Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Committees Levels C-E

Parent Policy

Staff Development Policy

Preamble

Promotion at Monash University is based on merit following a thorough and fair process which applies to this procedure and the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E. The University is committed to the principle of equal opportunity in promotion and recognises that staff contribute to its vision and goals in diverse ways. The achievements of candidates for promotion are assessed relative to the particular circumstances of their career progression and the opportunities which have been available to them.

Candidates who satisfy the promotion committee(s) that they meet the criteria for promotion are to be promoted irrespective of considerations such as the increased cost of staffing.

Unless a candidate has been offered a conditional promotion, all promotions will take effect from 1 January of the year following the promotion decision.

This procedure applies to committee members that are evaluating applications from candidates who:

• are appointed to undertake research, education and service activities;
• have a current performance development plan which complies with the requirements of the Performance Development Process: Academic Staff; and
• are seeking promotion to senior lecturer, associate professor, reader or professor.

This procedure should be read in conjunction with the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E

Definitions

CAPA: Committee for Academic Promotions and Appointments Levels B-D (CAPA). In accordance with this procedure, CAPA is responsible for receiving and considering applications for academic promotion to lecturer, senior lecturer or associate professor from staff members not located in a faculty. Applications supported by CAPA are submitted to the University associate professor promotion committee for resolution. CAPA is chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).

SPAC: Special Professorial Appointments Committee. In accordance with this procedure, SPAC is responsible for receiving and considering applications for academic promotion to professor from staff members not located in a faculty. Applications supported by SPAC are submitted to the University professorial promotion committee for resolution. SPAC is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor.

Conditional promotion: A conditional promotion means that the committee authorises the chairperson of the committee to approve the promotion if certain specific criteria are met before 1 May in the following year. A conditional promotion will come into effect on the date that the chairperson approves the promotion or 1 January in the year following the candidate’s application, whichever is the later.

Head of Unit: The academic head of unit/school/department/centre or director or, where applicable, a person acting as his or her nominee. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit’s responsibilities for the academic promotion process.

Procedural irregularity: refers to where the University has not followed a process that is articulated in this procedure.

1. Preparation for promotion committee meetings

Briefing to committee members

A Human Resources Division representative will attend all promotion committees to provide procedural advice to committee members. Prior to each meeting committee members must be aware of:

• roles and responsibilities of membership of the committee and promotions procedures;
• equal opportunity in relation to matters that may impact on the assessment of applications from promotion;
• disciplinary differences;
• citation indexes, impact factor information, benchmarking data, use of team work, multiple authorship and differences between publishing protocols;
• different ways of assessing the range of academic activities - quantative and qualitative;
• relevant circumstances; and
• good decision-making process.

Equal Opportunity training

The chairperson must ensure that all members are provided with a current copy of the University’s Equal Opportunity Guidelines for Academic Promotion and take reasonable steps to ensure that they have read and understood them.

The Equal Opportunity Procedures for Academic Promotion are designed to heighten awareness and understanding of circumstances that may be relevant when assessing applications for promotion, for example, family responsibilities. Please refer to the section on relevant circumstances for further information.

Unless the chairperson has previously received or attended equal opportunity training, he or she is required to undertake equal opportunity training prior to chairing an academic promotion committee meeting. In addition, the opportunity to undertake equal opportunity training will be available to all promotion committee members. All promotion committee members, with the exception of the external member, will be required to undertake the equal opportunity (EO) online training, prior to the commencement of the first committee meeting.

Gender balance

The chairperson must ensure the committee has as close to equal gender representation as reasonably practicable, with a minimum of one-third representation of each gender. Gender balance can be facilitated through the dean’s appointees, the choice of the external member and drawing attention to the aim for gender balance when calling for faculty nominees. In the case of faculty committees, if the chairperson is unable to meet this requirement, the Human Resources Division will assist by contacting individuals (of the under-represented gender) from a cognate area and provide the faculty with the names of these individuals. If in exceptional circumstances, there are no available individuals (of the under-represented gender) from a cognate area, a request by the dean to vary or waive the gender representation requirement may be made to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education). The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) may approve that request in writing and confirm the composition of the committee.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is required of all persons involved in promotion processes. The chairperson of the committee will emphasise the importance of confidentiality during her or his welcome and overview. The duty of confidentiality continues after the promotion process has been concluded.

In maintaining confidentiality, access to all papers is restricted to those directly involved in the assessment process. Where a stage of the process involves a promotion committee, all papers are to be returned to the secretary of the committee at the conclusion of the last meeting.

Conflict of interest

A committee member must declare to the chairperson any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest which may arise as a result of involvement in the promotion process. If a committee member is uncertain whether an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest exists, advice should be sought from the chairperson prior to the meeting.

The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that no declared conflict of interest can influence the outcome of the application and that there can be no reasonable perception that it might have done. If necessary, the chairperson will require the committee member to withdraw from the committee.

Examples of potential, actual or perceived conflicts of interest include; a committee member who is supervising a candidate’s post-graduate studies, or a committee member who is a friend of the candidate as well as a co-worker.

2. Application assessment process

Committee members should be aware that candidates must satisfy the promotion committee that he or she has:

• been a sustained high performer at the present level of appointment; and
• the capacity to perform satisfactorily at the level to which promotion is sought.

Applications are to be considered on their merits in relation to the criteria for promotion taking into account the weightings selected by the candidate for each of the three areas of academic activity.

The purpose of requiring weightings lies in the diverse and changing nature of academic work. A candidate chooses weightings, within the specified parameters, to enable the promotion committee to assess whether he or she meets the criteria for promotion in the particular circumstances of her or his responsibilities and achievements at the current level of appointment.

The committee may vary the weightings of a candidate, if it believes that varying the weightings will assist the candidate in her or his application for promotion. However, the University committees cannot recommend that a candidate change her or his application to a special case for promotion.

When assessing whether a candidate has met the criteria for promotion, committee members should be aware that there are differences between, and within, academic disciplines. Committee members should have an understanding of how these differences relate to applications for promotion.

Information about differences between and within academic disciplines can be obtained from a range of people, including the chairperson, dean, associate dean (research), associate dean (teaching), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research).

When assessing applications for promotion, committee members should be aware that promotion at Monash focuses on the quality and quantity of achievement in the three areas of academic activity rather than the relative time spent on each.

Committees should refer to the following documents for further information about assessing applications for promotion:

• Examples of Supporting Evidence For Candidates Applying For Promotion: Levels C-E for a full description of the three areas of academic activity and examples at each level; and
• The standards for teaching and research staff which provide information about the responsibilities of staff appointed at each academic level.

The promotion committee should take into account achievements at the previous university of a candidate who moved to Monash from the same level of appointment or higher and who has not since been promoted pursuant to the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E.

Referee and assessor reports

Prior to the first meeting of a faculty promotion committee, the faculty promotion coordinator will request written reports from referees listed in each application.

Candidates applying for promotion to:

• senior lecturer (level C) must nominate four referees of national standing in the discipline;
• associate professor or reader (level D) must nominate two referees of at least national standing in the discipline. The head of unit will also nominate two external assessors; and
• professor (level E) must provide two referees of international standing. A referee is of international standing if he or she is recognised internationally for specialist knowledge and a reputation for research quality, irrespective of where the referee is actually based. The head of unit will also nominate two external assessors.

If a candidate who is unsuccessful one year, applies for promotion again the following year, he or she may use the referee report from her or his previous application. In this situation, the faculty promotion coordinator is required to contact the referee to provide her or him with the opportunity to update the original report.

In addition, referees and assessors will be provided with an opportunity to include additional information or respond to changes to an application if a faculty (CAPA or SPAC in the case of non faculty applications) recommends that a candidate adjust their application to a special case for promotion.

Referees will be asked to comment on an application for promotion and indicate the extent of their support for it.
External assessors will be asked to:

• provide an opinion drawn from their understanding of the achievements expected of an academic at level D or E (as appropriate) in their particular field; and
• comment on the application submitted (in its entirety) and make an assessment of the candidate's achievements in a specific area of activity in the particular circumstances of the case.

The faculty promotion coordinator and/or a representative of the promotion committee will make all reasonable efforts to contact the referee and assessor listed in the application. The faculty promotion coordinator should inform assessors of their role and ensure that it is clear that they have been nominated by the University (as distinct from the candidate).

Interviews

All candidates applying for promotion to professor will be interviewed by the faculty professorial promotion committee. Candidates are interviewed for the purposes of clarifying information contained in their application or statement of relevant circumstances and presenting and defending their case for promotion.

A candidate who is unable to attend an interview in person will be provided with an opportunity to be interviewed by the faculty professorial promotion committee via an audio-conferencing or video-conferencing facility.

Relevant circumstances

A faculty and university promotion committee will be in a better position to make fair and valid judgements about each candidate's achievements if the committee is aware of the particular circumstances relevant to a candidate’s career progression.

Committees should be familiar with the relevant circumstances of the Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E which invites candidates to submit a statement providing details of any relevant circumstances that have had an impact on her or his career progression.

Relevant circumstances can include:

• family responsibilities (for example child rearing, elder-care, illness of a partner or dependant);
• a temporary or permanent disability;
• relevant cultural expectations or circumstances;
• conditions of employment including access to authorised leave;
• limited access to university resources and facilities;
• issues relating to geographical location, including the impact of travel requirements;
• a lack of opportunity to consult and collaborate with academic colleagues;
• working in a developing area with limited established research, education or supervision opportunities;
• a lack of access to government research funds; and/or
• limited opportunities to supervise higher degree by research students.

In deciding whether a case has been made to take into account relevant circumstances, the promotion committee must assess the candidate’s achievements relative to the opportunity to achieve that he or she has had over her or his career since the last promotion or appointment.

For example, if a staff member has been employed for ten years but has had a career break of two years to be the primary caregiver of a child or children, the promotion committee should consider the staff member’s achievements over an eight year period.

New information

The only new information which may be received by a promotion committee will be that which became available subsequent to the lodgement of the application. The nature of the new information is either to:

• clarify or bring up-to-date information alluded to in the application, for example the success of a grant application that had been listed as “pending”; or
• refer to an unexpected fact or event that significantly strengthens the case for promotion, for example admission to a learned body or academy.

Candidates have an obligation to correct any information that may mislead the promotion committee if left uncorrected, for example, a manuscript referred to as having been submitted to a publisher or journal that has been rejected.

Any new information provided will be tabled at the relevant committee meeting or presented at the interview.

3. Decision making process

Whilst the chairperson, in consultation with committee members, may determine the method of voting used during the promotion committee meeting, a system of preliminary assessment must be undertaken prior to the first meeting of the committee.

The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to identify, via the independent assessment of all voting committee members acting separately, those candidates who appear clearly to meet the criteria for promotion and those who do not. This will assist in streamlining the process of decision making during the actual meeting, allowing more time for discussion of those candidates who fall in the middle band (i.e. about whom there are mixed views).

A preliminary assessment form has been developed to guide the preliminary assessment process which can be adapted to suit the needs of each committee.

Voting

During the meeting, each voting member of the promotion committee is permitted to cast one vote, which may be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. If a committee member chooses to abstain from voting, her or his decision is to be noted by the committee secretary and it will not be considered by the committee as a vote. A candidate will be promoted if at least two-thirds of those present and voting cast a ‘yes’ vote.

Conditional promotion

A faculty senior lecturer promotion committee and university promotion committees may make a conditional promotion decision where the committee believes that the candidate’s case for promotion is ‘borderline’ but that some specified achievements by the candidate before the next promotion round would lead to a clear case for promotion.

Appropriate conditions might include:

• success in a nationally competitive grant application which has been submitted (but not decided) at the time the promotion committee makes its decision;
• acceptance by a high-impact refereed journal or a publisher of scholarly monographs of a manuscript submitted at the time the promotion committee makes its decision; and/or
• results at a specified minimum level of teaching evaluations where those evaluations could not reasonably have been completed at the time the promotion committee makes its decision.

The committee must:

• precisely define the conditions to be met;
• communicate these clearly in writing to the candidate; and
• base the conditions on the appropriate metrics for the level of promotion (senior lecturer, associate professor/reader, professor).

If the candidate does not meet the specified promotion conditions before 1 May in the following year, and wishes to reapply for promotion, the candidate will be required to submit a new application for promotion.

If the candidate succeeds in meeting the specified conditions before 1 May in the following year, a written recommendation must be submitted to the chairperson of the committee that the candidate be promoted. The written recommendation must come from the:

• head of unit of a candidate applying for promotion to senior lecturer; or
• dean for candidates applying for promotion to associate professor/reader or professor.

The decision of the chairperson of the promotion committee is final and there is no appeal process for conditional promotions.

Faculty and University decision making

In the case of promotion to senior lecturer, the decision about whether a candidate is promoted rests solely with the faculty senior lecturer promotion committee.

The faculty associate professor and professorial promotion committees makes recommendations about promotion to the university associate professor or professorial promotion committee.

For promotion to associate professor and professor, the chairperson of the faculty committee will discuss the recommendations of the faculty promotion committee with the successful candidates and will advise if further revisions are recommended, before the application is forwarded to the University promotion committee.

If a faculty associate professor committee or professorial promotion committee recommends that a candidate be promoted, the dean must prepare a report addressing the candidate's case in the three areas of academic activity and send it to the relevant university promotion committee. The report should draw on the discussions of the committee, including the contributions of the external member but not in a way that might identify committee members individually. The dean will then discuss the report with the candidate and provide the candidate with a copy.

The candidate’s complete application and other documentation will be sent by the faculty promotion coordinator to the secretary of the relevant university promotion committee. The full documentation comprises:

• the completed application form with the head of unit report, performance development supervisor’s report, associate deans of research and teaching reports, referee reports and assessor reports;
• a report which ranks the candidates in terms of who has the best case for promotion; and
• a list of those candidates not being supported for promotion and the reasons why the faculty committee, CAPA or SPAC does not support the candidates.

The merit listing of recommended candidates does not bind the University promotion committee and is confidential. It is not provided at any stage to candidates, whether successful or unsuccessful.

When the list of ranked candidates, applications and associated reports has been received, the University promotion committees will meet to consider the information provided.

The dean may be interviewed by the University promotion committee at the committee’s request and may act as an advocate for the candidates from her or his faculty. The dean will be familiar with all background material relating to each candidate's case and be prepared to discuss it in detail with the University promotion committee.

The external member who sat on the faculty promotion committee must be in attendance, in person or by telephone or video-conference, if the dean is interviewed. The role of the external member is to offer the University promotion committee with an independent perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate’s case. The external member must not adopt the role of advocate.

Candidates will be informed in writing of the outcome of their application by the faculty or University promotion committee (or CAPA or SPAC where candidates are not faculty based) by the chairperson within seven days of the committee's last sitting day.

The chairperson of the faculty associate professor and professorial promotion committee (CAPA or SPAC where candidates are not faculty-based) will advise candidates if further revisions are recommended before the application is forwarded to the University associate professor or professorial promotion committee. The focus of the revisions is to provide clarification of information already provided in the application.

4. Notification of outcomes and support for unsuccessful candidates

The only person that can provide feedback to candidates regarding their application is the chairperson or a representative appointed by the chairperson. All other committee members must refrain from discussing any aspect of the meeting with candidates or any other person.
Committee members will be given the opportunity to review the draft letters to unsuccessful candidates, to ensure that they accurately reflect the views of committee members.

All candidates will be provided with a letter notifying them of the outcome of their application by the chairperson of the relevant promotion committee within seven days of the committee’s last sitting date. Letter templates to guide the chairperson in drafting the letters are available from the academic promotion website.

Letters notifying candidates of the outcome of their application at faculty promotion committees are to be copied to the candidate’s performance development supervisor and head of unit. In cases where the candidate is from a campus with a pro vice-chancellor, a copy is also to be provided to the pro vice-chancellor.

Letters notifying candidates of the outcome of their application at University promotion committees are to be copied to the dean and faculty promotion coordinator. In cases where the candidate is from a campus with a pro vice-chancellor, a copy is also provided to the pro vice-chancellor.

Each letter to an unsuccessful candidate will include a summary of the reasons why the promotion was not supported and will outline the areas that, in the opinion of the committee, need strengthening before a future application is lodged. The major points to be made in the letter should be determined during the committee meeting.

For candidates who are unsuccessful at the faculty or University promotion committee (or CAPA or SPAC where a candidate is not faculty-based), the chairperson of the committee (or a nominated representative), will be available to meet with the candidate and their performance development supervisor (at the candidate’s request) to discuss the committee’s decision.

Where relevant the chairperson of the faculty or University promotion committee should also provide unsuccessful candidates with the contact details of an appropriate staff member nominated by the committee, to give the candidate additional support, mentoring and guidance on the development of a future application.

Rehearing

Candidates not recommended for promotion may lodge an application for a rehearing on the basis that there has been a procedural irregularity resulting in material disadvantage. Candidates should seek the advice of the chairperson of the committee, the dean, or both before lodging an application for a rehearing.

For further information on the rehearing process refer to Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Rehearing Process Levels B-E.

Applications for promotion of staff not located in faculties

In the case of non faculty-based staff who are applying for promotion to senior lecturer, associate professor or reader, applications must be submitted to the Committee for Academic Promotions and Appointments Levels B-D (CAPA) for consideration. CAPA is chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).

In the case of non faculty-based staff who are applying for promotion to professor, applications must be submitted to the Special Professorial Appointments Committee (SPAC) for consideration.  SPAC is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor.

Applications from candidates not located in a faculty will still require reports to be completed by the associate deans of teaching and research. Candidates should contact the Human Resources Division prior to submitting their application to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) or Vice-Chancellor for assistance with this process.

When an application for associate professor, reader or professor is successful at CAPA or SPAC the application will be forwarded to the relevant University promotion committee for consideration.

Committee membership and roles

Table 1 provides the membership and quorum details of the relevant faculty, non faculty and University promotion committees.

Committee members must:

• be at the same level or higher as the level the candidate is applying for;
• carry out a fair and objective assessment of applications for promotion;
• not act as advocates for candidates or bring any additional information to the committee about the candidate; and
• ensure discussion is restricted to matters relevant to the application and avoid making comments of a personal nature.

Applications from Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa

Where an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa campuses, the dean is required to appoint a member from the relevant campus to the promotion committee. The member is a full voting member of the committee for the whole of the promotion round, and is appointed to ensure that any campus-related contextual issues are presented. The member will be required to attend all relevant committee meetings.

The travel costs associated with a non Australian-based committee member attending faculty promotion committee meetings will be met jointly by the faculty and the campus where the candidate is currently located.

Where an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Gippsland, Malaysia or South Africa campuses, the head of school is required to inform the relevant pro vice-chancellor and the dean that a candidate from her or his campus is applying for promotion.

If an application is received from a candidate who is located at the Berwick or Peninsula campuses, the dean may wish to appoint a member from the relevant campus to the promotion committee, but is not obliged to do so.

Election and appointment of committee members

The members of faculty promotion committees will normally be elected or appointed for a three-year term, with one-third of the membership being subject to election or appointment each year. Members may be re-elected or reappointed. Members appointed or co-opted to a committee under the provisions related to representation of the Berwick, Gippsland, Malaysia, Peninsula or South Africa campuses are appointed for one-year at a time.

All eligible faculty staff members, including members located on the non Australian-based campuses are to be:

• included in the election process; and
• considered for appointment by the dean;

All faculty committees must have:

• a provision for alternate members; and
• as far as reasonably possible equal numbers of elected and appointed members. The only exception to this is the membership of the faculty professorial promotion committee. Refer to Table 1.

Appointments should be made after the election of other members to assist the dean in meeting the gender balance requirements and to provide a spread of representation across academic disciplines and ranks.

Where there are insufficient nominations to fill an elected position, the position will be re-advertised if there is time, but otherwise the dean, in consultation with the committee, will fill the position with an appointee, who will be regarded as an elected member for the purposes of a quorum.

The proceedings of an inquorate or improperly constituted committee are void. In order not to disadvantage a candidate the following staff may use their discretion to either make the decision which the committee purported to make or require that a properly constituted committee consider the application:

• the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) (in the case of senior lecturer and associate professor faculty and University promotion committees);
• the Vice-Chancellor in the case of a faculty professorial promotion committee; and
• the University Council or its executive committee in the case of the University professorial promotion committee.

Responsibility

Vice-Chancellor: as the chairperson of the University professorial promotion committee and SPAC, the Vice-Chancellor is responsible for ensuring that the committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education): responsible for educational activities and projects within the University including the oversight of the academic promotion process. As the chairperson of the University associate professor promotion committee and CAPA, the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Education) is responsible for ensuring that the committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Dean: as the chairperson of the faculty promotion committee, the dean is responsible for ensuring that committee members carry out a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Head of Unit and Performance Development Supervisor: the candidate’s performance development supervisor and head of unit are required to each provide a report that forms part of the academic promotion application form. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit’s responsibilities for the academic promotion process.

Associate Deans:  the associate deans responsible for teaching and research in a faculty are required to provide a report on the candidate’s case for promotion in the relevant area of academic activity.

Related procedures

• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Level B
• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Levels C-E
• Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion Rehearing Process Levels B-E
• Staff Development Procedure - Performance Development Process: Academic Staff
• Staff Development Procedure - Research-Only Academic Staff - Advancement to a Higher Research Level
• Conduct and Compliance Procedure - Paid Outside Work
• Conduct and Compliance Procedure - Conflict of Interest

Related documents

• Academic promotions website
• Case Study for Relevant Circumstances
• Centre for Higher Education Quality
• Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching
• Examples of Supporting Evidence For Candidates Applying For Promotion: Levels C-E
• Committee Checklist

Forms

• Academic Promotion Application Form: Levels C-E
• Performance Development Plan

Table 1 Membership of Faculty, Non Faculty and University Promotion Committees

A non voting representative of the Human Resources Division must attend all committees to provide procedural support. In addition the non voting representative of the Human Resources Division will provide secretarial support at the University committees.