A case for promotion that involves Teaching and Student-related activity should be assessed on a breadth of evidence, and all criteria relevant to the route and level of promotion should be taken into account when considering a case. It is not necessary that a candidate can evidence an equal level of performance with respect to all criteria, but the expectation is that relative weakness with respect to some criterion is matched by strength with respect to some other criterion.

For all routes and levels that involve Teaching and Student-related activity there is a set of criteria that apply to all cases, and these criteria are of equal importance. It is for instance not the case that ‘successful teaching’ takes priority. As always, weakness with respect to one criterion should be compensated for by exceptional performance in another area. It is also important to recognize that a broad range of evidence can be used to support ‘successful teaching’; measures of student satisfaction such as course-unit surveys are not the only means. To set promotion targets specifically for unit survey outcomes is then inappropriate.

Note that for candidates for promotion on the Academic: teaching route, the case can be made entirely on University-internal activities up to and including SL (and possibly to Reader, depending on the candidate’s strength with respect to other criteria), only for Professor is University-external activity obligatory. It should also be noted that University-external activity can take many shapes, it need not involve methods familiar from research, like publication or presentation at conferences. University-external activity, including publication, should of course be taken into account for promotion to SL (and Reader) if this forms part of the candidate’s activities though it is not an obligatory part of a case.

The document that outlines potential evidence with respect to each Teaching and student-related criterion should not be seen as a checklist of activity that must be evidenced. Its aim is to provide examples of activity that could be used to support a claim with respect to a particular criterion, not list activities that an applicant must have engaged in in order for them to meet a criterion. To take one example, though ‘innovation’ is one of the examples of activity under the criterion ‘Development at course unit level’, it is not an obligatory one, there are also other types of activity suggested. The list is also not intended to be exhaustive.

The University is committed to "providing a creative, ambitious and supportive environment in which researchers at every career stage can develop into and thrive as leaders in their chosen field” (Research and Discovery Core Goal, Strategic Plan).

In addition to considering research outputs, research funding and evidence of reputation, panels should also consider to what extent applicants have contributed to creating a collegiate and supportive working environment. Examples of this may include, but is not limited to:

• Including, where funders terms and conditions permit, researchers at an earlier stage of their career as Co-Is on research grants.
• Ensuring time and recognition for professional development is built into research grants.

Any Promotions Committee should have sufficiently broad membership to be able to recognize the differences in types of outputs for different (sub-)disciplines, where appropriate including those beyond the printed academic media.

If proxies for research quality such as citations and journal impact factors are commonly accepted within the applicant’s field of research, or they are particularly striking for some output, applicants are asked to include these, and they may be taken into account. For monographs, candidates are asked to include reference to reviews where these exist. Proxies for research quality should be used with caution, for example it should be kept in mind that most publishers make decisions on which books to publish on commercial grounds, so that it may be easier for some areas than others to get work accepted with the some generally highly regarded publishers. An assessment should always include consideration of the applicant’s disciplinary norms.

With respect to external research funding, the full breadth of sources needs to be considered, including research councils, charitable organisations, industry, government and funded fellowships. The applicant’s role in the development and success of the grant application as well as the amount of funding attributable to the University of Manchester may also be taken into account. PGR studentships secured through the supervisor and major travel awards can also be taken into account.

In addition to securing PGR funding, excellent postgraduate research supervision can be evidenced by the success of supervised PGRs (jobs or prizes/awards), completion rates, and accreditation via the UKCGE research supervision recognition programme.

Evidence of reputation in the relevant international research communities includes, but is not limited to: research prizes, honours and awards; committee membership of national and international funding bodies; membership of scientific committees; editorship of international research journals or book series; membership of editorial boards of international journals or book series; membership of prestigious academic bodies (eg, Fellowships of the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences or the British Academy); prestigious visiting professorships; invitations to named lectures and keynote addresses; invitation to review publications, funding applications or academic appointments or promotions external to the own institution

The University Research Group has issued the following guidance with respect to the use of RRE output grades in Schools:

Heads of School use RRE grades as one indicator to inform their assessment of the quality of the aggregate research output profile (i.e. the School and Unit of Assessment profiles). They are aware that RRE grades for specific outputs may be revised and recalibrated by the Unit of Assessment coordinating team as part of the preparation of the REF2021 submission, and in light of new information about the output, such as subsequent citation rates or prizes.

When assessing an individual’s research profile for probation or promotion, other indicators of output quality pertinent to the discipline or field are used as the primary source (peer review, referee comments, article citations, book reviews, etc.). The assessment of output quality is one part of the assessment of overall research performance, along with the record of PGR supervision, research funding, etc. as detailed in the probation and promotion guidelines. This is in line with the implementation of the statement of research expectations.

Hence RRE grades should not be presented in the paperwork for probation or promotion by either the applicant or in accompanying supporting statements; or introduced in discussion in probation and promotion committees.

When considering cases of research staff promotion, for example, from research assistant to research associate and from research associate to research fellow, whilst the applicants submission is based on their achievements in research, consideration should also be given to evidence of the applicant’s contribution to research grant applications, PGR supervision and teaching.

For all roles within Service and Leadership, there should be some evidence that the candidate has engaged appropriately with the role, not just held it. Frequently this may most suitably come through the supporting statement by the line manager, but other sources of evidence are also possible.

A willingness to support others in their career development can relate to PhD students, teaching assistants, postdoctoral researchers or other academic colleagues. As above, having had a supervisory or line-managerial role with respect to someone from these categories is not sufficient, but some evidence of actual supportive activity should be provided. 

Examples of this may include, but is not limited to:

• Ensuring postdoctoral researchers have a mentor.
• Nominating postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate researchers for prizes and awards.
• Actively encouraging and providing the time for postdoctoral researchers to take up development opportunities such as joining committees of professional bodies, undertaking teaching.
• In addition to the annual P&DR process, providing time and opportunities to discuss career development.
• Gaining recognition for excellent postgraduate research supervisory practice through the UKCGE research supervision recognition programme.

As indicated by the breadth of criteria, this should be seen in its broadest sense. The activity must include non-academic audiences or users, and it includes cases of impact as defined by REF, but is by no means limited to this. The activity must be linked to the applicant’s role within the University, but need not be linked to their research. Colleagues applying through the Academic: teaching route can also include this area of activity in their case.