Reports

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised student disciplinary framework: Correction (p. 562)
Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of the Academic Career Pathways scheme (p. 562)

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised student disciplinary framework: Correction

13 May 2019

A correction has been made to paragraph 2 of the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 8 May 2019, on a revised student disciplinary framework (Reporter, 6546, 2018–19, p. 531). It incorrectly stated the nature of the contribution of the parties listed in the second sentence to the discussion of the Report’s proposals. This sentence has now been updated.

Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of the Academic Career Pathways scheme

The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Report sets out final details of an Academic Career Pathways (ACP) scheme, to replace the current Senior Academic Promotions (SAP) scheme, which ran for the last time in 2018–19. The new ACP scheme is driven by the need to provide structured routes to career progression for both academic and professional staff, in line with the University’s People Strategy and the ourcambridge programme. It also advances the University’s priorities to value colleagues and be inclusive.

2. The Academic Career Pathways (ACP) scheme has its origins in a review, undertaken in 2016, of the University’s arrangements for managing the probation and for the promotion of its academic staff. A Report in 2018, which signalled the introduction of the ACP scheme, included a detailed account of the findings from the 2016 review (Reporter, 2017–18; 6505, p. 556; 6511, p. 711). In summary, significant shortcomings in the current SAP system were said to be:

(a)Lack of transparency on assessment criteria.

(b)Inconsistencies of approach in terms of local promotions management.

(c)Burdensome administrative load and lengthy timeframe.

(d)Exercise run as a competition so that candidates above the threshold but not promoted felt very dissatisfied.

(e)Concern that some individuals who were eligible and ready for promotion were not putting themselves forward. Particular concern about whether women were applying at the expected rate.

(f)Confusion about the nature of the USL role.

(g)Need for more weight to be given to teaching.

(h)Lack of clear progression paths for teaching focused roles.

(i)Need for academic titles to be reviewed.

3. The changes to the 2018–19 SAP scheme addressed the weight attached to teaching and some aspects of the administrative load and timeframes to streamline the process. The opportunity was also taken to refresh equality and diversity aspects of the scheme. These changes will be carried forward in the ACP Scheme.

4. Since the 2018 Report, work has progressed to finalise the proposals for the ACP scheme. This work focused on the following key areas:

(a)Transparency: clearly setting out the broad evaluative criteria defining academic excellence for promotion to each senior office and examples of indicators of excellence.

(b)Positive, inclusive culture: embedding expected standards of conduct in the promotion criteria.

(c)Recognition: reshaping progression up to and within the University Senior Lectureship level and the associated reward scheme to provide for recognition at more senior career stages.

(d)Consistency: aligning probationary criteria and arrangements for academic staff with those for promotion to senior offices.

5. The final proposals set out in this Report have been developed following extensive consultation with key stakeholders within the Schools and the wider academic community. There have been three rounds of consultations since 2017, which have resulted in work to refine the proposal at each stage, culminating in a University-wide consultation and engagement with the University and College Union (UCU) on the final draft proposals in February 2019. In addition, there have also been a number of open meetings and discussions to further engage staff on the matter and obtain feedback as the work progressed; these meetings provided an opportunity to listen to the views and perspectives of staff representing the different disciplines and inform the direction and priorities for the work.

6. Full details on the proposals for the Academic Career Pathways scheme, to be implemented in 2019–20, can be found in the Annexes: Annex 1 Academic Promotions Criteria and Scoring Methodology: Professors and Readers, Annex 2 Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer, Annex 3 Contribution Reward Scheme for University Senior Lecturers, and Annex 4 Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices. The following is a summary of the key proposals:

(a)Applicants for promotion to Reader and Professor will be assessed against the following evaluative criteria and scoring methodology: Research and research leadership (50/100); Teaching and Researcher development (30/100); and Service to the University and the academic community (20/100). The limited flexibility to transfer points introduced in the SAP scheme is retained (see Annex 1).

(b)Applicants for progression to Senior Lecturer (G10) will be assessed against the following evaluative criteria and scoring methodology: Teaching and Researcher development (50/100); Service to the University and the academic community (30/100); and Research (20/100). A case may be made to transfer 10 points from Service to Teaching and/or Researcher development or Research (see Annex 2).

(c)All Departments/Faculties will be expected to adopt and publish promotion guidance setting out the expectations required for promotion and provide example indicators applicable to their disciplines, to supplement those included in the main ACP documentation. To ensure parity of standards and expectations, the Department/Faculty guidance must be approved by School Councils prior to adoption. Departments/Faculties will be expected to review their ACP guidance regularly and update it, as necessary, to ensure it is still relevant and remains fit for purpose.

(d)In that guidance, each Department/Faculty will state the institutional expectations with regard to the balance between teaching and/or researcher development required for progression.

(e)The promotion criteria reflect the University’s decision to sign up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) by acknowledging that intellectual content is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of a journal.

(f)There is an emphasis on the importance of judgement and awareness of the limitations of metrics that may be affected by bias or low participation levels in the ACP general guidance (see Annexes 1 and 2).

(g)Flexibility for new appointees and probationers to apply for progression will be retained. Applicants will normally be expected to have been in post at the current level for at least 12 months before applying for promotion. Exceptionally, this period may be waived where the officer is considered ready for promotion to the relevant office by the Head of Department/Faculty. Any exceptions will require approval from the Faculty Committee, and must be supported by the School Committee.

(h)There is no expectation of step-by-step progression through every level of the Pathway. For example, a University Senior Lecturer (G9) can apply directly to the Readership level and a University Lecturer (G9) can apply directly to the University Senior Lecturer (G10) level.

(i)There is a progression scheme for University Senior Lecturers (G9) to progress to Grade 10. This progression scheme is intended to recognize and reward academic staff who are fulfilling all the ACP criteria but who have a special focus on teaching (see Annex 2).

(j)Contribution increments can be awarded to University Senior Lecturers above the top of Grade 10 for significant and sustained contributions other than through research. The assessment of contribution by the University Senior Lecturer (G10) will need to be clearly related to the institution’s strategic plans and recognise the University Senior Lecturer’s achievement in teaching and general service to the community which is likely to contribute to the future academic success of the University (see Annex 3).

(k)Performance criteria for passing probation are aligned with the ACP evaluative criteria. Details of the Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices can be found in Annex 4. College teaching may be taken into account without further qualification (the words ‘provided there is no adverse effect on the contribution to the Faculty’ have been removed).

(l)A University Lecturer who has met the probationary requirements will have their tenure confirmed and the title of University Senior Lecturer will be awarded in recognition of this achievement. There will be no change in grade or salary associated with this new title. Annual incremental progression through the service points of the Grade 9 salary scale will continue.

(m)The title of University Senior Lecturer will be awarded to all existing University Lecturers who have passed probation when the ACP scheme is implemented.

(n)A continued rising research trajectory will be expected for progression and promotion at all levels.

(o)Each application will be considered and assessed on its own merit against the relevant criteria for the level, taking into equal account evidence of both inputs and outputs. The criteria for assessing contribution must be applied fairly and consistently and any judgments made should be based on objective evidence.

(p)All applicants are expected to share and model the University’s values in promoting collegiality and mutual respect, to create a positive working environment.

(q)Research integrity is considered paramount in maintaining the University’s international standing and reputation; staff are therefore expected to maintain and uphold these principles.

(r)It is recognised that the lines between research leadership (or education or clinical leadership) and service are not always clear-cut and that there may be differences between disciplines. Assessments should therefore be made within the context of relevant disciplinary norms, taking care to avoid double-counting and ensuring that decisions are objective and clearly documented.

(s)Applicants will be encouraged to provide examples and evidence in their application of any contribution they feel would support their case for promotion against the promotion criteria.

(t)Potential applicants for promotion are expected to seek advice from the Head of Department/Faculty before deciding whether to apply.

(u)Heads of Departments/Faculty, with the assistance of appropriate senior colleagues if necessary, are responsible for ensuring that they review the contributions of all their eligible staff, so that all cases that meet the promotion criteria are brought forward for consideration. The decision on whether to apply for promotion will ultimately sit with the individual, however, Heads of Departments/Faculty should encourage applications from individuals that meet the criteria and discuss any perceived barriers that may be preventing an individual from applying. This will ensure any contextual factors that may have been overlooked are considered and promote equal opportunities for all staff members, particularly those in under-represented groups.

(v)The University recognises the benefits of mentoring in supporting an individual’s personal and professional development. Mentoring is an essential part of development and should be considered beyond probation, at each key stage in an individual’s career. Heads of Departments/Faculty should ensure that appropriate mentoring opportunities are available and help facilitate this process in order to support career development and progression.

(w)The University aims to be a leader in driving a culture of mutual respect and in promoting a positive working environment for all in its community. High standards of conduct are therefore expected from all staff. Formal sanctions may therefore be taken into account when assessing the applicant’s suitability for progression or promotion; those with live disciplinary warnings on file may be excluded from applying.

7. The General Board will have the discretion to make changes to the ACP scheme processes set out above as it deemed necessary, provided that those changes are in line with the Key Principles, and made in the light of experience, for the effective running of future ACP scheme rounds. The Key Principles underpinning the ACP scheme are as follows:

(a)The University should provide a flexible career pathway for established academic officers that gives due recognition to excellence in research, teaching, contributions to the running of the University and service to the academic community including public engagement.

(b)The University of Cambridge is committed, in its pursuit of academic excellence, to equality of opportunity and to a proactive approach that supports and encourages all under-represented groups, promotes an inclusive culture, and values diversity.

(c)All persons involved in administering academic promotions processes should exercise impartiality and fairness and be seen to do so. Declarations of interest should be made at appropriate stages. Appropriate training should be completed.

(d)Members of committees should ensure that their consideration is collective, fair, impartial and evidence-based.

(e)The University should provide a supportive career development process and academic officers should participate.

(f)All processes should be organised in a timely and transparent way.

(g)Constructive, helpful, developmental feedback should be provided at all appropriate stages including written feedback.

(h)All applications and documentation should be treated as confidential and in accordance with data protection principles.

(i)Appropriate budgetary provision should be made so that deserving candidates receive appropriate recognition and reward.

(j)All processes should be supported by modern and user-friendly business systems to ensure administrative efficiency, fairness, and equality.

8. These proposals are intended to be the start of an iterative process in the development of the ACP scheme. It is envisaged that the scheme will evolve over the coming years to ensure it meets the needs of the University and staff, with the continued input and support of the academic community.

9. The consultation process provided a steer on the priorities and areas of focus in the next steps of the reform. The responses indicated that there is a need for further exploration in the following areas:

(a)The new title of University Principal Lecturer that had been proposed to provide recognition to University Senior Lecturers who progress from Grade 9 to Grade 10 will not be taken forward but work on the University Senior Lectureship will continue. Further consideration will be given to the suggestion of having a dual pathway to Grade 10, to enable an alternative model to be included, based on equal recognition of teaching and research at the senior lectureship level. If this suggestion is to be taken forward, any such proposed changes would be subject to further consultation and implemented at a future time. The further career progression of teaching-focused University Senior Lecturers is also within the scope of the work described in paragraph 12 below.

(b)There was a further suggestion that individuals could be given the option to determine their own weighting for each of the promotion criteria within a pre-set range. This proposal was previously considered too complex to implement but could be explored further to determine its merits. The operation of scoring flexibility would, if implemented, be kept under review and, if it worked well, could be expanded in the evolution of the ACP scheme.

(c)The matter of academic titles will be the subject of a further consultation at a later time once the ACP scheme is implemented. There will be a separate consultation, which will invite views on a move to the Assistant/Associate/full Professor model. This model was not supported in previous consultation exercises but some of the responses to this ACP consultation suggest that the mood may be shifting.

10. To support the introduction of the new ACP scheme, a number of other work activities are currently being undertaken. These include:

(a)The development of more detailed guidance for Applicants, Heads of Institutions and Promotions Committees to support the ACP scheme, in time for the proposed launch in 2019–20.

(b)The development of the online application portal to support ACP as part of the integrated Reward System. The goal is to develop a system that will modernise the way in which promotions are managed at the University, with the principal aim of reducing the administrative burden for all those involved in the process. This will, as a consequence, also provide enhanced reporting capabilities which should enable better decision-making across the University. The intention is to implement a system that will deliver the basic requirements for online applications (including reference collecting and reporting) in time for the ACP launch in 2019–20, with a view to making further enhancements incrementally in line with changes to ACP over the coming years.

(c)The development of Career Development workshops to support ACP, to ensure there is appropriate support for academic career progression at the University. This is an enhancement to the current Senior Academic Promotions CV Mentoring Scheme. Subject to approval from the HR Committee, it is proposed that these workshops are launched in Lent Term 2020.

11. Work is under way to review the Senior Researcher Promotions (SRP) scheme and determine the promotion criteria and indicators for research staff. A Working Group has been convened to consider the current SRP scheme and make recommendations on how to bring the scheme in line with ACP. During 2018–19 targeted consultation will take place so that a revised SRP scheme that supports career progression for research staff can be prepared. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, an updated SRP scheme will also be launched.

12. The proposals set out in this Report reflect a focus initially limited to a standard ACP scheme for academic staff. In addition to the activities related to SRP set out in paragraph 11, work is progressing on the development of a distinct teaching strand and scoring model, to provide recognition of outstanding teaching and educational leadership alongside an effective service contribution.

13. The possible development of a clinical excellence strand is also being considered. This would be the subject of a separate consultation.

14. It should be noted that the amendments made to the Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices (see Annex 4) are an interim step to reflect the provisions of the new ACP scheme and to ensure it can be implemented without delay. The HR Division is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the probationary procedures for all staff, in consultation with the unions and key internal stakeholders. A draft combined policy for all staff categories will be submitted to the HR Committee meeting in the Easter term 2019.

15. The introduction of the proposals set out in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 would be preceded by the publication of a Report.

16.The General Board recommends:

I.That, with effect from 2019–20, the proposals to implement the Academic Career Pathway scheme as set out in paragraph 6 of this Report, are adopted.

1 May 2019	Stephen Toope, Vice-Chancellor	A. L. Greer	Helen Thompson
	Philip Allmendinger	Nicholas Holmes	Graham Virgo
	Abigail Brundin	Matthew Kite	Mark Wormald
	John Dennis	Patrick Maxwell	Chris Young
	Abigail Fowden	Sofia Ropek-Hewson

ANNEX 1: Academic promotions criteria and scoring methodology: Professors and Readers

Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway

There are five levels for academic progression within the Research and Teaching Career Pathway as set out below.

It is important to emphasise that there is no expectation of step-by-step progression through every level of the Pathway. For example, a University Senior Lecturer (G9) can apply directly to the Readership level and a University Lecturer (G9) can apply directly to the University Senior Lecturer (G10) level.

Promotion criteria and scoring methodology for promotion to Reader and Professor

1. Promotion statement

The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

We are committed to providing a supportive environment to enable individuals to take ownership of their development and build a successful career at Cambridge. The University strives for the highest international levels of excellence and has achieved its success through the diversity of its staff and student community. We aim to be a leader in fostering equality and inclusion, and in promoting collegiality by nurturing a culture of mutual respect and a sense of belonging for all within our community.

The University’s firm conviction is that achieving the highest international levels of excellence requires not only world-class research but also undergraduate and postgraduate education which benefits from and engages with Cambridge’s research-rich environment, and a deep commitment to the development of research students and early career research staff. This conviction is reflected in our academic promotion scheme, which requires applicants to show that they have made an effective contribution to teaching and/or researcher development as well as outstanding research.

Excellence is expected of all staff and the purpose of the promotion scheme is to recognise outstanding contributions and celebrate academic achievements. Assessment is based on contributions in: research and research leadership; teaching and/or researcher development; and service to the University and to the academic community.

All applicants for promotion must show service to the University and to the wider academic community and are expected to share and role model the University’s values in promoting collegiality and mutual respect. Research integrity is also considered paramount in maintaining the University’s international standing and reputation; staff are therefore expected to maintain and uphold these principles at all times.

The University recognises that the lines between research leadership (or education or clinical leadership) and service are not always clear-cut and that there may be differences between disciplines. Assessments should be made within the context of relevant disciplinary norms, taking care to avoid double-counting and ensuring that decisions are objective and clearly documented.

A continued rising research trajectory would be expected for progression and promotion at all levels.

2. Promotion criteria: Academic Career Pathway (ACP) scheme

Each application will be considered and assessed on its own merit against the relevant criteria for the level, taking into equal account evidence of both inputs and outputs. Assessment against the progression/promotion criteria requires the exercise of good judgement and balance by the relevant committees, but the decisions can be robustly informed by objective evidence. Committees should be mindful of the existence of unconscious biases – both in themselves and others – and consider how these biases might impact how assessments are made and how they affect objective decision-making. A way to mitigate this is for committee members to constructively challenge any potential implicit or explicit biases they observe in the assessment process whether in themselves or others to ensure fairness and promote inclusion.

Whilst it is important to ensure a fair and consistent approach is taken to evaluating excellence, we recognise that certain metrics, such as student feedback and bibliometrics, have their limitations. Progression/promotion committees should therefore be mindful of the shortfalls associated with applying these metrics (such as low participation levels and/ or gender bias) and apply judgement when making their assessment.

This section sets out the promotion criteria for the ACP scheme, which applies to all academic staff.

Note that these examples are suggestive in nature and non-exhaustive; not all the indicators will be relevant to all applicants.

To ensure transparency, all Departments/Faculties are expected to adopt and publish guidance setting out the expectations required for promotion and including examples of indicators of excellence for their discipline. Departments/Faculties may find it helpful to use the minutes of previous ACP committee meetings as a source of examples of indicators of excellence used to determine excellence for promotion within the relevant discipline.

The University recognises that there is diversity in disciplinary norms. It is therefore important that each Department/Faculty is responsible for determining the appropriate indicators within their respective area. To ensure parity of standards and expectations, the ACP guidance must be approved by School Councils prior to adoption. The ACP guidance must be regularly reviewed and updated, as necessary, to ensure that it is still relevant and remains fit for purpose.

The assessment of individual applications by ACP committees will also take the published ACP guidance into account.

2.1 Criteria for the assessment of research: Professor

Promotion to Professor requires outstanding achievement in research and research leadership assessed by reference to international levels of excellence. This includes both individual and collaborative contributions to research, as well as contributions to leading an excellent institutional research culture.

There are two criteria and outstanding achievement is normally required in both:

CRITERION 1: Consistently conducts rigorous research addressing significant questions, contributing new ideas and advancing the boundaries of the field whilst ensuring the highest standards of research integrity are promoted and maintained.
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• A substantial portfolio of high quality research outputs that are internationally recognised as world-class in terms of their originality, significance and rigour. The University acknowledges that the intellectual content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published • Makes a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge in their research discipline • Produces and disseminates research outputs that have an impact, for example in the REF or informs national or international policy development	• Frequently invited to present work at major national and international conferences and institutions • A significant track record of winning competitive research funding • In receipt of prizes and honours for research
CRITERION 2: Consistently provides high-quality research leadership, strategically planning for the future and supporting an inclusive and productive research culture
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Leads and contributes to collaborative research projects • Elected/appointed to research-related leadership roles • Creates and manages large research groups • Convenes and leads major research conferences and seminar programmes • Provides intellectual thought leadership which informs and contributes to setting the international research agenda in an individual’s area	• Participation in high-quality public, industrial and/or policy engagement activities linked to research • Edits major academic journals • Promotes collaboration and develops cross-disciplinary research activities

2.2 Criteria for the assessment of research: Reader

Promotion to Reader requires outstanding achievement in research and research leadership assessed by reference to national levels of excellence and international recognition. This includes both individual and collaborative contributions to research, as well as contributions to institutional research culture.

There are two criteria and outstanding achievement is normally required in both:

CRITERION 1: Consistently conducts rigorous research addressing significant questions, contributing new ideas and advancing the boundaries of the field whilst ensuring the highest standards of research integrity are promoted and maintained.
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• A substantial portfolio of high quality research outputs that are internationally recognised in terms of their originality, significance and rigour. The University acknowledges that the intellectual content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published • Contributes to the advancement of knowledge in their research discipline • Produces research outputs that have an impact, for example in the REF • A track record of winning competitive research funding	• Invited to present work at major national and international conferences and institutions
CRITERION 2: Contributes to high-quality research leadership and supports an inclusive and productive research culture.
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Makes a significant contribution to collaborative research projects • Contributes to organisation of major research conferences and seminar programmes	• Participation in high-quality public, industrial and/or policy engagement activities linked to research • Edits major academic journals • Promotes collaboration and develops cross-disciplinary research activities

2.3 Criteria for the assessment of teaching and researcher development: all applicants

All applicants are required to show that they have made an effective contribution towards the University’s goal of providing high-quality research-led teaching to undergraduate and postgraduate students and/or fostering the professional development of research students and early career research staff. It is recognised that applicants may contribute in different ways at different points in their career and that effective contributions may differ between disciplines. Contributions will be assessed in the context of the relevant Department/Faculty’s expectations, including the local workload model where applicable. In its guidance, each Department/Faculty should indicate the balance of expectation as between teaching (undergraduate/postgraduate) and researcher (PhD/Postdoc) development.

An effective contribution must be shown by reference to all or some of the following criteria:

CRITERION 1: Consistently delivers excellent teaching that benefits from and engages with Cambridge’s research-rich environment and is intellectually challenging
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Designs and develops new programmes • Leads/makes a significant contribution to internal teaching reviews • Demonstrates breadth of knowledge and teaches effectively beyond immediate research area • Receives prizes for teaching • Undertakes examination/acts as a course examiner • Provides educational leadership and organisation including curriculum development and learning design	• Successfully introduces innovative teaching/assessment methods or significant contribution to their enhancement • Publishes major textbooks/e-learning materials adopted in courses internal or external to the University • National or global press coverage of the candidate’s educational ideas or activities • Holding an educational leadership position within a professional body • Receives excellent student feedback • Demonstrates sophisticated, reflexive approach to teaching and supporting learning which enables students to develop subject knowledge and capabilities
CRITERION 2: Consistently delivers high-quality research supervision that is intellectually challenging and supportive
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Consistently high research student completion rates • Award of prizes and honours for researcher development • Consistently receives positive feedback from research students	• Provides inclusive leadership and delivers excellence through the performance of others • Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect • Contributes significantly towards recruiting and winning support for research students • Recognises and nurtures talent and demonstrates consistent engagement with researcher training and development processes
CRITERION 3: Consistently ensures that early-career researchers receive excellent opportunities to develop their potential and prepare them for future success
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Consistently receives positive feedback from postdoctoral researchers • Enables and encourages early-career researchers to develop independent research lines and/or pursue independent publications or funding applications • Mentors or coaches early-career researchers in other groups or departments	• Provides inclusive leadership and delivers excellence through the performance of others • Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect • Recognises and nurtures talent and demonstrates consistent engagement with researcher training and development processes • Helps early-career researchers to be creative about their futures and takes active steps to support career pathways both in and beyond academia

2.4 Criteria for the assessment of service to the University and to the academic community

All applicants are required to show an effective service contribution. University members are expected to demonstrate and promote collegiality by nurturing a culture of mutual respect. The University recognises that individuals may contribute in different ways at different times and that as individuals become more senior they may be asked to take on more commitments that are external to the University. Nevertheless the University normally expects applicants to demonstrate a significant degree of service contribution that is internal to the University.

CRITERION: Consistently makes an effective contribution of service to the University and to the academic community beyond the University. Promotes collegiality and engenders a culture of mutual respect.

Examples of indicators of excellence and impact

• Departmental/Faculty/University academic leadership roles

• Sits on Departmental/Faculty University committees and bodies

• Provides active mentoring and support for colleagues

• Promotes and demonstrates effective use of the Staff Review and Development Scheme

• Significant and sustained contributions to equality, diversity and inclusion activities

• Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect

• Promotes cross-disciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing

• Contributes to leadership, administration and student support within Colleges

• Significant and sustained contribution to widening participation activity

• Engages significantly in peer review activity

• Advises government and parliamentary bodies

• Sits on public review bodies

• Significant and sustained contributions to fostering strategic partnerships (e.g. industry, trusts and foundations, philanthropic donors)

• Supports the work of other HEIs (e.g. significant external examining; participation in research/teaching and learning reviews)

The promotion procedure

1. Eligibility

An applicant would normally be expected to have been in post at the current level for at least 12 months before s/he applies for promotion. Exceptionally, this period may be waived where the officer is considered ready for promotion to the relevant office by the Head of Institute. Any exceptions will require approval from the Faculty Committee, and supported by the School Committee.

2. Submission of applications

Applicants are responsible for preparing and submitting their application to the Secretary of the Faculty Committee for the institution to which their office or post is assigned by the deadline specified in the timetable for the Academic Career Pathways exercise.

3. Roles and responsibilities

Applicant

Potential applicants are expected to seek advice from the Head of Department/Faculty before deciding whether to apply.

Applicants should complete the relevant document providing evidence that they meet the promotion excellence criteria relating to the Office for which they are applying, and should be encouraged to provide examples and evidence in their application of any contribution they feel would support their case for promotion against the excellence criteria.

This document should be submitted to the Secretary of the relevant Faculty Committee by the stated deadline for the Academic Career Pathways exercise.

Head of Department/Faculty

Heads of Departments/Faculty, with the assistance of appropriate senior colleagues if necessary, should ensure that they review the contributions of all their eligible staff, so that all cases that meet the promotion criteria are brought forward for consideration. The decision on whether to apply for promotion will ultimately sit with the individual, however Heads of Department/Faculty should encourage applications from individuals that meet the criteria and discuss any perceived barriers that may be preventing an individual from applying. This will ensure any contextual factors that may have been overlooked are considered and promote equal opportunities for all staff members including those in underrepresented groups.

The Staff Review and Development Scheme, whilst remaining a separate and independent mechanism for reviewing personal contribution and facilitating development, could be used to discuss career aspirations, assess an individual’s readiness for progression, and inform this process.

The University recognises the benefits of mentoring in supporting an individual’s personal and professional development. Mentoring is an essential part of development and should be considered beyond probation, at each key stage in an individual’s career. Individuals are encouraged to engage in mentoring throughout their career at Cambridge. Heads of Department/Faculty should ensure that appropriate mentoring opportunities are available and help facilitate this process to support career development and progression. Further information on Mentoring can be found at: https://www.ppd.admin.cam.ac.uk/professional-development/mentoring-university-cambridge

The Head of Department/Faculty should complete the relevant document explaining whether they support the application and the reasons for their decision, returning the completed form to the Faculty Committee Secretary in time for the meeting.

Faculty Committee

After the deadline for applications, the Secretary of the Faculty Committee will circulate a summary list of applicants and the full application documentation to all committee members.

The Faculty Committee at its meeting will consider all the documentation for each application and agree collectively the evaluation and scores against each of the assessment criteria documenting in each case whether the application for promotion is supported and the reasons for its decision.

The Committee should then rank the applicants in a list according to the strength of their applications.

School Committee

The School Committee will check that applicants have been consistently assessed across the Faculty Committees, clearly indicating in its minutes for each application any changes from the Faculty Committee evaluations and the reasons, as well as whether the application for promotion is supported.

4. Outcomes

Applicants are advised of the outcome of their application by their Head of Department/Faculty once the ACP exercise is concluded. Template documentation and guidance will be provided.

5. Timetable

Applicants will be notified in writing of the outcome of their application by their Head of Department/Faculty after the General Board meeting that considers ACP recommendations.

Unsuccessful applicants who wish to receive feedback should request this from their Head of Department by the deadline set out in the timetable. Heads of Department/Faculty are responsible for communicating feedback in person to unsuccessful applicants, if requested.

6. Exclusions

The University aims to be a leader in driving a culture of mutual respect and in promoting a positive working environment for all in its community. High standards of conduct are therefore expected from all staff; particularly those in leadership positions who are expected to role model these values. Formal sanctions may be taken into account when assessing the applicant’s suitability for promotion; those with a live disciplinary warning on file may be excluded from applying for promotion.

ANNEX 2: Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer

Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway

There are five levels for academic progression within the Research and Teaching Career Pathway as set out below.

Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer

This paper sets out the proposals for the Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10).

Through these proposals, the University seeks to address a number of concerns which were highlighted following a review of the University’s current Senior Academic Promotions (SAP) arrangements in 2016. Principally, many considered the promotions system to be opaque and unduly complex. This was largely due to a perceived lack of transparency in the evaluative criteria for promotion; it was unclear what the requirements were for progression and how performance should be evaluated. More specifically in relation to senior lectureships, it was apparent that there was no common understanding of the role of the University Senior Lecturer (USL), which led to distinct differences in how progression at that level was interpreted, particularly between those in the sciences and the arts. The University also had to be responsive to the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which placed greater emphasis on teaching. This meant a review of the weighting of the criteria was required to ensure appropriate recognition was given to teaching.

1. Probation statement

The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

Confirmation of appointment at the end of academic probation is regarded as an important career milestone. The University considers this step a fundamental test of capability to perform the duties of the office and an indicator of potential for future success. We are committed to providing personal and professional development opportunities and advice to support and enable staff to achieve the expected standards of excellence, and build a successful career at Cambridge.

2. Probation criteria – University Lecturer (Grade 9)

Cambridge academics are required to meet the highest international standards of excellence for confirmation of appointment at the end of probation. There must be strong evidence of consistent and sustained, satisfactory performance of duties, and a clear indication of an upward trajectory during the probationary period. All staff are expected to share the University’s values in promoting collegiality, mutual respect and demonstrate contribution to the community. Research integrity is also considered paramount in maintaining the University’s international standing and reputation; staff are therefore expected to maintain and uphold these principles at all times.

The new assessment criteria are aligned with those set out for promotion to Reader and Professor in the Academic Career Pathway (ACP) scheme as follows:

Performance is assessed by reference to research; teaching and/or researcher development; service to the University and to the academic community. There must be no doubt that the probationer has been performing to all the relevant criteria and meets the expected standards of excellence in their performance and contribution within the Cambridge context. Where relevant College teaching should also be taken into account.

To ensure transparency, all Departments/Faculties are expected to adopt and publish a protocol setting out what is expected of probationers under each of the performance criteria. The University recognises that there may be differences in the way probation criteria are set across the various Departments/Faculties. It is therefore important that each Department/Faculty is responsible for determining the appropriate practice within their respective area, taking into account the context and the relevant disciplinary norms.

To ensure parity of standards and expectations, these protocols must be approved by School Councils prior to adoption. Probation protocols must be regularly reviewed and updated, as necessary, to ensure they are still relevant and remain fit for purpose.

3. Academic progression (from University Lecturer up to University Senior Lecturer)

University Lecturers are appointed at Grade 9.

The probationary period is five years unless the Head of Institution makes a case to the relevant School Committee for the requirement to be reduced (to a period of not less than three years) or to be waived, for example where the officer has held a senior academic position at another university and has already acquired relevant skills and experience.

Exceptionally, the probationary period may be extended where a new officer has not had sufficient time to demonstrate her/his suitability due to factors beyond her/his control, for example because of long leave of absence taken on account of illness or family commitments (including maternity leave). Heads of Institutions must consult their HR Business Manager at an early stage to discuss any proposed extensions.

A University Lecturer who has met the probationary requirements shall have their tenure confirmed and the title of University Senior Lecturer will be awarded in recognition of this achievement. There will be no change in grade or salary associated with this new title. Annual incremental progression through the service points of the Grade 9 salary scale will continue.

The title of University Senior Lecturer will be awarded to all existing University Lecturers who have passed probation when the ACP Scheme, including this process, is implemented.

It was suggested to introduce the title of University Principal Lecturer to be awarded to existing University Senior Lecturers in recognition of their previous achievement and status. The intention was also to use this title going forward to provide recognition to University Senior Lecturers who progress from Grade 9 to Grade 10.

The Principal level is well established within the Research career track at Cambridge. It was therefore considered an appropriate step to align Academic titles with current Research titles within the University as part of the broader ACP reform. However, consultation indicates concern in some Departments/Faculties regarding the new University Principal Lecturer title, and there is not a consensus for this to be introduced at this time. The proposal to establish the title of University Principal Lecturer is therefore not to be taken forward at this time.

A University Lecturer would normally be expected to have been in post at their current level for at least 12 months before applying to move up to a different level. Exceptionally, this settlement period may be waived where the officer is considered ready for promotion to senior offices by the Head of Institution. Any exceptions will require approval from the Faculty Committee, and be supported by the School Committee.

4. End of Probation/Confirmation of appointment process (progression from University Lecturer (Grade 9) to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 9))

The relevant School Committee1 (specified in the local protocol) will receive, evaluate and decide on probationary cases presented by the relevant Head of Department/Faculty. All cases should be accompanied by a CV, the Head of Department/Faculty case (using the template CV, the Head of Department’s supporting statement set out elsewhere under the ACP Scheme) and both internal and external references as specified in the local protocol. The Head of Department/Faculty is expected to provide supporting evidence in their statement of how the probationer has successfully met the standards against the relevant performance excellence criteria.

The University Senior Lectureship is not only considered an important career step at the University, it also comes with the award of tenure which offers job security until retirement; a significant benefit to the individual on confirmation of appointment. Departments/Faculties should therefore ensure they have a robust protocol in place to manage the probation process, undertake a rigorous assessment to evaluate an individual’s capability and potential long term contribution to the community, and ensure the University’s high standards of excellence are maintained.

Confirmation of appointment leading to the award of the title of University Senior Lecturer is not assessed by reference to a scoring scheme.

Full details regarding the Probationary Arrangements for Academic Offices are set out in Annex 4, including the process to be followed where in exceptional circumstances the academic member of staff does not yet meet the standards at the end of their probationary period.

5. University Senior Lecturer (Grade 9) progression to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10)

This section sets out the core elements of the Progression Scheme for University Senior Lecturers (Grade 9) to progress to University Senior Lecturers (Grade 10) within the ACP Scheme.

Progression to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10) is intended to recognise and reward academic staff who are fulfilling all the ACP criteria (research; teaching and/or researcher development; service to the University and to the academic community) but who have a special focus on teaching. The University aims to achieve the highest international levels of excellence and all applications will be assessed against this standard.

Progression to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10) is determined by reference to a scoring scheme that is modelled on the ACP scoring scheme for promotion to Reader/Professor but adapted to reflect the teaching focus of the USL (Grade 10).

A University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10) remains on the Academic Career Pathway and thus eligible to apply for further progression. It is recognised that the balance between research, teaching and/or researcher development and service can shift in different directions over the course of an individual’s career and the Pathway has the flexibility to accommodate this. The weighting for teaching and/or researcher development at Reader and Professor levels reflects the University’s expectation that all UTOs will make a significant contribution.

The maximum scores are as follows:

Teaching and/or Researcher Development	50/100
Service	30/100
Research	20/100

A case may be made to transfer 10 points from Service to Teaching and/or Researcher Development or Research.

Examples of evidence to support the criteria are provided here. Note that these examples are suggestive in nature and non-exhaustive; not all the indicators will be relevant to all applicants.

Each Department/Faculty, with approval from the School, should tailor the indicators of excellence to ensure they are relevant within the local context. This includes stating the institutional expectations with regard to the balance between teaching and/or researcher development required for progression.

Criteria for the assessment of teaching and researcher development

An applicant seeking progression to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10) is required to show consistent and sustained excellence in providing high-quality undergraduate and postgraduate education that benefits from and engages with Cambridge’s research-rich environment and/or nurturing the professional and personal development of research students and early-career research staff. It is recognised that effective contributions may differ between disciplines and that an applicant’s contribution is therefore to be assessed in the context of their Department/Faculty’s expectations, including the local workload model where applicable. Sustained excellence must be shown by reference to all or some of the following criteria:

CRITERION 1: Consistently delivers excellent teaching that benefits from and engages with Cambridge’s research-rich environment and is intellectually challenging
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Designs and develops new programmes • Contributes to internal teaching reviews • Undertakes examination/acts as a course examiner • Provides educational leadership and organisation, including curriculum development and learning design • Demonstrates sophisticated, reflexive approach to teaching and supporting learning which enables students to develop subject knowledge and capabilities	• Successfully introduces innovative teaching/assessment methods or significant contribution to their enhancement • Publishes materials adopted in courses internal or external to the University • National or global press coverage of the candidate’s educational ideas or activities • Receives excellent student feedback
CRITERION 2: Consistently delivers excellent research supervision that is engaging, intellectually challenging and supportive
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Supervises research students effectively • Consistently receives positive feedback from research students	• Provides inclusive leadership and delivers excellence through the performance of others • Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect • Contributes significantly towards recruiting and winning support for research students • Recognises and nurtures talent and engages with researcher training and development processes
CRITERION 3: Consistently ensures that early-career researchers receive excellent opportunities to develop their potential and prepare them for future success
Examples of indicators of excellence and impact
• Consistently receives positive feedback from postdoctoral researchers	• Provides inclusive leadership and delivers excellence through the performance of others • Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect • Recognises and nurtures talent and engages with researcher training and development processes

Criteria for the assessment of service to the University and to the academic community

An applicant is required to show an effective service contribution. University members are expected to demonstrate and promote collegiality by nurturing a culture of mutual respect. The University recognises that people may contribute in different ways at different times and that as individuals become more senior they may be asked to take on more commitments that are external to the University. Nevertheless the University normally expects applicants to demonstrate some degree of service contribution that is internal to the University.

Examples of indicators of excellence and impact

• Departmental/Faculty/University academic leadership roles

• Sits on Departmental/Faculty University committees and bodies

• Provides active mentoring and support for colleagues

• Promotes and demonstrates effective use of the Staff Review and Development Scheme

• Significant and sustained contributions to equality, diversity and inclusion activities

• Creates a positive working environment and acts as a role model in promoting the University’s values relating to mutual respect

• Promotes cross-disciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing

• Contributes to leadership, administration and student support within Colleges

• Significant and sustained contribution to widening participation activity

• Engages significantly in peer review activity

• Advises government and parliamentary bodies

• Sits on public review bodies

• Significant and sustained contributions to fostering strategic partnerships (e.g. industry, trusts and foundations, philanthropic donors)

• Supports the work of other HEIs (e.g. significant external examining; participation in research/teaching and learning reviews)

Criteria for the assessment of research

An applicant is required to demonstrate achievement in research assessed by reference to national levels of excellence. This may include individual and/or collaborative contributions to research.

CRITERION 1: Consistently conducts rigorous research addressing significant questions, contributing new ideas and advancing the boundaries of the field whilst ensuring the highest standards of research integrity are promoted and maintained.

Examples of indicators of excellence and impact

• A portfolio of high quality research outputs that are nationally recognised as excellent. The University acknowledges that the intellectual content of a paper is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it was published

• Invitations to present work externally

• Invitations to join research consortia

Process: please see Contribution Reward Scheme for University Senior Lecturers (Annex 3).

6. Appointment as University Senior Lecturers (Grade 10)

The option to make an appointment at University Senior Lecturer (G10) level will be retained. This must be decided at the permission to fill stage, in line with the relevant School office process and RMC processes.2

The probation process for University Lecturers applies also to persons appointed as University Senior Lecturer (G10).

7. Additional contribution increments for University Senior Lecturers (G10)

The option for a University Senior Lecturer (G10) to apply for contribution increments above the service points is retained. The assessment of contribution should be clearly related to the institution’s strategic plans and should recognise achievement in teaching and general service which is likely to contribute to the future academic success of the University.

Please see Contribution Reward Scheme for University Senior Lecturers (Annex 3) for detail.

8. Exclusions

9. Further career progression of teaching-focused staff

The University is committed to making further progress on staff recognition and award for teaching (Priorities Framework). The Contribution Reward Scheme for progression to University Senior Lecturer (G10) and for additional contribution increments above the Grade 10 service points that is set out in this set of papers provides some progression for teaching-focused staff but it is recognised that more needs to be done, including consideration of expanded opportunities for promotion to senior offices within the ACP framework. A separate group has been formed to take forward this work.

10. Further career progression of research-focused and clinical staff

The University is equally committed to making further progress on its review of the Research Career Pathway. A group has been formed to determine the promotion excellence criteria for research staff and take this work forward.

The University also intends to establish a Clinical Excellence strand, which will be subject to a separate consultation. Further details will be provided once the work is this area is underway.

Footnotes

1This may be the Selection Committee or an alternative School level committee as set out in the local protocol.
2https://www.prao.admin.cam.ac.uk/resource-allocation

ANNEX 3: Contribution Reward Scheme for University Senior Lecturer

Introduction

The University is committed to motivating and rewarding staff to perform at their best every day. We aim to provide far and transparent career and reward progression schemes that balance the needs of the University whilst enabling individuals to meet their full potential, and achieve the expected standards of excellence through high levels of contribution and service.

Career Progression

The University provides five levels of progression for academics within the Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway:

Key principles

Cambridge academics are expected to drive and take accountability for their own development and career progression. Heads of Department/Faculty also play an essential role in supporting personal and professional development, and are responsible for providing advice and guidance to enable individuals to be successful at Cambridge and realise their career aspirations.

To promote and ensure fairness and transparency, it is essential that the following principles are applied throughout the process:

•Fairness and declaration of interest

•Equal opportunity

•Consideration and allowance for contextual factors

•Confidentiality and data protection legislation

•Procedural adjustments and interpretation of guidance

Progression and Contribution Reward Schemes

The academic reward structure remains unchanged. The table below sets out the current salary progression for academics within the Research and Teaching Career Pathway:

Contribution Reward Schemes up to University Senior Lecturer

The following Contribution Reward Schemes are provided to recognise and reward outstanding academic contribution and service up to University Senior Lecturer:

Please note that Contribution Reward Schemes A and B will not apply to clinical academics who will remain on their current clinical award scheme which will be subject to NHS consultant salary progression pay rules.

SCHEME A

Principles

This scheme provides for University Senior Lecturers on Grade 9 (i.e. University Lecturers awarded this title on passing probation) to progress to University Senior Lecturer on Grade 10.

The assessment of contribution made by the University Senior Lecturer (Grade 9) will be based on the evidence provided that supports achievement of the excellence criteria for a University Senior Lecturer on Grade 10.

Please see Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer (Annex 2) for detail.

Eligibility

A University Lecturer/University Senior Lecturer at Grade 9 would normally be expected to have been in post for at least 12 months before s/he is eligible to apply for progression to Grade 10. Exceptionally, this period may be waived where the officer is considered ready for promotion by the Head of Institute. Any exceptions will require approval from the Faculty Committee, and support from the School Committee.

Criteria

Progression to Grade 10 will be approved for those applicants who can demonstrate achievement of the excellence criteria for a University Senior Lecturer on Grade 10.

Contribution Reward

Successful applicants under the progression scheme from Grade 9 to Grade 10 will be placed on the first scale point of Grade 10 (point 59).

SCHEME B

Principles

This scheme provides for contribution increments to be awarded to University Senior Lecturers at the top of Grade 10 for significant and sustained contributions other than through research.

The assessment of contribution by the University Senior Lecturer should be clearly related to the institution’s strategic plans and should recognise the University Senior Lecturer’s achievement in teaching and general service to the community which is likely to contribute to the future academic success of the University.

Eligibility

Only University Senior Lecturers who are paid at the top of the service points (Grade 10, point 61) are eligible for consideration. For holders of unestablished posts whose contract of employment specify the title ‘Senior Lecturer’ at Grade 10, the same eligibility criteria apply providing the Head of Institution confirms that non-UEF funding can be identified to meet the gross cost of the increment at least to the end of the University Senior lecturer’s current contract.

Criteria

Contribution increments may be awarded to applicants who meet the following criteria:

•Outstanding and sustained excellence in teaching, and

•Outstanding and sustained service and contributions to the University and the academic community beyond the University.

Applicants are also expected to demonstrate the University’s values of collegiality and mutual respect, and role model these positive standards. Evidence that they meet the above criteria should be provided, with reference to the Teaching and General Service criteria for University Senior Lecturers.

The Head of Department/Faculty is expected to comment and provide evidence in their statement of how the applicant has achieved these criteria. Most successful proposals will result in the award of one contribution increment. Exceptional cases would need to be made for the award of two increments (up to point 63).

Contribution Reward

If a candidate is successful, this level of contribution then becomes the normal expectation for that University Senior Lecturer. Therefore, the same evidence will not attract additional contribution rewards in future.

It would not normally be expected that an application for increments from the same University Senior Lecturer Grade 10 candidate is made in two successive Contribution Reward Scheme exercises. However, if one increment has been awarded in a previous exercise, an application can be made for an additional increment in a subsequent CRS exercise.

GENERAL

Submission of applications

Procedure

1. Roles and responsibilities

Applicant

Potential applicants are expected to seek advice from the Head of Department/Faculty before deciding whether to apply.

Applicants should complete the relevant document either providing evidence that they meet the Grade 10 excellence criteria (Scheme A) or of their sustained excellence in teaching, and sustained general and/or administrative contributions and service in support of their institution’s academic priorities (Scheme B). Applicants should be encouraged to provide examples and evidence in their application of any contribution they feel would support their case for promotion against the excellence criteria.

This document should be submitted to the Secretary of the relevant Faculty Committee by the stated deadline for the Academic Career Pathways exercise.

Head of Department/Faculty

Heads of Department/Faculty, with the assistance of appropriate senior colleagues if necessary, should ensure that they review the contributions of all their eligible University Senior Lecturers, so that all cases that meet the criteria are brought forward for consideration. The decision on whether to submit an application will ultimately sit with the individual, however Heads of Departments/Faculty should encourage applications from individuals that meet the criteria and discuss any perceived barriers that may be preventing an individual from applying. This will ensure any contextual factors that may have been overlooked are considered and promote equal opportunities for all staff members including those in underrepresented groups.

The Staff Review and Development Scheme, whilst remaining a separate and independent mechanism for reviewing personal contribution and to facilitate development, could be used to discuss career aspirations, assess an individual’s readiness for progression, and inform this process. It is essential that these types of discussions are taking place on a regular and ongoing basis throughout the course of an individual’s career. Heads of Departments are strongly encouraged to undertake performance appraisals with staff periodically as part of the Staff Review and Development Scheme, and it is recommended that the appraisal undertaken in the last 12 months are used to support the promotions process.

The University recognises the benefits of mentoring in supporting an individual’s personal and professional development. Mentoring is an essential part of development and should be considered beyond probation, at key stages of an individual’s career. Individuals are encouraged to engage in mentoring throughout their career at Cambridge. Heads of Departments/Faculty should ensure that appropriate mentoring opportunities are available and help facilitate this process to support career development and progression. Further information on Mentoring can be found at: https://www.ppd.admin.cam.ac.uk/professional-development/mentoring-university-cambridge

Where there is more than one applicant from the Institution, supported applications should be ranked in priority order and an explanation provided to ensure a fair and consistent approach has been undertaken in determining the priority order.

Faculty Committee

After the deadline for applications, the Secretary of the Faculty Committee will circulate a summary list of applicants and the full application documentation to all committee members.

The Chair, supported by the Secretary, and seeking the advice from the members of Committee by circulation as appropriate, will decide in each case who should provide the Head of Department statement (by completing the relevant document) and the name of an internal referee. The Faculty Committee procedure for Scheme A and Scheme B is as follows:

The Faculty Committee at its meeting will consider all the documentation for each application and agree collectively for Scheme A applicants the evaluation and scores against each of the assessment criteria documenting in each case whether progression to Grade 10 is supported and the reasons for this decision. The Faculty Committee will also consider all the documentation for Scheme B applicants, evaluate performance and determine scores against the assessment criteria, documenting in each case whether the award of contribution increment(s) is supported and the reasons for the decision.

The Committee should then rank the applicants in a list according to the strength of their applications.

School Committee

The School Committee will check that applicants have been consistently assessed across the Faculty Committees and approve awards, clearly indicating in its minutes for each application any changes from the Faculty Committee evaluations and the reasons, as well as whether the proposed award is supported.

2. Outcomes

Applicants are advised of the outcome of their application by their Head of Department/Faculty once the ACP exercise is concluded. Template documentation and guidance will be provided.

3. Timetable

The timetable for this Scheme is the same as for the ACP exercise. Therefore, applicants will be notified in writing of the outcome of their application by their Head of Department/Faculty after the General Board meeting that considers ACP recommendations.

4. Exclusions

The University aims to be a leader in driving a culture of mutual respect and in promoting a positive working environment for all in its community. High standards of conduct are therefore expected from all staff; particularly those in leadership positions who are expected to role model these values. Formal sanctions may be taken into account when assessing applications for increased reward; those with a live disciplinary warning on file may be excluded from applying for contribution increments.

ANNEX 4: Probationary arrangements for academic officers

The probationary scheme set out in this guidance applies with immediate effect to all non-clinical academic offices and analogous unestablished posts below the level of Reader. The guidance is adapted from the Report of the General Board on the probationary arrangements for academic officers and comparable unestablished posts (Reporter, 5941, 2003–04, p. 206), where additional background information may be found.

Documentation on the probation scheme for academic staff

1. To whom does this scheme apply?

1.1 This scheme applies to all non-clinical academic appointments and comparable unestablished posts on permanent or fixed-term contracts below Readership level. The probation scheme is not applicable to Professorships and Readerships as appointment to these offices should only be made in cases where candidates have already achieved international recognition in respect of their academic achievement and contribution. It does not apply to contract research staff for whom there is a separate scheme.1

1.2 For the purpose of the scheme an academic post is one that is listed in Special Ordinances under Statute C, Schedule C (i) 1 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 72). An unestablished post is defined as academic by analogy with a comparable University office.

1.3 In relation to existing staff, depending on individual circumstances, it may be possible to offer the possibility of opting in to the scheme. Where members of staff are not willing to opt in to the probation scheme, the arrangement obtaining prior to its introduction will continue to apply.

1.4 Where doubt arises as to whether the scheme applies in a particular case and cannot be resolved by the Director or Assistant Director of Human Resources, the matter will be decided by the Chair of the Human Resources Committee on behalf of the General Board or, if circumstances require it, by the General Board on the advice of the Human Resources Committee.

2. What is probation?

2.1 Probation is the period of the appointment of a new member of staff during which the probationer will demonstrate their suitability for the role in which s/he has been appointed. It also provides an opportunity for the Heads of Institute or person nominated by her/him to assess an individual’s capability to undertake the duties of the role and provide appropriate guidance and support to enable the individual to become an effective member of the academic community, and succeed at the University.

2.2 The University is committed to providing a supportive environment that will enable individuals to reach their full potential through personal and professional development. The duties of an academic officer involve research and teaching and/or researcher development. It is also expected that all academic officers will demonstrate service to the University and to the academic community, and promote the University’s values of collegiality and mutual respect.

2.3 Confirmation of appointment at the end of academic probation is regarded as an important career milestone. The University considers this step a fundamental test of capability to perform the duties of the office and an indicator of potential for future success. Clear evidence of consistent, satisfactory performance of duties and adherence to the University’s expected standards of conduct during the probationary period is therefore expected if an appointment is to be confirmed upon completion (see 4.6.1–4.7.2 below).

2.4 The probationer should receive an induction to help them settle into the working environment. They should also be given guidance regarding the objectives of their institution and its academic activities so that they understand the expected standards of excellence required to build a successful career at Cambridge. This will involve enabling the probationer to develop skills in teaching, examining, and research so that they are able to contribute to the general work of the institution.

2.5 Instances of misconduct, rather than lack of capability, will be dealt with separately in accordance with the relevant disciplinary procedures and not under the probation scheme, although any disciplinary warnings may be taken into account when assessing the probationer’s overall suitability for a role under the probation procedure.

2.6 It is essential that the requirements of the probation scheme be observed throughout the process. The Head of Institution should be aware that the termination of an appointment at the end of probation is a dismissal in law and that in all cases the University must be able to demonstrate that the probationary procedure has been conducted properly and fairly.

3. How long is the probationary period?

Length of probationary periods

3.1 The probationary period for the holder of a University academic office or post will be five years unless the Head of Institution makes a case to the Selection Committee or relevant School level Committee2 for the requirement to be reduced (to a period of not less than three years) or the Head of Institution, on recommendation of the Selection Committee decides that it should be waived where the officer has held a senior academic position at another university and has already acquired relevant skills and experience. For extensions of the probationary period beyond five years in exceptional circumstances, see below.

3.2 Confirmation (or non-confirmation) of tenure by the Selection Committee must occur, if possible, not less than nine months before the end of the five-year period. In cases where the Head of Institution is clear that there is sufficient evidence, s/he may recommend to the relevant School Committee confirmation of an appointment before the end of the five-year period but not less than three years into the probationary period.

3.3 Exceptionally, the probationary period may be extended where a new officer has not had sufficient time to demonstrate her/his suitability due to factors beyond her/his control, for example because of long leave of absence taken on account of illness or family commitments (see below). Normally such extension will be for no longer than one year. With regard to extension (and also dismissal), Heads of Institutions must consult their HR Business Manager at an early stage (see below).

3.4 Note that the Selection Committee as constituted under Special Ordinance C (x): Selection Committees (Special Ordinance under Statute C XIII 2) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 89) is the body specified in Statutes and Ordinances as having authority for making an appointment or reappointment of established academic officers (other than Professors). Special Ordinance C (x) sets out the general provisions on Selection Committees. Specific appointing arrangements for particular offices are set out in separate chapters under Statute C (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 16). Please see in particular the provisions for appointment of University Senior Lecturers and Lecturers set out in Special Ordinance C (ix): University Senior Lecturers and Lecturers (Special Ordinance under Statute C XIII 2) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 88) and in Special Regulations for University Officers, Ordinances, Chapter XI (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 695). The Selection Committee has the power to confirm tenure, extend it in exceptional circumstances, or dismiss, without having to seek a direction from the General Board.

Academic staff on fixed term contracts

3.5.1 The probation scheme also applies to holders of University offices which have been established for a fixed term e.g. some Assistant Directors of Research. The General Board’s policy dictates that such offices may be established for periods of not less than five years. If an office is established for five years or longer and there is a prospect of the office being established for a further period, the confirmation, or non-confirmation of appointment, will be in relation to the period for which the office is re-established. A decision on the outcome of probation may be made, if appropriate, after a period of not less than three years.

3.5.2 If there is no prospect of further funding to establish the office for a further period, advice in relation to the termination of the appointment at the end of the period of establishment is available in the management guidance Procedure for the Ending of Fixed Term Contracts.3

4. How will the Probation Scheme work in practice?

4.1 It is important that the duties relating to the job are made clear and are understood by the new officer at the outset. Work of staff undergoing probation must be monitored to ensure that any problems that occur are discussed directly with the probationer as and when they arise. The relevant leadership of the Department or Faculty must form an overall view of the individual’s progress, commitment and general contribution to the work of the institution.

4.2 To ensure transparency, all Departments/Faculties are expected to adopt and publish a protocol setting out what is expected of probationers under each of the performance criteria. To ensure parity of standards and expectations, these protocols must be approved by School Councils prior to adoption. Probation protocols must be regularly reviewed and, as necessary, updated on an annual basis or as appropriate to ensure they are still relevant and fit for purpose.

Advice and assistance

4.2.1 Probationary staff will each be assigned a mentor. A mentor will be an experienced senior colleague nominated by the Head of Institution who is able to give advice and provide valuable links to the officer under probation. The mentor will also provide support over the whole range of duties the probationer is expected to undertake, and be an individual with whom the probationer can share problems and concerns in confidence. If requested by the probationer, an alternative mentor may be agreed in discussion with the Head of Institution.

Academic staff development

4.3 The University places great emphasis on the development of its staff, wishes to encourage participation in appropriate training and development activities, and offers a range of opportunities as part of the Development Programme,4 including an Introductory Seminar. The University has developed Pathways in Higher Education Practice (PHEP)5 for new teaching staff. Attendance is mandatory for new members of staff whose duties include teaching.

Meetings and preliminary assessment

4.4.1 Before the beginning of the probationer’s first teaching term the Head of Institution or person nominated by her/him will hold a preliminary one-to-one meeting with the probationer to discuss the duties of the office, mutual expectations, and the individual’s development needs. In addition to those core activities in which the University believes it is essential that all new members of staff should participate, the Head of Institution or person nominated by her/him will identify in consultation with the probationer any further essential requirements and note these on the record of progress form.

4.4.2 In the course of the probationary period, information as to progress will be gathered at appropriate intervals and will normally include the views of senior colleagues on both teaching, research, and general contribution. Student feedback and peer observation may also be taken into account.

4.4.3 The Head of Institution, or the person delegated to oversee the probationer, will meet with the probationer at least once a year. A written record of progress will be completed and kept by both parties. Where concern arises about aspects of an officer’s performance, more regular meetings (e.g. twice a year) should be held and a record kept (see also 4.6.6). The purpose of each meeting is to review the probationer’s progress under the general headings of teaching, research, and, where appropriate, general contribution to the work of the institution and to provide an opportunity for the individual to comment on the assessment. Form PD/PROB/R1 will be required for each year of probation and form PD/PROB/A1 for the final assessment.

Performance criteria

4.5.1 Cambridge academics are required to meet the highest international standards of excellence for confirmation of appointment at the end of probation. There must be strong evidence of consistent and sustained, satisfactory performance of duties, and a clear indication of an upward trajectory during the probationary period.

4.5.2 Performance will be assessed by reference to research; teaching and/or researcher development; service to the University and to the academic community. This will include acting as a positive role model and promoting the University’s values of mutual respect and a sense of belonging for all within the University community. There must be no doubt that the probationer has been performing to all the relevant criteria and meets the expected standards of excellence in their performance and contribution within the Cambridge context. Where relevant, College teaching should also be taken into account.

4.5.3 Specific guidance on the evaluative criteria for University Lecturers can be found in the document Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway: Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer (Annex 2).

Evidence of formal/final assessments

4.6.1 The responsibility for making the final overall assessment of the performance of the individual probationer and the recommendation to the Selection Committee (see above) rests with the Head of Institution.

4.6.2 Consideration should be given to any special circumstances that may have resulted in a lack of opportunity for a new officer to perform to her/his full potential on account of disability.

4.6.3 The Human Resources Division will remind Faculties, Departments, and other institutions each year of the current position with regard to academic staff on probation and of the need to complete formal and final assessments.

4.6.4 The evidence on which formal and final assessments should be based is the record of assessment on the probationary form PD/PROB/R16 and both internal and external references.

4.6.5 In the course of the third year of probation, there should be a formal assessment. An overall minimum of three references should be sought of which at least one should be external, unless there is no duty to undertake research. The probationer will nominate two referees. The Head of Institution may seek additional references if these are required. Names of referees are not disclosable to the probationer for the purposes of this procedure. The Head of Institution may decide at this stage, on the basis of the referees’ reports and the record of probation, to recommend to the Selection Committee that the appointment be confirmed (see 4.7.1).

4.6.6 If a concern arises about the probationer’s research performance, the Head of Institution may wish to seek an external reference sooner rather than later in order to be able to assess progress during the period leading up to the third year formal assessment (see 4.4.3).

4.6.7 The final assessment may take place in the course of the third, fourth, or fifth year depending on the probationer’s progress. The evidence should be the record of probation (PD/PROB/R1) and references. If it is decided that confirmation of tenure in the third year of probation is premature, references should be updated and/or additional references sought for the final assessment. The requirements set out in 4.6.5 relating to number of references will apply for the final assessment.

Decision and subsequent action

4.7.1 Where performance during probation has been satisfactory and suitability for the role is demonstrated, the Head of Institution will make a positive recommendation for the confirmation of appointment to the Selection Committee. Performance records, formal and final probation assessment records and references should be made available to the Selection Committee, together with a CV and supporting statement by the Head of Institution .The Head of Department/Faculty is expected to provide supporting evidence in their statement of how the probationer has met the required standards against the relevant performance criteria.

4.7.2 On confirmation of appointment by the Selection Committee, a University Officer shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Schedule to Statute C (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 22) until the retiring age or until the end of her/his tenure in the case of officers on fixed-term appointments, so long as s/he satisfactorily performs the duties of the office and demonstrates their suitability for the role through adherence to the University’s expected standards of conduct and demonstration of its values of collegiality and mutual respect. It will be for the Head of Institution to inform the member of staff concerned that probation has been satisfactorily completed.

4.7.3 Where there have been concerns about the performance of the probationer, the Head of Institution should detail these concerns on the form and ensure that the individual receives a copy.

4.7.4 In the event that performance is judged not to be satisfactory, the Head of Institution will inform the probationer that the recommendation to the Selection Committee will be the termination of appointment. The probationer must be given an opportunity to make written representations to the Selection Committee and may attend the meeting of the Selection Committee if s/he wishes to do so in order to present her/his case. If a decision to dismiss is made by the Selection Committee, the probationer will be given written reasons for non-confirmation and will be given notice (see 4.8 below).

4.7.5 If the appointment is terminated, the officer will have the right to appeal under the provisions of Special Ordinance C (xiii) (Appeals) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 93) and Regulation 3 of the regulations for the Septemviri (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 207).

4.7.6 In cases where there has been an extension (see 3.3), at the end of that period, subject to satisfactory progress being made, the action will be as in 4.7.1, 4.7.3 or 4.7.4 as appropriate.

Period of notice required during the probationary period

4.8 The period of notice to be given by the member of staff, or by the Head of Institution following a decision to terminate the appointment during the probationary period, will normally be three months on either side (one month’s notice for a period of less than one year). The Head of Institution will convey the decision of the Selection Committee to the probationer after consulting the Human Resources Division.

5. What happens after the probationary period?

5.1 The Staff Review and Development process (Appraisal) provides a formal means of carrying out a continuing review.

Footnotes

1https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures/probationary-arrangements/probationary-arrangements-contract-research-staff
2This may be the Selection Committee or an alternative School level committee as set out in the local protocol.
3https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures/ending-fixed-term-contracts
4https://www.ppd.admin.cam.ac.uk/professional-development
5https://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/phep
6https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/policies-procedures/probationary-arrangements/pro-formae-pdprobr1-and-pdproba1

Contents

Reports

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised student disciplinary framework: Correction

13 May 2019

Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of the Academic Career Pathways scheme

ANNEX 1: Academic promotions criteria and scoring methodology: Professors and Readers

Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway

1. Promotion statement

2. Promotion criteria: Academic Career Pathway (ACP) scheme

2.1 Criteria for the assessment of research: Professor

2.2 Criteria for the assessment of research: Reader

2.3 Criteria for the assessment of teaching and researcher development: all applicants

2.4 Criteria for the assessment of service to the University and to the academic community

The promotion procedure

1. Eligibility

2. Submission of applications

3. Roles and responsibilities

4. Outcomes

5. Timetable

6. Exclusions

ANNEX 2: Academic Probation and Career Progression up to University Senior Lecturer

Research and Teaching Academic Career Pathway

1. Probation statement

2. Probation criteria – University Lecturer (Grade 9)

3. Academic progression (from University Lecturer up to University Senior Lecturer)

4. End of Probation/Confirmation of appointment process (progression from University Lecturer (Grade 9) to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 9))

5. University Senior Lecturer (Grade 9) progression to University Senior Lecturer (Grade 10)

Criteria for the assessment of teaching and researcher development

Criteria for the assessment of service to the University and to the academic community

Criteria for the assessment of research

6. Appointment as University Senior Lecturers (Grade 10)

7. Additional contribution increments for University Senior Lecturers (G10)

8. Exclusions

9. Further career progression of teaching-focused staff

10. Further career progression of research-focused and clinical staff

Footnotes

ANNEX 3: Contribution Reward Scheme for University Senior Lecturer

Introduction

Career Progression

Key principles

Progression and Contribution Reward Schemes

Contribution Reward Schemes up to University Senior Lecturer

SCHEME A

Principles

Eligibility

Criteria

Contribution Reward

SCHEME B

Principles

Eligibility

Criteria

Contribution Reward

GENERAL

Submission of applications

Procedure

1. Roles and responsibilities

2. Outcomes

3. Timetable

4. Exclusions

ANNEX 4: Probationary arrangements for academic officers

Documentation on the probation scheme for academic staff

3. How long is the probationary period?

Length of probationary periods

Academic staff on fixed term contracts

4. How will the Probation Scheme work in practice?

Advice and assistance

Academic staff development

Meetings and preliminary assessment

Performance criteria

Evidence of formal/final assessments

Decision and subsequent action

Period of notice required during the probationary period

5. What happens after the probationary period?

Footnotes