Faculty of Business & Economics Quantitative Research ...

Faculty of Business & Economics Quantitative Research Standards 2016

Business & Economics: Faculty of Business and Economics (Teaching and Research Staff) Research Standards 2016

Teaching and Research Staff

A ? Assistant Lecturer (T&R)

Min Aspirational

B ? Lecturer (T&R)

C - Senior Lecturer (T&R)

Min Aspirational Min

Aspirational

D - Associate Professor (T&R)

Min

Aspirational

E- Professor (T&R)

Min

Aspirational

1) RESEARCH OUTPUTS

Quality Publication Score

0.33

0.66

0.66

1.00

0.66

1.33**

1.00

1.66**

1.33

2.00**

2) RESEARCH INCOME 3) SUPERVISION

$0

$0

$0

$10,000

$0

$25,000

$10,000

$40,000

$20,000

$60,000

HDR load

0

0

0

0.25

0.25

0.75

0.75

2.00

2.00

3.00

Notes:

(1) The Quality Publication Score includes only (i) A1 and B1 publications from the Faculty Quality Publishers List and (ii) C1 publications from Group 1+, Group 1, and Group 2 of the Faculty Quality Journals List. When an aspirational standard is marked with ** in the table, then to meet the standard at least one publication must also be either (i) an A1 Group 1 publication on the Faculty Quality Publishers List; (ii) a C1 Group 1+ publication on the Faculty Quality Journals List; or (iii) a C1 Group 1 publication on the Faculty Quality Journals List.

(2) Quality publication scores are based on the following schedule of weighted points and are not prorated across authors. Authored Research Book (A1) Group 1= 5pts Authored Research Book (A1) Group 2 = 3pts Book Chapter (B1) Group 1 = 1 pt Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 1+ = 5pt Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 1 = 3pts Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 2 = 1pt

(3) Research Income relates to the annual average amount earned over the current three year cycle. It includes all Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 income and is not prorated across investigators.

(4) HDR Load is calculated on an EFTL basis. The principal supervision of a full-time student is the equivalent to a 0.75 EFTSL load. Associate supervision of a full-time student is the equivalent of a 0.25 EFTSL load.

(5) The numbers in each row refer to annual averages (over a rolling 3-year period). (6) All performance criteria should be evaluated relative to opportunity.

Business & Economics: Faculty of Business and Economics (Research Only Staff) Research Standards 2016

B ? Lecturer (RO)

Research-Only Staff

C - Senior Lecturer (RO)

D - Associate Professor (RO)

E- Professor (RO)

Min

Aspirational

Min

Aspirational Min

Aspirational Min

Aspirational

1) RESEARCH OUTPUTS

Quality Publication Score 2) RESEARCH INCOME

1.0

1.33

1.0

1.66**

1.33

2.00**

1.66

2.33**

$0

$40,000

$20,000

$60,000

$30,000 $125,000 $75,000 $200,000

3) SUPERVISION

HDR load

0

0.25

0.25

0.75

0.75

2.00

2.00

3.00

Notes:

(1) The Quality Publication Score includes only (i) A1 and B1 publications from the Faculty Quality Publishers List and (ii) C1 publications from Group 1+, Group 1, and Group 2 of the Faculty Quality Journals List. When an aspirational standard is marked with ** in the table, then to meet the standard at least one publication must also be either (i) an A1 Group 1 publication on the Faculty Quality Publishers List; (ii) a C1 Group 1+ publication on the Faculty Quality Journals List; or (iii) a C1 Group 1 publication on the Faculty Quality Journals List.

(2) Quality publication scores are based on the following schedule of weighted points and are not prorated across authors. Authored Research Book (A1) Group 1= 5pts Authored Research Book (A1) Group 2 = 3pts Book Chapter (B1) Group 1 = 1 pt Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 1+ = 5pt Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 1 = 3pts Refereed article in a scholarly journal (C1) Group 2 = 1pt

(3) Research Income relates to the annual average amount earned over the current three year cycle. It includes all Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 income and is not prorated across investigators.

(4) HDR Load is calculated on an EFTL basis. The principal supervision of a full-time student is the equivalent to a 0.75 EFTSL load. Associate supervision of a full-time student is the equivalent of a 0.25 EFTSL load.

(5) The numbers in each row refer to annual averages (over a rolling 3-year period). (6) All performance criteria should be evaluated relative to opportunity.

Guidelines on the Usage of the 2016 Faculty Research Standards (FRS)

The purpose of this document is to explain how the Faculty, within the University's current policy environment, will apply the 2016 quantitative research standards to (i) promotion and (ii) the assessment of minimum performance. These guidelines will be of special interest to Heads of Departments, Directors of Research Centres, PDO Supervisors, and Faculty promotion committees.

Promotion

As in previous years, the 2016 Faculty Research Standards contain both minimum and aspirational standards. However, in interpreting and applying the new standards, it is important to note the meaning and purpose of aspirational standards. Prior to 2013, aspirational standards were designed as targets to which academic staff seeking promotion should aim. In effect, the practice was that if a staff member met the aspirational standards of their current level and the minimum standards of the level above them, then they had a prima facie case for promotion.

This connection between aspirational standards and promotion no longer holds. In the 2016 FRS, aspirational standards have been set at a level consistent with the university's strategic vision to be the leading university in the Asia-Pacific region. They are, therefore, explicitly `stretch' targets, targets that we should be aspiring to as part of our drive to fulfil the university's ambitions. Indeed, it is fully acknowledged and anticipated by the university that the majority of staff will not meet all of the Faculty's aspirational standards. It must be emphasised that, as a consequence, aspirational standards no longer directly specify what targets staff need to meet to obtain promotion.

Instead, the new role of aspirational standards is to provide staff with a strong indication of the expected level of achievement required for promotion in each of the three independent areas of research performance: research outputs, research income, and HDR supervision. It is important for staff to understand that meeting all dimensions of the aspirational standards is neither necessary nor sufficient for promotion. It is recognised that each staff member's career and achievements may be focused in certain areas of research performance more than others. Aspirational standards should, therefore, be used to build a narrative on the reasons why promotion is warranted. Staff members should be encouraged to use both quantitative and qualitative indicators of research performance to construct their case.

A useful approach is to think of the aspirational standards in much the same way as the weighting of the overall promotion application (where weights are assigned to research, education, and service). As part of the research component of their application, staff should spell out what has been the strategy underpinning their research performance, where their efforts have been focused, and what their achievements have been. The aspirational standards provide staff with guidelines as to what a high level of performance in each particular area of research activity might look like. While there may be cases where

1

demonstrably exceptional performance in just one area (such as, say, publications) may justify promotion, in the majority of cases, applications will typically draw upon the staff member's achievements across a range of research activities. There will obviously be considerable scope for variation in the composition of research portfolios between high performing staff members. The onus is on the staff member to put together a case that convinces their Head or Director, their supervisor, the Deputy Dean Research (who writes a report on their application), and ultimately the promotion panel that their combination of research achievements is sufficient to warrant promotion. Although there are no formal rules, one would normally expect the majority of staff seeking promotion to show high levels of achievement in terms of publications and in at least one of the other two research areas. All aspirational performance criteria should be evaluated relative to opportunity.

Minimum Research Performance

The purpose of minimum research standards is to provide clear guidance to staff on the level o f performance considered satisfactory at any level of employment. Minimum standards indicate the expected level of achievement in each of the three areas of research performance. Consistent with the approach taken to promotion outlined in the previous section, where there are multiple components to the minimum standards (i.e. publications, research income and HDR supervision), it is not expected that all dimensions of the minimum standards be met in order for performance to be deemed satisfactory. The Faculty acknowledges that each staff member's career and achievements may focus in some areas of research performance more than others. While the precise composition of satisfactory performance will vary by case, as a rule of thumb, one would expect the majority of staff operating at a satisfactory level to meet the publication standard and at least one of the other two research standards. All minimum performance criteria should be evaluated relative to opportunity.

Research Standards for Level A Teaching and Research Staff Members

In 2016, quantitative research standards for Teaching and Research Level A staff members have been introduced. As standards are new to these staff members, Heads are strongly encouraged to ease their transition onto the new standards. In particular, it is important to note that many Level A staff members are actively engaged in HDR studies. Where this is the case, on-going and demonstrably satisfactory progress in HDR studies should be taken as the equivalent of meeting the minimum research standards.

Heads/Directors and supervisors (through the PDO process) should interpret the 2016 FRS in light of these guidelines, discipline norms and departmental strategies and advise staff on coherent ways to structure the mix of their research activities.

Professor Gary Magee

Deputy Dean (Research)

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download