Sources and Forms of Evidence for Promotion - Academic Performance Framework
The following guidance is provided for staff applying for academic promotion, using the Academic Performance Framework.
-
In the Academic Performance Framework, research is defined as:
contributing to new knowledge or using existing knowledge in new and creative ways to generate new concepts, methodologies, inventions and understandings; communicating and disseminating that knowledge to others; sharing expertise and leading the development of staff through scholarly engagement.
This definition is broad and is elaborated across five criteria, as listed in Table 1: Research Criteria and examples of evidence. Not all criteria will be applicable to all academic staff.
Research is a relevant performance area for academic staff who are appointed to the following contract types:
- teaching and research;
- research-only;
- education-focused staff – if specified as part of their workload; and
- practice roles – if specified as part of this appointment.
In the written case for promotion, the applicant will draw on relevant and robust evidence as part of a narrative that demonstrates how selected criteria have been achieved.
- The extent of achievement and type of evidence relevant to demonstrating achievement differ by level of appointment and discipline.
- Achievement of the minimum or aspirational targets for research outputs, research income and HDR load/completions as captured in Faculty Research Standards, form only one source of evidence**. The types of evidence included in the case for promotion will depend on the criteria. However, some forms of evidence may be relevant to more than one criteria, there is not a “right or wrong answer”.
- The case for promotion form sets maximum page limits, so applicants need to use their judgement in selecting the evidence that will best support their achievement of a criteria, and which provides a coherent narrative to explain their contribution and impact.
- Applicants are encouraged to seek advice from peers and mentors as to the type of evidence that will best support their case. The evidence provided below are not exhaustive.
** Since 2009, all faculties at Monash University have developed Research Performance Standards, which specify minimum and aspirational targets for academic staff by appointment level, drawing on metrics that are relevant to the discipline.
Table 1: Research Criteria and examples of evidence below includes:
- the five research criteria. Not all will be relevant to all applicants; and
- examples of relevant evidence. Again, these examples are not exhaustive and there may be other types of evidence a applicant can draw on.
For example, in a case for promotion for research an applicant may choose to demonstrate they have achieved “R1 Advancing a discipline”, through their impactful research (as evidenced by the exceeding the aspirational targets for high quality publications and a high 5 year H-index), achievements of PhD students, which could include Mollie Holman awards for two PhD students and prestigious post doc fellowships for two other students, and undertaking high quality editorial work which has led to a 25% increase in article submissions and a 30% increase in article downloads, while under the applicant's editorship.
-
Table 1: Research Criteria and examples of evidence
Research Criteria
Indicative examples of evidence to demonstrate achievement
R1 Advancing the discipline
R1 is a core expectation for all academic staff* who have a research workload, no matter the discipline or level of appointment.
*Education-focused applicants are not required to address this, unless there is disciplinary research which should be included within this section. (Refer to education criteria/practice elements for pedagogical research).
- Undertaking impactful research, evidenced by:
- Meeting or exceeding minimum or aspirational targets for research outputs, as specified in the Faculty research performance standards;
- High citation metrics and/or H-index;
- Positive published reviews of books and book chapters;
- Positive media mentions of an applicant's research.
- Achievements of an applicant's current and former PhD students, which may include:
- High quality or well-cited publications of former PhD students;
- Prestigious employment or fellowships of former PhD students;
- Prizes won by PhD students.
- Successful leadership of research teams, as evidenced by:
- High quality/well-cited team publications;
- Increase in research funding, awards and prizes;
- Increase in number of PhD applicants;
- Positive media mentions of team discoveries.
- Undertaking high quality journal editorial work, that has led to
- improvements in number of submissions, journal impact factor, and in discipline ranking of the journal.
- Successful management of conferences, as evidenced by:
- Positive feedback from conference attendees;
- Increase in the number of paper submissions and attendees while under the applicant's management.
R2 Building reputation and recognition of research excellence
R2 is a core expectation for all academic staff* who have a research workload, no matter the discipline or level of appointment.
*Education-focused applicants are not required to address this, unless there is disciplinary research which should be included within this section. (Refer to education criteria/practice elements for pedagogical research).
- Meeting or exceeding minimum or aspirational targets for category 1 research income, as specified in the Faculty research performance standards.
- Meeting or exceeding minimum or aspirational faculty/discipline-based targets for cat 2, 3 or 4 income, as specified in the Faculty research performance standards.
- Achievement of prestigious fellowships.
- Undertaking high quality journal editorial work, that has led to improvements in number of submissions, journal impact factor, and in discipline ranking of the journal.
- Invitations to be a referee/reviewer of national and international competitive grant schemes, and for high quality journals.
- Invitations to be a visiting scholar at high quality international universities, plenary speaker at prestigious conferences.
- Requests to examine theses and participate on recruitment/promotion panels for other universities.
- Involvement in collaborative research projects with other eminent universities and research organisations.
- Election to a learned academy.
- Prizes and awards for research excellence.
R3 Quality research supervision and mentoring
R3 will become increasing relevant as staff progress from junior to more senior roles.
- Meeting or exceeding the minimum or aspirational expectations for HDR completions or HDR load, as specified in the Faculty research performance standards.
- Achievement of HDR supervision awards.
- Achievements of an applicant's current and former PhD students, which may include:
- High quality or well-cited publications of former PhD students;
- Prestigious employment or fellowships of former PhD students;
- Prizes won by PhD students.
- Improved research performance of staff due to the applicant's mentoring, which may include:
- High quality or well-cited publications of those staff;
- Prestigious employment, fellowships, or promotions
- Prizes won.
R4 Establishing, leading or participating in successful research teams, research units or centres, and fostering interdisciplinary research
R4 is likely to become more relevant as staff increase in seniority.
- Successful leadership of research teams, research unit/centre as evidenced by:
- High quality/well-cited publications;
- Increase in research funding, awards and prizes;
- Increase in number of PhD applicants;
- Positive media mentions of research discoveries.
- Outcomes of mentoring or leading an interdisciplinary research project, which could include:
- Publications in prestigious journals;
- Highly cited publications;
- External funding to support the project;
- Media recognition of research discoveries of the project.
R5 Translation, commercialisation or adoption of discoveries and policy-to-practice by external entities
R5 is likely to be more relevant to those in senior roles and may be more common to staff in certain STEM disciplines
- Take up of new technologies, patents, designs and inventions by industry Identification of the companies who are utilising the new technology/patent/design.
- Changes in government policy or practice resulting from the applicant's research.
- New legislation, new community funding, formal reviews of government funding or policy that emerges as a result of the applicant's research.
- Undertaking impactful research, evidenced by:
-
For the purposes of this framework, education is defined as:
Education is promoting effective learning and developing student potential through the creation, delivery and evaluation of curriculum informed by pedagogy, guided by recognised standards, and enhanced by innovation and staff professional learning. Education covers the totality of the student experience that occurs in the educational process.
This definition is broad and is elaborated across criteria/impact areas, as listed in the Academic Performance Framework. Not all criteria will be applicable to all academic staff.
Education is a relevant performance area for academic staff who are appointed to the following contract types:
- Teaching and research
- Education-focused staff; and
- Practice roles – if specified as part of this appointment
In the written case for promotion, the applicant will draw on relevant and robust evidence as part of a narrative that demonstrates how selected criteria have been achieved.
- The extent of achievement and type of evidence relevant to demonstrating achievement differ by level of appointment and discipline.
- The types of evidence included in the case for promotion will depend on the particular criteria. However, some forms of evidence may be relevant to more than one criteria, there is not a “right or wrong answer”.
- The case for promotion sets maximum page limits, so applicants need to use their judgement in selecting the evidence that will best support their achievement of a criteria, and which provides a coherent narrative to explain their contribution and impact.
- Applicants are encouraged to seek advice from their peers and mentors as to the type of evidence that will best support their case. The evidence provided are not exhaustive.
Refer to the Monash Education Academy website for the Education Performance Standards and the MEA moodle site where you can find guidance on relevant education evidence.
-
For the purposes of this framework, engagement is defined as:
Actively contributing to the governance, capacity building and development of positive and inclusive cultures within Monash, through citizenship behaviours and formal leadership roles. It also includes contributions to business, government and community organisations to the mutual benefit of all parties.
This definition captures engagement within and external to Monash University, across four criteria, listed in Table 2: Engagement Criteria and examples of evidence. Not all criteria will be applicable to all academic staff.
Engagement is a relevant performance area for academic staff who are appointed to the following contract types:
- teaching and research;
- research-only;
- education-focused staff; and
- practice roles.
In the written case for promotion, the applicant will draw on relevant and robust evidence as part of a narrative that demonstrates how selected criteria have been achieved.
- The extent of achievement and type of evidence relevant to demonstrating achievement differ by level of appointment and discipline.
- The types of evidence presented in the case for promotion will depend on the particular criteria. However, some forms of evidence may be relevant to more than one criteria, there is not a “right or wrong answer”.
- The case for promotion sets maximum page limits, so applicants need to use their judgment in selecting the evidence that will best support their achievement of a criteria, and which provides a coherent narrative to explain their contribution and impact.
- Applicants are encouraged to seek advice from peers and mentors as to the type of evidence that will best support their case. The evidence provided below are not exhaustive.
-
Table 2: Engagement Criteria and examples of evidence includes:
- the four engagement criteria. Not all will be relevant to all applicants; and
- examples of relevant evidence. Again, these examples are not exhaustive and there may be other types of evidence an applicant can draw on.
Table 2: Engagement Criteria and examples of evidence
Engagement Criteria
Indicative examples of evidence to demonstrate achievement
N1: Engagement with industry, government, community and not-for-profits that contributes to positive economic, social or cultural outcomes
- Drawing on disciplinary expertise to engage in activities that enhance economic and social outcomes. This may include undertaking voluntary work in legal advice centres or health centres, mentoring of high school science students’ projects and providing advice/training to community groups on IT.
- Effective participation in industry or government advisory committees, that led to a committee report and recommendations that have been well received by the media, government, and/or public.
- Influence on public policy through authoring policy papers or providing evidence to a Royal Commission.
N2: Contributions to the advancement of the profession or practice
- Advancing the quality of a profession through work as an officer of professional body, working on professional standards committees or curriculum committees, contribution to journal or conference reviewing.
N3: Contribution to Monash through formal roles
N3 is relevant when a staff member holds a formal leadership role, such as head of school, associate dean, course coordinator, or research seminar convenor.
It will also include outcomes from formal appointments to committees, such as a school representative a faculty research committee or learning and teaching committee.
- Improvements in the effectiveness of learning and teaching resulting from actions taken as a Head of an organisational unit, member of Course Coordinator, or a designer of Monash Education Academy (MEA) modules.
- Positive outcomes that result from an applicant's participation as member of a Faculty Research Committee, or convener of a School research seminar series, including:
- Increased research collaborations;
- Submission of higher quality research grant submissions;
- Increased attendance at school research seminars.
N4: Enhancement of the Monash workplace and culture through active engagement and involvement in the work of the university, faculty and school
For junior staff it may be more difficult to evidence outcomes of engagement activities, so evidence may tend more towards activity.
- Improvements in research performance of a discipline area or academic unit through undertaking activities, such as the mentoring junior researchers, initiation or leadership of IDR projects, participation in PhD milestone committee deliberations.
- Improvements in learning and teaching outcomes of an academic area through the mentoring of junior teaching colleagues and students, leading to the development of improved approaches to education and increased student satisfaction.
- Active participation in the planning and delivery of Open Day, or other school/faculty events.