PPolicy Statement

POLICY STATEMENT

1    Intent

This policy governs academic promotions at the University of Tasmania.

2    Scope

This is a University-wide policy. It applies to all academic staff employed in any part of the University of Tasmania (including the Institutes), whether on fixed-term or continuing contracts, or on full-time or part-time appointments, and irrespective of the source of funding or the mix of academic work undertaken. It covers academic promotions at any point of the academic scale from Level A to Level E.

3    Principles

3.1       Promotion is the movement from one level to the first point of the next level, as a reward for performance.

3.2       Applications for promotion are assessed solely on merit. Resource allocation issues are not relevant to the promotions process.

3.3       This policy is consistent with the University’s workload principles and performance management processes that identify four categories of academic activity:

• Teaching
• Research and scholarship
• Service to the University
• Service to the discipline and/or community.

3.4       The Academic Promotions Policy is intended to be flexible, to recognise and treat equitably:

• Widely varying combinations of academic activity; and
• The differing types of academic activity and differing forms of output that are characteristic of different disciplines.

This policy also recognises that the balance of academic activities for any one staff member is likely to change over time.

3.5       Applications for promotion are assessed on a ‘whole-of-job’ model, that is on the applicant’s overall contribution. As such, exceptional contributions in some categories of activity may compensate for lesser achievement in others.

3.6       Assessment of applications is based on the following questions:

• Is the applicant’s contribution in a specific category of activity of a high enough quality?
• Does that area represent a significant proportion of the applicant’s overall workload?
• Are the achievements sufficient, when taken in combination, to warrant promotion?

3.7       Performance will be assessed over an applicant’s entire career, but the University Promotions Committee (UPC) will place particular weight on achievements since the applicant’s appointment to the University of Tasmania, since the most recent promotion, or over the last five years, whichever is the shortest.

This policy aligns with the principles of equal opportunity, confidentiality, transparency and procedural fairness; these principles guide the implementation of the policy and all procedures associated with academic promotions.

Accordingly, the proceedings of the UPC will be strictly confidential. The UPC will not meet as a single sex committee.

4    Definitions and Acronyms

5    Policy Maker

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Provost as Chair of the University Promotions Committee.

6    Policy

6.1       General Provisions

6.1.1    Applications for promotion are considered annually by the UPC. Promotion at UTAS is evidence-based. Advice on preparing and presenting evidence of performance in each category of academic activity can be found in the Academic Promotions: Advice for Applicants and Heads.

6.1.2    To be eligible to apply for promotion, a staff member must have been employed by the University of Tasmania for at least one year by the closing date for applications. In special circumstances, the Chair of the UPC may grant an exemption to this provision, and will report any such exemption to the next meeting of the UPC.

6.1.3    In evaluating an application for promotion, the UPC will consider whether to recommend promotion of the applicant to the next level.

6.1.4    As an alternative to promotion to the next level, the UPC may recommend accelerated progression within the current level where performance has been meritorious but insufficient to justify promotion to the next level.

6.1.5    Academic promotion and accelerated progression are awarded by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the UPC. Accelerated progression within a level or promotion from one level to the next will date from 1 January in the year following consideration of the application by the UPC.

6.1.6    Applications for promotion are assessed on merit. While the overall volume of such contributions (relative to opportunity) is a relevant consideration, the UPC is more concerned with academic excellence, indicated by the demonstrated quality of the contributions and their significance as indicated by evidence of their impact.

6.1.7    When evaluating performance, the UPC recognises that staff work in diverse disciplines with different protocols and conventions, that staff allocate their time and talents in different ways, and that the University’s well-being and reputation depend on a wide and varied range of contributions.

6.1.8    The UPC considers performance in four categories of academic activity:

• Teaching
• Research and scholarship
• Service to the University
• Service to the discipline and/or community.

6.1.9    In considering an application, the UPC will take account of the combination of academic activities and the workload weighting given to each. Those activities representing a greater proportion of the applicant’s total workload will receive a greater weighting in the assessment of the overall merit of the case.

6.1.10  Exceptional contributions in one or more categories of activity, particularly those representing a substantial proportion of total workload, may compensate for lesser contributions in others, provided that the overall contribution meets the test of merit appropriate to the level to which promotion is being sought.

6.1.11  As well as documenting the activities undertaken, the applicant must demonstrate the academic excellence achieved, indicated by the demonstrated quality of the contributions and their significance as measured by evidence of their impact. Advice on how to measure, assess and express the impact of various categories of activity can be found in the accompanying document Academic Promotions: Advice for Applicants and Heads.

6.1.12  The UPC recognises that staff work in diverse disciplines with different protocols and conventions, and therefore attempts to assess applications against those discipline-specific expectations, but the UPC is not constituted as a committee of disciplinary experts. Accordingly, the applicant, the Head and referees are required to provide information on disciplinary norms and expectations and to provide evidence and/or commentary that will enable the UPC to assess the application against them.

6.1.13  While a particular form of activity may not fit conveniently into any one of the four categories of activity, applicants should attempt to provide the most appropriate categorisation. The UPC will not give credit for the same activity under more than one category.

6.1.14  Performance in consultancies may contribute to an applicant’s overall case for promotion. An applicant’s consultancy work may be included as evidence of service to the University, discipline or community, or as evidence of research; the nature of the consultancy will determine which category is appropriate.

6.1.15  Evidence of significant leadership contributions is required in applications for promotion to Level D and Level E. Leadership achievements may also provide evidence to support an application for promotion to Level B or Level C.

6.1.16  When considering promotion applications from staff holding fractional appointments, the UPC expects the criteria for promotion to be satisfied at the same quality as for staff holding full-time appointments, but at a level or volume consistent with the fraction of their employment.

6.1.17  Promotion to Level D and Level E is for the exceptional few and is for levels of achievement above the normal career grade, which is Level C.

6.1.18  The UPC is concerned only with an applicant’s professional activities that are related to their employment at UTAS and/or draw directly on their professional skills. Activities of an essentially private nature will not be taken into account in assessing an application for promotion.

6.2       Promotion to Level B

6.2.1    Level A academic staff members are eligible to apply for promotion to Level B. For instructions on how to apply, see section 5.2 of the Academic Promotions Procedures.

6.2.2    In order to achieve promotion to Level B, applicants are required to demonstrate a capacity to make a significant overall contribution evidenced by a valuable contribution in their current position.

6.3       Promotion to Level C

6.3.1    Level B academic staff members are eligible to apply for promotion to Level C. For instructions on how to apply, see section 5.2 of the Academic Promotions Procedures.

6.3.2    In order to achieve promotion to Level C, applicants are required to demonstrate academic excellence, evidenced by a significant overall contribution in their substantial work activities.

Very significant performance in one category of activity, particularly one constituting a substantial fraction of overall workload, may compensate for lesser achievement in another category of activity.

Applicants will be expected to demonstrate an active record of scholarly achievement in their discipline.

Applicants must also demonstrate a capacity to make a significant contribution to service to the University by contributing to activities of the School/Institute in which they are employed.

6.4       Promotion to Level D

6.4.1    Level C academic staff members are eligible to apply for promotion to Level D. For instructions on how to apply, see section 5.2 of the Academic Promotions Procedures.

6.4.2    In order to achieve promotion to Level D, applicants are required to demonstrate excellent academic merit, evidenced by a very significant overall contribution in the categories of academic activity in which they are involved.

The very significant overall contribution required for promotion to Level D will normally be accompanied and demonstrated by an outstanding reputation at a national or international level.

Applicants must also provide evidence of leadership in at least two of the categories of teaching, research and scholarship, service to the University and service to the discipline and/or community.

Outstanding performance in one category of activity, particularly one constituting a substantial fraction of overall workload, may compensate for lesser achievement in another category of activity.

6.5       Promotion to Level E

6.5.1    Level D academic staff members are eligible to apply for promotion to Level E. For instructions on how to apply, see section 5.2 of the Academic Promotions Procedures.

6.5.2    In order to achieve promotion to Level E, applicants are required to demonstrate outstanding academic merit, evidenced by an outstanding overall contribution to teaching, research and scholarship, service to and leadership of the University, and service to and leadership of the discipline and/or community.

The outstanding overall contribution required for promotion to Level E will normally be accompanied and demonstrated by an outstanding reputation at an international level.

Applicants must also provide evidence of extensive leadership contributions. Significant leadership contributions will normally be expected in at least three categories of activity, although exceptional contributions in two areas may be regarded as sufficient.

It is recognised that few individuals will have outstanding achievements in all four areas of activity. Extraordinary achievements in one category of activity, particularly one constituting a substantial fraction of overall workload, may compensate for lesser achievement in another.

6.6       Applications

Applicants must submit written applications with the information specified and in the format indicated in the Academic Promotions Procedures by the deadline specified.

Applicants are entitled to update their applications with information on new activities and achievements up until the time of the UPC meeting at which the application is assessed.

6.7       Head’s Report

The relevant Head will provide a written report on the applicant’s performance, including progression over time, and a statement of the activities and achievements relative to disciplinary norms.

Heads are encouraged to consider consulting with relevant senior colleagues when writing their report. Advice for Heads is contained in the document Academic Promotions: Advice for Applicants and Heads.

The Head’s report is to be submitted as part of the application for promotion.

The Head must also provide confirmation of the accuracy of the application materials, including specific endorsement of the summary of SETL reports and the applicant’s stated workload weightings. 

The applicant may apply to have another senior staff member carry out the duties of Head as specified in this policy. Requests to use a substitute must be approved by the Chair of the UPC, prior to the submission of applications, and will be considered in light of advice from the relevant Dean and Head of School. Any such substitute must have the capacity to provide all the information specified in this policy and will undertake all responsibilities of the Head as prescribed in this policy.

The applicant’s Head may apply to the Chair of the UPC to stand down from the duties of Head. Such requests will be considered in light of advice from the relevant Dean and the capacity to identify a suitable alternative person to carry out the duties of Head.

If the Head is the applicant for promotion, the Head’s responsibilities will be undertaken by the Dean of the relevant faculty.

6.8       Referees

Referees are expected to be impartial and objective advisors to the UPC. Referees are expected to provide a balanced view of the applicant’s achievements and worthiness for promotion at UTAS, and not to act merely as advocates for the applicant. Referees will be asked to provide contextual advice to assist in judging the applicant’s performance against disciplinary norms.

Applicants for promotion to Level B and to Level C are required to submit the name of one independent external referee or one independent internal referee.

Applicants for promotion to Level D and to Level E are required to submit the names of two independent external referees or two independent internal referees.

For all applicants, additional referees will be identified on the advice of the Head or other appropriate advisor.

The UPC will contact referees. The applicant should not seek written comments from referees.

The UPC has the right to identify the need for and solicit further written advice from any persons with relevant expertise who may be internal or external to the University.

Members of the UPC cannot act as referees for applicants.

6.9       University Promotions Committee

The primary role of the University Promotions Committee is to consider applications for promotion and to make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor.

The UPC comprises academic staff members with Level D or Level E appointments and has the following structure:

Ex Officio
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Provost [Chair]
Chair of Academic Senate
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students and Education)
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Australian Maritime College)

Nominated Members
One person from each of the faculties of the University, nominated by the relevant Dean, and
One external member from another university (for consideration of applications for promotion to Level E)

With the exception of the ex officio positions, the term of office of members of the UPC is three years.

Six members of the UPC constitute a quorum.

6.10     Assessment of Applications

All applications will be considered by the UPC, which will be responsible for:

• Seeking reports from referees;
• Considering all relevant evidence;
• Recommending to the Vice-Chancellor those applicants deemed worthy of promotion or accelerated progression; and
• Formulating feedback to unsuccessful applicants.

The UPC may consider any written information from any source to assist it in making a decision.

The UPC will interview all applicants for promotion to Level D and Level E. The UPC may interview applicants for promotion to other levels where this will assist the committee to reach a decision.

The UPC must act fairly and without bias. Members of the UPC must be vigilant in identifying possible conflicts of interest. Where there is a possible conflict of interest, the relevant member of the UPC must declare this to the Chair. The Chair will determine the appropriate action. Where there is a significant conflict of interest, the relevant member(s) of UPC will absent themselves from discussion and determination of the particular application.

The UPC must follow the Academic Promotions Policy and the Academic Promotions Procedures strictly. Where the UPC is not certain of the merit of an application, it must provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to its concerns, normally during an interview.

Where the UPC chooses to interview an applicant, a Head who is not a member of the UPC will be invited to attend the meeting of the UPC while an applicant from that School speaks with the committee and when the application is being discussed. The Head is entitled to participate in preliminary discussions but is not permitted to be present during the final discussion. In addition, where an applicant for promotion to Level E is being interviewed, the relevant Dean will be invited to attend the meeting of the UPC on the same terms as the Head.

6.11     Recommendations of the University Promotions Committee

The UPC will forward its recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor for approval.

Formal notice of the Vice-Chancellor’s decision will be conveyed to all applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will receive a written statement outlining the UPC’s reasons for not recommending promotion.

Unsuccessful applicants may obtain additional feedback from the Chair of the UPC.

6.12     Review of Recommendations of the University Promotions Committee

6.12.1  Unsuccessful applicants may request that the UPC’s recommendation is reconsidered on the basis of procedural error, that is failure to comply with the Academic Promotions Policy or the Academic Promotions Procedures. Requests cannot be based on an applicant’s disagreement with the UPC’s views about the merit of their application.

6.12.2  Written requests for review must be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor through Human Resources, within 21 days of the applicant being formally advised that their application has been unsuccessful. The request must specify clearly the details of the alleged procedural error and provide any available evidence to support the allegation.
 
6.12.3 Before seeking such a review, the unsuccessful applicant must consult with the Chair of the UPC.

6.12.4  Applications under review will be heard by the APRC. The APRC is constituted as follows:

• A chairperson appointed by the Vice-Chancellor;
• A nominee of the Vice-Chancellor; and
• An employee elected by the academic staff of the University.

6.12.5  As part of its review process the APRC will seek a written report from the Chair of the UPC on matters relevant to the application under review and relating to the alleged procedural error. The APRC will also invite the applicant to respond in writing to the Chair’s report.

6.12.6  Following its review, the APRC will provide a written report to the Vice-Chancellor outlining its findings and recommendation(s), with copies of that report being provided simultaneously to the applicant and to the Chair of the UPC. In reviewing a recommendation of the UPC, it will be open to the APRC to recommend that the Vice-Chancellor accept or overturn the recommendation or, alternatively, remit the application for promotion to the UPC to address any procedural errors.

7   Key Words

• Promotion
• Progression
• Achievement
• Rewards
• Recognition
• Responsibilities
• Excellence
• Teaching
• Research
• Service
• Merit-based

8   Supporting/Related Documents

• Academic Promotions: Procedures
• Academic Promotions: Advice for Applicants and Heads
• Heads of School Policy
• Academic Staff Workloads – Guidelines
• Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement
• EDGE2: University of Tasmania Plan 2008-2010

RESPONSIBILITIES

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW THIS POLICY?

• University Council
• All Heads and Deans
• All Academic Staff
• University Promotions Committee

EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS POLICY

Promotions are directly relevant to the EDGE2 University of Tasmania Plan 2008-2010, and particularly to Priority A: Fully embed a high-performance culture. Policies relating to academic staff are crucial to enhancing the quality of those staff and, in turn, the current and future reputation of the institution. The EDGE agenda is not achievable without a sound academic promotions policy. The excellence, distinctiveness, growth, and engagement achieved by the institution are all contingent on the quality of its staff.

The effectiveness of this policy can be measured by the extent to which UTAS attracts and retains quality academic staff, pursues excellence in teaching, research and engagement and thereby increases reputation, grows EFTSL, increases financial resources, strengthens international reputation, encourages growth, and, thereby attracts more high quality academic staff. All of this serves to better position the University in order that it can realise its mission and vision.

POLICY HISTORY