Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 (ACP (R) proposals)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets as amended (see p. 579), the seven fly‑sheets received for the ballot on the Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme proposals (Grace 1 of 12 February 2025) are reprinted below. Fly-sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see Reporter, 6784, 2024–25, p. 563.

Fly-sheet in favour of the implementation of
an Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme

The Academic Career Pathways (Research) (ACP (R)) scheme aims to create an equitable and transparent single promotion and reward scheme for research staff, replacing the current arrangements which are outdated, out of step with other institutions and keep researchers in defined roles with limited opportunities for progression. The ACP (R) scheme was developed after extensive consultation across the University, including with the Schools, the Postdoc Academy and individual researchers. All groups were overwhelmingly supportive of the new grades and proposed titles.

The University’s mission is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. In recent years, considerable progress has been made to recognise and reward individuals who have a primary role delivering excellence in teaching via the ACP (Teaching & Scholarship) scheme. This is not the case for our community of over 4,000 researchers who underpin our research excellence. At present, a grade structure (Grades 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12) makes promotion difficult for many and, especially at the postdoctoral researcher and senior researcher levels, is a barrier to recruitment. Introducing additional Grades (6, 8 and 10) offers stepwise opportunities for career progression that are more accessible to researchers at Cambridge.

The idea that the introduction of the missing grades is a barrier to career progression is nonsensical. Currently, there are limited opportunities to progress beyond Grade 5 for Research Assistants and the ability to recognise excellence by introducing a Senior Research Assistant at Grade 6 should be welcomed. At Grade 7 the situation is worse, as progression to Grade 9 requires evidence of substantial independence which can be difficult for those employed on research grants. A new Grade 8 provides a stepwise transition to independence that will allow recognition and progression far more widely than at present. In addition, it provides a route for recruitment at more senior levels where experience and expertise are required for research projects.

The claim that the ACP (R) scheme will stretch pay scales is unfounded and the claim that the new grades will reduce lifetime earnings is unsupported. The introduction of a Grade 10 position, as with the current ACP schemes for Research & Teaching and Teaching & Scholarship, provides graduated career progression opportunities for those more senior researchers who work independently. Examples here include those who have obtained prestigious career development fellowships (e.g., Royal Society, UKRI, Wellcome) with funding often exceeding five years. As the proposals make clear, the circumstances whereby researchers at Grade 5 can still be promoted to Grade 7, or those at Grade 7 to Grade 9, remain unaffected by the introduction of the ACP (R) scheme.

It would be egregious for the University to recognise excellence for its conventional academics and those on a teaching track with internationally understood titles but not do so for researchers. Nowhere is this disparity more evident than with senior researchers at Grades 11 or 12. Such individuals lead very substantial research programmes or centres in the University but have antiquated titles that are unrecognised outside of Cambridge. The lack of appropriate titles is a barrier to recruitment to these prestigious research leadership roles and can be a barrier to funding opportunities from international sources where Principal Investigators are expected to hold professorial titles. The idea that this devalues or confuses the use of titles for other roles in the University is counter-intuitive, the ACP (R) scheme proposes a clear terminology – Assistant Research Professor, Associate Research Professor and Research Professor.

Those opposed to the ACP (R) scheme make unsubstantiated claims about academic freedom. Yes, research positions are most often supported by external funders; however, at senior levels, including the G9 Assistant Research Professor, these are demonstrably leadership positions where funders expect independence. Yes, appointment at or promotion to a particular grade requires external funding, but this is no different from the situation with the current outdated scheme. The University’s Research Office will prepare guidance on how to cost promotions into funding applications where funder rules allow it. Role profiles and indicators of excellence for the proposed grades and titles do not substantially differ for those already in place at Grades 9, 11 and 12.

The proposal also seeks to bring the currently disjointed Contribution Reward schemes for researchers into line with schemes for salary increments available to most other staff in the University. The move to an annual rather than termly scheme is a matter of fairness and equity for all staff in the University, where excellence above the normal expectations for a role can be rewarded by increased remuneration. Moving to an annual scheme also provides for fairness and transparency by using a single gathered field when assessing applications for School or Faculty funding for salary increments where external funds are not available.

Finally, the case against the ACP (R) scheme makes much of the sector-wide issue of researcher precarity and pay. These very real issues are outwith the remit of this career progression scheme and are being explored in other areas of the University and more widely in the sector. While recognising this proposal does not address these important issues, it is unfair to our researchers to conflate these concerns with a scheme designed to provide better recognition and improved career progression opportunities.

We therefore urge you to vote in favour of the recommendations for the introduction of an ACP (R) scheme in Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 and to reject the proposed amendment. [Give first preference to Option A.]

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Signed by the following University employees who are not Regent House members:

Fly-sheet in support of the amended Academic Career Pathways
(Research) proposals

The career track for researchers within the University has not received the same level of attention in recent years when compared to academic career tracks that have been prioritised. The current system for researchers is unclear and can be very different between different Departments and Faculties across the University, especially at Grade 9 and below.

In general, those on the research track represent some of the most insecure (and disproportionately female and non‑citizen) staff at the University, with titles that may allow them to be confused for students and otherwise undermined in professional settings. For example, ‘Senior Research Associate’ is a title used in North America to describe research assistants who are Master’s students. The current system for researchers makes them unable to apply for some grants and otherwise find permanent roles in other institutions.

Recent work in the University has led to a range of suggested changes across all researcher grades, resulting in a proposal1 to create an Academic Career Pathway (Research) scheme. These changes include a conversion of titles to better reflect the underlying roles (e.g. changing ‘Senior Research Associate’ to ‘Assistant Research Professor’). We recognise the large amount of work that has been done in developing these proposals.

One item of note was that the Contribution Reward Scheme for researchers would be changed by these proposals to run annually rather than termly (as is done currently; see paragraph 7(d)(i) of the proposals1). An amendment to the proposals has been submitted that would maintain the Contribution Reward Scheme as termly.2

As research staff join the University throughout the year on short-term contracts, restricting the Contribution Reward Scheme to an annual round would severely limit the ability of researchers to apply for these awards. Because researchers must be in post for at least a year before being able to apply for an award, if they started just after the scheme had closed it would be almost 2 years before a researcher could apply for an award, and with a contract of a duration of 2 years or less they may never be able to receive one. The proposal as originally put forward would benefit from an acknowledgement of the circumstances of researchers on short-term contracts in the form of this amendment that will allow for termly pay increments as opposed to the annual increments currently proposed.

While moving to an annual Contribution Reward Scheme may decrease the administrative burden, it will have an immediate and negative impact on research staff, and we therefore believe the amendment strengthens the ACP (R) proposals. As the ballot will be on the basis of the single transferable vote, we strongly encourage members to provide both a first and second preference: for example, if you support some version of the proposal over a rejection, you could vote: amended version (1); original proposal (2). If you support the amended version but would reject otherwise, you could vote: amended version (1); rejection (2). [Give first preference to Option B and second preference to either Option A or Option C.]

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Signed by the following University employees who are not Regent House members:

Fly-sheet in support of a vote AGAINST Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 (Option C)

Breaches of national collective bargaining agreements with recognised trade unions

If approved, the proposed Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme will introduce new research posts at Grade 6, Grade 8 and Grade 10. It has been suggested, incorrectly, that these grades are ‘missing’ from the present system of grading of research posts. In fact, the current grading structure was introduced in January 2006 to comply with national agreements made between the trade unions and the employers.1 The present posts (at Grades 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12) cover the salary scale above point 33 almost completely.2 The introduction of additional posts at intermediate grades will introduce extra promotion hurdles, in some cases extending the number of years required for a researcher to move up the spine, reducing total career earnings.

The 2006 grading system was introduced following the 2003 Framework Agreement for the Modernisation of Pay Structures made between national representatives of higher education employers and the trade unions.3^,4 When the new national pay spine was introduced, members of the Association of University Teachers (the AUT, the predecessor union of the UCU) were concerned that it replaced increments of between 3% and 5% with increments of 3%, leading to a loss of earnings for staff. An industrial dispute arose in 2004, which was settled by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),5 under which the AUT agreed to the new pay spine on the basis that it

‘should provide a platform for the long-term improvement of salaries across higher education to address the problem of historical decline in the relative value of earnings’

and that the new arrangements would be

‘designed with the intention – as far as practicable and foreseeable – of avoiding detriment to the present pay progression expectations of academic and related staff.’

This was to be achieved by local agreements between institutions and unions having regard to the principle that

‘Incremental progression to the contribution threshold will take no longer than under current equivalent arrangements.’

The Council believes that the introduction of researcher posts at new grades will not violate the 2004 MOU, because it regards the MOU as obsolete. The UCU does not agree. In 2005, the Cambridge AUT was assured by the Personnel Division that:

‘any changes which might be proposed [to the grading and progression arrangements introduced to comply with the MOU] in the future would be negotiated with [the AUT].’6

The employers’ organisation UCEA still recognises and publishes the 2003 Framework Agreement.7 The 2003 Framework Agreement was settled contingent on the MOU. It follows that if the 2003 Framework Agreement still applies, so does the MOU. Indeed, the University still operates its pay spine with adjustments in order to comply with the MOU. Note 6 to Schedule I of the Ordinance on Stipends, states that ‘Specific arrangements will apply to progression in service-related points on some grades in compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding.’8

The undersigned believe that the Regent House should be cautious of allowing the University to breach national collective bargaining agreements with its recognised trade unions and call on members of the Regent House to vote against the Grace (non-placet, Option C). [Give first preference to Option C.]

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet in support of a vote AGAINST Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 (Option C)

The need for an improved proposal

The principal problems facing the University’s research workers are low pay and insecure employment practices. Over the past decade and a half, pay in the University has been reduced by about 16% in real terms. That is equivalent to the loss of more than a full grade on the University scale. A Research Associate appointed in October 2008 to point 41 in Grade 7 on the University spine earned £28,839 over the academic year, an amount equivalent to £45,557 in 2024, after adjustment for inflation by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).1 The annual earnings of a new staff member appointed to point 41 in October 2024 will be approximately £38,000.2 It would require a 20% pay increase for the University to return remuneration to the levels of 2008.

Since 2008, the number of research workers employed by the University has increased by about 60%, while the number of established academic staff has increased by less than 10%. The research work of the University is increasingly performed by staff with limited academic freedom who are insecurely employed and poorly paid. The prospects for stable academic careers are diminishing. Unsurprisingly, it is becoming difficult for the University to recruit postdoctoral researchers in disciplines that compete strongly for research workers with industry.

Although these trends, which amount to the deprofessionalisation of academic employment, partly result from government policy, the University has a responsibility to find ways to resist, arrest and reverse them. Yet, rather than offer solutions to the problem of employment precarity, the proposed Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme would institutionalise it, by adopting academic titles for posts that come without security of tenure, without protection for academic freedom and whose holders the Council acknowledges, confusingly, will not be academics. It is surely disingenuous to describe the scheme as an ‘academic pathway’.

Last year, the University of Oxford acknowledged the need for a universal pay increase to address the high cost of living in the London commuter belt by introducing a modest £1,500 pensionable supplement (analogous to the ‘London weighting’). Cambridge has postponed its universal pay review on account of the University’s financial situation. In the meantime, this proposal would make the contribution reward and promotion exercises for those employed in the lower research grades annual rather than termly, making it more difficult for staff employed for short periods to apply successfully.

The proposed scheme seeks to address the difficulty of researcher recruitment selectively, rather than universally. It introduces new grades that will increase pay variability at appointment, creating extra promotion hurdles and stretching out the pay scale. This stretching is likely to reduce the career earnings of researchers, certainly relative to an alternative system in which low pay is addressed by the introduction of a universal cost-of-living weighting. The introduction of new grades may help to address recruitment difficulties in particular disciplines by allowing pay to match market conditions, but inevitably this will increase the differentiation in researcher pay between fields, because of differences in the strength of competition for researchers from industry. This is likely to lead to a widening of the gender pay gap.

The proposed Career Pathway is a pathway in name only. It can be nothing else when the security of a researcher’s employment depends on the availability of outside funds. No financial mechanism (for instance, the creation of a central fund, supported by the Development and Alumni Relations office) is proposed to enable long-serving senior researchers to move into established posts. The University’s only material commitment will be with respect to the funding of contribution increments, but even that will depend on the willingness of the relevant Department or School to meet the costs. A successful application for promotion will still depend on the availability of the necessary additional outside funds, and therefore on the policies of the agency supporting the post.

We encourage members of the Regent House to vote non‑placet (Option C, against the Grace) and urge the General Board to think again and propose an improved scheme to the Regent House. [Give first preference to Option C.]

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet in support of a vote AGAINST Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 (Option C)

The threat to established academic posts

We recognise that the titles presently used to describe the University’s senior unestablished research posts (‘Senior Research Associate’, ‘Principal Research Associate’, ‘Director of Research’) are not widely understood outside Cambridge and often do not adequately represent the expertise of the postholders. A review to identify better alternatives may well be warranted. However, we are concerned by the proposal to adopt academic titles for unestablished research posts. Such a change will undermine the system of University teaching offices by creating a parallel system of unestablished posts that can be used as alternatives to the University offices while avoiding the associated tenure protections.

The 1988 Education Reform Act abolished traditional academic tenure in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the University’s teaching officers (established academics) retain very strong employment security, to protect their academic freedom.1 The University has never had a system of untenured academic research and teaching (R&T) posts, although temporary appointments have been made to unestablished academic R&T posts at the level of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor (previously University Lecturer and University Senior Lecturer) since the 1990s. The University recently introduced academic teaching and scholarship posts, which may be made established or unestablished.

If the proposed Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme is adopted then the sequence of unestablished posts Assistant Professor (R&T, Grade 9), Associate Professor (R&T, Grade 10), Research Professor (Grade 11) and Research Professor (Grade 12) will represent an unestablished career pathway that approximately parallels the system of established (R&T) academic offices regulated by the Statutes and Ordinances.2 The extent to which these posts could be used as replacements for the University teaching offices is illustrated by the published generic role profiles, which anticipate that Research Professors might even serve as Heads of Department.3

The record suggests that when there is a choice between making a post established or unestablished, it is generally made unestablished. Over the past fifteen years, the proportion of academic-related staff employed in established posts has fallen from about 50% to about 20%. In 2024, 90% of the promotions in the Academic Career Pathway (Teaching and Scholarship) were to unestablished posts. The Board of Scrutiny has asked the HR Committee to explain why there is a need to create academic Teaching and Scholarship posts that are unestablished.4 More generally, the Board and others have frequently expressed concern about the replacement of established posts with unestablished posts, noting that the latter lack ‘the extra protections afforded to University officers’.5^,6^,7 In response, the Council has agreed to a review of the use of unestablished posts, but that has been repeatedly postponed.8

A previous attempt to introduce unestablished Research Readerships and Research Professorships twenty-five years ago failed when the Vice-Chancellor ruled that unestablished Professorships were not allowed by the Statutes.9 At that time members of the Regent House raised concerns about the risk of nepotism and the risk of unfairness if appointments and promotions to Readerships and Professorships unregulated by the Statutes and Ordinances were to be made by parallel procedures according to the availability of funds.10

The proposal opens up the dangerous prospect that individuals who appear to the outside world to be independent University of Cambridge academics may be subject to influence from, or effective line-management by, outside funders (research councils, charities, the NHS, private companies), exercised through the threat of funding withdrawal. For instance, it would allow for the possibility of an untenured Professor of Climate Science funded by a fossil fuel company, or an untenured Professor of Politics funded by an authoritarian state. Such posts would be created without the usual requirement for a Grace of the Regent House and appointments to them would be made without the need for a Board of Electors.

The Council accepts in its Notice in response to the Discussion remarks made on the Report that despite the name proposed for the Pathway and despite the proposed use of academic titles, the postholders will not be academics. They will ‘retain their status as researchers with the same associated terms and conditions as now’, i.e. without the professional autonomy enjoyed by academics and without academic freedom protections.11

Those in favour of the proposals rightly point out that the University relies on its senior research staff, often with many years of service, to perform its core functions. Many such staff make major contributions to the University’s teaching as well as to its research. Under these proposals they will continue to contribute, with an academic title but without the material advantages of an academic post.

The undersigned believe that the implications of the proposed title changes have not been thought through sufficiently and call on members of the Regent House to vote against the Grace (non‑placet, Option C). [Give first preference to Option C.]

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

A note on democracy and access to the means of communication in the University

An email advertising a fly-sheet in support of the proposed Academic Career Pathways (Research) scheme has been distributed through the University email tree, sometimes with the endorsement of senior academics in administrative posts, after being circulated to several Heads of School and Heads of Institution with an appeal to ‘cascade this request to your Heads of Department or academic staff and senior researchers to provide them with an opportunity to sign the flysheet if they wish’.

The undersigned strongly support academic democracy and freedom of debate. However, we believe there must be a level playing field. We call on the University Council to make available an electronic system to enable the circulation by email of fly-sheets and campaign materials for University ballots to staff and members of the Regent House, independently of the views expressed in them.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet in support of the ACP (R) proposals unamended

Under the current structure, the wide gaps between grades can make it difficult for researchers to progress, even when they are contributing far beyond the expectations of their existing roles. The introduction of new researcher grades at 6, 8, and 10 would provide more attainable, meaningful steps on the career ladder. This would allow research staff to be recognised more appropriately for their achievements and responsibilities locally and nationally, as well as internationally, thus helping to retain talent and promote a positive research culture while increasing their academic competitiveness globally.

Crucially, this is also a matter of equity and coherence across academic roles. The teaching-focused ACP tracks already provide step-wise grades between 6 and 12, and aligning the ACP (R) scheme with this structure is a logical and constructive step. Ensuring parity for research staff not only promotes greater fairness within the University and across its aims but also strengthens how we represent and value research roles externally – particularly through clearer and internationally recognisable job titles.

Finally, the introduction of a clearer structure for the contribution reward scheme will ensure that both researchers as well as their line managers are aware of the exercise, thus further promoting transparency and equal opportunities across the broader University.

Hence, the postdocs, early, and mid-career researchers and academics signing this fly‑sheet appeal to all Regent House members to vote in favour of the recommendations for introducing the ACP (R) scheme in the ballot on Grace 1 of 12 February 2025 while rejecting the proposed amendment (give first preference to Option A).

Signed by the following University employees who are not Regent House members: