Academic Compass: Promotions Survey
Summary Report
July 2014
Background
Academic Compass is a series of surveys which will regularly explore the needs, expectations and
perceptions of CSU’s academic staff. The Compass aims to provide a mapping of current issues
related to academic practice, in particular learning and teaching, and point the way forward as CSU
charts new directions.
The first edition of the Compass addressed academic’s perceptions and expectations of promotions
at CSU and supported the review of promotions led by the DVCA and Emeritus Professor Kevin
Robards.
This report contains a summary of key findings from the Academic Promotions Survey, including:
1. Respondent Profile
2. Academics’ Views on Promotion Criteria – exploring academics’ perceptions of the various
criteria used to assess promotions
3. Experiences of Promotions – looking how academics believe promotions could be improved
and how well promotions support the strategy and aims of the University
4. Promotions and Staff Committment to CSU – investigating the influence of promotions on
academics’ commitment to staying at CSU
1
1. Profile
Between Tuesday 8 April and Thursday 8 May 2014 inclusive, 205 CSU academic staff members
participated in the Academic Compass survey on perceptions of promotions at CSU.
The profile of respondents is outlined in the following Figures.
Figure 1.1 – Respondent Profile by Faculty
Figure 1.2 – Respondent Profile by Current Position
2
Figure 1.3 – Whether Respondents Have Previously Applied for Promotion by Faculty
3
2. Academics’ Views on Promotions Criteria
Key points:
 Teaching Activities, Leadership & Administration and Professional & Community Activities are
currently “under-valued” as promotion criteria compared with the importance academics
would like to see placed against these criteria and respondents would like teaching
excellence valued as highly as research (Figure 2.1)
 Academics prefer an equal weighting between Teaching Activities and Research Activities as
the most important promotion criteria (Figure 2.1)
 Differences between Faculties in academics’ ratings of perceived importance of criteria are
minor and may be due to differences in sample sizes (Figure 2.2). However, those staff who
had applied for a promotion were asked how they perceived their particular application was
assessed. These results show substantial variability between Faculties in how Teaching
Activities are seen to be weighted, with Business seen to place greatest emphasis on
teaching and Education the least emphasis, while Arts and Science were roughly equivalent
with one another (Figure 2.3)
 For all Faculties, the results in Figure 2.3 suggest that Teaching Activities are weighted more
importantly (very important and fairly important responses combined) than is perceived by
academics generally (c/f Figures 2.1 and 2.2). This suggests that the perception of an “undervaluing” of Teaching Activities may be driven more so by staff who have never applied for
promotion at CSU. Whether this perception is itself a disincentive or barrier to applying is
unclear
 Interesting differences exist between female and male academics’ suggestions for any
additional criteria that should be important for promotions. Female academics raise criteria
relating to Collegiality & Collaboration, Mentoring & Development, Honesty & Integrity, and
Years of Service. Male academics raised none of these points, instead citing Publications,
Leadership and Ability (Figure 2.4)
 In terms of assessing and rewarding teaching, a number of criteria are currently “undervalued” compared with the importance academics would like to see placed against these
criteria (ranked in order of size of disparity between current vs preferred):
o Peer observation of teaching
o Curriculum and module development
o Leadership and management of teaching-related responsibilities
o Number of hours allocated to teaching-related responsibilities
o Teaching portfolio
o Student outcomes (Figure 2.5)
4
Figure 2.1 – Perceived Importance of Promotions Criteria: Current versus Preferred
Figure 2.2 – Perceived Importance of Promotions Criteria by Faculty: Current versus Preferred
5
Figure 2.3 – Importance Placed on Teaching Activities in Assessing Respondents’ Promotion
Applications by Faculty
Figure 2.4 – Other Factors That Should Be Regarded As Important by Gender
Female Respondents (n=51)
Showing 17 Most Important Words and Phrases
Activity Collaborative Collegiality Development
Level Mentoring National and International Overall Peer
Potential Research School and Faculty Teaching Years
Education Grants
Honesty Integrity
of Service
Male Respondents (n=28)
Showing 11 Most Important Words and Phrases
Ability Academic
Activities CSU Important Leadership PhD
Publications Research Student Teaching
6
Figure 2.5 – Perceived Importance of Criteria Used to Reward and Assess Teaching: Current versus
Preferred
7
3. Experiences of Promotions






To improve promotions at CSU, academics place importance on enhancing the transparency
of the promotions process, making it more evidence-based and providing greater equity
(Table 3.1)
A more detailed analysis of the data represented in Table 3.1 shows that separating out
“Leadership” and “Administration” as distinct criteria would be important to improve
promotions
Feedback is a key determinant of staff perceptions of the promotions process. Where
feedback is present it is seen as key positive aspect of the process, where absent it is seen as
a particularly negative aspect (Tables 3.2 and 3.3)
In addition to feedback, receiving the support of colleagues and being given the opportunity
to reflect upon achievements are positive aspects of the promotions process (Table 3.2)
The time and effort, lack of clarity and disagreement over some criteria are seen as other
negative aspects of the process (Table 3.3)
Even among staff who have been successful with promotions, the realities of promotions at
CSU are generally not seen to support the University strategy or the promotions policy
(Figure 3.4)
Table 3.1 – One Key Improvement to Promotions at CSU
Aspect
Transparency of criteria and evidence used for decisions
A more streamlined and clear process
More equitable process/outcomes
Decisions based on better overall/holistic assessments of academics’
contributions
Better recognition of teaching – its workload and importance
Table 3.2 – Particularly Positive Aspects of the Promotion Process (n=54)
Aspect
Support of colleagues (including Heads of School)
Valued documenting and reflecting on achievements
Feedback (including positive engagement in interview)
Table 3.3 – Particularly Negative Aspects of the Promotion Process (n=72)
Aspect
Experience of feedback or lack of it
(NB: sometimes negative even when successful)
Time & Effort to complete application paperwork
Lack of clarity about expectations/criteria
Rejection of perceived criteria
Frequency
51
24
21
20
20
Frequency
14
13
7
Frequency
17
14
11
8
8
Figure 3.4 – Perceptions of Promotions by Previous Promotion Success
9
4. Promotions and Staff Commitment to CSU


Promotion considerations are very important to the decision to stay at CSU for approx 45%
of staff surveyed (Figure 4.1)
In determining whether to remain at CSU, promotion considerations are most important to
Senior Lecturers (nearly 56% rating them as very important) and Lecturers (48% rating them
as very important). Professorial staff and executive academic staff (eg Deans, Sub-Deans,
Heads of Schools) place less importance on these consideration in their decisions to stay at
CSU (Figure 4.2)
Figure 4.1 – Importance of Promotion in Determining Whether to Stay at CSU
Figure 4.2 - Importance of Promotion in Determining Whether to Stay at CSU by Level of
Appointment
10