This year's process for the consideration of promotion cases to the rank of Reader and Chair is now almost over. We await references on a small number of individuals, but the main bulk of candidates now know the outcomes for them.
Research activity in universities can sometimes be characterised as inherently competitive and selfish. We compete with each other for research grants and contracts (although increasingly, for bigger grants, collaboration is required). We decide on our own research niches and sometimes act to protect our own patch to keep others off.
Yet one of the most impressive things about the process for the award of readerships and personal chairs is the exceptional length that many referees go to in order to provide a full assessment of the indiviiduals on whom they have been asked to comment. That applies whether the consideration is of the research record of the candidate or of their teaching impact (shown this year, in some cases, by the submission of a portfolio of evidence). This year I have read referees' reports that come to three or more sides of close typescript. They have contained phrases such as "I had not kept fully up to date with the work of Dr X so I have read all her recent papers that might be considered for inclusion in her REF return." Extremely busy research leaders elsewhere, in several instances holders of FRS or FBA awards - and in one case a Nobel prizewinner - have clearly spent several hours providing illuminating comments on cases put before them. There is a general generosity of spirit on display, and even where the judgement is ultimately negative it is generally couched in terms of "not yet but soon ... once the book is in print and has been reviewed ... or if that research grant application is successful."
Of course, such attention to detailed cases leads to voluminous papers - nearly 850 pages of documentation had to be read before the meeting of the Readerships and Personal Chairs Committee, plus the separate CVs of the candidates for reference.
The evaluations we pay most attention to are those from senior figures in universities rather like Sheffield - in other words research-intensive universities with research-led learning as the basis of teaching. If a referee from Cambridge, Bristol. or UCL says 'this person would have a chair in my university' then we take serious note. But we also look for references from outside the UK for most individuals (with the exception of those coming through the teaching route) in order to determine something of the international standing of the colleagies under scrutiny. This need for international validation has not changed over the years. I found out later that when I was awarded my chair in 1997 it was in large part as a result of references from Germany, France and the Netherlands - my reputation was greater on the European mainland than in the UK. At the time I was probably a little unusual in the strength of my connections across the channel. But this year many of our candidates had a track record of European research grants or of collaboration with European mainland partners. And references from mainland colleagues tend to accord more with those from the UK. Interestingly, at least in terms of my reflection on reading innumerable evaluations of colleageus up for promotion, American referees seem generally to have lower expectations and standards for what the top-most position in an acacdemic's career should involve.
Overall the whole process of promotion consideration is one that is (rightly) taken incredibly seriously by all concerned. And in the competitive academic world of today it is a process where the notion of a 'community of scholars' and support for colleagues still comes to the fore.
No comments:
Post a Comment