UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
1.
The Working Group, comprising representatives of Court and SUCU, was jointly established
by Staff Committee and the Joint Negotiating and Consultative Committee and operated
against the remit appended at Annex 1. The Group was tasked to undertake a detailed
examination of the Academic Professional concept, with a view to developing an
overarching grouping of staff named Academic Professional, comprising the categories of
Academic staff, Research staff and Teaching staff (currently Academic Support staff).
2.
The grouping of these three staff categories under the Academic Professional heading
recognises that it is the staff within these categories that are responsible for the direct
delivery of the University’s ‘academic product’, in terms of research, education and
knowledge exchange activity.
Proposals
3.
The Group met five times (17 March, 2 April, 26 May, 21 July and 3 September 2009) and
agreed the following proposals:
(1) Changes to the University’s Charter will be made to confirm that Academic Freedom,
as defined in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, covers Research
staff and Teaching staff.
(2) Research staff and Teaching staff will be given broad access to academic governance
roles through amendments to the University’s Charter, Statutes, Ordinance and
Regulations.
(3) Promotion arrangements will be made more explicit for Research staff and Teaching
staff through revisions to the Annual Review procedures and the provision of additional
guidance material.
(4) The staff category title of Academic Support will be re-designated Teaching.
(5) The job titles used for Research staff and Teaching staff will be standardised to
introduce a similar clarity for career planning purposes to that which has long existed for
Academic staff.
(6) Probationary arrangements for Research staff and Teaching staff will be standardised,
but will not seek to duplicate the extended arrangements operated for Academic staff.
(7) Professional development frameworks for Research staff and Teaching staff will be
established to support career development during probationary periods and beyond.
4.
The proposal at 3 (1) has already been captured as part of the University’s current review of
its Charter and Statutes.
1
5.
The proposal at 3 (4) reflects general feedback that the term Academic Support does not
appropriately convey the importance of this staff category or the key activity involved. For
the remainder of this report the proposed replacement title of Teaching is adopted.
6.
The remaining proposals are expanded upon in the subsequent sections of this report.
Other Matters
7.
The Group discussed the following matters at length but did not reach agreement on
proposals for change:
(1) Statute XXIII coverage and the definition of Academic staff.
Although SUCU
representatives suggested that both Academic staff status and Statute XXIII coverage
should be extended to cover all staff within the Academic Professional grouping, Court
representatives were unable to agree.
(2) Promotion arrangements for Academic staff, which focus primarily on the assessment of
performance with an expectation that higher levels of performance will be accompanied
by job growth, are unique in job evaluation terms. They are based on a long established
convention in UK higher education where the terms Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader,
Professor and how they are measured is systemically understood. Promotion/re-grading
in the Research staff and Teaching staff categories is based on the measurement of jobsize, recognising that an organisational need for the job to be carried out at a higher
level must be established on a case-by-case basis. Although SUCU representatives
suggested performance based promotion arrangements should be extended to cover all
staff within the Academic Professional grouping, Court representatives were unable to
agree pointing out that altering grades in these categories without a measurement of job
size which has an analytical underpinning would introduce an unacceptable level of risk.
This issue is further explored below in 24, 29 and 30 below.
8. The Group considered the work activity model, as appended at Annex 2, and noted that,
although not intended to be overly restrictive at an individual level, it had been usefully
adopted to assist in a number of recent organisational restructuring initiatives. Court
representatives advised that it was likely to be used again in the context of future reshaping
activity in academic areas.
9. The Group noted that the movement of existing individual staff between staff categories was
not being proposed, unless by mutuality; rather the Academic Professional model would
ensure that future appointments were driven by consideration of organisational structure
and future/ongoing business needs. Nonetheless, it was noted that organisational
restructurings could redefine staffing profiles and that this scenario could result in existing
staff being given the opportunity to consider whether they wished to be employed in an
alternative staff category.
Action Required
10. Staff Committee is invited to consider and approve the above proposals and reflect on the
implementation issues highlighted in the main body of the report.
2
SECTION 2: ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE ROLES
Introduction
11. The Working Group examined the extent to which Research staff and Teaching staff are
able to participate in academic governance arrangements such as membership of Senate,
Boards of Study, and student assessment/examination activities.
Proposals
12. Based on a review of University Calendar 2008-09 Part 1, Table 1 provides a summary of
the academic governance roles defined within the University's Charter, Statutes,
Ordinances and Regulations and identifies which staff categories are currently eligible to
undertake each role. The Group considers that broader access to academic governance
roles would be appropriate in a number of areas, as recorded in Table 1.
13. The Group agreed that its guiding principle in considering governance roles was that there
should be parity of esteem and access to governance role across the staff categories within
the Academic Professional grouping, unless Staff Committee had accepted on a case-bycase basis that the interests of good governance would not be served in a specific set of
circumstances.
14. The proposals therefore seek to ensure that membership of bodies including Senate, Court,
Boards of Study and Departmental Committees is extended to all staff categories within the
Academic Professional grouping.
15. Furthermore, by extending eligibility to undertake the key academic management roles of
Deputy Principals, Deans of Faculties and Heads of Department, the proposals ensure that
Research staff and Teaching staff could be considered for such roles if they wished (and
also address the curiosity whereby Research staff and Teaching staff are currently ineligible
for the aforementioned roles, yet are eligible to be appointed to the roles of Principal, VicePrincipal, Vice-Dean or Associate Dean).
16. Proposals are also made which would enable Teaching staff to undertake formal roles in
relation to student assessment and examination (e.g. internal examiners).
Implementation
17. Proposals relating to the Charter and Statues should be captured as part of the University’s
current review of these arrangements.
18. A further exercise will need to be conducted to action those elements that relate to
Ordinances and Regulations.
3
Table 1: The Academic Professional – Governance Issues – Review of University Calendar 2008-09 Part 1
Role
Principal (C 6(1) / S III)
Vice Principal (C 7(1) / S V)
Membership of Academic Congress (C 14(1))
Membership of Departmental Committees (C 16.1 / R
1.14.1 / R 1.14.2)
Academic
Y
Y
Y
Y
Research
Y
Y
N
Y (limited)
Teaching
Y
Y
N
N
Members of the University (S I)
Deputy Principal (S VI)
General Convocation (S XII)
Membership of Court (S XIII)
Y
Y
?
Y
?
N
?
Y
?
N
?
?
Membership of Senate (S XIV)
Y
Y
?
Membership of Faculties (S XV)
Y
N
N
Membership of Boards of Study (S XV / C 12(3) / R.1.7.2
/ / R 1.7.7 / R 1.8.2 R 1.8.4)
Deans of Faculties (S XVI)
Statute XXIII coverage (incl Academic Freedom) (S XXIII)
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Internal examiners (O 6 / R 1.10.2, R 1.10.7, R 1.10.13 /
R 1.10.19 / R 1.10.20)
Vice Deans (O 7)
Associate Dean (O 7)
Promotion to Professor (O 8)
Joint Committees of Court and Senate (O 10)
Student Discipline (O 12)
Elections to Senate (O 15)
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Senate Discipline Committee & Appeals Committee (R
1.5.48 / R 5.7.1(ii))
Higher Doctorates Committee (R 1.5.51)
Heads of Departments (R 1.13.3)
Consultation on HoD appointments (R 1.13.4)
Acting HoD (R 1.13.7 / R 1.13.8)
Invigilation (R 4.1.5)
Y
N
N
No change required
No change required
No change required
No change required
Extend to Teaching staff (not relevant for Research staff)
Extend to Teaching staff / Is a number prescribed for Research
staff at present?
Extend to Teaching staff (not relevant for Research staff)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NA - to be abolished?
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
4
Proposal
No change required
No change required
NA - to be abolished?
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff. Change Charter 16
to allow Departmental Committees to be defined by the
Regulations. Suggested replacement wording for Regulations (R
1.14.2): The Departmental Committee shall comprise all members
of Academic staff, Research staff and Teaching staff at Grade 8
and above and any probationary lecturers in the Department. The
Head of Department shall make arrangements which ensure that
all other staff in the Department are appropriately represented.
No change required
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
NA - to be abolished?
Extend to Teaching staff - by extending Senate membership
eligibility, Court membership eligibility will follow
Extend to Teaching staff / NB can co-opt at present under S XIV
1(vi)
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff / What rights are
conferred? Stand for Dean? Vote for Dean? Still relevant?
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff / NB can co-opt at
moment under R 1.7.3
Extend to Research staff and Teaching staff
Charter to be amended to extend Academic Freedom to
Research staff and Teaching staff / No other change required
Extend to Teaching staff (not relevant for Research staff)
SECTION 3: PROMOTION ROUTES
Introduction
19. This section addresses the following objective identified by the Working Group:
Ensure that promotion routes which depend primarily on growth in job size (as is the
case for Research staff and Teaching staff), as opposed to performance, are
appropriately articulated. This will include the identification, with reference to the Job
Level Descriptors, of the key competencies which an individual would require to
possess/develop to perform effectively at each of the Research staff and Teaching staff
grades.
Current Promotion Procedures
20. The existing Annual Review Procedures for Academic staff, Research staff and Teaching
staff define the processes that apply in considering promotion to a higher grade for the
respective staff categories.
21. These processes define a distinct procedure for Academic staff which differs from that
adopted for Research staff and Teaching staff. The Working Group has recognised the
fundamental difference which underlies this distinction:
Promotion arrangements for Academic staff, which focus primarily on the assessment of
performance with an expectation that higher levels of performance will be accompanied
by job growth, are unique. Promotion/re-grading in the Research staff and Teaching
staff categories is based on the measurement of job-size, recognising that an
organisational need for the job to be carried out at a higher level must be established on
a case-by-case basis.
22. Promotion to Academic grades of Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor is based on
assessment of performance against published promotion criteria (with cases for Reader and
Professor being considered by the Senior Academic Appointments Panel).
23. With reference to Research staff and Teaching staff, the Annual Review procedures state
that:
For other staff, recommendations for promotion should show evidence of an
organisational need being met with additional duties having been added to a role by a
Head of Department or equivalent which result in a potential best fit match to a higher
Job Level Descriptor, or a match to a different set of Job Level Descriptors.
24. Promotion within the Research staff and Teaching staff categories is therefore based on an
examination of the level of work assigned, as recorded in an agreed job description. By
contrast, the promotion criteria for Academic staff, although closely aligned with the
Academic Job Level Descriptors, are ultimately performance based and decisions to
promote do not explicitly require the assessment of the postholder’s job description.
Nonetheless, it would be expected that an ability to satisfy the Academic promotion criteria
would be accompanied by comparable job growth. The Working Group considers that the
approach for Academic staff is a potential risk area from an equal pay compliance point of
view; it is therefore recommended that further work be conducted to explore ways in which
the job-size element of promotion could be more explicitly addressed for this staff category.
5
25. It is noted that the existing Annual Review procedures, although not ignoring the possibility
of transfers between the staff categories, do not explicitly set out a framework to manage
such cases.
Proposals
26. To enhance the understanding of career development routes within and to the Research
staff or Teaching staff grades, the following points require to be established:
(1) All staff, including those currently categorised as Academic, can be considered for
promotion or transfer to a Research staff or Teaching staff grade. Where a lateral staff
category transfer is sought or where promotion is accompanied by a change of staff
category this would require the member of staff to accept a change to their contractual
status (e.g. an Academic staff member offered promotion to a Teaching staff grade
would require to accept the terms and conditions which apply to the Teaching staff
category prior to that promotion becoming effective). Equally, it is possible for an
individual currently engaged on a Research staff or Teaching staff contract to be
transferred and/or promoted to an Academic grade where it can be demonstrated that
the role has developed to reflect an Academic profile and that the individual concerned
satisfies the relevant promotion criteria (and in such a case the appointment would be
subject to the acceptance of Academic staff terms and conditions and, as appropriate, to
an Academic Ordinance 16 panel interview and to the successful completion of
academic probation).
(2) Key job size indicators which would be expected to be present at each of the Research
staff and Teaching staff grades.
(3) Key competencies which an individual would require to possess/develop to perform
effectively at each of the Research staff and Teaching staff grades.
(4) Standardisation of job titles for the Research staff and Teaching staff grades to provide
additional clarity for career planning purposes.
27. The objectives identified at 26 (2) and 26 (3) above are addressed by Table 2, which draws
on, but is not intended to replace, the relevant Job Level Descriptors. The Working Group
considers that the existing Job Level Descriptors for Grade 10 of the Research staff and
Teaching staff categories are inadequate and propose that further work is undertaken to
develop appropriate job-size based profiles.
28. The proposal identified at 26 (4) is expanded upon in Table 3.
29. To address the potential equal pay risks identified at 24, it is proposed that the Annual
Review procedures are amended to ensure that the promotion process adopted for
Academic staff includes an element of direct job-size measurement.
Implementation
30. The issues identified by 26 (1), 26 (2), 26 (3) and 29 involve no major changes to current
arrangements and can be implemented through relatively minor redrafting of the relevant
Annual Review procedures, the publication of the summary information provided by Table 2
and the general communication of this information.
31. Further to 27, an appropriately constituted group should be tasked with the development of
revised Job Level Descriptors for Grade 10 of the Research staff and Teaching staff
categories.
6
32. The proposal identified at 26 (4) regarding a standardised job title framework for Research
staff and Teaching staff could either be implemented for new staff only or could be
extended to change the job titles of existing staff. The Working Group recommends that the
new framework is adopted for both new and existing staff to ensure that a clear structure is
established from the outset.
7
Table 2: Research Staff and Teaching Staff – Job Size and Competencies Indicators
This table should be read in conjunction with the Job Level Descriptors for Research staff and
Teaching staff. It is intended to provide additional guidance for staff and managers to assist
with career development planning.
Grade
6
7
Research
Job Size
 Assisting within a research team
 Working on an established research
programme under general supervision
 Manage/prioritise own activities within
agreed objectives
 Focus on literature reviews, data gathering
and recording of results
 May assist with student supervision/teaching
Teaching
Job Size
 Assisting within a teaching team
 Working within established teaching
programme under general supervision
 Manage/prioritise own activities within
agreed objectives
 Assessing student progress and providing
feedback, including setting and marking
assessments with appropriate supervision
Key Competencies
 Normally qualified to first degree level
 Sufficient specialist discipline specific
knowledge to contribute to research
programme
 Knowledge of appropriate research methods
 Ability to organise own workload with general
supervision
Job Size
 Undertake specific research project(s), under
guidance of a research leader
 Establishing personal research portfolio and
planning research proposals
 Write up findings, individually or in
collaboration with colleagues, for
journal/conference publication.
 Contribute to collaborative decision making
in relation to research area
 Some input to departmental administration
and teaching
Key Competencies
 Normally qualified to first degree level
 Sufficient specialist discipline specific
knowledge to contribute to teaching
programme
 Knowledge of appropriate teaching methods
 Ability to organise own workload with general
supervision
Job Size
 Delivery of established modules, with
support and guidance to develop teaching
methods
 Set, mark and assess work and
examinations, with guidance, and provide
feedback to students
 Manage own teaching activity
 Reflect on teaching practice/methodology to
enhance student performance
 Contribute to collaborative decision making
in relation to teaching area
 Some input to departmental administration
and committees
Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience)
 Sufficient specialist discipline specific
knowledge to contribute to research
programmes and to development of research
activities
 Developing ability to conduct individual
research work, to disseminate results and to
prepare research proposals
 Ability to organise own workload
independently, with some guidance from
senior colleagues if required
8
Job Size
 Independent researcher responsible for
developing a research area and managing
associated research programmes
 Responsible for acquisition of research
contracts and funding (as PI/Co-I)
 Management/supervision of other
researchers (staff and students)
 Participate in departmental, and, on
8
Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience)
 Sufficient specialist discipline specific
knowledge to work within established
teaching programmes and to contribute to
course development/scholarship activities
 Developing knowledge of appropriate
teaching methods
 Ability to organise own workload
independently, with some guidance from
senior colleagues if required
Job Size
 Designing and delivering teaching and
student assessment materials
 Assessing student performance
 Clear contribution to curriculum review and
enhancement
 Engaging in individual/collaborative
scholarship projects
 May develop proposals to secure funding for
occasion, Faculty/University committees
(e.g. Faculty Research Committee).

Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience) with established
personal research track record
 Ability to develop research proposals and to
attract funding and research students, as
appropriate to the discipline
 Ability to plan and organise research
programmes to ensure successful
completion, managing/supervising a
research team and delegating work
9
Job Size
 Leadership, including ability to foresee and
plan for new research directions for
themselves and research teams
 Contribute to strategic direction of
department playing key role in developing
new research strategies
 Enhance department’s reputation by
publishing in leading journals etc
 Contribute to teaching and student
supervision at all levels
 Identify and obtain sources of funding of
significant value
 Deal with complex and difficult problems
which colleagues have referred to them as
the recognised expert
 Significant contribution by undertaking senior
administrative role or similar, often including
contribution at Faculty/University level (e.g.
membership of Faculty Research Committee
or Senate)
Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience) with sustained
research track record
 Growing national reputation
 Ability to attract significant funding and
research students
 Ability to manage and lead research teams,
including staff motivation and management
10
[Job Level Descriptor to be reviewed]
9


teaching developments
Management/supervision/co-ordination of
teaching team
Participate in administration, e.g.
membership of departmental committees,
class/module/year co-ordinator
May contribute to Faculty and University
committees (e.g. Board of Study)
Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience) with established
professional track record (normally of
teaching and/or research)
 Ability to plan and organise own workload
and supervise and delegate work to others
 Ability to lead teams
 Ability to develop ideas for and disseminate
results of scholarship activities
Job Size
 Manage the design, development and
delivery of teaching programmes and
provide leadership for the teaching area
 Design and manage processes in relation to
the assessment of student performance
 Contribute to strategic direction of
department by anticipating and planning for
new directions for themselves and teaching
teams
 Enhance department’s reputation by, for
example, publishing learning resources
 May identify and obtain funding for teaching
developments
 Deal with complex and difficult problems
which colleagues have referred to them as
the recognised expert
 Significant contribution by undertaking senior
administrative role or similar, including
contribution at Faculty/University level (e.g.
membership of Board of Study or Senate)
Key Competencies
 Qualified to PhD level (or equivalent
professional experience) with sustained track
record of teaching, including evidence of
teaching innovation and pedagogical
research output
 Growing national reputation
 Sustained track record of developing and
delivering teaching programmes
 Ability to lead educational programmes and
teams, including staff motivation and
management
 Ability to make clear contribution at
departmental/Faculty/University level by
chairing/membership of Committees
[Job Level Descriptor to be reviewed]
Table 3: Research Staff and Teaching Staff – Proposed Job Title Framework
The proposal to standardise job titles for the Research staff and Teaching staff grades is
expanded upon in Table 3a. This proposal has the benefit of offering distinct job titles at each
level of the Research staff and Teaching staff categories, which in itself offers additional clarity
for career planning purposes. In addition, the proposal provides a useful read-across in that the
‘Senior’ prefix is used at the Grade 9 level in all cases.
In relation to the use of the term ‘Fellow’, some members of the Group suggested that it may be
a gendered term which could have negative implications from an equality perspective. In the
context of the higher education sector, however, Group members did not consider that ‘Fellow’
held any strong gender connotations. Similar concerns were raised from an age perspective
about the ‘Senior’ prefix, but again in the context of the sector this was not felt to be a matter of
any serious concern.
Table 3a
Staff Category
Published
Pay Grade
Research
Academic
Teaching
10
Principal Research Fellow
Reader
Principal Teaching Fellow
9
Senior Research Fellow
Senior Lecturer
Senior Teaching Fellow
8
Research Fellow
Lecturer B
Teaching Fellow
7
Research Associate
Lecturer A
Teaching Associate
6
Research Assistant
-
Teaching Assistant
For ease of reference, Table 3b details the job titles currently used. There is consistency of
titles at each grade of the Academic staff and (to a reasonable degree) Research staff
categories, but significant variation at each Teaching staff grade. At present there is also some
overlap in the titles used, e.g. at Research Grades 8 and 9 and Teaching Grades 7 and 8. It
should be noted that no staff currently operate at Grade 10 of the Research staff or Teaching
staff categories; nonetheless, it is recognised that an organisational need for staff at this level
may emerge in the future.
Table 3b
Staff Category
Published
Pay Grade
10
Research
-
Academic
Teaching
Reader
Senior Teaching Fellow /
Academic Co-ordinator /
Programme Manager
Teaching Fellow /
Senior Teaching Fellow /
Associate Lecturer /
Teaching Director
Teaching Assistant /
Teaching Fellow /
Demonstrator / Experimental
Officer
9
Senior Research Fellow
Senior Lecturer
8
Senior Research Fellow
Lecturer B
7
Research Fellow
Lecturer A
6
Research Assistant
-
10
Teaching Assistant
SECTION 4: PROBATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
33. This paper addresses the following objective identified by the Working Group:
Use these competency requirements [see section on Promotion Routes] as a basis for
enhancing structured professional development frameworks for Research staff and
Teaching staff appointments.
34. In this context the Group considered the particular probationary arrangements that apply to
Academic staff (which address both immediate and longer term career development
needs), contractual probationary periods used for Research staff and Teaching staff (which
might otherwise be considered trial periods), and professional development activity which
more generally supports the development of performance within a role and longer term
career development objectives.
Current Arrangements
35. For Academic staff, early career professional development activity is largely managed
through probationary arrangements. At present the probationary terms for Research staff
and Teaching staff are less structured. The position is summarised below.
36. The standard three year probationary period operated for Academic staff is a well
established arrangement, linking back to the national agreement established under the
terms of the 1971 academic and related salaries settlement. As per the terms of the
national agreement, by the end of the three year period a probationary lecturer is expected
(a) to be working as an independent researcher, teacher and administrator, and (b) to have
demonstrated the potential to continue to develop as a “university teacher and scholar”.
During probation the University requires lecturers to engage in accredited professional
development activity provided by the University’s Centre for Academic Practice and
Learning Enhancement (CAPLE), leading to the achievement of at least 30 Masters level
credits. In addition, probationers are required to attend a three day introductory course run
by CAPLE. Reports on progress are submitted annually by the relevant Head of
Department to the appropriate Review Panel and decisions to confirm probation (or
otherwise) are taken by the University Panel.
37. Probationary arrangements for Research staff and Teaching staff are not covered by the
terms of the national agreement and have traditionally been managed on a more ad hoc
basis.
38. The standard terms and conditions issued to Research staff are silent on probationary
arrangements, although common practice is to apply a six month probationary period for
appointments made for a period of one year or more. The relevant Head of Department
reports on progress to Human Resources.
39. By contrast, Teaching staff standard terms and conditions reflect the basic structure used
for Academic staff, stating that:
Members of staff may be appointed for a probationary period of up to three years in the
first instance. Any such appointment is reviewed under the University's review
procedure and is subject to confirmation by the appropriate Review Panel, which
receives an annual report on progress from the Chairman or Head of Department or area
concerned. Salary increments are paid during the probationary period.
11
40. Nonetheless, it has not been the practice to operate the three year probationary period for
Teaching staff. Instead, common practice is to apply a six month to one year probationary
period for appointments made for a period of one year or more. The relevant Head of
Department reports on progress to Human Resources. Under this approach the Review
Panel does not receive progress reports nor would the University Panel sanction the
confirmation of probation (or otherwise).
41. It is noted that the practice referred to above for Research staff and Teaching staff is
consistent with that used for Administrative and Professional Services Staff Grades 6 and
above, for which standard terms and conditions state:
Appointments will normally be subject to a probationary period of 6 months duration.
Appointments are reviewed within this period with reports on progress being received by
Human Resources from the relevant Head of Department.
42. It is also noted that, unlike Academic staff, Research staff and Teaching staff who reach the
top salary point of Grade 7 do not automatically progress to Grade 8 subject to satisfactory
performance during their probationary period. Instead any such re-grading in the Research
staff and Teaching staff categories would be linked to an assessment of job-size.
Proposals
43. For appointments at Research staff and Teaching staff Grades 6 and 7 the practice of using
a six month probationary period appears to be reasonable given that appointments at these
levels are focused on the delivery of research or teaching within defined and established
programmes. The criteria against which performance would be measured during the
probationary period and the professional development activities available to support
successful progress through probation and beyond would, however, benefit from review.
44. For appointments at Research staff and Teaching staff Grades 8 and above the practice of
using a six month probationary period is likely to be insufficient given that appointments at
these levels are focused on the development and management of research or teaching
programmes. In this respect, a probationary period of one year is likely to provide a more
meaningful review period. Again, the criteria against which performance would be
measured during the probationary period and the professional development activities
available to support successful progress through probation and beyond would benefit from
review.
45. In the case of Teaching staff at Grade 8 and above it would seem appropriate to link the
probationary requirements to those operated for Academic staff, albeit with a lesser term
reflecting the narrower focus of a Teaching role. A suggested contractual clause is:
Your appointment is subject to:
The satisfactory completion of a one year probationary period. Successful completion of
your probationary period will require you to be able to evidence (a) that you have
satisfactorily engaged in the prescribed teaching and administrative tasks allocated, and
(b) that you are making progress in the achievement of 30 masters level credits from
formal training offered within the Professional Development Framework by the
University’s Centre for Academic Practice and Learning Enhancement. This may be
augmented as appropriate, and as discussed with your Head of Department, by activities
aimed at supporting development relevant to your particular role and circumstances.
46. Given the shorter probationary periods involved it would seem unnecessary to refer
Research staff and Teaching staff probation cases to Review Panels. It is therefore
12
proposed that the practice should continue whereby cases are reviewed by the relevant
Head of Department submitting reports to Human Resources. The Working Group
considers that for posts at Research staff and Teaching staff Grade 8 and above decisions
to confirm probation should be made in consultation with the relevant Dean.
47. Although this section has largely approached professional development activities within the
terms of probationary arrangements it is recognised that a broader framework is ultimately
necessary for Research staff and Teaching staff to ensure that career development is
supported at all stages, not just during the initial stages of an appointment. Further work is
required in this respect and the Working Group would expect the job size and competencies
indicators (Table 2) to be used to guide to the development of such a framework.
Implementation
48. The basic contractual probationary periods (i.e. akin to trial periods) proposed for Research
staff and Teaching staff could be implemented with immediate effect for all new staff. It
would also be relatively easy to revise the criteria against which performance would be
measured during the probationary period.
49. Significantly more complex is the issue of the development of a University wide professional
development framework to ensure that career development is supported at all stages for
Research staff and Teaching staff. In this connection, the Working Group proposes that
further detailed work is conducted by an appropriately constituted group.
50. The Working Group considers that, in the interests of avoiding confusion with the
probationary arrangements for Academic staff, there would be benefit in adopting revised
nomenclature in respect of probation for Research staff and Teaching staff (and the other
staff categories) which would more directly reflect the differences between an initial
trial/assessment period and professional development activity. It is recommended that this
matter be further examined as part of the implementation of these proposals.
FB 27/08/09, rev 03/09/09
13
ANNEX 1
THE ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL
WORKING GROUP REMIT
Introduction
1.
Staff Committee and JNCC have received discussion papers outlining the concept of the
Academic Professional and identifying issues to be addressed if the University is to further
develop the concept. It was agreed at the 21 January 2009 meeting of JNCC that a
working group, comprising representatives of Court and SUCU, would meet to explore this
matter in more detail.
2.
The Working Group has been formed with a membership comprising:
The Vice Principal (Convener)
Dean of Science
Director Human Resources (or nominee)
Up to 3 SUCU representatives
Fergus Brown, Acting HR Manager (Secretary)
3.
At its 13 March 2009 meeting, Staff Committee approved principles that the working group
would be invited to accept and a remit that it would be asked to follow. The principles and
remit, as subsequently amended by the Working Group at its initial meetings of 17 March
and 2 April 2009, are outlined below.
Principles and Remit
4.
The Working Group has accepted the following principles:
(1) The Academic staff category is of central strategic importance to the University.
(2) Research and Academic Support staff should be given access, as appropriate, to
positions relating to Academic governance.
(3) Career development structures and promotion arrangements should be clearly
articulated.
(4) The principle of Academic Freedom should be contractually extended to cover Research
and Academic Support staff.
5.
The Working Group will:
(1) Examine the University’s Charter, Statutes, Ordinance and Regulations to identify, and
where necessary propose revisions to, any aspects that act as barriers to Research and
Academic Support staff undertaking relevant Academic governance roles such as
membership of Senate, Boards of Study, student assessment and examination, etc.
(2) Identify, with reference to the Job Level Descriptors, the key competencies which an
individual would require to possess/develop to perform effectively at each of the
Research and Academic Support grades.
(3) Use these competency requirements as a basis for enhancing structured professional
development frameworks for Research and Academic Support appointments.
(4) Review the work activity model outlined by the Director Human Resources in earlier
papers, which explained in broad terms the differences in work activity between the
three categories of Academic Professional staff under the proposed model.
(5) Take into account the coverage of Statute XXIII.
(6) Consider the proposal that the category currently known as Academic Support be redesignated Teaching.
(7) Complete its work as soon as possible.
FB 16/03/09, rev 27/08/09
ANNEX 2
ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL WORK ACTIVITY MODEL
Although not intended to be overly restrictive at an individual level, the following model has
been usefully adopted to assist in a number of recent organisational restructuring initiatives and
is likely to be used again in the context of future reshaping activity in academic areas.
Academic
Professional
Category
Research
Work Activity
Teaching
Research
Not less than 80%
See Notes
Not more than 20%
Academic
Not less than 40%
Not more than 40%
Not more than 20%
Teaching
See Notes
Not less than 80%
Not more than 20%
Citizenship
(see notes)
Notes
(a) Citizenship is the term used to describe a range of activities which firstly cannot be
described as either Teaching or Research. These include activities of a management or
administrative nature which contribute to the running of the Department, the Faculty or the
University. They also include activities which contribute to the University’s third strategic
goal of knowledge exchange.
(b) Staff whose principal work activity is not less than 80% Research but agree with their Head
of Department that they will make a limited contribution to Teaching would count that
Teaching activity against their Citizenship work activity.
(c) Similarly staff whose principal work activity is not less than 80% Teaching but agree with
their Head of Department that they will make a limited contribution to Research would count
that Research activity against their Citizenship work activity.
(d) Exceptionally, if staff in either the Research or the Teaching categories have ambitions to
develop a Teaching and Research Profile the opportunity to do so can be assisted by the
Head of Department agreeing that their Citizenship work activity allocation be expanded to
assist with this transition.
(e) The number of weekdays in an Academic Professional year after deduction of days of
University closure and annual leave entitlement is 219 so for planning purposes the days in
a year spent on Citizenship work activity should not exceed 43 unless specifically varied by
agreement with the Head of Department.
Bill Sutherland
January 2009