Inspired by my participation in the HEFCE-supported ‘Responsible metrics’ event, and motivated by my strong belief that promotion documentation should not be confidential and that the related process should be transparent, I will ‘publish’ documentation associated with my three promotion steps at IC. Lecturer to Senior Lecturer was covered in my last blogpost; this post discusses the Senior Lecturer-Reader step.
So, you’ve been promoted to Senior Lecturer. Now what? In the UK higher education system, the next position is the rather mysteriously titled ‘Reader’. According to Wikipedia, Reader indicates “an appointment for a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship”. Whatever its precise definition, whenever I mention the position of Reader to anyone from outside the UK, it is met with laughter, maybe as it conjures up images of a life spent in smoke-filled, wood-panelled rooms, simply reading and pondering great thoughts. The reality could not be more different, although I must admit I’ve never been to Oxbridge…
In some European universities, Reader is similar to a ‘Professor without a chair’ (cf. the rather oddly and luxuriously titled professor extraordinarius and professor ordinaries), whereas in the US, ‘Reader’ and ‘Professor’ would correspond to Full Professor. In fact, several UK universities (e.g. Leeds, Oxford, and, I think, Southampton), in what I assume is some sort of bizarre (to me at least) attempt to become more American, have relatively recently dispensed with the Reader grade; in their revised system, those currently holding Readerships retain this title, but with no new Readers being appointed. In these universities, US-inspired academic titles such as Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor are slowly being phased in, with ‘Readerships’ being combined with ‘Professorships’.
Semantics aside, having been promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2009, not too soon afterwards, in 2012, it was recommended I applied for promotion to Reader. As discussed in the first blog in this series, the promotions criteria at IC fall into four main, inter-related activities: (i) Education; (ii) Research; (iii) Leadership and Management; and (iv) Profession and Practice. Candidates are expected to demonstrate achievements in all these activities, but to different extents, with individual cases judged on their individual merits (i.e. you are not competitively compared to other candidates, inside or outside of your department and/or faculty).
The boundaries between grades, at IC at least, are rather fluid, with candidates, in general, expected to do ‘more’ as they progress. In terms of Education, the step from Senior Lecturer to Reader should be based on; (i) significant evidence of contributions to education within the department that have led to improvements and/or innovation in courses/module design and delivery; (ii) a significant contribution to tutoring and/or welfare of students and/or support for lecturers; and (iii) a thorough evaluation of courses and modules taking into account student learning and the validity of the curriculum.
Progression in terms of Research will involve a growing national and international reputation combined with individuals making an increasing impact on their discipline or profession. Whereas originality is important at the Senior Lecturer level, seminal research and influence becomes of increasing importance in moving to Reader.
In the area of Leadership and Management, the progression from Lecturer to Professor (and thus Senior Lecturer to Reader) will involve an increasing contribution to departmental/faculty/College management and regular involvement in staff development programmes that help to enhance academic, management and personal effectiveness skills.
Note that, again, I do not refer to ‘Profession and Practise’ as it’s not especially relevant to my discipline (or at least it was not an important criteria in any of my three promotion steps).
It’s worth restating here the following key points: (i) my intention is NOT to show off; especially given most the information in my promotion documentation is available on my website and associated CV; (ii) my intention is NOT to make people think this is the ONLY profile that allows someone to get a certain position at a certain institution; instead, I rather hope it provides a flavour of the process; (iii) I do not here provide copies of my references (of which six were required for the Senior to Reader promotion step), teaching evaluations, or four recent publications (“…which have had the greatest impact since the previous promotion or since appointment at the College, and that show what has been achieved in the interim.”) and their 100-word supporting statements, although I’m happy to provide these on request; and (iv) I provide no additional context related to my promotion application, such as whether I was in receipt of job offers.
Me, Mum, Olive, and Dad
Related to this last point, I should and it is perhaps worth coming clean; in 2012, I had been approached by at least three institutions in the UK. I obviously didn’t choose to make a move, as I was enjoying myself at IC, my family were settled in London, and I was not convinced that a move at that point in my career would provide me with much personal or professional benefit. Hence, I stayed put, but I made the department aware of the situation, largely on the recommendation of my Line Leader. Like I said before, such interest is important as it may give you a sense of your ‘market value’, and could shake your present employer from their slumber regarding the ability to fairly recognise your contribution.
Although I want to present my paperwork largely unadorned by commentary, it is perhaps worth mentioning two things: (i) in 2012, unlike in 2009, I had cause to provide additional information under “Personal Circumstances” (p35); first, we had our first daughter, Olive, and second, my Dad passed away, at a relatively young age, due to prostate cancer. It was an unusual year; and (ii) my use of metrics in 2012 was horrid (p25-27). I’ll be honest, I didn’t really understand what the numbers meant, largely because my JIF-world orbited between 1.5 and 4, and because we published “strategically” in journals that, although of low-JIF, were read by our industrial sponsors. Prestige is one thing, funding is another. I’d do things different now, and would recommend others do likewise.
So, here it is; the promotion documentation related to my (successful) application for a Reader position at IC. It’s worth noting that the highest grade achieved by Alan Turing was Reader…
During their careers, almost all academic ask themselves or others the seemingly simple question, “what do you need to do to get promoted?”. Indeed, it’s that time of year again at Imperial College (IC) when the results of the last promotion round are announced. There will be successes and disappointments, with candidates preparing to apply later this year hoping to learn something from this year’s applicants.
From my discussion with academics inside and outside of IC, answering the question above is tricky. This is al least partly due to: (i) the lack of specific or ‘tailored’ guidance on the criteria for promotion; and (ii) the lack of transparency related to the promotions process (which I will argue below may be real or perceived).
I’d argue that the promotions criteria at IC are fairly clear, falling into four main activities: (i) Education; (ii) Research; (iii) Leadership and management; and (iv) Profession and practice. The guidance states these activities are interrelated, and that candidates are expected to demonstrate achievements in all these activities, but to different extents. Our guidance also stresses that individual cases will be judged on their individual merits.
Staff may also be promoted from the lowest level to the highest, or to any intermediate level, as long as the criteria for the relevant level of promotion are met. Indeed, I have seen this at IC and in other institutions, when a particularly stellar period, perhaps comprising some exemplary administrative or teaching contribution, and/or significant grants or papers, led to a candidate essentially ‘leap-frogging’ a grade (or even two).
I guess I’m a fan of the flexibility encapsulated in the criteria wording; nobody wants to be decline for promotions because they average 2.5 vs. 3 papers per year, or they ‘only’ raised £45,000 vs. £50,000, or their teaching evaluations came out as ‘Very Good’ and not ‘Excellent’.
The 2015 ‘Richardson Review’, which, it might be argued, indirectly arose from the tragic death of Professor Stefan Grimm, enshrined the principle that attainment in these four activities should be recognised in a thoroughly evidence-based way, both when it comes to hiring and promotion. The impact of Grimm’s death and the Richardson Review are still being felt today.
I won’t recite IC’s Criteria for Promotion; they can be read in full here. However, because they are important for this and following blogs, I here summarise the key points:
Activities include: creative and clear teaching; development of appropriate curricula and courses; organisation of complex undergraduate and postgraduate programmes; design of appropriate assessment methods; teaching and assessing students with special learning needs; delivering teaching that recognises a diverse students cohort; effective feedback; incorporating change to meet the changing needs of students and the profession; tutoring; student support, welfare, pastoral care, outreach work; fostering students’ self-confidence and self-esteem to promote participation.
Measures of recognition include: effective management of educational programmes; teaching existing courses extremely well; creating new courses or revitalising existing courses; commendations by external examiners; receipt of teaching awards; acting as an external examiner; contributions to student welfare and pastoral care; research student supervision.
Progression in education will involve: a broadening of the contribution to education, from excellence in teaching delivery, through to the organisation and management of departmental education and student support activity, through to leadership in education research, and leadership on educational matters at Faculty and/or College level.
Activities include: undertaking independent and collaborative research; developing research proposals and winning financial support; planning, leading research activity and managing a research team; presenting findings at conferences; publishing results of research; planning and leading research activities of outstanding quality and national/international repute; contributing to the development and implementation of departmental/faculty research strategy.
Measures of recognition include: the quality and quantity of research output; a sustained track record in attracting research funding; a national and/or international reputation for research, reflected in level of output, level of innovation, and the impact on the discipline or profession; widely recognised excellence and reputation among peers; the award of prizes; giving prestigious lectures; membership of national and international committees e.g. Research Council and professional or government committees; work on editorial boards of scholarly journals; visiting appointments at other institutions.
Progression in research will involve: a growing national and international reputation combined with individuals making an increasing impact on their discipline or profession. At the Senior Lecturer level originality is important; seminal research and influence become of increasing importance in moving to Reader and Professor.
Leadership and Management
Activities include, in addition to managing the individual’s own work, contributing to the management of the department/faculty/College; formulate research and teaching strategy; recruiting and selecting staff; managing and motivating staff to achieve their objectives; promoting equality and implementing equal opportunities; undertaking effective performance and development reviews; acting as an Academic Adviser or mentor; membership of internal and external committees; acting as an Athena SWAN coordinator; involvement in public engagement activities.
Measures of recognition include proven capability to lead and design research/teaching programmes; effective and innovative formulation of research and teaching strategy; an active interest in personal development and developing others; regular involvement in staff development activities to develop academic, management and personal effectiveness skills; evidence of managing change successfully.
Academic leadership becomes of increasing importance in moving from Senior Lecturer to Reader and Professor. Progression from Lecturer to Professor will involve an increasing contribution to departmental/faculty/College management and regular involvement in staff development programs.
There is another category, ‘Profession and Practise’ (i.e. involvement in consultancies; contributing to continuing professional development; membership/leadership of respected institutions/organisations/peer review bodies; acting as an expert witness), which I don’t talk about here as it’s not especially relevant to my discipline (or at least it was not an important criteria in any of my three promotion steps).
So having argued that, at least in print, promotion criteria are clear and, in my view, pleasingly ‘non-metricised’ (again, at least in print), I now turn my attention to the transparency of the process and my motivation for this blog series. This can be traced back to the “The turning tide: A new culture of responsible metrics for research” event, hosted by the Forum for Responsible Research Metrics (FFRM) and supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
At this event, I was asked to sit on a panel discussing “The Researcher’s Perspective”. A key theme arising from the ‘Responsible Metrics’ event, which is echoed in many face-to-face and social media conversations I have with academics before and since, was ‘transparency’; i.e. not only are people worried about the statistical basis and thus value of metrics, but many feel they don’t even know what they are aiming for. In essence, what is a ‘good’ metric for a given career stage, in a given discipline, in a given institution?
At the end of my panel session at the HEFCE event, we were asked a simple question; “what one thing could be done by senior academic and academic managers to improve ‘transparency’ in academia, and to build confidence in the currents modes of assessment?”. My answer, which I’d not given a huge amount of thought at that point, was for us to share documentation of successful and unsuccessful application for promotions, and maybe even grants and employment. Even at the time I acknowledged this could be tricky, given that some of the associated documents contain personal and/or confidential information. However, I, and many of the attendees, saw value in the proposal, even if it’s Not What We Normally Do (*harrumph*).
So, to this end, I have decided to ‘publish’ the promotion documentation associated with my three promotion steps at IC; Lecturer to Senior Lecturer (2009), Senior Lecturer to Reader (2012), and Reader to Professor (2015). And motivated by a discussion with Ben Britton, I will publish a series of blogs to provide some context, with this one focused on my first promotion step (i.e. Lecturer to Senior Lecturer).
For this series, my intention is not to show off; especially as most this information in my promotion documentation is available on my website and associated CV. The very public nature of all my professional information motivates my willingness to share, as I strongly believe promotion documentation should not be confidential and I wish to encourage increasing the transparency of the process. I also hope that I can encourage colleagues to share their documentation too, in the vein that collectively we can improve the culture and shared understanding of the promotions process.
This documentation is not exhaustive with respect to a promotion, as there are absolutely critical details pertinent to my promotion that are NOT included in the main body of the promotion document that I supplied. For example, references are not included.
At Imperial College, as far as I recall, the step from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer requires six (6) references; one is a personal nomination by the applicant (I think I choose Prof Rob Gawthorpe, my PhD supervisor), and the other five are in principle selected by the applicant’s department, whereas in practise they are selected by the applicant’s department under the moderate guidance of the applicant…
Of the six references, I saw two. They were sent to me by the referees for comment, although I declined to make any. I, and the college I’m assuming, wanted the referees unabashed view of my candidature. I’m sure there’s some legal means to gain request to my references, but I (and I’m assuming others) don’t have the time or inclination. In fact, I think the references are simply kept on my file in HR, so I suspect I could ask them nicely if I wanted.
Another thing not presented here is a transcript of the interview itself; in 2008, applicants for promotion to Senior Lecturer were interviewed for 45 minutes, with the panel including the Head of HR and three academics not based in your department. The academic element of the panel were not Earth Scientists, it’s fair to say they had little or no detailed knowledge of my research; this is an interesting and important point when considering the potential use (and abuse) of metrics. The interview was not particularly penetrative.
I have not also included here: (i) copies of teaching evaluation (to be honest, at that time, student evaluation, at least for the MSc-level courses I taught on, was a complete disaster for many, many reasons); and (ii) four recent publications (“…which have had the greatest impact since the previous promotion or since appointment at the College, and that show what has been achieved in the interim.”), supported by a 100 word summary (“…of the importance and originality of the selected publications.”). I’m happy to provide these on request. I should add that the panel were, I’m guessing, supposed to read these papers (in line with the principles of DORA, which IC only signed in early-2017), although I didn’t get the sense they did.
Finally, there are come completely unseen, largely undocumented thing that may ‘support’ a promotion. For example, job offers or, at the very least, interest from other institutions may play an important role, although this was not especially relevant to my promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer). Such interest is important, as it can help give a sense of your ‘market value’. For example, your present employer may not deem your profiles worthy of a certain grade or pay, but somewhere else might. Your employer may just be over-familiar with your contribution (or your contribution is masked by that of others), but offers and interest from other institutions may sensibly and reasonably be used as a bargaining tool. Again, this isn’t captured in most promotion documentation, but it’s certainly important to be aware of. Indeed, if you look at a colleague and cannot work out why they’ve been promoted never forget: (i) their performance in interview; (ii) the strength of their references; and (iii) their broader ‘market value’ as judged by an external body.
So, what do I hope to achieve from this? Perhaps a small amount of self-calm in that I’ve demonstrated some transparency, having initially raised this myself at the HEFCE event. People may also get an idea of what might be required to get a certain position at a certain institution.
However, my intention is NOT to make people think this is the ONLY profile that allows someone to get a certain position at a certain institution; instead, I rather hope it provides a flavour of the process. This can be seen by looking at the profiles of similar grade staff in my own department, in other departments/faculties in IC, or in any other institution. I hope that in providing transparency, for example by having ALL documents public, people may get a sense of the true variability in profiles that may allow promotion (or hiring).
Anyway, with all this in mind, you can now, time and sanity permitting, go through my Senior Lecturer promotion documentation and assess for yourself if, in 2009, I met the criteria outlined above. It is worth noting that, the way in which we evaluate how ‘good’ we are as academics, at IC and elsewhere, has undoubtedly changed over the last nine years; at IC, this has been at least partly driven by the Richardson Review and our recent signing of DORA. However, many things perhaps remain the same.
So…having been trapped in Arkansas for a little longer than planned, I decided to write a close-out blogpost for my GSA James B. Thompson Distinguished Lecturer Tour. As documented here and on Twitter, and as you will read below, I’ve had an amazing time. It is hard and perhaps unfair (unwise, even) to pick-out and list all the cool stuff I’ve done or awesome people I’ve met; all that is documented in the blow-by-blow posts. However, having scrolled back through my old posts, it is these five days/experiences/’things’ that will probably stick in my mind for the next few weeks, months and years…enjoy.
1. My day at the University of Connecticut – feeling refreshed having spent the weekend recuperating in Blacksburg, VA with Brian Romans and friends, I was full of beans as I landed in New England and walked around the beautiful, leafy campus of UConn with my host Julie Fosdick. However, it was the unbelievably friendly, open, chatty faculty who made this one of the most memorable days of the tour; they wanted to talk as much about life as they did about research. I laughed more on this day than on any other day of the tour; this was perfect, setting me up nicely for the final, gruelling week. In fact, it was really the people, including my awesome hosts, who made the whole tour. Without them, the tour would have simply been a bunch of PowerPoint slides, long waits in vomit-beige, provincial US airports, and sole-dining on, in some cases, poor-quality calories.
2.‘Moped day’ on Honolulu – Sometimes spontaneity, and to be honest downright recklessness, can lead to great things. Being low on underpants and spending time doing laundry in Waikiki, I realised I didn’t want to spend time doing laundry in Waikiki. I was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on a tropical island; surely there must be something else to do? Remembering I use to ride a motorbike, and that a motorbike is essentially a regular bike with a motor, I walked to a random garage at the end of the strip and hired a moped. My day became infinitely better, as I rode around a giant monogentic crater, saw a.maze.ing pyroclastic deposits, and ate tacos on the beach before, you know, watching humpback whales from Makapu’u Point. Don’t think. Simply do.
Pavement art, Waikiki Beach, Honolulu, HI.
Mopeds are so much fun. I highly recommend them.
The volcaniclastics exposed at Lanai Lookout, east of Honolulu, HI, were, quite frankly, some of the best rocks I have ever seen.
Diamond Head at sunrise, Honolulu, HI. The run that followed was hard. Real hard.
3. Kilauea – Panicking about the right flights to take; being short on time; worrying about car hire and accommodation; pondering the wisdom of vlogging. All of these things almost conspired to make me not go to Big Island and the volcano of Kilauea. However, the lure of lava was too great, and I was rewarded with a fun-filled, action-packed 24 hours. So followed a chance encounter with my friend Gulce, a cycle ride across ancient lava fields to a lava tube sea entry, Lady Gaga at the Super Bowl half-time show whilst eating poke and staring out at the lava-filled summit crater, and a stay at a kooky B&B in the aptly named village of ‘Volcano’. Again, don’t think. Simply do.
Pahoehoe lavas, southern flank of Kilauea, Big Island, HI. A stunning landscape.
Even though I didn’ directly see the lava pipe on Big Island, how can I complain when the overall view was like this.
4. Science (defined by the Gods of Wikipedia as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe) – Scientific discoveries. People attacking science. People marching for science. Science has been in the news a lot lately. In fact, my tour was ostensibly about science. Growing up, science seemed such a serious, grown-up word, conjuring-up images of lab coats, simmering, smoking vials, and crazy-haired, white, male scientists. Science is and will remain some of those things, although this tour has taught me or at least reinforced for me that science is a rather weird thing. It can still cause me to scratch my head and weep into my pillow, but it can and actually normally is, full of fun and downright silliness. We can be so serious when reviewing papers for journals or asking questions at conferences; however, the same scientific discourse, for that’s what it is, can occur in far less formal settings, such as in dive bars in New York City, at the top of mountains overlooking the foothills of the Rockies, or when trail running and dodging tortoises in the Ozark mountains. I think we should take science into these places too.
Science? Nah. The tour is about people. Here with Matt Hall and Graham Ganssle in Battery Park, NYC
Like I said. I run. Here with John and Matt, trail running in the Ozarks, Arkansas
All the things I like; friend, running, Boulder and awesome geology.
The tour was as much about the people as the science. Derek Sawyer at Ohio State was one of the best.
5.Day 2 in Golden – Yes, I not long got back from Hawaii and yes, the talk at Colorado School of Mines has gone well the day before, and yes the weather was unseasonably gorgeous. So on reflection, maybe it was these things that contributed to making Day 2 in Golden, CO so awesome. However, Day 2 certainly did it own thang by including: (i) a pre-breakfast run up the gorgeous South Table Mountain with Jesse, Rich and Zane, crossing the K-T boundary and getting spectacular views westwards across the blue sky-mantled Rocky Mountains; (ii) a visit to the USGS for a meeting with Rich, Chris and Ryan; we discussed normal faults straight for around two hours. I was in heaven and my brain was fizzing; (ii) a walk in the sunshine to look at Late Cretaceous dinosaur trackways (my obsession with dinosaur trackways is now well-documented); (iv) an afternoon looking at awesome seismic data with bright, mustard-keen CSM students; and (v) a drive into the Rocky Mountains with Bruce, Jesse and Zan to the town of Nederland to eat hipster, sourdough-based pizza, and to watch live bluegrass(-inspired) music at the famous Caribou Lounge. Just to top things off, I caught a glimpse of the continental divide. I don’t think my heart could take everyday being like Day 2 in Golden, although I would dearly love it to be the case.
In the context of equality and diversity, someone recently mentioned on Twitter that we should think really, really hard about selecting nominees and winners of professional society and institutional awards. They remarked these awards can be life-changing, and should be thus taken seriously. I strongly concur and would argue that they should be life-changing; what value really is another award to simply throw onto the shelf alongside millions of other awards? Recognition should be cherished. I can safely say that for some of the reasons listed above and documented elsewhere in my blog, this has been a life-changing experience for me. I am happy and proud to have represented GSA, and thank them for allowing me to have this experience. I’d also like to say thanks to Vicki, Olive, Hazel and Norah, who have put up with me being a long, long way away, for a long, long time…xxx. Seis_matters, signing-off.