,
Information for Academic Staff re: Changes of Career Pathway, Progression,
and the Research Excellence Framework (REF)
Background
Funding and other government policies for Higher Education have in recent times
been transformed by government responses to national economic challenges. More
specifically, there have been huge changes to student fees policies, and these changes
have additionally been accompanied by pressures on Universities to increase their
teaching resource and emphasis on student experience. Also, changes to government
funding of the UK research base has led the research and funding councils to apply
research funds far more selectively, and only at the highest levels of excellence (for
example 3* and 4* for Quality Research(QR), and a similar set of criteria for the
REF).
These external pressures, together with reflections on long established Cardiff
practices, led the Vice-Chancellor to ask for a review of career pathways and other
factors that would help the University and its staff address this new world.
In 2011 a Working Group on Academic Career Pathways/Titles, chaired by Prof
Terry Threadgold, PVC Staff and Diversity, was established by the Vice Chancellor
to review the use of academic career pathways, academic job titles, and academic
progression/promotions, workload models and research leave.
This paper refers to the outcomes of that work in relation only to the first three of
these: academic career pathways, academic job titles, and academic
progression/promotions.
One of the aims of the working group was to find ways of valuing and giving proper
recognition to the work of those staff primarily engaged in Teaching and Scholarship.
Prior to this work, those staff were called Professional Tutors and there was no route
to promotion for them beyond grade 8.
For Staff on the Teaching and Research Pathway there has always been the possibility
of progression and a route to promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, to Reader
to Chair. What is more, it has been possible for some years to achieve these
promotions on the grounds of excellence in Research or Teaching and Scholarship or
Innovation and Engagement. This pathway, and these routes to promotion, remain
unchanged.
A new pathway in Teaching and Scholarship was constructed and approved in 2011
for staff on the professional tutor pathway, whose work and profile did not fit the
teaching and research pathway, and for whom there was previously no progression
possible beyond grade 8.
It is now possible to progress from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer to Reader to Chair on
the Teaching and Scholarship pathway. New promotions guidelines were developed
in 2011 for this pathway and are being used by applicants in the 2011-12 academic
promotions round.
,
At the same time as these changes were made the working group developed a detailed
set of Role Expectations for every grade on these two pathways (Teaching and
Research and Teaching and Scholarship) to assist staff and line managers in preparing
and developing staff for promotion. These Role Expectations are consistent with the
nationally agreed role profiles.
Change in Career Pathway
1. The glass ceiling
One of the great advantages of the new pathways and processes is the flexibility they
provide to recognise and value more than one kind of contribution within a research
led institution like Cardiff University. Because we have not had this flexibility
historically, a number of staff across the institution have reached a ‘glass ceiling’
beyond which progression was not possible.
The example of professional tutors is given above, but the same thing could happen to
people on the Teaching and Research pathway. Many who were on this pathway
should not have been (and some may still be): that is, their job descriptions referred to
very limited, or in a small number of cases no research, So, quite properly, they either
did limited or no research. As a result this stopped them gaining promotion on the
pathway they were on because it requires at least ‘ability and effectiveness’ in
research.
For both these groups of staff, a change of career pathway to Teaching and
Scholarship immediately opens up a whole new set of possibilities for progression
and promotion which were simply not there before.
2. Career Pathways: managing change and developing people
In the course of a career it is also possible that the direction and focus of someone’s
work changes; for example where once a lot of time was spent on productive research,
now much more is spent on teaching and scholarship or on innovation and
engagement activities. It is also possible that as a career develops, research comes to
be a significant part of someone’s role where it was not to begin with. The balance
shifts sometimes – or it may be shifted intentionally and strategically.
When this happens, a change of career pathway may be advisable. It is also possible,
across a career, to make more than one change in either direction. This cannot be done
at will and must fit certain guidelines (see below), but it is possible.
Example 1: someone on a Teaching and Research Pathway who does some research
but for a long time has devoted much more energy to excellence in teaching and
scholarship and/or innovation and engagement may benefit from moving across to the
Teaching and Scholarship pathway where there are opportunities for progression.
Example 2: someone on a Research only contract who has the skills to cover the
breadth of a teaching and research role who may benefit from moving across on to the
teaching and research pathway in order to support their career development, and also
,
in order to support the Institution by being on a pathway where their work can be
returned for the REF.
3. Managing Performance which Fails to Meet Role Expectations
There will inevitably, in a large organisation, be occasions when staff are actually not
performing well on the pathway they are on, whichever one it is. In these cases, a
career pathway change is not the answer, especially when the School concerned
actually needs the person to do the job for which they were employed.
In these cases staff need to be supported through appraisal and the careful
management of their performance to do their job. This may involve support for
teaching or research or any other aspect of the academic role.
How is a Career Pathway Change Initiated and Accomplished?
Any change of career pathway must fit the strategic direction of the School, be related
to priorities for Teaching and Scholarship and/or Research and/or Innovation and
Engagement, be agreed with the member of staff and must be appropriate to the skills
and abilities of the staff member concerned.
Career pathway changes are not therefore matters of personal choice, either for staff
themselves or for Heads of School.
The University has set up a Scrutiny Group, chaired by the Deputy Vice Chancellor,
which scrutinises all requests from Heads of School for changes to career pathway.
This group requires a business case, a profile of the academic staffing in the School
following the change, a job description for the new role, and confirmation that the
member of staff has consented to the change of pathway.
The Scrutiny Group will not approve changes where these requirements are not
satisfied.
There is no change of contract involved, and salary is not affected by any such
change. A new job description should be available before a pathway change is
decided, and workload will need to be re-allocated once the change is agreed.
Normally, a change of career pathway would be arrived at through discussion in
appraisal and mentoring meetings and mutually agreed over time and in relation to the
needs of the school and the staff member.
REF and Career Pathways
The mentoring that is going on across the University in relation to REF is inevitably
involving some (long overdue in some cases) conversations about career direction and
focus. Some of the kinds of benign changes discussed above may well emerge from
these conversations.
,
However REF, in and of itself, should not be producing a rush to move staff on to the
Teaching and Scholarship pathway or indeed any other pathway.
Eligibility
There are two distinct issues for all staff to be aware of around the REF. One is
eligibility. Eligibility is based on HEFCE’s rules about what constitutes an
‘independent researcher’. Only the latter are eligible to return outputs to the REF.
The second issue is selection (see below) which is very much related to the way in
which research will be funded post REF.
Funding
The way in which governments will fund research post- REF is radically different to
the ways in which previous RAEs have lead to funding. Only 3* and 4* outputs will
be funded. Indeed, the funding for 2* returns from the last RAE has already stopped.
This means that the difficult strategic decisions that will need to be made by the Vice
Chancellor about what kinds of outputs are actually returned are going to be very
different in kind for the REF.
All the indications are that the more staff, and the more 2* outputs we return, the
lower our Grade Point Average (GPA) will be. This matters because the GPA will
determine (1) our national ranking in the REF and (2) the QR money that follows
from it.
Selection of Staff for Return
What will matter this time is not whether individuals are returned, but what kind of
return will maximise our Grade Point Average (GPA) and our QR money.
This is what will bring maximum benefit to the Institution in the longer term, and this
will be of benefit to all staff
There should not therefore be too much anxiety among staff about whether they are
selected for return or not. The REF is a different exercise and this time selection and
return for all staff with four returns will not be a part of that exercise.
All Staff Contribute and All Staff Matter
But all staff matter in this exercise. The REF measures Outputs, Impact and
Environment. All of our staff contribute to all of this. It has to be a team effort.
Those whose roles are Teaching and Scholarship have a major part to play in
releasing others to increase the research effort and in passing on the benefits of
research to future generations through their teaching.
There will be many staff whose research has not yet reached the levels of quality
required for submission this time, but who will already be being cited in the literature,
and in whom we need to invest for the future. These are the people who will be
,
returned in future REF exercises. 2* or not, returned this time or not, these people are
the future of the disciplines.
There will be other staff who are not selected for submission this time but who are
making a major contribution to impact case studies (each one of which is worth much
more than one submission).
Many other staff will be making a generic contribution to the scores we receive for
research environment: e.g., researchers who are not eligible for return nonetheless
contribute to the generation of research income and activity, other staff supervise
PhDs to completion (and this time those completions count whether the supervisor is
returned or not), those who work to implement the Concordat or to achieve Athena
Swan awards, or to maintain our Investors in People status, and so on – are all
contributing to the REF effort.
Career Pathways and the REF
In this context then, no Heads of School should be contemplating simply changing
people’s career pathways to Teaching and Scholarship because they do not have a
four x 3*/4* return.
All Heads of School will be looking closely at their Research staff on the other hand
to see whether any of them should be moved to a Teaching and Research pathway to
ensure their eligibility as independent researchers.
The Scrutiny Group will be looking very closely at requests for changes of pathway to
ensure that Heads of School are clear about the procedures and the Director of
HRSHE will be speaking to every Head of School to ensure that there is consistency
across the University in the way in which these issues and the careers of our staff are
managed.
Terry Threadgold
21/04/2012