1. PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF Professor Merlin Crossley Acting Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

2. 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. 3 R/S/CW/PW Consider the Panel’s perspective – they must determine –What is the nature of research/scholarship/creative 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. 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. 5 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 R/S/CW/PW

6. 6 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 Don’t simply list – briefly explain the significance Independent Evidence of Recognition

7. 7 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. Independent Evidence of Recognition

8. 8 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 How do committees judge publications?

9. 9 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 How should we judge grants?

10. 10 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 Presentations

11. 11 Research Administration –Refereeing papers, membership of review bodies, Editorial positions – all indicators or peer recognition and reputation Other evidence of standing

12. 12 Collaborations –Indicator of research activity and reputation Collaborations with international groups, especially if funded by peer reviewed grants Other evidence of standing

13. 13 Visiting appointments –Invitations to work with others –Appointments to external institutions/research bodies Other evidence of standing

14. 14 Professional personnel –Post-doctoral Fellows (and their destinations) –Research Associates –Sabbatical visitors –Visiting artists/scholars Leadership and Mentoring

15. 15 Fostering of research and training –A record of organising research seminars, workshops, conferences –Research students and their achievements Leadership and Mentoring

16. 16 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 Research only staff

17. 17 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) Presentation

18. 18 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) General issues

19. 19 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) Specific issues

20. 20 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 Key issues

21. 21 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 don’t repeat things Upward trajectory –Implicitly demonstrate this if appropriate Key issues

22. 22 Use numbers and lists –this helps individual members to draw their colleagues’ attention to specific points Demonstrate an upward trajectory if possible Hints