Further Considerations of applications

Contextual Factors

The quality and impact of an applicant’s performance should be assessed objectively and on the same basis as other applicants.  It is also important to understand and address contextual factors by making appropriate adjustments to allow for a fair process where those who have faced these additional barriers will be considered on an even footing, although all applications that provide contextual factors will be individual, and so will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Committees should take into account that not all careers follow a standard and uninterrupted route and all metrics should be considered in context with other factors to ensure that a balanced view is taken of the individual’s overall contribution to research, teaching, scholarship or service (as applicable to their pathway). 

Equality-related adjustments do not allow committees to lower the bar when assessing excellence.  For example, any reduction in the working time of an applicant due to contextual factors should be taken into account when judging the quality of their work or output.  One way of making an appropriate adjustment would be to consider the impact of the issue on the quantity of activity undertaken.  In these circumstances, committees would still require the applicant to demonstrate the same standard (quality) as other applicants in terms of the excellence of their contribution; however, the quantity of research output would be adjusted.  Advice about adjustments should be sought at the earliest opportunity from the relevant Lead HR Business Partner. 

Committees are encouraged to take a holistic approach to the scoring of applications, taking all aspects of the application (including contextual factors) into account, before deciding on the appropriate score for each Assessment Criterion.  If the committee deems it appropriate to adjust the scores awarded in order to account for any contextual factors, they can do so.  It would normally be expected that a maximum of five additional points be awarded, across all Assessment Criteria, with five being given in cases when an applicant’s contribution has been severely impacted by the contextual factors described. 

When providing details of Contextual Factors, applicants are advised to focus on the impact the factors have had on them and their performance since their last promotion/appointment, and not to include explicit details of the factors themselves, which may be highly sensitive. Similarly, when considering the Contextual Factors provided, committees should consider the impact of the factors on the applicant’s work and achievements, rather than the details of the factors themselves. 

Key differences between academics on the Teaching and Scholarship pathway and academics on the Research and Teaching pathway

Committees are reminded that the work of academics on the Teaching and Scholarship pathway is typically more intensively timetabled, with considerably higher stint levels than academics on the Research and Teaching pathway. In addition, academics on the Teaching and Scholarship pathway are not eligible for sabbatical leave.

With these differences in mind, committees are discouraged from making direct comparisons between applications from those on the different pathways, as their roles and duties are not the same.

Role profiles for academic R&T and academic T&S positions can be found in the University’s Role Template Library.

Multidisciplinary applications

Applications will ordinarily be assessed by the committees that align with the applicant’s employing institution.  However, if the subject area of an application crosses FC boundaries, whether or not the applicant has indicated that their application is multidisciplinary, consideration should be given to the appropriate FC to assess the application.  If it is appropriate to refer the application to an alternative FC, the HR Reward Team must be notified on acp@admin.cam.ac.uk. 

Once the appropriate FC has been determined, the Chair of the FC should ensure that, where appropriate, action is taken to obtain additional relevant information required to conduct a full assessment of all aspects of the application (e.g. duties carried out in other institutions) and, if necessary, additional references. 

The FC may also decide that, in the interest of fairness, additional senior academic(s) with appropriate specialised knowledge are invited as consultant(s) to attend the meeting of the committee for the consideration of the application concerned. 

If appropriate, the application may also be referred for consideration to a different SC.  In such cases, the FC should forward the application to the Secretary of the relevant SC(s), giving reasons and, if both committees will be assessing the applicant, a view as to which SC evaluation should be given greater weight by the VCC. 

Evidence of a rising career trajectory

As referred to here, applicants are expected to demonstrate a rising career trajectory in their application, and whilst applicants can provide evidence spanning their entire career, they are expected to focus principally on achievements since their last promotion/appointment to best demonstrate their rising career trajectory. It is therefore expected that committees will take greater account of an applicant’s achievements since their last promotion/appointment in the assessment of the application.  This is not to say earlier achievements cannot be considered, but rather it would be expected that more recent achievements would better demonstrate the applicant’s continuing rising trajectory, and therefore their suitability for promotion.

An applicant’s last promotion/appointment start date will be the date they started in their current role.  For the purposes of promotion applications, passing probation is not a change in role. As such, applicants can include evidence of achievements during their probationary period in their promotion application.

If an applicant has been promoted through a previous ACP exercise, they can also include evidence from the year preceding their start date in their promoted position, as that period would not have been included in their previous promotion application.

The University’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech

In fulfilling its remit, and mindful of the University’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech and the need to have particular regard for the importance of free speech and academic freedom within the law, Committees will consider and note any concerns about free speech or academic freedom that have arisen or might reasonably arise, including reasons why the process did not penalise an applicant for their exercise of free speech or academic freedom.

Assessment of scholarship and its impact for applicants on the T&S pathway

Committees are expected to consider the impact that an applicant’s scholarly activities have had on their teaching, and the relevance of their scholarship and scholarly outputs to the teaching they do for the University, and how the discipline is taught elsewhere, and the impact the resulting changes have had.