1. Purpose
1.1 These procedures outline the process for annual promotion rounds and make clear the requirements of Senior Officers of the University to ensure administrative responsibilities are fulfilled and policy principles are implemented effectively.
1.2 These procedures must be read in conjunction with the linked Academic Promotion – Operational Policy.
2. Scope and application
2.1 These procedures apply to full-time and fractional academic staff.
3. Definitions
3.1 Refer to the University’s Glossary of Terms for definitions of terms as they specifically relate to policy documents.
4. Preparing for a promotion application
4.1 People and Culture can coordinate information sessions for prospective applicants, held around the time of the call for applications.
4.2 There is no set formula for success in promotion. Committees judge each application on its merits, weighing up the mix of achievements and evidence each applicant puts forward, as set out in the Academic Performance Standards Framework, and the coherent case each applicant makes based on this evidence.
4.3 With the exception of Level E applications, the timeframes considered in promotion applications are:
(a) the last 5 years; or
(b) since commencing at the University, when employed for less than 5 years; or
(c) since last promotion, when promotion occurred within the last 5 years.
4.4 In the case of Level E applications, the entire career is considered with a focus on the last 5 years.
5. Call for applications
5.1 On behalf of the Vice-Chancellor and President, the Director, People and Culture calls for applications each year.
5.2 Within 10 working days of the call for applications, prospective applicants who are considering applying for promotion must:
(a) advise their Cost Centre Manager via email of their intention to apply and provide a completed summary sheet (section 5 of the Academic Promotion Application Form).
(b) when the prospective applicant is a Dean, they advise the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), via email, of their intention to apply and provide a completed summary sheet (the first two pages of the Academic Promotion Application Form).
(c) when the prospective applicant is a Director of a UniSC Research Centre or Institute, they advise the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation), via email, of their intention to apply and provide a completed summary sheet (the first two pages of the Academic Promotion Application Form).
(d) the Cost Centre Manager must provide a response via email within 5 days of receipt.
5.3 Within 10 working days of notification of intent to apply from prospective applicants, the Cost Centre Manager speaks with each prospective applicant to discuss their intention to apply and provides advice about the content of the summary of their case for promotion. This can include recommending not applying, or postponing applying when the Cost Centre Manager deems it to be in the best interests of the prospective applicant because the case is not likely to substantiate the performance and achievement required for promotion.
6. Applications
6.1 All applications for academic promotion must be on the official Academic Promotion Application Form.
7. Submission of applications
7.1 Applications must be submitted by email to promotion@usc.edu.au by 5.00 pm AEST on the closing date, which is specified in the call for applications. Any late applications are not accepted.
7.2 When an application is received from an applicant who failed to advise of their intention to apply, the application is deemed ineligible for consideration by the relevant Promotions Committee.
7.3 People and Culture acknowledges receipt of each application in writing to the applicant.
7.4 People and Culture forwards each application via email to the relevant Cost Centre Manager.
7.5 The Cost Centre Manager has 10 working days from the closing date to submit via email to People and Culture (promotion@usc.edu.au) the following:
(a) completed signature section in Part Two, Section 3 of the application form; and
(b) for applications to Levels D and E, the name and contact details of at least 2 recommended independent external assessors with a brief statement of why the person has been chosen and an indication of their standing within the discipline or field.
7.5 When the Cost Centre Manager is of the view that an application does not present a persuasive case and provide clear evidence of sustained academic performance and achievement at a higher level than that to which an applicant is currently appointed, the Cost Centre Manager can counsel an applicant to withdraw their application. An applicant can choose whether or not to heed the counsel. To withdraw an application, the applicant should email promotion@usc.edu.au.
8. Information to supplement applications for promotion
8.1 Independent external assessments
8.1.1 Independent external assessments are sought for applications to Levels D and E. An independent assessor must be a full Professor who is an internationally recognised expert within the applicant’s discipline/field. An assessor does not act as a referee, but as an eminent expert who is invited to offer a balanced and confidential assessment of the merits of the application and an indication of the applicant’s academic standing, impact and influence. The independence of the assessor to the applicant is critical to ensure an objective assessment.
8.2 Research performance data
8.2.1 For each application, the committee members access applicant’s individual research data online.
8.2.2 The research data includes information on the applicant’s:
(a) publications;
(b) grants; and
(c) Higher Degree by Research (HDR) supervisions and completions at the University.
8.2.3 Applicants to Level E need to provide their own information of income, supervision and publication from previous positions at other institutions. This must be provided in the CV and referred to in the application. It is important that applicants distinguish the income they received from externally funded grants and whether HDR students were supervised by the applicant as a co-supervisor or primary supervisor.
8.3 Referee reports
8.3.1 Applicants are responsible for distributing their complete applications to their nominated referees along with the last page of the Promotion Application Form which contains information for referees and the Referee Report Template. As directed in the application form, the referee then sends their confidential written referee report directly to People and Culture by the due date.
8.3.2 Table 1: Referees requirements identifies the minimum referees requirements for each promotion academic level.
Table 1: Referee requirements
Application Level | Referees | Conditions |
Level B | none | |
Level C | 2 | At least one external to University. |
Level D | 2 | Both external to University. |
Level E | 2 | Both external to University. |
8.3.3 Referees are considered external to the University when they have not been a staff member or adjunct staff member of the University within the five years before the year of the promotion application. Otherwise, they are considered an internal referee.
8.3.4 A Cost Centre Manager cannot act as a referee for an applicant within their work area.
8.4 Presentations
8.4.1 Applicants to Level E must deliver a 10-minute presentation to the Professorial Promotion Committee followed by a question-and-answer session.
8.4.2 Applicants are advised of the promotion presentation schedule. Presentations generally occur in November and applicants should make themselves available at the time they are scheduled.
8.5 Supervisor checklist
8.5.1 Applicants must provide their full application form to their supervisor with sufficient time to allow the supervisor to complete the Supervisor Checklist and return it to the applicant prior to the closing date of submission of applications.
8.5.2 The applicant must submit the Supervisor Checklist with the promotion application form by the closing date.
8.5.3 When there has been a recent change to a supervisor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) can assign an alternate supervisor, in consultation with the applicant.
8.6 Updates to applications
8.6.1 Applicants have one opportunity to provide additional information after lodging their application. An update to an application must not exceed 200 words. The update can only be used to provide additional information relating to the content of their application that has arisen since lodgement of the application. The date by which updates to applications can be made is published in the academic promotion timeline.
9. Supervisor role
9.1 The supervisor plays a key role in all stages of an applicant's promotion application, particularly in assisting and advising applicants in the preparation of their application.
9.2 An applicant’s supervisor, in consultation with the supervisor’s direct line manager when required, play a strong role in providing advice and comment on the quality of the application and whether the application builds a compelling case for promotion. The supervisor should use the summary section of the promotion application form to assist in assessing the strength of the case for promotion and for guiding discussions with the applicant.
9.3 The supervisor is involved in the provision of feedback to both successful and unsuccessful applicants and in assisting unsuccessful applicants to implement any actions from the feedback and planning for professional development.
10. Promotions committees
10.1 Two committees are constituted to consider applications from eligible staff. When constituting the Committees, gender and diversity balance is taken into consideration.
10.2 Academic Promotions Committee
10.2.1 The Academic Promotions Committee evaluates applications to Level B and Level C and makes recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor and President via the Chairperson. The Academic Promotions Committee comprises:
(a) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (as Chairperson);
(b) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) or nominee agreed to by the Chairperson;
(c) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) or nominee agreed to by the Chairperson;
(d) at least 2 Deans or Director of a UniSC Research Centre or Institute nominated by the Chairperson.
10.3 Professorial Promotions Committee
10.3.1 The Professorial Promotions Committee evaluates applications to Levels D and E. The Professorial Promotions Committee comprises:
(a) Vice-Chancellor and President or nominee (as Chairperson);
(b) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or nominee agreed by the Chairperson;
(c) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) or nominee agreed to by the Chairperson;
(d) Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) or nominee agreed to by the Chairperson;
(e) two external Professors. The Chairperson can select and invite prospective external Professors to join the Committee.
10.4 Promotions committees administration
10.4.1 The Chairperson can invite other suitably qualified people to join either Committee.
10.4.2 The Director, People and Culture allocates appropriate administrative support and procedural advice to both Committees.
10.4.3 Members of the relevant Promotions Committee are provided with:
(a) the documentation provided by each applicant;
(b) access to each applicant’s research data via the online My Research BI report;
(c) access to sources of teaching data referred to by the applicant in their application, where this is held centrally by the University;
(d) confidential written referee reports for applicants from the referees nominated by the applicant;
(e) for applications to Levels D and E, assessment from independent external assessors;
(f) any other relevant information.
10.4.4 A member of a promotions committee cannot introduce new information to the process.
10.4.5 Any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest of a Promotions Committee member in relation to an applicant must be declared to the Chairperson of the Promotions Committee prior to commencement of a committee meeting and managed in accordance with the Conflict of Interest – Governing Policy and Procedures. The Chairperson of the Promotions Committee decides if any action is necessary. Action can include exclusion of the member from the meeting during consideration of that application, or it can be determined that the Promotions Committee member can participate but they cannot advocate for an applicant.
10.4.6 Other than for feedback given to an applicant, all documents and discussions relating to promotion applications are to be treated with the strictest confidence by all participants in, and observers of, the promotion process. Members of promotions committees and observers are not to discuss applications, advice, recommendations or deliberations outside committee meetings.
10.4.7 The notes of meetings of the promotions committees are confidential and the only record of the committees’ deliberations. A summary of the reasons for recommending or not recommending each applicant is recorded.
11. Evaluation of applications
11.1 Members of the promotions committees evaluate applications to determine whether each applicant has demonstrated sustained performance and achievement commensurate with the level to which they are applying.
11.2 The academic performance and achievements of each applicant, as presented in the application, are evaluated in relation to the norms that prevail in the applicant’s particular discipline or field, and relative to opportunity.
11.3 The University’s wellbeing and reputation depends on a wide and varied range of academic contributions. When considering a case for promotion, it is recognised that:
(a) academic staff work in a variety of disciplines that have differing expectations and norms;
(b) some academic staff work in emerging disciplines that require unique contributions;
(c) work allocations for academic staff vary, particularly in relation to the proportion of time assigned to undertake teaching, research and engagement;
(d) the focus of an academic staff member’s work and the balance between the 3 areas of performance can change throughout their career;
(e) staff have diverse responsibilities and varying opportunities to engage in the full range of academic activities and service to the University; and
(f) specialisation in one area of activity can occur. When this is the case, the expectation is that there is emphasis on the designated areas of specialisation, however, evidence of accomplishment in the other areas where workload has been allocated would still be expected in accordance with the Academic Performance Standards Framework.
11.4 Those involved in reviewing or assessing promotion applications from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, are expected to bear in mind contextual factors, which can include:
(a) the academic career trajectory of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff could be longer and at a slower pace due to a range of factors;
(b) Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander staff can experience a higher degree of isolation within the institution;
(c) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff are likely to carry a substantial and largely invisible cultural load that places significant demands on their time and capacity;
(d) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff can emphasise communal achievements over individual achievements.
12. Academic performance standards
12.1 The University uses the Academic Position Classification Guidelines (PCGs), which are generic statements, to describe the broad categories of responsibilities of academic staff at different levels.
12.2 To evaluate applications objectively, fairly and rigorously, members of Promotions Committees need to be clear about the differences between the academic levels. The University has identified distinctions between academic levels in the activities, outcomes, quality, influence and impact of teaching, research and engagement in the Academic Performance Standards Framework. The PCG’s in conjunction with the Academic Performance Standards Framework, are used by promotions committees to determine recommendations to promote.
13. Recommendations and decisions to promote
13.1 On behalf of the Academic Promotions Committee, the Chairperson makes recommendations to promote to the Vice-Chancellor and President.
13.2 The Vice-Chancellor and President can seek advice or clarification from the Chairperson of the Academic Promotions Committee on any recommendation.
13.3 The Vice-Chancellor and President can approve or not approve any recommendation to promote.
13.4 The Vice-Chancellor and President’s decisions are final.
13.5 Each applicant is advised in writing whether or not their application has been successful. Feedback will be given verbally if requested by the applicant (see Section 14.2).
13.6 The Vice-Chancellor and President reports all promotions to Council.
13.7 After the promotion round is complete, the Vice-Chancellor and President announces promotions to the University community.
14. Unsuccessful applications
14.1 Re-application timeframe
14.1.1 When an application is deemed unsuccessful, the applicant is ineligible to apply in the year following an unsuccessful application.
14.1.2 In exceptional circumstances and with the support of the relevant Cost Centre Manager, the Chairperson of the relevant promotions committee can approve a staff member to re-apply in the year following an unsuccessful application.
14.2 Feedback to applicants
14.2.1 To assist with subsequent applications and future development, each unsuccessful applicant can request feedback on their application, and this is given by meeting with the Chairperson of the Promotions Committee or their nominee, and their Cost Centre Manager to discuss their application. Successful applicants are also encouraged to request feedback on their application to guide their career trajectory.
15. Request for review
15.1 An unsuccessful applicant for promotion can request a review when there is evidence of a a significant procedural irregularity in the promotion assessment process that had a material effect on the decision.
15.2 Disagreement with the promotion outcome is not grounds for a review.
15.3 A request for review is only considered after the applicant has met with the Chair of the Academic Promotion Committee to receive feedback on the outcome of their application and must be submitted to the Director, People and Culture (promotion@usc.edu.au) within 20 days of the feedback meeting for assessment.
15.4 A request for review must:
(a) clearly outline the alleged procedural error;
(b) detail the consequent significant impact of the decision; and
(c) provide any supporting evidence.
15.5 When the Director, People and Culture determines that no significant procedural error occurred, or the error had no material effect on the decision, the decision stands, and no further action is taken. The applicant is advised by email of the outcome.
15.6 When the Director, People and Culture determines that a procedural error has occurred, and this error had a material effect on the decision, the review is referred to the Vice-Chancellor and President for confirmation and to request the original promotions committee to reconsider the promotion outcome.
15.7 The relevant promotions committee reconsiders the information provided as part of the initial application along with any other information identified as relevant as part of the review process and recommends whether to uphold the original decision to the Vice-Chancellor and President.
15.8 When the original decision is overturned, the promotion is effective retrospectively to the date the original promotion would have become effective.
15.9 The Vice-Chancellor and President’s decision arising from a review is final.
16. Implementation
16.1 For successful applicants, promotion to the next level applies from 1 January in the year following the call for applications. Successful applicants are always appointed at Step 1 of the salary classification to which they are promoted.
17. Authorities and responsibilities
17.1 As the Approval Authority, Vice-Chancellor and President approves these procedures to operationalise the Academic Promotion - Operational Policy.
17.2 As the Responsible Executive Member the Vice-Chancellor and President can approve guidelines to further support the operationalisation of these procedures. All procedures and guidelines must be compatible with the provisions of the policy they operationalise.
17.3 As the Designated Officer the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) can approve associated documents to support the application of these procedures.
17.4 These procedures operate from the last amended date, with all previous iterations of procedures on academic promotions are replaced and no longer operating from this date.
17.5 All records relating to academic promotion must be stored and managed in accordance with the Records Management - Procedures.
17.6 These procedures must be maintained in accordance with the University Policy Documents – Procedures and reviewed on shortened annual policy review cycle.
17.7 Any exception to these procedures to enable a more appropriate result must be approved in accordance with the University Policy Documents – Procedures prior to any deviation from these procedures.
17.8 Refer to Schedule C of the Delegations Manual in relation to the approved delegations detailed within these procedures.
END