Project Metis: Feedback from professoriate focus group on Teaching and Engagement domains
On the 13th of February 2017, over 100 Professors and Associate Professors attended a Town Hall with the DVCE Professor Belinda Tynan to provide feedback on the Teaching Domain and the Engagement Domain. Each colleague chose to sit at a table which discussed either the Engagement Domain or the Teaching Domain. Below is a summary of the feedback provided.
1.Summary
Question / Number of tables responding / Totaltable responses / Action arisingTeaching / Engagement
Yes / No / Yes / No
- Should engagement be a separate domain or embedded in teaching and research domains?
- Should applicants apply under engagement plus one other domain?
- Should candidates address all criteria in a domain?[3]
- Do the criteria adequately define practice in the domain?
- At what level should a candidate have a PhD?
2 tables – level B
1 table – level C with prof doc as equiv.
1 table – trad. level C; better if level B
2 tables use AQF standards
1 table – need flexibility to allow for entrants from industry/govt / 3 tables – from Level B
2 tables – from Level A[7]
2 tables – equivalence
2 tables – no response
1 table – no clear response
2.Representative sample of comments
Question / Comments from teaching tables / Comments fromengagement tables- Should engagement be a separate domain or embedded in teaching and research domains?
Does engagement replace "leadership"? the first criteria looks like leadership in RMIT
Are we highlighting engagement as separate to focus on RMIT's strategy
If required to address all domains/criteria it doesn’t support excellence in any particular area and concern it could become tick box activity rather than promotion being an opportunity to reflect and focus on excellence,
Prefer an approach that allows for weighting for individual areas of excellence to be captured / Yes, keep it separate - it's such a major part of the university plan
It should be embedded and demonstrated within the Teaching and Research domains.
This is very broad - is this replacing leadership?
You can't tell people to engage - it needs to be embedded in the criteria.
I like to separate as people who do a lot of engagement need to be acknowledge.
Excellent idea. need to find the right balance if separated
Embedded – our primary work is teaching and research. Engagement is all about broader things and incorporated into the other areas
Leadership - doesn't fit or make sense here
Engagement is more of a behaviour, it’s what we do and how we do it – really understand the challenges in the example of how to take from a D to an E in this space.
Engagement is an important activity – should be a criteria that is included in both teaching and research
Engagement is about helping the quality of teaching so include it in that
Go to industry to seek help on what this looks like or might mean instead of trying to go decide now if its separate or embedded
Sure but how do we ensure there are measurable and meaningful engagement tasks - so it isn't the 'soft' or easy parts compared to teaching
Engagement examples included a lecturer bringing in an industry expert
It’s the way to enhance teaching and research embed it
May be more relevant at senior levels however needs to be explicit about the quality of the engagement the ROI / Allows greater choice with flexibility.
Add other groups, NGOs etc. to the criteria.
Should be broad not narrow to allow for individual differences. What is real social impact? Emotional, physical, measurable etc. Even contribution to behavioral and organisational change - consider replacing impact, term is too heavy, masculine. In some respect coming back to where assessment for promotion used to be - self-determined/assessed. Some different views as in the past much was determined by books, patents, etc.
Should be two tracks. Need to have confidence in being able to assess across the sector, different unis. Headhunters dumb down the selection process being used to industry selection, not academic.
Marketing - we did this and it has worked, sat on the panel, etc.
Vision is overdone - need authenticity, what it is to be an academic, careful of devaluing the intellectuality of practice.
Side discussion on the purpose of the university.
No strong views – could work either way, providing applicants are free to cross-reference evidence as relevant across domains. Both observed that the nature of engagement will vary between disciplines/industries and that indicative evidence/measures would need to allow for differences. / There were strong views that engagement exists both within and outside the teaching and learning domain - however the general consensus is that it should be separate
- Should applicants apply under engagement plus one other domain?
See engagement as embedded and so can't separate it [as a separate category] appears to preference engagement over teaching and research; does suggest you could be promoted on teaching and engagement with no research; / No. Example discussed was mathematics - these people are "sole traders", they do not necessarily engage with others (on any criteria), yet they are a huge contributor to academia. So should still be recognised and promoted. Engagement should be supported, encouraged and recognised, but lack of engagement shouldn’t be punished.
Should be under all 3 - engagement, teaching AND research. Engagement shouldn't be a mandatory. I do like engagement plus one other but hear what others are saying. Ideological shift to learning and teaching as the number one thing.
- Should candidates address all criteria in a domain?
Yes, they should address all four criteria but may be stronger in some areas than others / Should be flexible - you can't be good at everything. Do what you do well. What if the correct opportunities don't come up? Not everything just the things that they are good at
Have a weighted application. Have a weighting associated with "engagement". How does leadership fit into the criteria? / Allowing a flexible model, people are able to specialise - through specialisation people develop excellence. Requiring people to tick all boxes can inhibit progression on elements that are less important in all cases.
Another view is that you should address all criterion, but recognise that some areas will be weaker. One limited area that is weaker, should not hold back a candidate.
Not supportive of a threshold requirement in criterion.
No. It could be difficult to meet all criteria within a domain - some are more natural within particular disciplines than others. It would be best to get people to develop and articulate strengths that make sense for the university and for their careers. Requiring "ticking of all boxes" will disperse effort and encourage cynical gaming of the promotion system. / No, they should use the criteria as guidelines but engagement with RMIT must be compulsory at ALL level. Engagement with RMIT can take place in many forms depending on the level ranging from simply attending the graduation ceremony to chair School/College/ University committee or working group
No - candidates should play to their strengths and everyone brings something different
Could weighting be placed on criteria but still all criteria has to be achieved and more weight given to those areas that are strengths
I would like to see only 1 or 2 addressed as it shows what each person uniquely needs and brings instead of trying to be everything at an average level
The promotions panel should be able to reward excellence in one area. If someone is excellent in one area, the best then that should be good enough
Isn’t it up to the academic themselves to show how they demonstrate their impact? / Yes but be able to nominate the % as to how you are judged. I.e engagement 50% teaching 30% research 20%. All 4 thought the criteria was good.
- Do the criteria adequately define practice in the domain?
None of the things are new is there something more modern exciting that we can add
Teaching domain - yes. The 4 criterion for teaching is very good.
Concern is the level expected to the standard criterion 1 (Level E).
How many people would meet that currently?
Leadership and contribution (in bold), setting the bar is very high. Q. at what point would you need to make an international contribution? If we set that criteria now, we will have very little people who meet that criteria. Level C (the language used "journals"), rather than "out in the public domain. Need to be careful with how we position this. If we are too "tough" on the criteria, fear is that people will look for the easiest path (e.g. research). / Bonkers - doesn't allow discretion
Super prescriptive or set out a framework is a discretion, candidate, head of school interrogate seems is value
Needs flexibility
In DSC workload allocation - throw it out, look at broad principle, necessarily counting every hour
In the current engagement criteria - assessment of quality how - may meet the indicators - where is the quality measure
It is big list - alignment aligning to ERA - research - promotion and workplans match to outside.
Engagement is embedded then match it to ERA code
Engagement is actually an output
Impact is embedded in here
Seems like a rehashing of leadership criteria
"Influence on professional practice" - is not measurable
Lead has always been a squishy animal - so engagement is becoming so.
Page 5 - idea is in the project - promoted on real content and then engagement comes off it.
Good thing is not just classroom - but activities outside is counting
if it leads to something - some output like to ERA
Research underpins translation - 6% of our income comes from research then what is
Why is the criteria capturing everything - why not just a framework that enables applicants and heads of schools- not be just a checkbox
quality - and how will you measure
Criteria 2 and 3 too similar and [difficulty] distinguishing the difference - it isn't clear to me the difference between design and development and delivery. Other than teaching / Yes in general. Need to factor in range of Publications in sectors and the lead time to publication as they vary and this creates imbalance when determining promotion. Need to review and look for the impact and build in measures to cater for impact. Add evidence of student learning
- At what level should a candidate have a PhD?
[DSC Table] DSC - you could not supervise a PhD student if you do not have a PhD. Need to address this student relationship in a different way. One of the challenges is having the PhDs that are appropriate to the discipline. Realistically, you may not be able to attract the right industry for positions that did not require a PhD. So rather than pin the need to a PhD to level, look at other options. However, if they want to move somewhere else, they really need a PhD (sector wide - internationally etc...). Keep the expectations as they are. I am not sure how it would work outside DSC (e.g. Science/ CoB). Also, interested in the impact on not having a PhD for grants. Can you secure the grants without a PhD? Further discussion, found examples (named people) where cited who did not have a PhD, however had a strong track record. / Not necessary for all candidates to have a PhD for a promotion application
Depends on university staff profile strategy and what it considers important, does the university want their academic staff to be researchers, teachers or engagers?
Noted it has been a requisite in the past that candidates must have a PhD
Requisite should vary between disciplines and individual cases – factor in an ‘exception to the rule’
Sometimes, PhD not in the university’s interest, often seen as a ‘tick box’ criteria (sometimes candidates do not possess the expertise, experience needed in the three identified domains of research, teaching and engagement)
No glass ceiling (eg. VC); would like to see new appointments at Lecturer/Snr Lecturer with PhD but allow for exceptions when someone has all the attributes we're after; if appointed then shouldn't be disadvantaged in promotion so we need to focus on how we can enable them to progress; we don't want to lose the qualities people with PhDs bring - need balance; if don't have PhD would need to demonstrate equivalency - perhaps engagement criteria would assist for staff who don't have PhDs / The VC doesn't have a PhD. Rather than a PhD you might excel in being an entrepreneur in your own business.
Level A for engineering. There are always exceptional cases though. When you've demonstrated the skill - its not about the level. Sometimes we need to compromise as we cannot find people with a PhD so we may be limiting our thinking. Level B - as the responsibilities are higher and they need PhD in order for them to be impactful. Traditionally its from a C to D - however we really don't apply it fairly at promotion. Why does someone have to have the PhD even if they almost finished it! Either say you need one and live and breath the criteria / No level
Consider TEQSA requirements
One option is make a rule that we only hire staff with PhDs
Engineering have a high proportion of staff with PhDs and that would continue
If no PhD then that would be to do specific job and caveats on what they can do; it makes sense with Industry Fellows - which should be able to be appointed at higher levels without a PhD
Very clear that PhD should be mandatory from Level B. Acknowledged potential of equivalent measures for specialists, e.g. from industry, for promotion to levels D and E.
- General feedback
How to support part-time applicants – would evidence be considered in relation to opportunity?
Overall supportive of the move to a new promotion system, and appreciated the fact that academics were being consulted at all stages of the process. / Was looking for examples of what engagement means especially in business. What if i own a business - is this considered.
What if the academic is much more embedded with the engagement body rather than exterior i.e. a full time academic and running their own business.
It’s all about students and that needs to be at the center of the discussion.
How do we give people the skills to be good at engagement? How do we give people confidence to engage. As a university do we trust our people to make decisions
Need capability build and skills development on "building a case for your promotion". Most people don't have this skill. Need to make the case to others outside of your discipline. The process of promotions doesn't integrate and link with workplanning, career management etc. It's not connected to other HR processes. / Weightings and messages of engagement are important to give it the value it deserves.
Measure. Longer than the annual year for engagement, teaching and research.
Weightings and measures (need greater level or detail) How will that work?
No longer interview people. Do we miss out capturing engagement outcomes?
Cultural change is required. Change performance indicators with leaders.
There was concern that the system adopted should not be open to "double counting" across the domains, or any other form of "gaming". / Culture has to change to regard teaching as equivalent in value to research Include feedback from PhD graduates in measurement. Application should be narrative based
The focus on engagement can go to challenge the nature of what is a University; if industry is to lead the University it challenges who we are / Important to have consultation process for research metrics because it is critical
For the Accounting discipline encourage staff towards industry engagement and research funding linkages (domestic and international) to enable them be:
- Finders - sourcing of opportunity, research-partner linkages
- Minders - connecting and linking opportunity, developing business strategy, leverage of connections
- Grinders - bringing it all together, implementation
Industry research to be leveraged as a source of research funding – need for development of policy and strategy to enable university and staff expertise to be showcased in the market
University to be aware of market and ensure promotions play to the market - use relevant data that guides towards the required number of promotions (do not over promote, under promote)
Query what impact there will be in removing "leadership" as a distinct category and absorbing this in engagement
Will this lead to a decrease in staff signing up for Ethics Committees, activities etc. that are currently taken up to fulfil the leadership requirements of the current AP process?
Group queried whether the AP requirement is a reason staff currently take up these roles or whether it is altruistic/for their own development/the good of RMIT. / Note - this submission is from one school and is relevant to both teaching and engagement
-Workplan should be key to promotion and career progression;
-workplan could put % of workload and contribution against the 3 domains and clear KPIs;
-need to build sophistication and consistency into workplanning and performance review to support this; need to set realistic and fair expectations
-once the criteria are clear and implemented - phase 2 is to build into workplans
- 1 -