Notices

Calendar

13 February, Thursday. Lent Term divides.

23 February, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.30 a.m., The Revd Canon Professor James Walters, of Selwyn College, Professor in Practice and Director of the LSE Faith Centre and of the LSE Religion and Global Society Research Unit (Hulsean Preacher).

Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.)	Congregations (at 10 a.m. unless otherwise stated)
18 March	1 March 29 March 5 April 11 April, 2 p.m. (degrees in absence only)

Discussion on 25 February 2025: Cancellation

The Vice‑Chancellor gives notice that the Discussion announced for Tuesday, 25 February 2025 will not take place as there are no items for discussion. The next Discussion is currently scheduled for 18 March.

Report of the General Board on arrangements for the implementation of an Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

10 February 2025

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 10 December on the above Report (Reporter, 2024–25; 6761, p. 144; 6764, p. 200).1 The Council has consulted the General Board in the preparation of this response.

The Council and the General Board thank Dr Cave, Dr Drage, Dr Hodson, Professor Micklem, Dr Ó hÉigearteigh, and Professor Russell and Professor Wells (Chair and a member of the Working Group that developed the Report’s proposals), for their observations in support of the Report’s proposals.

Professor Evans and Dr Astle note that the new scheme does not address researcher precarity, with researchers still needing to identify funding to support their promotion. Professor Evans also observes that the new scheme does not offer promotion into an academic office. This is because the ACP (R) proposals are not intended to achieve these outcomes. Dr Astle acknowledges that the Working Group had ‘no remit to address the problem of employment stability’ for this group of staff. The University’s ability to undertake research activity is dependent on funding provided from external sources – a position which has not changed. What the scheme is designed to do is create a more consistent approach to, and greater opportunities for, promotion in the researcher community.

As several speakers point out, the current gaps between researcher grades (at Grades 6, 8 and 10) make it more difficult for researchers to progress, and are out of line with the progression arrangements at other research-intensive institutions. These proposals will provide a dedicated career pathway for researchers who do not hold offices (i.e. the vast majority of those in the researcher community), with appropriate steps and titles to recognise each advancement. The proposals for the new scheme received very strong support from those of the University community who responded to the consultation, including a large number of researchers and a supportive response from the Postdocs of Cambridge Society, the University’s officially recognised association for postdoctoral researchers.

Dr Hodson asks why there is no post of Research Professor (Grade 11) available in the new scheme for clinical researchers at that level. The ACP (R) arrangements mirror those in place for clinical academic officers, where there is no step at Grade 11.2 This is because the salaries of clinical researchers and academic officers are determined by NHS salary scales and seniority. Therefore, for these staff, a successful application for promotion under a University scheme results only in a change in job title, with no change in salary.

Professor Evans queries the limitation placed on transfers into the ACP (R) track from other pathways, which are permitted only for those who ‘choose to apply for an unestablished research staff vacancy and are successful in being appointed to it’. The intention of this is to discourage academics on the ACP (R&T) track from limiting or dispensing with their teaching responsibilities by transferring to the proposed ACP (R) track.

Dr Astle observes that the University already has ‘a hierarchy of offices for research academics’ and suggests that if adopted, the new scheme will ‘loosen a foundation stone of the University’s constitution’ and offer few material benefits to the University’s researchers. Whilst the University does have offices to which researchers without teaching duties can be appointed, they are not much used. Dr Astle suspects that the Report’s ‘central proposal is unlawful’ but does not explain further, therefore the Council is unable to respond.

Dr Astle quotes wording from the Report’s Appendix E about the possibility of funding from School budgets but incorrectly assumes this to be funding for promotions. The proposals are clear that the cost of promotions will continue to be met from external grants. However, there may be occasions in the case of pay progression (as opposed to promotion) when an individual is nominated for the award of contribution increments, and the cost cannot be met from external funds, where a School might choose to meet the cost from its own budget (subject to School funding being available, as Professor Evans points out).

Dr Astle suggests that the indicators of excellence for the proposed ACP (R) scheme go further than the existing criteria for senior researchers for promotion to Grade 10 and above by ‘making the award of funding itself a criterion for promotion’. The indicators relating to research staff at Grade 9 (G9) and above have been modelled on those already in existence for ACP (R&T) track academics with respect to the research criteria. The criteria for the proposed G9 Assistant Research Professor post mirror those already in place for the current G9 Senior Research Associate post.3 Currently, promotion to the posts of Principal Research Associate or Director of Research requires ‘Confirmation that funding is available to support the higher salary costs’ and ‘Exceptional record of gaining external research funding’.4 The proposed indicators for excellence for senior research roles do not alter these requirements.

Dr Astle also claims that the Report’s proposals reclassify researchers as academics but without any academic freedom. The Report proposes that the new scheme for researchers should be an academic career pathway, because it needs to align with and complement other ACP schemes for those carrying out the University’s core teaching and research functions. However, the approval of the Report’s recommendations will not have the effect of reclassifying researchers as academics. Researchers will retain their status as researchers with the same associated terms and conditions as now, in particular the requirement to demonstrate a high level of independence for those in posts at G9 and above.

Dr Astle reports that the Cambridge branch of the UCU opposes the proposals, ‘partly because they are in flagrant violation of the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Association of University Teachers (the AUT, the predecessor union of the UCU) and the University and College Employers Association (UCEA)’. The Council acknowledges the Cambridge UCU branch’s view, but it does not agree that the proposals are in violation of the 2004 MOU. This is because the Council understands that the MOU is obsolete.

The proposal to create a Grade 8 research position will not weaken the prospects for Grade 7 researchers aiming to be promoted to Grade 9, as Dr Astle implies. The new Grade 8 post provides an interim opportunity for promotion for a Grade 7 researcher who is not yet ready to meet the criteria for appointment to Grade 9, specifically the requirement for a high level of independence. As the proposals state, the possibility of promotion from Grade 7 to Grade 9 remains in place.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 270) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.