Academic Career Pathways. Key Principles

Academic Career Pathways

Key Principles

Outcome

To deliver its top 20 ambition the University needs a workforce with the differentiated skills necessary to ensure that it can deliver excellence in research, teaching, learning, and the wider student experience, and to be a powerhouse for the regional economy and internationally. The Academic Career Pathways (ACP) scheme has been designed to ensure that academic strengths whether in research, teaching, the wider student experience, leadership or innovation and

engagement, are all appropriately recognised, developed, valued, and rewarded.

A post implementation review has been undertaken. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the ACP criteria are transparent, fair and provide an indication of the thresholds at which members of staff might consider applying for promotion. Given the range of academic activity the indicative performance levels cannot be definitive but will act as a guide both to applicants and panels.

Strands and Criteria

1. There will be 3 core criteria which will be applicable at every grade

 Teaching

 Research

 Management

2. There will be 3 enhanced academic strands

 Teaching and Scholarship

 Research

 Innovation and Engagement

The three refreshed career pathway based on excellence in research (R), teaching (T) or innovation/engagement (IE) are shown diagrammatically below. As part of the revised career pathways, core baseline thresholds, denoted by T(C), R(C) and M(C) for non-excellence strands have been developed which must be maintained at all levels of promotion, for example Management, M(C), which is common for all strands. Each career pathway is shown schematically in the diagram below.

T(B) R(8) M(B) R(9) R(10) R(11) R(B) T(8) M(B) T(9) T(10) T(11) T(B) T(8) or R(8) M(B) IE(9) IE(10) IE(11)

3. The same 4 criteria will apply at each grade level but will be increasingly challenging at each successive level.

4. The criteria specified at lower grades will be assumed at the higher grades in each strand (e.g. the criteria in grade 8 will be assumed in grade 9)

5. There will no longer be core and enhanced criteria for each grade, just 4 criteria for each grade of each strand.

6. The required core criteria must be maintained throughout all academic grades (9-11) within an excellence route. The core criteria will be the same at every grade (9-11) and will form the indicative performance level for every member of the academic staff.

7. Members of staff are not normally promoted to grade 8. At grade 8, evidence must be provided at the appointment panel to reassure the panel that the candidate has the ability to achieve the relevant baseline criteria within 5 years. Furthermore, no grade 8 exists for the innovation and engagement (IE) pathway, transition to that pathway can occur from grade 8 on the research or teaching excellence pathways or via direct appointment.

Criterion

8. Applicants will provide evidence of each of the criteria. Evidence will be by way of examples that where possible match or exceed the indicative performance level.

9. Each criterion at each grade will have clearly defined examples which will indicate a selection of additional evidence required.

10. Academic leadership (in the sense that members of staff are leaders in their field) has been incorporated into the academic strands

11. Applicants will need to demonstrate:

 the indicative levels and a selection of examples in their chosen strand (Research, T&S or I&E) at the grade to which they are making application;

AND

 the Core/Basic criteria in Management and the Core/Basic criteria in EITHER Teaching OR Research/Scholarship (i.e. not in the chosen strand).

12. Where applicants are not able to demonstrate that they meet a particular criterion in full or in part, but nevertheless consider that they have a case for promotion based on strengths in areas covered by other criteria within the career strand, they should not be discouraged from applying for promotion. In these circumstances applicants should:

 Ensure that strength in other areas is fully explained and evidenced, and

 Provide an explanation of why a particular criterion cannot be met, and if appropriate include evidence in support.

Indicative Performance Levels

13. Each criteria at each grade will have clearly defined examples and Indicative Performance Levels, which will normallybe the minimum required for promotion from one grade to the next in each strand.

Where there is more than one Indicative Performance Level, the University’s strategic priority is indicated in bold.

14. Where applicants are seeking to establish a criterion, the ‘Indicative Performance Level’ guidance included alongside each criterion should be seen as guidance on the performance level to be demonstrated in order to make the case for promotion. Applicants should first consider whether they meet the indicators included alongside each criterion. If these are not met, applicants should consider whether they can provide evidence at a comparable level. Applicants who consider that they meet all the Indicative Performance Levels should not assume that promotion is automatic. Applicants should provide sufficient evidence and examples for the panel to consider the promotion case fully.

15. Academic leadership (in the sense that members of staff are leaders in their field) has been incorporated into the academic strands

16. The Indicative Performance Levels will apply pro rata for part time staff.

17. The principles established in REF 2014 with regard to individual staff circumstance will be applied to Indicative Performance Levels, for example with regards to maternity leave, career breaks, disability, caring responsibilities etc.

Consideration with regard to research outputs will also apply to early career researchers in a similar way as REF 2014.

18. Clinical academic staff who apply for promotion will be considered against the Indicative Performance Levels on a pro rata basis on the basis of the proportion of their contract that is academic, in the same way as part time staff.

Academic Career Pathways

Core Criteria - Management

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level Examples

1 Contributing to College Activities

Taking an active part in formulating College decisions and contributing to activities beyond the immediate research, teaching or scholarship commitments.

Four examples in the last year such as those illustrated in the Examples box

Being a member of a College or University Committee

Being an active contributor to initiatives or measures that promote equality Being a member of a working group within the College or department set up to make recommendations to a College Committee, e.g.

 making recommendations relating to changes to the assessment of a module to the relevant College/School Committee.

 making decisions on potential teaching directions

 making decisions on potential research lines to pursue or on innovative methodology that might be adopted.

 reviewing and improving internal procedures (e.g. assessment, pastoral arrangements, timetabling).

Active contribution to Student Experience initiatives e.g.

 improving the experience of students with regard to pastoral care

 improving the experience of international students e.g. facilitating their integration into the wider student community;

 improving the experience of non-traditional students, disabled students, ethnic minority students

 improving student placement experiences

Supporting the College’s admissions and recruitment process by participating in interviews or giving talks.

Supporting the recruitment of international students

Effective delivery of co-ordinating roles, such as, co-ordinating fieldwork or student placements.

Supporting a conference/workshop, organisation of examinations or an external event.

Establishing information or communication systems for the College or externally

Academic Career Pathways

Core Criteria - Management

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level Examples

2 Participating in

Professional Activities Engaging with professional activities related to the discipline through

networking at conferences or involvement in external groups.

Two examples in the last year such as those illustrated in the Examples box

Being an active member of external networks, e.g. to secure funding or to further understanding.

Developing contacts outside research or teaching teams in order to build on academic expertise, and to discuss and share information and ideas. Participating in national subject specialist groups (e.g. for research or scholarship).

Being a member of and engaging with an external professional body through attendance at events.

Taking a role on an external or professional body. 3 Managing Self and Others

Planning, prioritising and progressing own work to achieve own objectives and support others in achieving theirs.

At least 2 examples in the last year such as those illustrated in the Examples Box.

Participation in at least one career development or management development activity in the last year

Evidence should demonstrate that own work is managed effectively Working with colleagues and students in an environment of equality, trust respect and co-operation.

Achievement of objectives through working collaboratively

Listening to, understanding and responding flexibly to the needs of students and colleagues

Effective delivery of academic administrative roles such as collating and reviewing module or programme handbooks, enrolment, recruitment, admissions or the curriculum

Establishing and maintaining career development through training and development activities (e.g. SALT)

Assisting with the induction of new colleagues Mentoring more junior colleagues

Setting timescales and deadlines for own work to ensure project is completed on time and to specified targets.

Academic Career Pathways

Core Criteria - Research

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level

Examples

1 Research Outputs and Activity Disseminating research findings through appropriate written, oral or other media both internally and externally to the University.

Two 2* outputs

or equivalent publications in 5 years

Publications and/or other output – books, articles, collective volumes, editions of texts, translations, creative works, websites, datasets, policy papers, research reports at a standard appropriate for that of the academic discipline.

2 Research Projects and Grants Securing the resources necessary to underpin research activity, with success as appropriate to the discipline.

One application for resources relevant to the area per year such as those indicated in the example box.

The types of resources can vary, depending on the discipline and can be achieved either independently or in collaboration with others.

Independent or substantial contributions to the award of research support funding or other acquisition of

resources required to complete research.

Securing access to a library or special collection, obtaining travel grants, funding to stage a performance or exhibition, setting up a network.

Evidence of the successful execution of a research project.

3 Esteem

One presentation at a conference, seminar or workshop with external reach/impact per year.

Presenting at conferences, workshops and other fora (internal and external) in the UK and, where appropriate, abroad.

Academic Career Pathways

Core Criteria - Teaching and Scholarship

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level Examples

1 Teaching Delivery and Review Contributing to courses within the taught portfolio, reviewing and updating own course materials and delivered sessions using the most appropriate mode of

delivery.

This includes ensuring that L&T policy and procedures are adhered to.

Development and delivery of teaching to the appropriate

standard. Assessment and quality assurance of components of the taught portfolio, within the academic unit.

Taking part in course/module and programme development.

Module Feedback Scores for PDR Module Feedback Questions 1, 2 and 3 of at least the lower quartile averaged over a 3 year period

Preparing and delivering lectures, seminars or tutorials in relation to the subject speciality at both undergraduate and/or masters’ level.

Details (module title, code, level, credits) of modules taught

Numbers of lectures/sessions delivered, the numbers of students enrolled and the type of assessment.

Evidence of positive feedback from students, or from peer review, or external examiners etc.

Receiving positive feedback from students (e.g. module evaluation, meetings with students, online evaluation through student feedback surveys)

Receiving positive feedback from peer reviews and observations, or other comments.

Giving consideration to any particular needs of international students/ disabled students / non-traditionally qualified / non-traditional students when providing teaching

Involvement in reviewing teaching approaches or module/programme curricula.

Actively engaging in reviewing and developing provision.

Designing and delivering own teaching using appropriate style/method to meet the identified learning objectives.

Revising teaching to ensure that it is relevant to the whole student experience to take account of employability or widening access issues Adapting teaching delivery appropriately in the light of feedback received. Putting forward ideas to improve and update a particular course in order to make it more attractive to students.

Acting as a module co-ordinator

Taking responsibility for a particular Undergraduate module, reviewing and/or updating the module/parts of module or creating new module. Ensuring that the content and materials are up to date including learning outcomes, module plan, teaching materials, assessment planners and module teaching strategy.

Academic Career Pathways

Core Criteria - Teaching and Scholarship

Criteria Indicative Performance Level Examples

2 Teaching Innovation Outcome and Impact Demonstrating awareness of current research and

knowledge in the field and integrating this into teaching by developing practice in the light of this activity

Innovating or improving practice

Evidence of developing practice, evaluation and positive outcome

Teaching is underpinned by the latest/current understanding as

appropriate to the level of students based on research/scholarship in the field and draws directly on this link.

Bringing material up to date to fit current policy content and professional body requirements.

Adapting work in the light of comments from external examiners or peers. Innovation in teaching methods and assessment of that innovation

3 Esteem

Professional recognition Undertaking and Completing a professional teaching

qualification.

Responsibility for planning and managing own teaching, workload and competing priorities, and of having taken action to ensure that overall timescales are met.

Holding or actively working towards and obtaining HEA Fellowship or equivalent

An example of peer recognition as a teacher within the discipline

Fellowship of the HEA or working towards HEA Fellowship or equivalent e.g. the AOME (Medical Educators Recognition)

Undertaking and completing a recognised teaching qualification such as the accredited Teaching in Higher Education qualification (tHE) course, PGCE or another recognised professional teaching qualification. Carrying out other necessary day to day activities.

Peer recognition in the discipline

4 Advancing and Applying Practice

Responsibility for advancing personal teaching practice

At least one CPD activity in the last year.

CPD activities, peer review,

ENHANCED STRAND - RESEARCH

University Grade 9 – Senior Lecturer

Criteria Indicative Performance Level Examples

1 Research Outputs and Activity A record of research outputs and their dissemination in quality publications or other media.

At least four 3* outputs over a 5 year period.

Evidence of a sustained contribution to a research area and a capacity to influence that area.

A record of regular publication of original research (Publication of monographs and books in peer-reviewed publications in internationally recognised journals, contributions to edited volumes, scholarly editions, catalogues, major research databases and outputs in media appropriate to the discipline). 2 Research Projects and Grants

Success in securing resources to underpin research activity with responsibility for designing, planning and managing a sustained

programme of research and of conducting original investigations within agreed timescales and budgets.

Award of a research grant as PI or Co I over the last 5 years

The award should be of the value of the Lower Quartile band for the discipline.(See table at appendix A)

Responsible for a research project or a significant part of a large project, from inception to completion.

Evidence of awards of funding bodies for resources to carry out research e.g. RCUK, EU, charities or business as appropriate to the discipline.

Evidence of the application of appropriate methodologies to address the research project.

3 Esteem

Recognition for contribution to the discipline.

through making a personal contribution on research developments.

Presenting contributions at conferences, workshops seminars and other appropriate events with a national or international reach on at least 3 occasions in 5 years

Presentations at conferences, workshops and other forums. Active Membership of appropriate Professional Body / Learned Society.

Participating in and setting up specialist groups.

Participating in or initiating collaborative research projects. Participating in multi-disciplinary research teams.

Participating in international collaborations.

Recognition by academic or professional bodies, for example through awards, prizes, nominations etc.

4 Postgraduate Research Student Supervision and Development Responsibility for effective

postgraduate student supervision.

On supervisory team of a current PGR student. Numbers of PGRs in accordance with the band for the lower quartile for the discipline -See

table at appendix A

Evidence of supervising or co-supervising postgraduate students.

Evidence of supervision of postgraduate dissertations thesis and projects.

ENHANCED STRAND – TEACHING & SCHOLARSHIP

University Grade 9 – Senior Lecturer

Criteria Indicative Performance Level Examples

1 Teaching Delivery and Review Effective delivery of the teaching, assessment and quality assurance of modules or other equivalent components of the taught portfolio. Reviewing course content and materials, and developing, designing and updating materials in

compliance with quality standards.

Module Feedback Scores for PDR module feedback questions 1, 2 and 3 of at least the lower quartile averaged over a 3 year period see discussion below in APPENDIX B

Programme leader ≥ 1 year (e.g. portfolio or programme director)

Developing or reviewing new modules in the past 3 years.

Contributing to a team delivering high quality teaching as evidenced by positive feedback received from students, colleagues, external examiners.

Evidence of responding to student, peer or external examiner feedback.

Evidence of being an especially effective personal tutor.

Acting as Module Coordinator/Leader for several modules or as head of year.

2 Teaching Innovation

Teaching practice based on own or other’s innovation, informed by own or others’ research or informed by professional practice.

This includes (i) the teaching activities which the individual engages in, and (ii) content of the teaching which the individual imparts being up-to-date knowledge.

Evidence of evaluated teaching innovation in the last 3 years

Updating modules in light of new findings or developments within the discipline and having discussion topics around new research within the module.

Demonstrating innovative practice in teaching recognition for teaching innovation within 5 years

Disseminating innovative evidence-based practice in teaching. Professional body mapping recognition within 5 years

ENHANCED STRAND – TEACHING & SCHOLARSHIP (Cont.)

University Grade 9 - Senior Lecturer

Criteria Indicative Performance Level Examples

3 Dissemination, Impact and Esteem

Success in contributing to the wider academic community with

demonstrable impact and recognition from internal and external sources.

Contribution to institutional teaching impact

Fellowship of HEA or equivalent

Evidence of contribution at college or institutional level

External national recognition via specialist role 2 publications and 1 conference presentation in a 5 year period

Evidence of contribution to quality assurance or quality

enhancement, for example through membership of institutional or college working group or sub-committee

Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy or equivalent or other HE teaching qualification

Evidence of commitment to working in an External advisory capacity in relation to teaching and quality for example as an External Examiner, subject specialist or external reviewer Evidence of successful publication or presentation on

pedagogic practice, curriculum design or teaching innovation Recognition for teaching excellence through awards, prizes or nominations

4 Advancing Practice

Demonstration of how innovation, contribution and development have informed practice

Evidence of Academy contribution

(workshop/champion/conference) in past 5 years

Securing successful L&T funding within the past 5 years

Contributing to developing colleagues’ practice at college level Engaging with subject educational networks or associations Evidence of application for and successfully securing internal or external funding for learning and teaching projects

ENHANCED STRAND – INNOVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

University Grade 9 - Senior Lecturer

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level

Examples

1 Outcome and Impact

A record of I & E activities leading to demonstrable outcomes with added value to business, government or other external organisations.

A record of regular publication in national publications or at equivalent impact

significance appropriate to the area (at least 4 in 5 years).

A patent, copyright or other IP relevant to the discipline in the last 2 years.

At least 2 examples of demonstrable impact on an external organisation or in an area of practice in 5 years.

Evidence of a sustained contribution to I & E and a capacity to influence that area to achieve change with clear benefit.

A record of regular publication in recognised media appropriate to the area, for instance professional journals, confidential reports, etc.

A patent, copyright or other IP (inc. copyright, plays, literature) relevant to the discipline

A record of TNE or collaborative provision agreements, or other external agreements demonstrating positive outcomes of successful international engagement.

Contribution to policy in an external organisation

Taking forward a plan of action for leading to an innovation or impact.

Collaboration on an innovation, linking academic colleagues and an end user operating in an external context and

environment. 2 Projects and Income

Success in securing resources (funding or other resource) from sponsors to underpin the activity. Responsibility for designing, planning and managing I&E projects within the agreed timescales.

At least one example of being the leader of a significant project in the last 5 years.

Responsible for a project or innovation or a significant part of a large project, from inception to completion.

Evidence of funding from partners to carry out a project. Planning and successful execution of an educational programme (e.g. CPD) to meet external partner needs.

ENHANCED STRAND – INNOVATION AND ENGAGEMENT (Cont.)

University Grade 9 - Senior Lecturer

Criteria

Indicative Performance Level

Examples

3 Esteem

Recognition for a contribution to business, government or bodies that provide an interface between external and internal parties at regional or national level.

Delivering at least three conferences in the last 5 years, two of which should have international reach

At least three examples of external recognition in the last 5 years.

Presenting at conferences, workshops and other for a regionally or, where appropriate elsewhere in the UK or abroad.

Working with an external organization to establish a conference.

Participation in a committee developing local/ regional or national policy or benchmark standards in external organisations.

Participating in or initiating collaborative projects. Recognition by appropriate bodies, for example through awards, prizes, nominations etc.

Advising and influencing external organisations.

4 Applying I & E to the Academic Environment

Demonstrating how the innovative activity or the engagement brings mutual benefit to the University or College.

At least one example in the last 2 years at College level demonstrating the change that has been brought about in the College.

Incorporation of project findings into College teaching. Setting up work based learning with collaborators leading to tangible benefits to stakeholders.

A contribution to applied learning e.g. EngD or professional training.

Establishing joint workshops or similar programmes.

APPENDIX A - Note on Research Indicative Performance Levels

1 Research Outputs

The research agenda is driven by the research excellence framework and the approved university REF strategy. In that document, which aspires to support all staff on research excellence pathways to achieve REF submission, a minimum threshold of four 3* papers is needed. In the same document it sets out that a research professor should attain at least two 4* papers, setting a minimum upper threshold.

Recommendation 1: Hence, using that agreed premise, recommended indicative thresholds for the minimum number of papers/articles required for promotion at each level are below, measured over a 5 year period.

Grade

Number of 3*

papers

Number of 4*

papers

9

4

0

10

3

1

11

2

2

Note that grade 8 staff are normally appointed directly through recruitment on the basis that they would be REF ready at the end of the census period. In addition, if appointed part of the way through a REF cycle, a pro-rata reduction in the number of outputs allowed. This would be the same for promotion from grade 7 to 8. Recommendation 2: The baseline criteria for research/scholarship should be set at two 2* papers/articles/research reports in a five year period for those who are not on the research excellence pathway.

2 Research Income

Research income targets have been agreed with each college/subject area as part of the business planning process, setting out a 10 year plan based on a university benchmark group and a local benchmark group. This provides a measure of productivity in each area against the sector norms (quartiles and median) and a means by which to drive the University growth.

Hence, based on historical data held within the University, and within HESA, analysis was carried out on the average income generated per year for each academic currently on the research pathway. Data was averaged over the last 3 years as income can be sporadic in nature. By collating members of staff into their respective subjects, statistical data (quartile and median) could be generated and then compared to the quartiles extracted from the University benchmark group for each subject. The results are summarised in the table below along with a status column that depicts the correlation between internal and benchmarked results (green is good agreement, amber is fair and red indicates poor agreement); disparity can be attributed to several factors such as maturity of area, academic makeup compared to the sector, or in some cases, a small internal data set. Note that ERDF and ESF funding have been removed to provide parity across subject

University Benchmark Group University data UQ Median LQ status 112.0 93.1 72.3 113.2 47.5 21.6 21.3 17.1 3.3 50.7 29.0 5.9 32.7 23.8 19.4 8.0 3.0 1.6 83.4 53.0 34.4 92.0 22.4 10.2 163.1 136.1 112.2 130.7 23.3 11.1 52.2 32.2 27.5 41.0 24.7 8.8 91.4 72.7 59.6 25.2 13.6 6.6 160.5 125.7 52.9 146.3 44.4 12.1 Other 123.8 107.0 62.3 68.2 40.2 32.3 42.9 23.6 7.4 57.2 42.1 28.8 33.4 19.6 13.2 46.8 41.4 31.8 330.6 245.4 124.6 17.8 14.0 7.7 16.6 3.9 0.6 15.8 13.5 6.9 33.1 7.0 4.7 14.6 7.1 5.2 5.1 2.2 0.3 11.9 6.7 4.1 10.9 4.9 0.5 14.5 6.8 5.1 22.7 16.1 9.4 10.5 7.0 2.0 5.5 5.0 3.0 46.8 41.4 31.8 65.1 25.5 9.2 13.5 7.4 4.5 28.5 3.1 0.6 Engineering Sports Science Mathematics Computer Science Physics Biosciences Medicine Health Science Psychology

Social Work and Social Care

Criminology Management College of Engineering College of Science College of Medicine College of Human and Health Science College of Arts and Humanities College of Law School of Management

History and Classics

Political and Cultural Studies

Languages, Translation and Communication

English Language and Literature

Academi Hywel Teifi

Law Geography

The variation in level of confidence between internal and external benchmarked quartiles for each subject area suggests that a more effective measure would be to combine both to create bands as below:

In many subject areas this does create overlapping bands between quartiles, but research income is only one measure of research activity in the promotion process, in addition to publications, esteem and PhD supervision, hence these quartile bands can be used to provide an indicative level of activity at each grade, as with the teaching excellence thresholds.

UQ Median LQ Engineering 112 to 113 48 to 93 22 to 72 Sports Science 21 to 51 17 to 29 3 to 6 Mathematics 8 to 33 3 to 24 2 to 19 Computer Science 83 to 92 22 to 53 10 to 34 Physics 131 to 163 23 to 136 11 to 112 Geography 41 to 52 25 to 32 9 to 28 Biosciences 25 to 91 14 to 73 7 to 60 College of Medicine 146 to 161 44 to 124 12 to 53 Health Science 43 to 68 24 to 40 7 to 32 Psychology 33 to 57 20 to 42 13 to 29

Social Work and Social Care 47 to 330 41 to 254 32 to 125

History and Classics 17 to 18 4 to 14 1 to 8

Political and Cultural Studies 16 to 33 7 to 14 5 to 7

Languages, Translation and Communication 5 to 15 2 to 7 0.3 to 5

English Language and Literature 11 to 12 5 to 7 0.5 to 4

Academi Hywel Teifi 15 to 23 7 to 16 5 to 9

Law 6 to 11 5 to 7 2 to 3 Criminology 47 to 65 26 to 41 9 to 32 School of Management 14 to 29 3 to 4 1 to 5 College of Law College of Arts and Humanities College of Human and Health College of Engineering College of Science

Recommendation 3: The following table summarises the indicative threshold levels for average annual research income per FTE as PI for each grade on the research excellence pathway that should be sustained over a 3 year period.

Grade

Annual research income/FTE

9

LQ band for subject

10

Median band for subject

11

UQ band for subject

Note that grade 8 staff are normally appointed directly through recruitment on the basis and would be expected to demonstrate evidence of grant application as a PI or CI. This would be the same for promotion from grade 7 to 8.

Recommendation 4: The following table summarises the indicative threshold levels for Postgraduate Student Supervisors for each grade on the

research excellence pathway.

Grade

PGR Supervision

9

LQ band for subject

10

Median band for subject

11

UQ band for subject

Note that grade 8 staff would not normally be expected to have PGR students.

Department Upper Quartile Median Lower Quartile Average

Swansea UBG Swansea UBG Swansea UBG Swansea UBG

Engineering 3.3 2.2 1.7 1.9 1.0 1.5 2.5 1.8 Sports Science 3.2 1.2 2.3 0.3 0.8 0 2.1 0.8 Mathematics 1.7 1.2 1.3 1 1.0 0.9 1.5 1 Computer Science 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.5 0.7 1.1 1.8 1.6 Physics 1.0 2 1.0 1.7 0.7 1.4 0.9 1.9 Geography 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.8 Biosciences 4.1 1.9 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.1 2.4 1.4 Medicine 1.3 1.2 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 Health Science 2.0 2.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.4 Psychology 1.7 2.3 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.6

Social Work and Social Care 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.9

History and Classics 0.7 1.2 0.3 1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.9

Political and Cultural Studies 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.5 1.1

Languages, Translation and

Communication 0.7 1.4 0.7 1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3

English Language and Literature 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.3 1 3.2 1.5

Academi Hywel Teifi 1.1 1.4 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.3

Law 0.7 1 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.9

Criminology 3.3 1.1 2.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 2.3 0.9

Management 2.7 1.1 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 1.9 1

Swansea data uses a 3yr average 2010-11 to 2012-13 and compares to staffing data from July 2015 (for Grade & FTE)

PGR Supervision:

Department

Upper

Quartile-

Professor

Median-

Associate

Professor

Lower Quartile-

Senior Lecturer

Average

Swansea UBG Engineering 2.2-3.3 1.7-1.9 1.8-1.5 2.5 1.8 Sports Science 1.2-3.2 0.3-2.3 0-0.8 2.1 0.8 Mathematics 1.2-1.7 1.0-1.3 0.9-1.0 1.5 1 Computer Science 1.9-2.1 1.3-1.5 0.7-1.1 1.8 1.6 Physics 1.0-2.0 1.0-1.7 0.7-1.4 0.9 1.9 Geography 1.3-1.5 0.7-0.8 0.3-0.6 1.1 0.8 Biosciences 1.9-4.1 1.2-1.4 0.7-1.1 2.4 1.4 Medicine 1.2-1.3 0.7-1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 Health Science 2.0-2.4 1.1-1.3 0.7 1.4 1.4 Psychology 1.7-2.3 1.0-1.2 0.7-0.8 1.2 1.6

Social Work and Social Care 0.5-1.1 0.3-0.6 0.2-0.5 0.3 0.9

History and Classics 0.7-1.2 0.3-1 0-0.8 0.4 0.9

Political and Cultural Studies 1.5-1.6 1.1-1.3 0.6-1.1 1.5 1.1

Languages, Translation and

Communication 0.7-1.4 0.7-1.0 0.7-0.8 0.8 1.3

English Language and Literature 1.7-2.0 0.3-1.5 0.3-1.0 3.2 1.5

Academi Hywel Teifi 1.1-1.4 0.6-1.0 0.6-0.8 0.9 1.3

Law 0.7-1.0 0.5-0.8 0.7-0.1 0.6 0.9

Criminology 1.1-3.3 0.6-2.0 0.5-1.0 2.3 0.9

Recommendation 6: The baseline criteria for research/scholarship, for those not on the research excellence pathway, should be to demonstrate

evidence of relevant grant applications during a five year period.

Recommendation 7: Development and training mechanisms need to be put in place through SALT or APECS to support staff to achieve

APPENDIX B - Note on Quantitive Indicative Performance Thresholds

i. Module feedback ii. Percentage of 2.1/1st iii. Completion rates

It is clear that (ii) and (iii) cannot necessary be attributed to a single individual as often several lecturers contribute to a module, however, module feedback (i) is collected at the lecturer level each semester and the scores associated with the following questions are reported directly in to the PDR process:

1. Feedback on my work so far has helped to improve my learning 2. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the module

3. Overall I am satisfied with my experience of this lecturers teaching on this module

In an attempt to define indicative threshold criteria associated with questions 1-3 above, module feedback data for 14/15 was analysed. This distribution of scores for all staff for questions 1- 3 is shown in the histograms below, along with associated statistical data as an inset.

Question 1: Feedback on my work so far has helped to improve my learning:

Count 638 Max Value 5 UQ 4.3 M 4 LQ 3.7 Minimum value 1

Question 2: Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the module:

Question 3: Overall I am satisfied with my experience of this lecturers teaching on this module:

It should be noted that the sample is large enough, across more than 630 modules, to provide a degree of confidence in the data. From the histograms above it can be seen that the median and quartiles are slightly different for each question, this is summarised in the “all staff” column of the table below, for example, yielding a range of lower quartiles (3.7, 3.8 and 4) for questions 1-3 respectively. In order to identify any dependence on academic grade (8-11), the quartile data for each question and academic grade was examined in detail; the results are shown in the table below.

Question UQ M LQ UQ M LQ UQ M LQ UQ M LQ UQ M LQ

1 4.3 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.0 3.7 4.4 4.0 3.7 4.4 4.1 3.7

2 4.4 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 4.5 4.2 3.9 4.4 4.2 3.9

3 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.2 3.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.0

All staff grade 11 grade 10 grade 9 grade 8

Count 650 Max Value 5 UQ 4.4 M 4.2 LQ 3.8 Minimum value 1.2 Count 648 Max Value 5 UQ 4.5 M 4.3 LQ 4 Minimum value 1.3

The median and quartile data for each question show little variation with academic grade hence the “all staff” data can be viewed as representative for each question. It is proposed to use the quartile data to inform threshold definition. It should also be noted that the 14/15 data set is very similar to that of 13/14 (not shown) indicating year to year consistency.

Recommendation 1: The following indicative thresholds, as shown in column 2 in the table below, are proposed for each academic grade under the teaching excellence pathway. The quartiles and median are taken from the “all staff” data. Staff should demonstrate sustainable activity at this level with at least 3

consecutive years of evidence based on a rolling average score for each question.

Grade Indicative targets for promotion for Q1-3 Q1 % of staff above each quartile Q2 % of staff above each quartile Q3 % of staff above each quartile 9 LQ 75% 75% 75% 10 M 50% 40% 40% 11 UQ 20% 20% 25%

The table above also shows the percentage of all staff that are above the thresholds for each question: this provides confidence that these levels of attainment are being achieved by a significant portion of current staff.

Recommendation 2: The lower quartile is also selected as the baseline indicative thresholds for questions 1-3 for those who choose to progress under the research or innovation/engagement excellence pathways, again based on a 3 year rolling average.

Note that grade 8 staff are normally appointed directly through recruitment on the basis that they would be capable of achieving the baseline indicative teaching thresholds with support. This would be the same for promotion from grade 7 to 8.