Head of School Process
|Head of School to meet with all potential applicants for promotion, particularly targetting those who demonstrate potential to succeed, having also discussed it at appraisal|
|In order to allow sufficient time for references to be received Heads of School are required to provide information on referees at this stage for Professor and Reader applications|
|Convene and chair School Promotion Committee in accordance with Committee Constitution Guidelines|
|Complete and submit Head of School report and signed minutes of School Promotions Committee|
|Attend Faculty Promotions Committee to make a verbal presentation on each application|
|Together with the Faculty PVC provide verbal feedback to all applicants|
Key points to note
The School Promotion Committee will include Director(s) of Research and Director(s) of Education, senior colleagues in the relevant School and one Head and one Professor from other cognate School(s) as nominated by the relevant Faculty PVC and where appropriate, other senior colleagues from their own School selected on account of their subject expertise. In exceptional cases the Head of School may also need to include persons from other schools to ensure that the composition of the group complies with the requirements of the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy.
Take minutes of the meeting and ensure they are signed by those consulted. Any lack of consensus at the meeting must be explicitly stated in the minute of the meeting.
The Head of School report should provide an evaluative overview of the candidate’s case for promotion referring to the School’s academic standards and the academic profile. The report should also include a critical analysis of the application’s strengths and weaknesses. Any relevant subject-specific knowledge and context should also be included here.
The Head of School’s report must confirm the factual accuracy of the application and that there has been consistent treatment. The report must indicate clearly in each specific area(s) in which the applicant meets or does not meet the required level.
The report must also detail the impact on the applicant’s academic profile which may be considered to have been due to personal circumstances (Section 3 of the Head of School Report). Whilst all staff are expected to meet the University’s quality criteria, a reduction in the quantity will be considered in light of individual circumstances assessed having regard to the quality of outcomes and the nature and duration of the absence. Specific issues that might have an impact on the application could include:
- absences for maternity, paternity, parental or adoption leave and arrangements on return to work following these periods;
- part-time or other flexible working arrangements;
- periods of absence or flexible working arrangements or limitations arising from a disability, ill-health or injury;
- career breaks;
- personal, family, or other non-academic circumstances that have restricted or delayed the applicant’s professional career;
- secondments and previous employment.
Where the applicant is a Head of School, the report must be submitted by the Faculty PVC on the basis of consultation with all Director(s) of Research and Director(s) of Education, senior colleagues in the relevant School and one Head and one Professor from other cognate School(s) as nominated by the relevant Faculty PVC and where appropriate, other senior colleagues from their own School selected on account of their subject expertise. In exceptional cases the Head of School may also need to include persons from other schools to ensure that the composition of the group complies with the requirements of the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy. A minute of these discussions must be kept by the Faculty PVC and seen by the senior colleagues consulted.
In the case of applicants for Professorship and Readership, the Head of School is responsible for prioritising the list of the applicant’s referees and for providing the names and addresses (this must include e-mail addresses) of three external referees in a priority order. The top two ranked references from each list will be called for consideration by the appropriate University Promotions Committee. In order to assess the international reputation of an applicant it would normally be expected that one referee should be from outside UK institutions. However it is recognised that this may not be appropriate for all disciplines. Normally no more than one of the applicant’s collaborative researchers may be named as a referee. Heads of School are required to ensure that the referees they have nominated have given their permission to be contacted. The Referees list must be returned to Personnel by Monday 6 February 2017 via Queen’s Online.
- Correspondence from Director of Human Resources
- Academic Promotions Scheme 2017
- Academic Profiles
- Equality and Diversity Policy