Faculty of Health Sciences

University of Cape Town

Guidelines and Performance Criteria for Ad Hominem Promotion

For Academic Staff

2014

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………..……... 2

Scoring…………………..……………………………………………………………………………… 2

Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Teaching and Learning...... 4

Research…………………………………………………………………….………………………… 5

University Leadership, Management and Administration……..…………… 6

Social Responsiveness………………………………………………………………………… 8

Outline for an Extended Curriculum Vitae…………………………………………. 11

Performance Assessment Form HR175………………………………………………. 15

Summary Information Sheet……………………………………………………………….. 16

Introduction

This document has been put together to assist academic staff in the Faculty of Health Sciences prepare a portfolio for the Faculty Promotions & Remuneration Committee (FPRC). The portfolio will have four important components:

(1)  Performance Assessment Form HR175, completed by the staff member and his or her Head of Department (see page 15);

(2)  An expanded curriculum vitae, drawn up according to Faculty guidelines (see pages 12-14);

(3)  A summary information sheet (see page 17-22); and

(4)  Names of external referees.

To help candidates and heads of department fill in HR175, the detailed set of guidelines and criteria must be referred to. The HOD’s comments in this form are particularly pertinent since they will assist the FPRC decide if the points scored in a particular category are justified. The HoD should ensure that the HR175 is an adequate two to three page summary of the candidate. While the format of the extended CV may differ from the candidate’s current CV, it will greatly facilitate the FPRC’s interpretation of the person’s accomplishments. It is vitally important that the teaching and research contributions are placed in the correct context (see specific instructions on page).

In drawing up a list of referees, please provide five (5) names and up-to-date contact details. It will be particularly helpful if candidates: ensure that referee details are correct; highlight the expertise of the referee; note why a specific referee has been chosen; and request permission from each referee to be used. Note that the Faculty’s Human Resources Office will approach each referee and so, given the normal time constraints, e-mail addresses should be provided. For promotion to Professor and Associate Professor it will strengthen the candidate’s case when most, if not all, of the referees are of international standing (local and overseas). Referees commenting on a candidate’s clinical expertise should be local. Remember that the stature of the referee will add greatly to the influence of his or her report.

Criteria for Ad Hominem Promotions

Scoring

Candidates for ad hominem promotion are assessed with reference to four categories of work: (1) teaching and learning; (2) research; (3) leadership and administration; and (4) social responsiveness. The last category includes clinical service, community outreach, policy input, health system development and activities that Basic Scientists can pursue. Candidates are required to choose how to weight these four categories to reflect the balance of their own particular workload. Each category has a minimum and a maximum weighting as follows:

Category /

Weighting

/ Points Score
Teaching and learning / 2 – 5 / 1 – 10
Research / 2 – 5 / 1 – 10
Leadership and administration / 1 – 5 / 1 – 10
Social responsiveness / 1 – 5 / 1 – 10

The chosen weightings must add up to a total of 10. The points scored by a candidate in each of the four categories are then multiplied by the weighting for that category. This results in a final score of between 1 and 100. For ad hominem promotion a minimum points score is applied. The Faculty Promotions & Remuneration Committee (FPRC) is not bound to use these scores as absolute cut-off points but any decision to disregard the score has to be motivated extremely strongly. Such deviations are the exception and not the rule.

Rank / Points Score
80+ with a minimum score of 7 in Research
70 – 80 with a minimum score of 5 in Research
60 – 70
50 – 60
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer

Guidelines

The FHS Performance Criteria for Academic Ranking (attached) is to be used for the assessment for ad hominem promotion.

The guidelines for the four categories in which staff are scored for promotion are designed to score candidates in a realistic and appropriate fashion. With this in mind, they are weighted in such a way as to make achievement of higher scores progressively more difficult. To be rated in an appropriate category, an individual should achieve the majority of the criteria within the category.

The objective of this exercise is to give departmental heads and staff a realistic appreciation of the expected performance requirement of their academic ranking. To this end it is imperative that departmental heads score the performance of the candidates in a realistic and objective fashion. Evidence to support the scores awarded should be included in Form HR175 or a separate submission.

For promotion to Senior Lecturer, a PhD or appropriate higher specialist qualification is recommended.

For promotion to Associate Professor or Professor, a PhD or appropriate higher specialist qualification is required.

The guidelines have been designed so that the normal, average performance of an individual would gain the score of 5 points. This means that the normal, expected level of performance for individuals at Lecturer level would be no better than a combined score of 50 – 60 points. It is imperative that Heads of Department recognise that this does not represent under-achievement or unduly harsh scoring, but in fact represents normal achievement. Unrealistically high scoring of candidates by departmental heads makes the work of the Faculty Promotions & Remuneration Committee much more difficult and also creates unreasonable expectations, and consequently grievances, in the minds of the applicants. HODs are urged to meet with each applicant for ad hominem promotion in their Department with a view to arriving at a mutually agreed and realistic score. In the case of staff scoring below the expected levels the Procedure for Addressing Under- and Unsatisfactory Performance must be followed. Where there is a consistent level of above expected scoring, staff may be considered for Ad Hominem Promotion or Merit and Excellence Awards.

Under Teaching & Learning, contributions to both undergraduate and postgraduate teaching will be reviewed. Candidates are encouraged to prepare a teaching and learning portfolio with information such as teaching and curriculum innovations, assessment, courses taught, contact times, throughputs and student evaluations of teaching and learning. Evidence of postgraduate throughput should be included.

Under Research, evidence of quality research productivity including citation indices and impact factors that must be viewed in the context of the discipline in which the candidate works. Productivity will be judged not only on the number of articles published, but also on the standing of the journals in which they are published, the number of authors, and the contribution of the candidate. Recent publication carries more weight than work that is more than 5 years old.

It is important to specify the role and contributions of researchers on projects, namely principal investigators, co-investigators or collaborators, or any other role. This must be reflected in contribution to concept and design, grant-writing, and the provision of infrastructure. This information must be included in the extended CV.

Teaching and Learning

It should be recognised that a higher score can only be awarded when the staff member has already met most of the lower level criteria in the category.

Contributions to both undergraduate and postgraduate teaching (including clinical teaching by demonstration or bedside teaching) should be reviewed.

Score

1/2 Teaches very little; carries less than standard teaching load. Input into course content is minimal. Interaction with students is less frequent than would be expected for the course. Makes minimal contribution to students’ academic development. Is sometimes called upon to teach or demonstrate in clinical situations.

3/4 Carries standard undergraduate teaching and assessment load and performs adequately well on student evaluations. May also supervise post graduate students. His/ her reputation in the University is that of a competent lecturer. In clinical situations is called upon regularly to demonstrate clinical procedures or teach at the bedside or in outpatient situations OR an inexperienced teacher who is enthusiastic, flexible and adaptable and strives for improvement in class room teaching and or facilitation.

5/6 Carries an appropriate teaching load. Makes the most of learning opportunities in different settings and stimulates students’ critical thinking and problem solving. Has a good delivery and consistently uses the best available information. Makes evaluation part of the learning process. Is sensitive to issues of diversity, academic progress of students and non-academic needs. Successfully supervises post-graduate students and enables student growth and development through reflection on their own experience. Is responsive to opportunities offered by new technologies. Undertakes courses in higher education in order to improve or develop educational practice. Has a reputation as a good clinician educator, able to impart skills and knowledge to UG and/or PG students. Is invited to act as external examiner for other universities.

7/8 Demonstrates a high standard of teaching and contributes to educational development in many different ways. Has an effective working knowledge of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that underpin current educational practices. Actively explores opportunities offered by new technologies. Is well known as an excellent, empathetic, innovative, and inspiring teacher. Initiates and introduces new programmes and or courses and or new approaches in existing curricula. May have obtained a qualification in higher education. Is an effective postgraduate student supervisor who has successfully supervised several masters and doctoral research students to completion. Examines and lectures away from the University. Acts as an educational consultant/reviewer to established higher educational institutions. Has a reputation nationally as a clinical consultant in the teaching of clinical procedures. Is an effective mentor to colleagues and encourages them to improve their teaching methods and techniques.

9/10 He/she is an educational leader whose contributions represents a body of achievement in policy/curriculum development that is internationally recognized. Contributions have had a significant impact on faculty/university/national educational practices. Currently highly productive and has an outstanding throughput of postgraduate students. Is valued national and internationally as an effective examiner of masters and doctoral theses. Is recognized internationally as an expert in the teaching of clinical procedures.

Research

It should be recognised that a higher score can only be awarded when the staff member has already met most of the lower level criteria in the category.

Evidence of research productivity and quality, including citation indices and where relevant evidence of research impact into policy, practice or law, must be produced. Productivity will be judged not only on the number of articles, chapters and research reports published, but also on the standing of the journals or books in which they are published, their impact, the number of authors, and the contribution of the staff member. Recent publication carries more weight, although lifetime scholarly activities will also be taken into account. In addition, the staff member’s ability to secure funding and other resources to support research activities and generate knowledge will be considered. It is important to specify the role and contributions of researchers on projects, namely principal investigators, co-investigators or collaborators, or any other role. This must be reflected in contribution to concept and design, grant-writing, and the provision of infrastructure. The committee will also take into account the output/productivity of postgraduate students. All this information must be included in the extended CV.

Score

0 No evidence of any research activity

1/2 Commencing research and shows evidence of potential with the production research output (conference presentation/ publications).

3/4 Actively involved in research with evidence of recent productivity shown or an established researcher showing limited but steady productivity - over several years. Publishes in local journals with some publications in international journals. Occasionally attends scientific conferences. Depends substantially on internal funding for research.

5/6 Established researcher that demonstrates consistent research output (at least 2 peer reviewed publications/ annum over the last 5 years) or a young researcher with exceptional early record (at least 3 peer reviewed publications/ annum over the last 3 years. Is recognised in his/her field, and work is regularly cited. May have patents as a measured output of scholarly products of research. Conference participation is regular, mostly through contributed papers at international and local conferences. Sometimes a referee for local or international journals. Attracts sufficient funds to maintain his/her own research and postgraduate students.

7/8 One of the best known in his/her field nationally and with a wide reputation internationally. Demonstrates senior/ first authorship in peer reviewed publications. Work is frequently cited. Substantial independent support from fundingagencies. Nationally competitive, may be a SA MRC/NRF fund-holder. Regular conference participant, often by invitation, to international meetings. Is on the organizing committee of international conferences. Major figure at local conferences and runs workshops/symposia to introduce state of the art methodology/approaches to research. Is on the editorial board and often used as a referee for international journals. Is the leader of a research group, must demonstrate evidence of post graduate outputs (publications). Supervision of postdoctoral fellows is strongly recommended. Contributes to the concept and design of projects of other researchers, including staff. Is successful in attracting external funding.

9/10 Among the top researchers in his/her field internationally; papers very frequently cited relative to the best in the field internationally. Strongly supported by local and international funding agencies for investigator initiated research. Frequently invited to present plenary lectures at international conferences and serves as Chair at sessions. Is usually on the editorial board of several international journals. Frequently used as a referee for high impact journals. Leader of a large, high achievement research group. Is outstandingly successful in attracting external funding for research costs, i research officers and research students.

University Leadership, Management and Administration

It should be recognised that a higher score can only be awarded when the staff member has