Skip to content

Staff Development Procedure - Academic Promotion for Candidates Level B

Parent Policy 

Staff Development policy

Preamble

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

Teaching and research (including education-focused) candidates who satisfy the approver that they meet the criteria for promotion are to be promoted irrespective of considerations such as the increased cost of staffing. Research-only candidates will be promoted if they satisfy the approver that they meet the criteria for promotion and provided that the relevant grant holder and/or head of unit has confirmed that there is funding available for the promotion.

For candidates from the Australian campuses, the approver of promotion to lecturer or research fellow is the dean of the relevant faculty. Where the candidate is not located in a faculty, the application will be considered by the dean of the faculty that is most closely related to the candidate’s discipline/ area. For candidates from Monash University Malaysia, the Pro Vice-Chancellor and President (Malaysia) must co-approve the application with the dean.

The process for promotion to lecturer or research fellow does not involve a promotion committee and may occur outside the normal promotion round for other levels.

This procedure applies to staff who:

Definitions

Academic performance standards: faculty or discipline-specific performance standards for all academic staff against which academic performance will be measured, particularly for the purpose of probation, promotion and performance development. The standards are qualitative, quantitative or a mixture of both across the three key areas of academic activity - research, education and service. They include identified ‘minimum' performance standards, below which the staff member would be managed for unsatisfactory performance, and aspirational standards, which are relevant for promotion in accordance with the requirements of this procedure.

Achievement(s) relative to opportunity: is an evaluative framework in which the overall quality and impact of achievements is given more weight than the quantity, rate or breadth of particular achievements. Assessing achievements relative to opportunity involves giving consideration to circumstances, arrangements, career histories and overall time available to the staff member. This in turn allows appropriate evaluation of achievements in relation to:

  • the quantum or rate of productivity,
  • the opportunity to participate in certain types of activities, and
  • the consistency of activities or output over the period of consideration.

Achievement relative to opportunity is a positive acknowledgement of what a staff member can and has achieved given the opportunities available and is not about providing “special consideration” or expecting lesser standards of performance.

Approver: for the purposes of this procedure, is the dean of the candidate's faculty or, for non-faculty staff, the dean of the faculty that is most closely related to the candidate's discipline or area. For candidates from Monash University Malaysia, the approver means the dean and the Pro Vice-Chancellor and President (Malaysia) acting as co-approvers.

Education focused candidate: A candidate for promotion who occupies an academic role of engagement characterised by educational innovation and leadership in educational design and delivery.

Head of Unit: head of an academic or organisational work unit, for example Head of School, Head of Department or where applicable, a person acting as his or her nominee. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit's responsibilities for the academic promotion process.

HR Business Partner: a key member of the Monash HR Business Partnering Community and provides strategic advice, guidance and solutions that underpin key client goals, HR strategy and organisational vision to a particular client group.

Performance Development Plan: documents the annual work goals and career aspirations and development goals for the staff member and the specific targets and progress towards achieving those goals. The performance development plan forms the basis for the annual performance planning and review cycle.

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

Promotion coordinator:  is a designated staff member within Monash HR who is responsible for administration and coordination of the promotion process. The relevant promotion coordinators are:

  • for applications from faculty-based candidates to lecturer and research fellow (level B), a dedicated staff member within HR Operations, Monash HR;
  • for applications from non-faculty candidates, to lecturer and research fellow (level B), the Senior Adviser, Policy and Academic Promotion in Monash HR.
  • for applications from Malaysian-based candidates to lecturer and research fellow (level B), a member of the HR team at the University's Sunway campus.

Research Achievement Report: is a report that details the candidate's research outputs, funding applications, and HDR supervision during the relevant promotion period. For Australian candidates, this report is generated via the University's Business Intelligence system.

Research-only candidate: is a candidate for promotion who is employed on a research-only contract of employment and who is appointed to undertake predominately research and research-related activities.

Rex: is Recruitment Express the University's online recruitment system, which administers requests to advertise, selections and appointments and generates employment contracts and variations of contract. For the purposes of this procedure, Rex is the online application system for promotion for all candidates excluding Monash University Malaysia candidates applying for promotion to level B.

Student Evaluation Record: is a record of student evaluation results for units the candidate has had a teaching and/or leadership role and will cover the period relevant to the promotion application. The report is generated by University Planning and Statistics.

Eligibility for promotion

A successful application for promotion takes time to assemble and requires candidates to plan ahead to prepare the documents and consult with the required parties.

A candidate must satisfy the approver(s) that he or she has, in accordance with the academic performance standards:

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

A candidate's capacity to perform commensurate with the academic performance standards forms one component of the case for promotion and does not on its own constitute grounds for promotion. All relevant evidence of a candidate's performance and achievements as outlined in the case will be considered by the approver in making their decision. Each application is viewed holistically and the decision will be informed by, but not determined by, the relevant academic performance standards.

Overview of academic promotion process

Step 1: Preparing for academic promotion

Candidate Information Sessions

It is highly recommended that prospective candidates attend a promotion information session.

Candidates should refer to the academic promotion website for dates and further information.

Intention to Apply

Candidates must discuss their intention to apply some time in advance with their performance supervisor and record it in their performance development plan.

Candidates must discuss their proposed application with their performance supervisor and head of unit; and confirm their intention to apply with their performance supervisor, head of unit and relevant promotion coordinator.

Research-only candidates who are employed on another person’s grant must ensure they have the support of the grant holder in applying for promotion. Research-only candidates will also need to confirm with their head of unit whether there is funding available for the promotion. The funding need not come from the grant under which the staff member is employed, but where this is the case, the grant holder must confirm the terms and conditions of the grant contract allow for the staff member to be promoted and the use of grant funds to fund higher level salary.

Candidates from Non-Faculty Areas

Candidates from non-faculty areas will be required to consult with their head of unit about nominating the most relevant faculty to assess their application.

Non-faculty prospective candidates should attend an information session in the faculty most relevant to their discipline.

Candidates must send a copy of their CV to the relevant promotion coordinator prior to applying for promotion.

Candidates will advise the relevant promotion coordinator, who will then seek agreement from the dean of that faculty on the candidate’s behalf that it is the most appropriate faculty to assess the application. If the dean agrees, the candidate will then liaise with the relevant promotion coordinator in preparing and applying.

Step 2: Candidates prepare the case for academic promotion form

Only achievements since a candidate's appointment to their current level can be included in the application for promotion. Candidates who moved to Monash from the same level of appointment (or higher) may include evidence of achievements from that level at the previous university or universities. However, achievements that pre-date the last appointment or promotion may be cited if they are still having a significant impact (for example a high profile publication that continues to be very highly cited).

A complete application for promotion is comprised of the Case for Academic Promotion Form: Level B and the following supplementary reports as attachments:

  • Research Achievement Record;
  • Student Evaluation Record (not applicable for research-only candidates who have not allocated a weighting to education); and
  • optional 5 pages (maximum) of supporting evidence.

Details regarding each of these attachments are included below.

Candidates will prepare their application for academic promotion by first sourcing their Research Achievement Record, Student Evaluation Record and all other forms of relevant evidence to support their case for promotion.

Application Process for Candidates 

Process Overview

Supplementary Reports

All candidates for promotion must attach a Research Achievement Reord. For Australian candidates, this report is generated through the University's Business Intelligence system drawing on data from corporate systems, including Research Master, Callista and SAP. Candidates should ensure that their research data is accurate and up-to-date in the University's Researchers' Online Project Enquiry System (ROPES) prior to requesting a report for promotion purposes.

The Research Achievement Record can be obtained from the relevant promotion coordinator via email request. Please refer to the contacts page for ‘how to apply for an academic promotion report'.

The Research Achievement Record will include the following:

  • research outputs;
  • research grants; and
  • HDR supervisions.

The report will list achievements and publications only for the period since the last promotion/appointment.

Candidates should carefully review the data in the report. Any significant errors found in system-generated data should be advised to the contact listed to determine if system corrections are required and another report generated.

Candidates will then supplement the data contained in the reports by:

  • adding any entries that are not captured in the report on the recent additions and errata page; and
  • completing the final two columns on the research outputs page (ie. an estimate of their percentage of contribution and the number of citations).

Candidates from the University's Malaysian campus will complete the Malaysia: Promotion Research Achievement Record Form.

Student Evaluation Record

Research-only candidates who have not allocated a weighting to education are not required to provide a Student Evaluation Record.

A personalised Student Evaluation Record is available via online request from University Planning and Statistics.

The report will contain the following:

  • quantitative unit evaluation data (data for each unit offering for which the candidate was evaluated); and
  • quantitative teaching evaluation data (eg. SETU, MonQueST).

Candidates should be prepared to provide full sets of all summarised teaching and unit evaluation data upon request by the relevant promotion coordinator.

Case for Promotion

The above reports provide supporting evidence for a candidate's case for promotion. In the Case for Academic Promotion Form: Level B the candidate provides personal details and outlines how he or she meets the criteria for academic promotion.

Candidates complete the relevant sections of the Case for Academic Promotion Form: Level B, comprising:

  • Part 1 - candidate details, weightings, statement of ‘relevant personal circumstances', and qualifications and appointments;
  • Part 2 - the case for promotion - achievements in research, education and service; and
  • Part 3 - sign off (by performance supervisor, head of unit and candidate).

The approver will only accept applications that comply with the instructions in the application and in this procedure. The approver may call for further information about summarised material.

Candidates should contact their relevant promotion coordinator if they need assistance.

Part 1 - Candidate details and weightings, statement of relevant personal circumstances and qualifications and appointments.

1.1 Candidate details and weightings

Candidates must allocate weightings to each of the categories of research, education and service within the parameters relevant to their academic focus. Weightings should represent the quality and impact of achievements (rather than workload allocation). The total weightings should add to 100% and meet the minimum requirements for each category below.

Candidate Contract Type

Education

Research

Service

Teaching and research staff

20% minimum

30% minimum

10% minimum

 

 30% minimum

 

  20% minimum
Teaching and research staff 'special case' based on outstanding service 40% for research and education combined, with a minimum of 10% for each, if it relects the agreed performance developmnet plan.  60% with a significant emphasis on the impact that leadership has had on the University, community/discipline
Education-focused staff 85% maximum, with particular emphasis on educational design and delivery and educational leadership 5% minimum 10% minimum

Research-only staff

Not required to assign a weighting towards education although may do so if relevant

90% maximum

10% minimum

Education-focused candidates are encouraged to consult the learning and teaching website.

All candidates should:

  • consider the weighting of their case carefully and seek advice from their performance supervisor and head of unit before finally determining the balance;
  • choose weightings that strengthen their case in relation to achievements and reflect the assessments made annually as part of the Performance Development Procedure: Academic Staff and also the expectations as set out in the academic performance standards for the level to which promotion is sought; 
  • ensure that they provide a thorough description and supporting evidence of achievements in the relevant areas of academic activity regardless of the weighting attached; and
  • make the final decision regarding the allocation of weightings.

For teaching and research staff, the approver may choose to reduce the minimum weightings if it better reflects the agreed performance development plan of the candidate. The approver may reduce the weightings as follows:

  • 20% each for the categories of ‘research’ and ‘education’; and 
  • 10% for the category of ‘service’.

1.2 Relevant personal circumstances

Where relevant candidates should specify any relevant personal circumstances to facilitate an assessment of his or her achievements relative to opportunity.

The approver will evaluate relevant circumstances based on what the candidate has achieved given the opportunities available whilst ensuring that the indicators of quality and impact of achievements have been demonstrated. 

Relevant circumstances may include:

  • family responsibilities (for example child rearing, elder-care, illness of a partner or dependant); 
  • a temporary or permanent disability; 
  • relevant cultural expectations or circumstances; 
  • periods of part-time working; and/or 
  • absences due to ill-health or injury.

Candidates who would like the approver to assess their achievements relative to opportunity should:

  • identify relevant personal circumstances in their promotion application; 
  • provide a positive acknowledgement of what has been achieved given the opportunities available during the time period that is being considered in the application (i.e. since the last promotion or appointment); and 
  • if desired, briefly comment on their overall career history and trajectory in light of the opportunities available to them.

Candidates are not required to describe specific details about sensitive issues such as a medical illness. If it is important for specific details to be shared, a short and private discussion with the approver will suffice.

For further information, refer to Preparing relevant personal circumstances.

Part 2 - The case for promotion - Achievements in research, education and service

A candidate's case for promotion must illustrate how the candidate meets the criteria for promotion in the relevant academic areas of activity. For most candidates this will include evidence of his/her achievements across the three key areas of academic activity - research, education and service. Research-only candidates are only required to make a case against the research and service activity areas (consistent with their weightings).

The case for promotion must explain the quality and impact of achievements claimed and may reference the attached research and education reports.

A maximum word limit of 2,600 words applies across Part 2 in total. Candidates may choose how to allocate the word count, but should do so relative to the weightings they have selected to frame their case

2.1 Research

Candidates should:

  • list up to five of their research achievements and provide evidence of their impact on the academic discipline, industry or profession, or community;
  • outline their case for promotion, referencing the promotion criteria; and
  • reference the attached Research Achievement Record in making their case.

Candidates should focus on outlining significant achievements since their last promotion/appointment, and avoid unnecessary duplication of data that are in the attached reports. (Note candidates may elect to include achievements in research supervision in either the research or education category but not in both).

2.2 Education

Candidates are require to formulate their case for promotion in the area of education by addressing the learning and teaching criteria. It should be noted that the Student Evaluation Record is an indicator of teaching excellence, not the absolute measure.

Candidates will need to take into consideration the three distinct areas of practice:

  • activities directly involved in the delivery of learning and teaching to students;
  • the scholarship of teaching; and,
  • continual professional enhancement and self-review.

Each candidate involved in teaching must address criterion 6 as this if the basis of reflective teaching practice that will build and sustain excellence.

In addition to the above:

  • Teaching and Research staff must elect and address two additional criteria from 1 to 5.
  • Education-focused staff must address criteria 5 and elect and address two additional criteria from 1 to 4.

The criteria referenced above are available on the learning and teaching website.

Candidates should address each criteria as specified above on the basis of their teaching and research or education-focused role and use relevant evidence to support their claims against the criteria. Candidates are encouraged to access the academic promotion website for further guidance on how to prepare their application.

Research-only staff who have not allocated a weighting to education are not required to complete Part 2.2.

2.3 Service

Candidates should:

  • summarise service achievements; and
  • explain the impact of their service activities to their discipline, faculty/University and the community.

Examples of service activities may include postdoctoral research at other universities, presentations at meetings, invitations to collaborate or present a paper, external examiner activities such as moderation, awards nights, open day and graduation ceremony involvement, subject coordination activities, community activities, presentations to prospective students, membership and contributions to Monash committees.

Committees will give due consideration to candidates who have significant service obligations due to being part of an under-represented group. This includes women in STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine) disciplines and Indigenous candidates.

Additional five pages of supporting attachments

Candidates may also include a maximum of five pages of supporting evidence.

Examples of supporting evidence may include:

  • letters of acceptance of research publications ‘in press';
  • copies of media reports that provide evidence of impact of the candidate's research or educational research achievements; and
  • letters of support acknowledging candidate's positive contribution of service activities.

Examples and guides relating to the learning and teaching criteria are available at the learning and teaching website.

Candidates appointed from international universities must provide evidence that they held an equivalent appointment or higher at their previous university or universities, as part of their maximum five pages of supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence does not include an academic curriculum vitae or an extension of the word limit for the case for promotion.

Part 3 - Sign Off

The candidate's performance supervisor must write a report commenting on the achievements across research, education and service, including a comment on the allocation of weighting given to each area and an assessment of the candidate's performance against the criteria for promotion.

Guidance regarding the learning and teaching criteria is available on the learning and teaching website

The performance supervisor and head of unit must indicate whether they agree that: 

  • the weightings chosen by the candidate are appropriate; and 
  • there is a prima facie case for the application to be considered; or
  • the candidate's case for promotion is premature. 

Where the candidate's case for promotion is premature, the performance supervisor and head of unit will provide specific feedback on how the candidate can strengthen his/her academic performance to support an application for promotion in the future.

For research-only candidates, the head of unit will also confirm that there is funding available for the promotion and will identify the source of the funding. Where the source of the funding is the research grant, the grant holder, acting on the advice of the Monash Research Office, will confirm that a promotion is permissible under the terms and conditions of the grant contract, including that the grant funds can be used to fund a salary at a higher level. 

If a research-only candidate is not the grant holder but is employed on another person’s grant, the grant holder will also be required to endorse the candidate’s application for promotion.

The candidate must indicate that he or she has read the contents of the performance supervisor’s report and head of unit’s comments and sign the form.

Step 3: Candidates lodge the application

All candidates (except candidates from Malaysia) will lodge completed applications online via the University's e-recruitment system.

Candidates from Malaysia are required to lodge the following documents via email to the Malaysia promotion coordinator:

Step 4: Promotion coordinator reviews the application

The relevant promotion coordinator will check that the application is complete. Only applications that comply with all the instructions in the procedure and on the application form will be submitted to the approver(s).

Once satisfied that the application is complete, the relevant promotion coordinator will advise the candidate:

  • that the application is being submitted to the approver(s) for consideration; 
  • of the approximate date by which they will be notified of the outcome; and 
  • that the timeframe may be extended should the approver(s) require any further information from the candidate during the review process.

The relevant promotion coordinator will send the following to the approver(s) and the relevant associate deans:

  • the application and any relevant attachments; and
  • a copy of this procedure.

Step 5: The approver(s) review the application

The approver(s) will: 

  • consult with the associate deans responsible for education and research regarding the candidate's case for promotion; and
  • assess the application and determine whether the candidate has met the criteria for promotion.

Should the approver(s) require any further information or clarification from the candidate, the relevant promotion coordinator will facilitate this process.

The effective date of the promotion will normally be the date the application is approved.

Step 6: Candidates notified of outcome

Within 14 working days of receiving an application, the approver(s) must provide written notification of the outcome to the candidate.

For candidates not recommended for promotion, the written advice will outline the areas requiring strengthening before a future application is lodged. Candidates are encouraged to meet with the approver (or a representative appointed by the approver) individually to discuss feedback further. It is suggested that candidates use this advice, in consultation with their performance supervisor, when revising their performance development plans. Candidates are unlikely to be successful in future application unless they have addressed the recommendations outlined.

Copies of the letters are provided to the performance supervisor, head of unit and the HR Business Partner.

Relevant promotion coordinators will keep a record of the application and provide a copy of the outcome letter to Monash University payroll.

Rehearing

Candidates not recommended for promotion may lodge an application for a rehearing only on the basis that there has been a procedural irregularity substantive enough to result in material disadvantage to them with regards to the approvers decision. Candidates must seek the advice of the approver(s) before lodging an application for a rehearing. 

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

Responsibility

Provost and Senior Vice-President: is responsible for academic staffing within the University including the oversight of the academic promotion process.

Dean: as the approver, the dean is responsible for ensuring a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Pro Vice-Chancellor and President (Monash University Malaysia): as the co-approver for applications from their campus, the Pro Vice-Chancellor and President is responsible for ensuring a fair, confidential and objective assessment of applications for promotion.

Head of Unit and Performance Supervisor: the candidate’s performance supervisor and head of unit are required to each provide a report that forms part of the academic promotion application form. If there are no heads of unit within the faculty, a deputy dean or equivalent may be delegated the head of unit’s responsibilities for the academic promotion process. They are also responsible for being available to give confidential advice and other forms of support to potential applicants before applications are submitted.

Candidate: is responsible for complying with the requirements of this procedure and providing timely and accurate information to the performance supervisor, head of unit, relevant promotion coordinator and approver.

Monash HR - Promotion Coordinators

HR Operations Centre

A dedicated resource within the HR Operations Centre is responsible for:

  • administering and coordinating the promotion process for faulty-based lecturer and research fellow, including generating Research Achievement Records and administering outcome letters; and
  • providing policy and procedural advice to candidates and committees.

Senior Advisor, Policy and Academic Promotion

The Senior Advisor, Policy and Academic Promotion is responsible for:

  • providing policy and procedural advice on the academic promotion process; and
  • being the contact for candidates for non-faculty areas.

Malaysia Promotion Coordinator

The Malaysia Promotion Coordinator is responsible for:

  • administering and coordinating the promotion process for Malaysia candidates including administering outcome letters; and
  • providing policy and procedural advice on the academic promotion process for candidates in Malaysia.

Related procedures

Related documents

Forms

Version number 9.0
Effective date: 17 March 2016
Procedure owner: Director, Workplace Relations
Procedure author: Executive Director, Monash HR
Contact: