Content
Academic Promotion Procedures
Parent policy: Academic Promotion Policy
Approval authority: Vice-Chancellor and President
Designated officer: Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Date last amended: 10 June 2011
Effective starting date: 10 June 2011
1. Planning and preparing to apply for promotion
Performance Planning and Review (PPR) plays a central and crucial role in planning and preparing to apply for promotion. Through PPR, academic staff develop and maintain an Academic Portfolio. This involves keeping an up-to-date work profile; regular, documented self-reflection on performance in teaching, research and engagement; and agreed (teaching, research and engagement) performance and development goals which have been accepted by the Dean.
Prospective applicants should discuss their intention to apply for promotion with their supervisor during PPR and other discussions, before preparing an application. If the prospective applicant’s PPR supervisor is not the Head of School, the Head of School should also be advised of the intention to apply.
2. The call for applications
2.1 At the request of the Vice-Chancellor and President, the Director, Human Resources calls for applications, normally in the latter part of the year.
2.2 Human Resources coordinates information sessions for prospective applicants soon after the call for applications has been made.
3. Preparing an application
3.1 Satisfactory performance at the current level is considered the norm for a fully operational staff member and therefore not sufficient for promotion. To be promoted, an applicant needs to present a case and provide clear evidence of sustained academic performance at a higher level than that to which they are currently appointed. An applicant therefore needs to be clear about how the University defines the areas of performance – teaching, research and engagement – and the differences between the levels of performance, as explained in detail in the Promotion Policy.
3.2 An academic staff member who is reapplying for promotion should carefully consider whether, in terms of the criteria defining merit, their claims have sufficiently improved since their last unsuccessful application, and must demonstrate that they have addressed the written feedback provided in response to their past unsuccessful application/s.
3.3 Evidence
3.3.1 The onus is on the applicant to provide adequate information and evidence for the Promotions Committees to be able to make a reasonable judgement whether or not the applicant meets the criteria for promotion. An applicant should therefore ensure that their performance claims are fully substantiated and provide evidence of their performance in relation to the criteria defining merit. For example, a mere listing of items such as committee memberships is unlikely to be persuasive without a demonstration of significant contributions and outcomes resulting from committee contributions.
3.3.2 Assertion without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of establishing a case for promotion. An assertion is deemed to be a statement made without any indication of how it may be shown by an independent person to be true and correct, while evidence is qualitative and/or quantitative material that can be used to support an assertion.
3.4 To assist applicants and Committee members, a promotion application form is available. The standard form, which is to be used by all applicants, comprises:
3.4.1 A Curriculum Vitae:
which gives an account of the applicant’s career to date.
3.4.2 A case for promotion:
which is the means by which an applicant provides further information to demonstrate performance in teaching, research and engagement. In the case for promotion, an applicant makes performance claims and provides verifiable evidence to support them.
3.4.3 The names and contact details of three academic referees
Back to top
3.5 Demonstrating performance
3.5.1 Teaching
The decision to recommend an applicant for promotion is informed by the applicant’s ability to demonstrate effectiveness as a teacher. Applicants for promotion are expected to demonstrate teaching performance at least at the level to which they are applying. The criteria for promotion in teaching, and typical supporting evidence, are:
3.5.1.1 Currency in the discipline
Typical evidence:
- current knowledge of development in relevant discipline(s)
- active participation in scholarship in relevant disciplines(s), such as membership and participation in discipline-based associations
- conference presentations on matters to do with relevant disciplines
- systematic reading of relevant journals
- active connections with relevant professions
- publication in texts in relevant discipline(s)
3.5.1.2 Design and development of effective curricula
Typical evidence:
- design and accreditation of strategic courses, majors and programs
- development of curriculum materials eg. e-learning resources
- high student demand for courses, majors and programs designed and developed
- student satisfaction with courses, majors and programs designed and developed
- high levels of student success (retention and progression) in courses, majors and programs designed and developed
- high levels of student outcomes (jobs, salary levels and further study) from majors and programs designed and developed
3.5.1.3 Use of current learning and teaching methods
Typical evidence:
- innovation in teaching methods aimed at improving student engagement, satisfaction, success and outcomes
- improvements in methods of assessment aimed at assisting student learning, improving measurement of student performance and maintaining academic standards
- research into learning and teaching result in classroom innovations and publications, grants and awards
- publication of texts on effective approaches to teaching in relevant discipline(s)
3.5.1.4 A systematic approach to the evaluation and improvement of teachingTypical evidence:
- the systematic gathering of student and peer feedback on teaching, which has been generated by reliable and valid feedback instruments, including the University’s Student Feedback on Teaching (SFT)
- analysis of a representative selection of feedback, including SFT, and an account of the action taken by the staff member in response to feedback to improve their teaching
- formal recognition for the enhancement of learning and teaching in the University, eg. ALTC awards and citations
- demonstrated leadership of learning and teaching development processes which improve teaching practice within and/or beyond the University.
3.5.1.5 Clinical teaching
In recent years, there have been several appointments to “clinical positions”, particularly in health professional areas. Staff in clinical positions normally have less, if any, involvement in research. However, a scholarly approach to clinical teaching is required.
Clinical teaching emphasises experiential learning, the establishment of effective links between theory and practice and the development of a strong professional identity and exceptional clinical skills. Clinical teaching can occur in real world or simulated settings.
The University recognises that academic staff in clinical positions should have equitable access to promotion.
Back to top
3.5.2 Research
The decision to recommend an applicant for promotion is informed by the applicant’s ability to demonstrate active and productive engagement in research, publicly verifiable outcomes of research, and positive external recognition of research performance.
Institutional and national measures of research performance include: refereed publications; external competitive grants, especially National Competitive Grants; numbers of, and timely completions by, candidates for higher degrees by research; and research quality and impact.
Applicants for promotion are expected to demonstrate research performance at least at the level to which they are applying. The criteria for promotion in research, and typical supporting evidence, are:
3.5.2.1 Pursuit of a coherent research program or agenda
Typical evidence:
- development of a long-term research plan which coherently addresses a significant research problem in the discipline/field
- development of a group of researchers, including experienced researchers, Early Career Researchers and Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidates to address the research program/agenda collaboratively
- formation of a designated USC Research Group or Research Centre
3.5.2.2 Design and implementation of quality research projects
Typical evidence:
- implementation of a range of significant and innovative research projects
- production of a range of high quality research outputs such as refereed publications and creative works
- production of a range of high impact research outcomes such as change in professional practice and public policy
- production of exploitable intellectual property
3.5.2.3 Generation of external resources, including grants and infrastructure, to support research activity
Typical evidence:
- generation of external grants, especially National Competitive Grants (NCGs), to fund research
- contributions to Institutional Grant Scheme (GS), Research Training Scheme (RTS)
- generation of resources to invest in the development of research infrastructure, including equipment, facilities and information and communication technologies (ICTs)
3.5.2.4 Development and maintenance of productive local, national and international research collaborations
Typical evidence:
- development of productive research connections and communications with local, national and international groups and organisations
- development of collaborative research projects with local, national and international groups and organisations
- formation of formal (eg Cooperative Research Centres [CRCs]) and informal (eg networks) research partnerships enabling long-term research productivity and impact
3.5.2.5 Success in the supervision of honours and Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students
Typical evidence:
- positive feedback from HDR students on the quality of supervision during candidature
- HDR students publishing and/or participating in significant research projects during their candidature
- timely completion of HDR projects
- HDR students going on to be successful researchers beyond their candidature
Claims made about research outputs, e.g. refereed publications and grants, are verified by Human Resources through consultation with the Office of Research.
Back to top
3.5.3 Engagement
The decision to recommend an applicant for promotion is informed by the applicant’s ability to demonstrate active and productive engagement and/or significant outcomes that contribute to the definition and achievement of the University’s Mission through activities other than teaching and research.
External engagement involves using specialist knowledge for the benefit of the community and is a scholarly practice through which academic staff apply their academic knowledge and skills to consequential problems in the world beyond the University.
Applicants for promotion are expected to demonstrate engagement performance at least at the level to which they are applying. The criteria for promotion in engagement, and typical supporting evidence, are:
3.5.3.1 The establishment and maintenance of strategic and productive partnerships, connections and relationships with people, groups and organisations which benefit the University and through which social, civic and professional functions are performed
Typical evidence:
- professional commentary on issues in the general media and within the wider community which involves bringing specialist expertise to bear on issues of general public interest in a range of fora
- community awards and citations which are given in recognition of scholarly contributions through the application of discipline knowledge within the region and beyond
- creating opportunities for discussion of intellectual, social, economic and cultural issues of importance to the well-being of the community
- major consulting projects undertaken through the University
- leadership, not merely membership, of professional bodies or learned societies demonstrated by the nature of contributions and outcomes, and evidence of how these have been recognised and acknowledged
- editorship of a scholarly journal and membership of review panels
- teaching, designing, promoting and conducting continuing education or professional development courses and short courses
- contributions to education in the wider community, including professional associations and schools
3.5.3.2 Contributions to the achievement of significant outcomes within the University
Typical evidence:
- leadership through which significant University goals and strategic outcomes are achieved, for example, through active participation on University committees and working parties or holding formal/informal leadership positions.
3.6 Referees
In view of the importance of references, applicants are advised to pay particular attention to this matter in the preparation of their applications.
When nominating a referee, an applicant gives the name and contact details, a brief statement of why the person has been chosen, and an indication of their standing within the discipline, field or profession.
Applicants are advised to select referees whose seniority, knowledge of the higher education sector and university practice, and close knowledge of the applicant and their work enable them to provide informed comment on the application which can be deemed by the University Promotions Committee to be reliable and valid. They should be people of standing in disciplines, fields and professions whose judgements can be relied on by the Committee.
Each applicant nominates three referees. For promotion to Level C, at least one of the referees would normally be external to the University and for promotion to Levels D and E, at least two of the referees would normally be external to the University. Particular note is given to inputs from esteemed external referees.
The Dean or a member of the Promotions Committees cannot be a referee.
An applicant must consult their referees before they submit their application to ensure they are willing and available to act as referee. The applicant is responsible for supplying a copy of the application to each of their referees and specifying the areas on which they require the referee to comment.
Human Resources contacts each nominated referee within five days of the closing date for applications, to seek a written confidential reference.
Back to top
4. Submission of applications
In Faculties where there are Heads of Schools, the relevant Head of School is to sign off on the application to confirm that they have been advised of the submission of an application by a member of staff from that School.
Complete applications are to be submitted by email to Human Resources (promotion@usc.edu.au) by 5.00 pm on the closing date, which is specified in the call for applications.
5. Promotions committees
5.1 Two types of Committees are constituted to consider applications from eligible staff. In constituting the Committees, gender balance is taken in to consideration.
5.2 Other than material required for feedback to an applicant, all materials and deliberations relating to promotion applications are to be treated with the strictest confidence by all participants in and observers of the promotion process. Members of Promotions Committees and observers are not to discuss applications, advice, recommendations or deliberations outside of Committee meetings.
5.3 A member of a Promotions Committee cannot also be an applicant or a referee or act as advocate for an applicant or have a conflict of interest due to the existence of any relationship with an applicant that may influence their evaluation of a promotion application.
5.4 Faculty Promotions Committee
5.4.1 Each Faculty constitutes a Faculty Promotions Committee to evaluate applications from eligible Faculty staff and provide advice to the University Promotions Committee about the performance of each applicant in relation to the merit criteria.
5.4.2 The Faculty Promotions Committee comprises:
- the Dean (as Chair)
- the Heads of Schools
- the Faculty Learning and Teaching Coordinator
- the Faculty Research Coordinator
- the Faculty Regional Engagement Coordinator
- one Faculty academic staff member from each School elected by all ongoing and fixed-term academic staff from the School. To be eligible to nominate, second a nomination, vote or be nominated, an academic staff member must have an ongoing or fixed-term appointment of 0.5 time fraction or more on the date of the call for applications
5.4.3 If a Head of School is an applicant, the Dean nominates an alternative academic staff member from that School. If any of the Faculty Coordinators is an applicant, an alternative appointment is not made.
5.4.4 The Dean allocates appropriate secretarial support.
5.4.5 The notes of meetings of the Faculty Promotions Committees are confidential and the only record of the Committee’s deliberations. Within a framework of the criteria defining merit, a summary of reasons for recommending or not recommending each applicant is recorded.
5.4.6 To evaluate applications, the Faculty Promotions Committee applies the criteria defining merit objectively, rigorously and fairly. The academic performance of each applicant, as presented in the application, is evaluated in relation to the norms that prevail in the applicant’s particular discipline or field.
5.4.7 A Committee member cannot introduce new information to the process.
5.4.8 To determine advice, the Faculty Promotions Committee considers:
- the documentation provided by each eligible applicant
- a copy of the letter/s provided to an applicant from any previous unsuccessful application/s
- any other relevant information
5.4.9 On behalf of the Committee, the Chair submits a confidential report on each applicant to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor via Human Resources. The report includes:
- an assessment of the application against the criteria for promotion and the reasons for that assessment
- where an applicant is re-applying for promotion, an assessment of whether or not the applicant has addressed the feedback provided on their previous application and ways in which the applicant’s claims have been strengthened, and
- an unequivocal summative statement as to whether the application is supported or not supported by a majority of the Faculty Committee
Back to top
5.5 University Promotions Committee
5.5.1 The University Promotions Committee comprises:
- Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair)
- Chair of the University’s Learning and Teaching Management Committee or other member nominated by the Chair of that Committee and agreed to by the Chair of the University Promotions Committee
- Chair of the University’s Research Management Committee or other member nominated by the Chair of that Committee and agreed to by the Chair of the University Promotions Committee
- a Professor from each Faculty appointed by the Chair
- three external Professors. Each Dean nominates prospective external Professors to the Chair and provides information about the nominees’ standing in their disciplines and the reasons for the nominations. The Chair selects and then invites prospective members accordingly, and
- Director, Human Resources (as observer)
Voting members are normally classified at Academic Level D or E.
5.5.2 The Director, Human Resources allocates appropriate secretarial support.
5.5.3 The University Promotions Committee makes recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor and President via the Chair. A recommendation to promote requires assent by a majority of the Committee members.
5.5.4 To determine recommendations, the University Promotions Committee applies the criteria defining merit objectively, rigorously and fairly. The academic performance of each applicant is evaluated in relation to the norms that prevail in the applicant’s particular discipline or field. The University Promotions Committee considers:
- the documentation provided by the applicant;
- a copy of the letter/s provided to an applicant from any previous unsuccessful application/s;
- referees’ reports;
- a copy of the analysis and advice of the Faculty Promotions Committees, which is tabled at the meeting of the University Promotions Committee;
- any other relevant information.
5.5.5 If the University Promotions Committee comes to the conclusion that more information is required to ascertain involvement and standing within the relevant discipline or field for applications to Levels D and E, a report/s can be sought from an external independent assessor/s.
5.5.6 On behalf of the University Promotions Committee, the Chair makes recommendations to promote to the Vice-Chancellor and President.
6. Recommendations to promote
6.1 The Vice-Chancellor and President may seek advice or clarification from the Chair of the University Promotions Committee on any recommendation to promote.
6.2 The Vice-Chancellor and President can approve or not approve any recommendation to promote to Levels B, C, D or E.
6.3 Each applicant is advised in writing by the Chair of the University Promotions Committee whether or not his/her application has been successful.
6.4 The Vice-Chancellor and President reports all promotions to Council.
6.5 After the promotion round is complete, the Vice-Chancellor and President announces promotions to the University community.
7. Feedback to applicants
All applicants for promotion receive written feedback on their application, which is given on behalf of the University Promotions Committee. To assist with subsequent applications and/or future development, each unsuccessful applicant is invited to meet with the Chair of the University Promotions Committee and the Chair of the Faculty Promotions Committee to discuss their application and the written feedback.
8. Implementation of promotion decisions
Promotions take effect from 1 January in the year following the call for applications. A successful applicant’s salary is adjusted to the first step of the next highest level and paid from the first available pay period in that year.
Back to top