGRATION/ELIGIBILITY TO WORK IN THE UK

Where a promotion is recommended for a member of staff who requires permission from UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) to work at Keele, the University must notify UKVI of the proposed change in salary and title. UKVI will then decide if the changes are permissible. Please note that the promotion cannot take place until this permission/approval has been received by the University.

Page 5 of 24

PROMOTION TO SENIOR LECTURER

The minimum criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer is excellence in two of the three following categories; Research and Enterprise, Learning & Teaching and Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities and a satisfactory level of competence (or better) in the third category.

In exceptional circumstances, consideration may be given to cases that provide evidence of particularly outstanding performance in one category and very good in the second category. In such cases evidence of satisfactory performance in the third category would still be required.

NOTE: if a candidate employed on an academic contract is formally required only to undertake the duties of two out of the three categories, they must demonstrate excellence under those two and the requirement to be classed as satisfactory in the third category may be waived.

In such cases, there must be a written agreement with the Head of School which must have been in place for at least 12 months at the time of submission. The agreement should be held on the individual’s personal file in Human Resources.

When submitting such a case, the Head of School/Research Institute Director must provide a clear statement to this effect (see also para 3.4) in his/her supporting statement and Human Resources will include a copy of agreement with the promotions application documentation.

PROCEDURE

The following information should be submitted by the published deadline in order for cases to be considered by the Faculty Promotions Sub-committee.

1 Submission Pro-Forma PROM1 (SLEC)

Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors should, with the candidate, fill in the summary submission pro-forma PROM1 (SLEC) as the covering form for the entire submission.

In order to provide the Committee with relevant background information, candidates are asked to detail any changes to their FTE and dates of any periods of absence during their employment at Keele or elsewhere. Please also refer to section 8, page 9 below which outlines how the Committee takes into account personal circumstances.

2 Personal Statement

Candidates must submit a personal statement of no more than two sides of A4 minimum Arial font size 11.

Candidates should discuss their cases with their Head of School/Research Institute Director to decide which categories are relevant to the particular duties and responsibilities of the candidate's post and indeed, the candidate's case for promotion. The guidance notes and suggested types of evidence on pages 12 - 19 should be used as a way of structuring the candidate’s personal statement and the Head of School’s/Research Institute Director’s statement.

The Personal Statement must explain how the candidate feels he/she has satisfied the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer and set out his/her future plans/strategy if promoted. The statement should be the vehicle used to present any evidence to support

Page 6 of 24

the case, such information may be corroborated in the Head of School’s/Research Institute Director’s supporting statement or may be found for instance in the candidate’s CV. See guidance notes on Presentation of Evidence on Page 10.

The statement should illustrate how the various types of evidence support the case for excellence under the two (or three) selected categories (and chosen criteria) and satisfactory (or excellence) under the third category (with chosen criteria). Please refer to guidance notes and suggested types of evidence under the three category headings of Learning & Teaching, Research & Enterprise and Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities on pages 12 – 19 of this document.

Candidates are welcome to provide details of unsuccessful grant applications in their Personal Statement if they believe that this information is relevant to their case.

Where appropriate, the candidate should include an evaluation of their future input into their Research Institute/School.

Candidates are also welcome to include comments on any personal circumstances which they believe may affect their case in this section or in the personal circumstances section towards the back of the form.

3 Head of School’s or Research Institute Director ’s Supporting Statement

(See Introduction page 3) - The statement must clearly state the author’s name.

3.1 This statement should be of no more than 2 sides of A4 minimum Arial font size 11 and must be shared and discussed with the candidate prior to submission.

3.2 The statement should: Provide an overview of the candidate’s work in non-technical language. Explain what is expected of a Senior Lecturer within the School and/or RI and how the

candidate meets this standard. Specify the candidate’s major achievements and results. Relate to the key criteria headings found under the three category headings of

Research and Enterprise, Learning & Teaching and Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities. (These criteria headings can be found on Pages 12 - 19 of this document).

Include in his/her statement any arguments (which it is envisaged might subsequently arise) where it is apparent that an individual may not be performing as one would expect in all areas but (because they are exceptional in the areas which the School/Research Institute considers to be of key importance) should still be considered for promotion.

Specify why he/she considers the individual’s actual achievements (rather than potential) merit promotion to a level higher than that at which the individual is currently graded.

3.3 Where excellence in Research and Enterprise is being claimed the following information should also be provided:

how much time the individual has been allocated to do research/enterprise.It would normally be assumed that the more time a candidate has allocated to research/enterprise, the greater the output relative to his/her field of discipline. However, it is appreciated that this may not always be the case and candidates are invited to include details of any circumstances that have impacted on their research/enterprise.

what targets have been set and how the individual has performed against them. what development-type support has been given to the candidate (eg development

programme; additional funding for conferences etc.).

Page 7 of 24

an evaluation of the candidate’s future input into their Research Institute/School.

3.4 NOTE: if a candidate employed on an academic contract is formally required only to undertake the duties of two out of the three categories, they must demonstrate excellence under those two and the requirement to be classed as satisfactory in the third category may be waived.

In such cases, there must be a written agreement with the Head of School which must have been in place for at least 12 months at the time of submission. The agreement should be held on the individual’s personal file in Human Resources.

When submitting such a case, the Head of School/Research Institute Director must provide a clear statement to this effect in his/her supporting statement and Human Resources will include a copy of agreement with the promotions application documentation.

4 Candidate's CV

Candidates must submit a comprehensive CV which must be submitted in the standard format (see CV within the application documentation on website).

5 Grant Information

A list of funding received must be submitted in the standard format (see Grant List within the application documentation on website). Successful grant applications only should be included within the list.

6 Publications List

A publications list should be submitted in the standard format (see Publication List within the application documentation on website). Candidates may, if they wish, also include a citation index.

Important Note for Candidates Submitting under Excellence in Research and Enterprise

Please note that, to be eligible for consideration for promotion under excellence in Research and Enterprise, candidates are required to evidence the following minimum criteria. Evidence of seeking or holding at least one grant (at a level appropriate for the discipline) and of engagement with research student issues - either supervision or other aspects of research student support e.g. significant contribution to the teaching of research students in either research training activities or research training workshops.

Details must be entered in the box provided on the PROM 1 (SLEC) form

Failure to do this may render the application ineligible for consideration under excellence in Research and Enterprise.

In addition to the above minimum requirement, candidates submitting a case for promotion under excellence in Research and Enterprise should normally be returnable in the next REF.

The main categories, criteria headings and examples of types of evidence are given at the end of this document.

Page 8 of 24

7 Independent Assessor Reports

The purpose of consulting independent assessors is to indicate to the Committee how the candidate’s standing in the academic community has made an impact outside their immediate circle. It follows, therefore, that it is not in the candidate’s interest to nominate independent assessors who are too close to the candidate, for example ex-supervisors, collaborators or co-authors, or anyone who has recently had a direct involvement with him/her.

Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors, in discussion with the candidate, should fill in the pro-forma IA.

The details of no fewer than five independent assessors should be indicated. The candidate should nominate two independent assessors and the Committee will choose one of the two nominated. The Head of School/Research Institute Director should nominate three.

The Head of School/Research Institute Director should aim for a selection of independent assessors who will provide the committee with a balanced view across the full range of the individual’s work and the case for promotion.

For cases based on excellence in Learning and Teaching or Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities, internal independent assessors may be nominated. Candidates and Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors are encouraged to identify external independent assessor where possible, however, where an internal senior colleagues (Senior Lecturer and above) is nominated they should provide a clear rationale as to why they have been nominated.

In many disciplines it is usual for at least one of the independent assessors to be based outside of the United Kingdom; especially where the case is being made for international distinction in research.

Please note that, as all Deans and PVCs are Academic Promotions Committee members, they are precluded from acting as independent assessors.

7.1 Completion of IA

Details of independent assessors must be completed with title, forename, surname, full postal address, telephone number and e-mail addresses. If it is known that an assessor is expected to be absent from their given email address or is likely to change their email address within the few months following submission please indicate on the Form IA.

Candidates and their Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors must indicate:

the candidate’s relationship with the assessors (e.g., PhD supervisor, former director of a research team of which the candidate was a member, former collaborator in research or writing, editor of a book in which the candidate’s own work has appeared, external examiner etc.).

the standing of the independent assessor (i.e. why, in the candidate’s and the Head of School’s/Research Institute Director’s view, those assessors are best placed to comment on the area of the candidate’s work, scholarship and standing). If an internal assessor is nominated, the rationale for their nomination over an external assessor should be provided.

which specific areas of the candidate’s work they wish each independent assessor to comment upon.

Page 9 of 24

The Faculty Promotions Sub-Committee will contact at least four independent assessors – if it is determined that either one or both of the candidate’s nominations are unsuitable the Dean, in conjunction with the Candidate, will be asked to submit further names. NB the Committee reserves the right to nominate additional independent assessors of their own choosing if it is felt appropriate. Additional assessors will not be contacted without reference to the candidate. The candidate will be asked to give reasons for any refusal to permit contact with additional assessors nominated. There will be no substitution for either of the independent assessors nominated by the candidate. Candidates are requested not to contact any independent external assessors in relation to their submission for promotion.

8 Completion of Personal Circumstances and Equality & Diversity Monitoring Form

As part of the University’s commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity, candidates are encouraged to indicate any periods of part-time working or other flexible working arrangements, and/or any personal, familial, or other non-academic circumstances that may have restricted or delayed their professional career and/or affected their output during their employment at Keele or elsewhere. Such circumstances might include, but are not limited to, changes to FTE proportions and/or periods of absence due to:

maternity, adoption, parental, or carer’s leave career breaks absences or flexible working arrangements or limitations arising from a disability, ill-

health or injury breaks in employment due to non-consecutive fixed term contracts; arrangements on return to work following such periods of absence or leave;

Candidates may provide details of such circumstances on the Personal Circumstances and Equality & Diversity section of the form, towards the back of the application. This information will be retained within HR who will compile a confidential summary of any personal circumstances disclosed and HR will provide this summary to the Promotions Committee to assist in assessing the case.

The Promotions Committee may in such cases admit a reduced quantity of output, but the quality of the output, as well as evidence of career trajectory, must be maintained.

Candidates are also asked to reconfirm their personal equality information in this section of the form. The University monitors this personal information to help identify, tackle and prevent discrimination and to ensure that we have a working environment where everyone feels comfortable and accepted. Monitoring helps to measure progress against our equality policies and action plans.

All personal information is stored confidentially and securely. Your personal equality information will be accessed only by authorised individuals within the HR department.

The Personal Circumstances and Equality & Diversity Monitoring section of the form will not be shared with the full committee and will not be sent to Independent Assessors.

9 Presentation of Evidence and General Guidance Notes

9.1 Evidence Presented in Support of all Cases - General Guidance

The examples given in this document are not an exhaustive list but examples of evidence which can be used to make a case under each category. It is the candidate’s responsibility (in conjunction with his/her Head of School/Research Institute Director to decide which types of evidence best support the case.

Page 10 of 24

The cut off point for the submission of admissible evidence will be the deadline for submission of the case. Candidates should note that when the committee reviews the supporting evidence for excellence they will focus on what has been achieved by the candidate up to the submission deadline i.e. published work (not papers in press), membership of major committees, grant income achieved at that date.

However, in the supporting documentation candidates may refer to forthcoming work, e.g. papers in press, contract for a book, invitations to join major committees etc, as indicators of continued activity only.

NB: Where insufficient or inappropriate types of evidence are presented neither the Faculty Sub Committee nor the Academic and Academic Related Promotions Committee will be under any obligation to go back to the candidate to seek further evidence.

Evidence presented both by the candidate and by the Head of School/Research Institute Director should be in summarised form rather than ‘raw data’, for example, student questionnaires themselves should not be submitted. ‘Raw data’ (in this case, the questionnaires themselves) should be retained in the School. If any ‘raw data’ is submitted, it will not be circulated to the Committee. The salient points should be summarised by the candidate and/or Head of School/Research Institute Director and included in the statements. It should be possible to summarise the key points of the supporting evidence succinctly for the Committee’s benefit; if this cannot be done it is probably an indication that the case itself is not yet strong enough to be submitted.

9.2 Presentation of Evidence

Evidence should be presented in a way which enables the Committee to understand how it relates to the case. Whatever type of evidence is used, it should be presented in a way which:-

Is clear and specific Is based on objective measures wherever that is appropriate Provides an honest picture rather than over-stating the case Is succinct

Based on the student feedback example used previously, an inappropriate way of presenting evidence about student feedback would be for a Head of School to state:-:"Dr X always gets very positive feedback on student questionnaires"

However, an appropriate way of making the same point would be to state:-"In student feedback questionnaires for all modules taught in the last academic year, students praised in particular ………,. The only area where students were critical was ……….. In the light of the feedback received Dr X has made the following improvements to the programme …………"

10 Checklist

Would candidates please note that cases will only be considered by the Promotions Committees where ALL the following documentation has been submitted to Human Resources, in the format specified in the procedure and below, by the given deadline.

Guidance as to the required format for CVs, publications and grant information is available from the HR website. The Promotions

Page 11 of 24

Committees will not consider cases which are not submitted using these formats.

Please supply an electronic copy of your application in Microsoft Word to Human Resources, which will comprise:

Completed PROM 1 (SLEC) form Personal statement from the candidate , maximum 2 sides of A4 minimum Arial font

size 11 Supporting statement from the Head of School/Research Institute Director,

maximum 2 sides of A4 minimum Arial font size 11 CV in required format Grant information list in required format (for Promotion to Senior Lecturer and Senior

Research Fellow only) Publications list in required format Completed IA form Personal Circumstances and Equality & Diversity Monitoring Form

11 What Next?

FIRST STAGECases for promotion to Senior Lecturer will be considered by the Faculty Promotions Sub-committee who will decide if a prima facie case for promotion has been made. Where it is agreed that a prima facie case has been made, Human Resources will contact all independent assessors chosen by the Sub-committee.

SECOND STAGEFollowing the receipt of reports from independent assessors, cases for promotion will be considered by the main Academic Promotions Committee.

This Committee is responsible for moderating the prima facie case decisions made at Faculty level across the three Faculties. It, therefore, reserves the right to overturn a prima facie case decision where it is agreed that the case falls below the overall threshold.

A minimum of three independent assessors’ reports will be required in order for the Committee to consider a case. There may be occasions when an independent assessor has been unable to provide a report. In such cases another independent assessor may be nominated (see paragraph 7.1)

There may be occasions where the timescale is too short to obtain another report before the Committee meets and the Committee may consider the case with fewer than three reports. This will only be done where the balance of independent assessors and reports received gives sufficient basis for the Committee to make a judgement. However, the Committee may agree to defer making a decision on the case pending receipt of further reports. The Dean (or nominee) will be responsible for advising the candidate of such a delay.

This stage of the promotions process may be cash limited. Following consideration of all the cases, the Academic Promotions Committee may compare the cost of funding all cases considered above the threshold against the budget. If not all successful cases can be funded, the Committee will rank cases in order of merit. When ranking the cases the Committee will not consider the cost of any individual promotion.

Candidates who are not successful at any stage will be given formal feedback from the Committee by their Dean (or nominee).

Page 12 of 24

All recommendations for promotion will be subject to formal approval by Senate and Council.

Page 13 of 24

CATEGORY– LEARNING AND TEACHING

In order to demonstrate excellence, Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors and candidates must choose and address a minimum of two out of the three criteria with (i) being compulsory in all cases. Candidates wishing to address more than the minimum criteria are free to do so . The example points and evidence are illustrative rather than prescriptive.

Criteria(i) Preparation and Delivery of Teaching (compulsory in all cases claiming excellence in

Learning and Teaching) Under this criterion example points that could be addressed are listed, together with indicative examples of evidence.

Design and planning: New programme design and implementation Module descriptions, detailed learning outcomes Student information & study guides Evidence of design of learning activities and resources. Designing for widening participation or accessibility.

Course Delivery and support of learning: Range of teaching methods for types and levels of courses, variety and sizes of student

groups e.g., effectiveness and excellence in small group teaching, fieldwork, full and part-time undergraduate, adult and continuing education, postgraduate teaching and supervision

Demonstration of the congruence of framing objectives and all other elements of module or course design

Feedback to students, self and peer assessment, computer based formative assessment

Postgraduate supervision

Assessment of learning outcomes: Devising assessment criteria Devising assessment methods Using innovative forms of summative assessment

Maintenance of study support systems: Supporting individual student projects Learner support Provision of accessibility to the curriculum Provision of web resources and library materials Liaison with learning support and careers services

Evaluate and improve learning and teaching processes: Revisions/reflections on practice based on module evaluations, staff/student liaison

meetings Use of peer observation and review External bodies, industrial advisory boards Examiners reports, audits

Continuing professional development: Evidence to demonstrate ongoing development/reflective practice

(ii) Innovation In Learning and Teaching

Page 14 of 24

Under this criterion example points that could be addressed are listed, together with indicative examples of evidence.

Responsiveness to changing requirements in curriculum and course design: Developing cross-school teaching Developing key skills Relevance/justification for innovative design

Critical awareness and utilisation of developments in learning, teaching and assessment: Sources of new developments and examples of application

Steps taken to improve the quality of learning and teaching: Evidence of the issues addressed, the intervention(s) and the results

Contribution to the development of innovative methods: Use of C & IT, work related learning.

(iii) VisibilityUnder this criterion example points which could be addressed are listed, together with indicative examples of evidence.

Membership of professional groups: Subject, discipline or specific interest e.g., assessment and curriculum development Contribution to policy Offices held

Dissemination of good practice within Keele: Participation in learning and teaching networks, including online networks Dissemination of good practice within School/Research Institute or University Benefits to Keele from the importation of good practice in learning and teaching Innovation projects

External visibility: Service as an external examiner or assessor, as an adviser or consultant on Learning &

Teaching Invitations to teach elsewhere Contracts to provide Learning & Teaching programmes for other organisations Testimonials from outside experts Membership of editorial boards

Publications: Learning and teaching materials Articles in refereed journals Undergraduate text books Work which does not appear in refereed publications such as reports or websites,

provided it is available in the public domain, may be included

Page 15 of 24

LEARNING AND TEACHING - TYPES OF EVIDENCE

The examples below are not an exhaustive list but are indicative of the types of evidence which can be referred to when making a case under the category heading. Candidates and Heads of School/Research Institute Directors must read 9.1 - Presentation of Evidence and General Guidance Notes and 9.2 Presentation of Evidence Guidance.

Student feedback/statements Testimonials and peer review feedback from colleagues Evidence of membership and active participation in learned bodies and external

organisations, e.g., HEFCE, QA, HEA or professional bodies. Corroboration in /Head of School/Research Institute Director/Faculty Research Director

supporting statements Evidence of recognition by relevant external bodies engaged in the development of

teaching and learning Development of curriculum (e.g. writing and development of syllabuses) Innovative use of computer aided learning External Examiners reports Strong performance in student recruitment Feedback on individual performance from independent evaluations (e.g., QAA, internal

audit, external examiners reports) Evidence of influence on teaching issues nationally within the candidate’s subject (e.g.,

acting as TOA or professional association assessor, production of policies on teaching for disciplinary association)

Publication of an undergraduate text book, refereed articles and teaching materials Development of cross school teaching (e.g., candidates may wish to include a senior

member of that school in the list of independent assessors) Repeat invitations to speak at Teaching & Learning conferences Used as a consultant by other Universities in the assessment of their teaching programmes Reports from other professional bodies Record of internal and external funding Final reports to funding bodies together with outcomes.

Evidence used to support performance in this category may not be used as evidence in any other category.

Page 16 of 24

CATEGORY - PROFESSIONAL, ORGANISATIONAL AND MANAGERIAL ACTIVITIES

In order to demonstrate excellence, Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors and candidates must choose and address a minimum of two out of the four criteria. Candidates wishing to address more than the minimum criteria are free to do so. The example points and evidence are illustrative rather than prescriptive.

Criteria(i) Managing and Organising Teaching Activities (where not cited under Learning and

Teaching)Under this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Record of any initiatives taken to improve procedures or examples of innovation in the

management and development of administrative procedures Organisation and promotion of interdisciplinary studies Development of collaborative and partnership arrangements to support teaching Participation in and contribution to staff development (e.g. development of teaching

skills)

(ii) Managing and Organising Research Activities (where not cited under Research and Enterprise)Under this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Administration of research activities, management of relationships with research

colleagues and contribution to successful teambuilding Contribution to the career development process of research staff Innovations in the supervision of research postgraduates, development of systems for

monitoring completion rates Participation in and contribution to staff development (e.g. development of research

skills) Development of collaborative and partnership arrangements

(iii) Contribution to University ActivitiesUnder this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Management of the School or other units Management of staff development Contribution to the development of cross-faculty partnerships Contribution to the wider aspects of the management of the University

(iv) Professional Practice and External Activities (where not cited under Research and Enterprise)Under this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Critical awareness and utilisation of developments in professional practice Provision of consultancy/professional advice and contribution to the raising of standards

of practice Contribution to the process of transferring new ideas, products and processes to other

organisations Contribution to the University’s marketing strategy Contribution to improving the interface with industry and other organisations Community liaison Contribution to income generation Invitations to join or election to government/national bodies, research or similar bodies.

Page 17 of 24

PROFESSIONAL, ORGANISATIONAL AND MANAGERIAL ACTIVITIES - TYPES OF EVIDENCE


The successful management of major programmes and courses Successful performance in the role of Director of Undergraduate

Programmes/Postgraduate Programmes Proportion of doctorate students who have completed successfully in four years (where

relevant within the discipline) Supervision of Postgraduate and Post-doctorate students where not included under

Research and Enterprise. Organisation of research training with positive feedback from postgraduate students Management of research staff. External QA reports Internal Quality Audits Research Institute/School reviews Reports from other professional bodies Collaborative partnership arrangements e.g. placements, study abroad schemes, links with

overseas Universities Contribution to the recruitment of students Development of team approaches to the School’s/Research Institute’s administration

procedures Membership of cross-faculty working parties Transfer of knowledge and technology transfer, development of intellectual property rights Income generation e.g. licensing agreements; development of programmes with other

organisations, consultancy, collaborative work, participation in international programmes Links with the Community Development of innovative methods in professional practice; contribution to the training and

development of professional practitioners. Invitations to join or election to government/national bodies, research councils or similar

bodies Contribution to the promotion of equality and diversity e.g. through Athena Swan or other

externally recognised initiatives

Evidence used to support performance in this category may not be used as evidence in any other category.

Page 18 of 24

CATEGORY - RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE

In order to demonstrate excellence, Heads of Schools/Research Institute Directors and candidates must choose and address a minimum of two out of the four criteria with (i) being compulsory in all cases. Candidates wishing to address more than the minimum criteria are free to do so . The example points and evidence are illustrative rather than prescriptive.

Criteria

(i) Quality of Research and/or Enterprise (compulsory in all cases claiming excellence in Research and Enterprise)Under this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. The quality of refereed articles, books and other research output Citations, reviews and other evidence of quality Evidence of peer recognition of achievement Evidence of successful collaboration with users of research and demonstration of the

impact of research or enterprise activities

(ii) Volume of ResearchUnder this criterion any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Number of publications and research outputs of different kinds Major contribution, where work is co-authored Number of pages and other statistical indicators Volume considerations relevant to subject, discipline or individual’s career. Level of collaboration with users of research

(iii) Grant IncomeUnder this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Extent of funding received over appropriate timescale. Where the candidate is not the

grant holder, please state the proportion of the grant applicable to the candidate. Sources of funding Purposes and results of funding in terms of research environment created (personnel,

support, equipment etc.) Support for basic research received from prestigious or competitive sources (as

appropriate to discipline Disciplinary or individual factors affecting grant income

(iv) External VisibilityUnder this criterion, any case could address the following points and suitable types of evidence must be referred to in support of the case. Participation in national and international research collaborations Activity in national/international meetings: organisation of meetings, invitations received,

active participation Editorship of national/international journals Membership of major committees and significant research bodies, including grant giving

agencies Contribution to interdisciplinary studies Impact of the research (e.g. breaking new ground; leading authority in the field) Partnerships and collaboration with users of research

(v) Enterprise Activities (where not cited under POMA) Provision of consultancy/professional advice and contribution to the raising of standards

of practice

Page 19 of 24

Contribution to the process of transferring new ideas, products and processes to other organisations

Contribution to the University’s external profile and reputation Contribution to improving the interface with industry and other organisations Evidence of successful collaboration with users of research and demonstration of the

impact of research

Important Note for Candidates Submitting under Excellence in Research and Enterprise

Please note that, to be eligible for consideration for promotion under excellence in Research and Enterprise, candidates are required to evidence the following minimum criteria. Evidence of seeking or holding at least one grant (at a level appropriate for the discipline) and of engagement with research student issues - either supervision or other aspects of research student support eg significant contribution to the teaching of research students in either research training activities or research training workshops.

Details must be entered in the box provided on the PROM 1 (SLEC) form

(failure to do this will render the application ineligible for consideration under excellence in Research and Enterprise).

Page 20 of 24

RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE - TYPES OF EVIDENCE

Please also see ‘Research and Enterprise Evidence Guidance’ available from the HR Promotions Documents web pages


Book reviews Referees reports on successful grant applications Information on submitted but non-funded research bids if applicable (also see Grant List) High proportion of publications in top quality peer reviewed journals Invitations to collaborate with senior figures in the discipline Information on the number of publications etc Invitations to speak at conferences Feedback from funding bodies on completed research projects Transfer of knowledge and technology transfer, development of intellectual property rights Income generation e.g. licensing agreements; development of programmes with other

organisations, consultancy, collaborative work, participation in international programmes Clinical guidelines e.g. guidelines developed for NICE, the Royal Colleges or professional

societies. Policy reports for agencies such as the Department of Health. Evidence of successful collaboration with users of research and demonstration of the

impact of research

NOTE 1: Where the volume of research is not high the Committee considering the case will form a view of the exceptionality of the quality of the research. The case made for excellence in Research and Enterprise must demonstrate that the exceptional quality of the research/enterprise outweighs the low volume.

NOTE 2 - Evidence used to support performance in this category may not be used as evidence in any other category.

Page 21 of 24

PROMOTION TO SENIOR TEACHING FELLOW.

The procedure for progression from Grade 6b to Grade 7 and Grade 7 to Grade 8 are set out in the document “Progression Procedure”.

Staff on Teaching Fellow grades may apply for substantive promotion to Grade 9, Senior Teaching Fellow by using the process to apply for Senior Lectureship using the summary form PROM 1 (STF). However, candidates need only show excellence in Learning and Teaching and Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities categories and the requirement to show satisfactory or above in Research and Enterprise category will be waived.

PROMOTION TO SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW

The procedure for progression from Research Grade 6a to Research Grade 7 and Research Grade 7 to Research Grade 8 are set out in the document “Progression Procedure”.

Staff on research grades may apply for substantive promotion to Senior Research Fellow, Grade 9 by using the process to apply for Senior Lectureship using the summary form PROM 1 (SRF). However, where recommendations are made in respect of research staff funded from external grant income, the supporting statement from the Research Institute Director must include written confirmation that sufficient funds exist within the grant to meet the cost of the promotion if agreed. Alternatively the Research Institute Director must be able to demonstrate that sufficient recurrent funding exists within the Research Institute to meet the cost of the promotion.

Research Fellows on Grade 8 recommended for promotion to Senior Research Fellow, Grade 9 will be required to satisfy the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer as set out in this document. However, candidates need only show excellence in Research and Enterprise and either Professional, Organisational & Managerial Activities or Learning and Teaching categories and the requirement to show satisfactory or above in the third will be waived.

Cases for the promotion of Research Staff will be treated in accordance with the terms of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers.

Page 22 of 24

ACADEMIC PROMOTION PROCEDURES - GENERAL INFORMATION

INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSION FOR PROMOTION

Any member of staff may submit himself/herself for promotion to a higher grade. He/she should contact his/her Link Human Resources Manager and the Dean of the Faculty who will advise them in making their submission.

The Dean will meet with the candidate's Head of School/Research Institute Director and the candidate. The purpose of the meeting is to elicit any additional information which might be relevant to the case. Following this meeting the Dean should decide whether or not he/she is willing to support the candidate’s case. If the Dean is not willing to support the application then he/she must inform the candidate and Head of School/Research Institute Director, in writing, of the reasons for non-support.

If the Dean considers that the candidate's case should be supported, then he/she should discuss the case with the relevant Head of School/Research Institute Director. If the Head of School/Research Institute Director agrees to support the case then this must be done in accordance with the promotion procedures and in good faith. The role of the Dean will be to assist the Head of School/Research Institute Director to ensure that this happens.

If the Head of School/Research Institute Director does not feel able to support the individual's case for promotion the Dean reserves the right to support the case and will provide the supporting statement in accordance with the promotions procedures. The candidate will provide the documentation required in accordance with the promotions procedures.

If the Dean and the Head of School/Research Institute Director do not support the individual's case the candidate may wish to appeal. The grounds for the appeal must be clearly stated and the candidate will follow the appeals procedure as outlined in the Appeals Procedure. A copy of the appeals procedure is available from Human Resources.

Human Resources will ensure that notification of the relevant submission dates for cases is sent to each member of staff covered by these procedures.

Page 23 of 24

SECONDMENTS

Where a candidate for promotion is fully or partially on secondment to another organisation, the relevant Head of School/Research Institute Director should contact that organisation to inform his/her supporting statement. When such a case for promotion is formally submitted to Human Resources, they will formally notify the seconding organisation of the application.

EFFECTIVE DATES FOR AWARDS

All promotions agreed by the various Promotion Committees will normally be effective from 1 May following the decision.

PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Nothing in these procedures will affect or impinge upon the rights enjoyed by any individual member of staff under the Charter and Statutes of the University.

APPEALS

Unsuccessful candidates may appeal if they believe that their case has fallen due to procedural irregularity: appeals may not be made against the substantive decision of the committee.

Unsuccessful candidates will be formally notified in writing of the decision of the committee and advised of their right to appeal.

Page 24 of 24