Consultation feedback

We have completed nearly 12 months of consultation, via town halls, focus groups and school meetings.

The consultation process so far

We consulted with staff to gain their input and feedback through various channels over the last year.

Focus Group Results (2016)

First reactions to the idea of a single flexible pathway were ‘cautiously’ positive, with high levels of goodwill attached yet a concern over the detail, implementation and the reality that this would have a university wide impact.

There is an appetite for change and people see the benefits of the proposal, namely;

  • Flexibility
  • Career progression opportunities
  • Recognition beyond research
  • A chance for all to focus on their skills and interests
  • Career progression similar to a corporate organisation BUT

There are concerns about what must be met if this is to succeed;

  • Clarity on the impact for all individuals
  • Assurance that this does not mean more of everything
  • Meticulously planned, managed and implemented
  • Flexible for all including smaller teams
  • Aligned to what other universities are doing

Critical success factors for the project are;

  • Governance - especially leadership support
  • Consistency over time once the criteria is in place
  • Ability to flex as needed for different schools and departments
  • Transparency to ensure all staff are treated equally
  • Clarity around requirements for promotion

The Executive Summary of the focus groups is available below.

Professorial feedback (February 2017)

On the 13th of February 2017, over 100 Professors and Associate Professors attended a Town Hall with the DVCE Professor Belinda Tynan to provide feedback on the Teaching Domain and the Engagement Domain. Each colleague chose to sit at a table which discussed either the Engagement Domain or the Teaching Domain. Below is a summary of the feedback provided.

Staff Townhall Feedback (April and June 2017)

April

Do the new promotion domains and criteria recognise your current work? (30 responses)

Yes – 70 %

No – 30%

Do you agree that every applicant needs only to address at least two of the three domains, Engagement, Teaching and Research? (34 responses)

Yes – 76%

No - 24%

Each domain has at least three criteria. When applying for promotion, applicants need to be asked to: (30 responses)

A. Address all criteria in the domain - 20%

B. Address a minimum number of criteria specified by the university – 23%

C. Select the criterion/criteria that best relate to the applicants experience and performance – 57%

Will the new promotion domains and criteria assist you to apply for promotion? (31 responses)

Yes – 81 %

No – 19%

Please indicate here any unanswered questions that you have about the new promotion scheme (12 responses)

Will the research domain recognise creative practice and impacts? In addition to the three criteria of - money, pubs, completions.

Can you show excellence in the evidence or is it just meeting or not meeting? Will the panel then make this assessment?

Research domain:

  • we review papers for journals / conferences which has immediate impact on research of the authors of the paper we are reviewing. how if at all will this be recognised ?
  • at the moment the teaching workload is CONSTRAINING us by providing very little or no time for research or engagement. would University be willing to consider a workload model of 50% research; 30% teaching and 20% engagement for scholars / academics who wish to engage more on research domain.

I am curious to know why HDR supervision fits under research and not teaching? In terms of being a research intensive academic, HDR supervision is where and how I do the majority of my teaching. Is there a way that this contribution can be woven into the teaching criteria alongside the criteria broadened from, for example, student assessments to student success (which would be reflected in PhD completions or similar)? Also how will part-time and full-time applications be benchmarked against one another? This will need to be made transparent.

Sessional staff that are employed in an ongoing manner have little security and no promotion opportunity.

Research: Some disciplines do not have access to a lot of income generation. Some areas of arts and non for profit projects.

I think the discipline specific criteria is great but how do we ensure that the criteria developed for a particular discipline is attainable rather than aspirational/unachievable? My concern is management setting unrealistic criteria.

Is there an option for Leadership to form another domain? I know that this is a little late in the piece, but to me it is related to Engagement, but I it is also somewhat different. Leadership can also take a variety of roles, of which some may sit outside Engagement. Happy to talk about my comments further

Can we use these criteria this year to apply for promotion?

If planning to go for a promotion in 2017 can this Project Metis set of dimensions be used now? They seem very good. Also when will the current promotion round be announced? It is confusing to be going for a promotion in between the old and new.

Can you please indicate the point of contact for the current round of promotions?


June

Do the new promotion domains and criteria recognise your current work? (30 responses)

Yes – 90%

No – 10%

Do you agree that every promotion applicant needs to address at least two of the three domains? (31 responses)

Yes – 94%

No – 6%

Will the new promotion domains and criteria assist you to apply for promotion? (29 responses)

Yes – 86%

No – 14%

Please indicate here any unanswered questions that you have about the new promotion framework. ( 26 responses)

What if we want to apply for promotion prior to these new guidelines?

What are the expectations under each of the 3 criteria across the academic spectrum?

I think it is beaut!

Engagement takes lots of time ! How will this work with our official workloads?

If you choose teaching and engagement - is the an expectation that you will produce research output?

What time frame should evidence be based in? How do you address job responsibilities changes?

What is the actual workload consequence for someone promoted in the teaching focussed category?

Will the assessors of applications be drawn from the field you work within?

With promotion..how are you going to ensure consistent approaches by heads of schools?

What’s the role of referees in the new system?

If applying this year do we answer this this year?

How are the expectations reflected in academic workloads?

Is there someone who can advise us who does promotion application assessment? Rather than only getting advice from our own discipline?

Can you define the difference between SOTL and research outputs?

I am heavily focused on engagement. When should I apply for promotion, who do I discuss it with, and how many levels can I be promoted by? (B -> D)?

How will multi-disciplinary research be accommodated in the research domain?

Percentage ranges? Fixed or flexible?

Who is involved in the promotion panel across the academic spectrum?

Line managers are often less senior than those reporting to them - they aren't good advisers.

How will the demands of program management roles and the impact that has on the other domains be taken into account?

How granular is the discipline specificity' of the research expectations going to be?

Will there be a notion of impactful engagement"?

If you choose teaching and engagement - is the an expectation that you will produce research output?

Should have happened years ago.

Promotion applications take a lot of time to prepare and gather evidence. It will be good to discuss with mentors (or whoever- designated persons in Colleges) to get feedback before spending a lot of time on the application.

Thanks again for all your hard work on this it is really appreciated. Especially appreciated is a more sophisticated reading of the ridiculous academic expectations and to differentiate us from the other institutions.