On the first point, under the relevant legislation Council may determine revisions to the existing arrangements for making awards to non- clinical professors in recognition of academic distinction or contribution to the academic work of the University. Noting the difficulties referred to above, Council has agreed to make available more flexibility in the professorial merit awards system for use in a limited number of special cases, in order to address the most pressing recruitment and retention issues. This additional flexibility is only available where there is an overwhelming and exceptional academic case. A modest ring-fenced fund has been set up to cover all cases in which an award is made to an incoming professor, as well as any special award made for retention purposes. This will ensure that decisions made in such circumstances do not count against the budget for rewarding existing staff in regular exercises, and that Council will have a further opportunity to review the overall situation if and when the initial financial provision runs out.
On the second point, Council and the General Board believe, in the light of (1) evidence of worsening problems over levels of reward and over recruitment and retention; (2) increasing unease among distinguished lecturers and readers as to their prospects; and (3) what they believe may be a change in the general perception of the desirability of introducing greater salary flexibility, that the time is right to propose wide-ranging changes.
The current position is that it was stated at the time of the introduction of the scheme to confer the title of professor or reader that ad hominem professorships exercises would be held by the General Board as resources allowed. Although this policy was adopted in 1995 the General Board has since then felt unable to provide resources for any such exercises, given the other demands on its funds. The costs of such an exercise would be high— those successful in the exercise would be appointed to a Schedule A professorship, and their substantive post would be advertised for refilling. The effect of this is that each promotion would cost at least £52K recurrent (largely representing the cost of a replacement appointment), and more if (as is likely) those promoted qualified for professorial merit awards and/or the additional staff appointed needed more infrastructural support. The amount of money the University would be able realistically to devote to this purpose in the foreseeable future would therefore result in a very small number of promotions—perhaps a maximum of 10 in a single round, with no certainty that a further exercise would be held. This would not adequately reflect the distinction of Oxford staff and would very probably lead to considerable resentment among the unsuccessful. A more cost-effective scheme needs to be found to enable much larger numbers of distinguished lecturers and readers to aspire to higher salaries: key elements of the alternative approach favoured by Council and the General Board would be that the additional salary should not be accompanied by a change in duties or the need for a replacement appointment, and that many more academic staff would have access to the significant levels of additional income currently represented by the expanded range of professorial awards.
Council and the General Board accept that some turnover of staff is inevitable and, to an extent, desirable and healthy in terms of the development of the UK higher education sector as a whole. The fact remains, however, that—uniquely among its competitors and indeed among virtually all other employers in the country—Oxford currently has no mechanism available to provide any further financial reward for exceptional performance among the single largest group of the non-clinical academic staff on which its future relies, namely outstanding lecturers and readers, the position of some of whom has become increasingly anomalous in the absence of ad hominem promotions since 1993. The unavailability of extra reward for lecturers and readers is also unique among Oxford staff in general. Council and the General Board have considered correspondence on this general issue from various members of the academic staff and they believe that there is a danger of losing or alienating many key staff if action is not taken.
In terms of what should be done now in Oxford, Council and the General Board strongly favour a targeted approach, and wish to develop a single, well-funded, and easily understood system of making significant additional payments available to all non-clinical academic staff on a competitive basis. Council and the General Board now suggest that merit awards in the form of the full range of such awards hitherto available only to substantive professors should be available to all non-clinical academic staff, as differentiated supplements to the existing varied university and joint university/college stipends which relate to the duties of the underlying appointment. This would include the limited additional flexibility referred to under `Background' above, which is available to respond to overwhelming and exceptional academic cases for a special approach to the most pressing recruitment and retention problems. All members of non-clinical academic staff would be eligible for consideration in a consistent way for a single set of additional payments against a single set of criteria.
In other words, the basic salary structure for professors, readers, and lecturers would remain unchanged (subject to continuing discussions on the position of ULNTFs and to the possible reassessment of respective funding arrangements for joint appointments in the light of possible contractual changes and discussions on college fees). There would then be a single set of additional merit awards available, with a single set of criteria, to be made normally in regular, well-funded, gathered-field exercises: this would enable a calibration of relative distinction to address the comparability between individuals flexibly, allowing for example some outstanding titular professors and others who have not had the chance of applying for a statutory chair or for ad hominem promotion to be rewarded. Crucially those who have not participated in the recognition of distinction scheme would be equitably assessed; there would be no automatic advantage in having been awarded a professorial title.
Council and the General Board are therefore suggesting that the University abandon the separate biennial exercises for new or enhanced awards for non-clinical professors, and replace these with regular exercises in which all non-clinical academic staff—with or without the title (or post) of professor—would be eligible to apply. Some of those who have previously applied unsuccessfully for the title of professor might be less likely to succeed in such exercises. Among those with the title, and among those who would have secured the title had they applied, there will be a range of distinction: this could be rewarded by any one of the range of merit awards, although in some cases (as with the current arrangements for substantive professors) no award would be appropriate.
Council and the General Board propose that the first such exercise should have a date of effect of 1 October 2000 and should work within an additional recurrent budget of £750K. This could result in over 170 members of academic staff receiving additional payments (based on the distribution of new or enhanced awards to substantive professors in previous exercises). £750K is of course a large sum, but the question may well be not whether the University can afford to have such an arrangement in place, but rather whether it can afford not to. Given the problems of rewarding, retaining, and recruiting top-quality staff, Council and the General Board believe that the University must invest in greater salary flexibility in order to fulfil its objective of promoting academic excellence. In addition, in framing its particular proposal for £750K recurrent, Council and the General Board have been keenly aware of the risk that among the most highly qualified and distinguished staff a smaller-scale exercise might alienate many more unsuccessful candidates than it would reward successful ones.
It is the view of Council and the General Board that further similar exercises should be held at regular intervals, ideally perhaps every two years. However, given the changes in the arrangements for the governance of the University this will be a matter for the new Council, on the advice of the new Personnel and Planning and Resource Allocation Committees in the light of the views of the new Divisional Boards.
Council and the General Board also believe that in exceptional cases where there is a clear and overwhelming academic justification for so doing, salary enhancements should be available on an ad hoc basis between the exercises, provided the criteria are met, to address the most acute recruitment and retention difficulties.
The scheme would be strictly voluntary, and there would be no adverse consequences for those who chose not to apply, and for those who applied unsuccessfully, other than the continuation of their salary arrangements without enhancement.
The existing criteria for merit awards to professors work well for clustering the research and leadership achievements of substantive professors, and have been reconsidered for wider application in order to try to strike the right balance between the role of contributions to research, teaching, administration and good citizenship generally, noting the different expectations associated with different grades of post.
A draft of criteria for the new awards is appended: Council and the General Board envisage that this will need to be refined in the light of the consultation on the proposed new structure, and comments on the draft (which includes at the end of the general preamble references to the new additional flexibility to make awards above level 5) are therefore particularly welcomed.
After the first exercise the new Council will consider, through its Personnel and Planning and Resource Allocation Committees, whether the financial and procedural arrangements for future exercises should involve greater devolution to divisions.
In the regular exercises, applicants could be invited to state separately whether external funding—whether from charities, industry, trust funds, or whatever—would be available to cover or contribute to the extra recurrent costs of a salary change. This information would not be available to the bodies making nominations and final decisions, but would be known to the officers. After the relevant (central) body made its initial decisions on whom to give a new or enhanced merit award within central cash limits, the officers would disclose how much, if any, of this central provision still remained for additional awards in light of the availability of external funding in respect of any successful candidates covered by the initial decisions.
In ad hoc cases there is perhaps more of a danger that the availability of non-central funding would lead to a lowering of standards and an inside track to salary enhancement. Here the procedure might be that an additional salary would only be approved if there was convincing evidence that the person concerned would in any event have been extremely likely to secure such a salary enhancement in the next regular centrally funded exercise.
Council and the General Board have an open mind on whether the title of professor or reader should continue to be available to suitably qualified individuals working in the University but not on the university academic payroll (e.g. senior contract research staff and those employed directly by research councils): it would be a prerequisite of any future conferment of the title of professor in such circumstances that the individual was of appropriate academic standing and was already in receipt of a stipend in excess of the professorial minimum.
Responses are particularly welcome on these points.
Against this background answers are invited to the following specific questions:
(i) should the availability of merit awards be extended to all major non-clinical academic staff groups in order to reward excellence on a discretionary basis? if so,
(ii) are the proposed draft criteria appropriate?
(iii) are the suggested procedures appropriate?
(iv) are the proposed eligibility criteria appropriate?
(v) what should be the future of `recognition of distinction', i.e. the arrangements for the conferment of the title of professor (or reader) without change in duties or stipend?
(vi) have you any further comments?
Responses should be sent to Dr Jeremy Whiteley, Head of Personnel Services, at the University Offices, by the middle of Trinity Term 2000. Council and the General Board will consider the responses carefully through the Academic Salaries Committee: subject to this, they hope to propose to Congregation the rapid introduction of the new system.
In applying the criteria below to academic staff of different grades (lecturer, reader, professor, etc.), due regard will be had to what may properly be expected of academic staff in the particular grade. For a contribution to be outstanding, it must go well beyond what is properly expected. An award is only made if clear evidence is available from a range of sources which emphatically indicates that the individual's merit and general contribution have met or exceeded the terms of the criteria relating to the relevant level of award. The amount of money available for this purpose in the current financial circumstances will inevitably limit the number of awards that may be made.
It is a prerequisite for the making of any award that the individual must have undertaken undergraduate and/or graduate teaching for the University, and for colleges, concomitant with the duties of the university post and of the college fellowship where one is held. Such teaching must have been performed well. Successful applicants must also have demonstrated a regular willingness to contribute to the academic community by involvement in university and college administration and must have demonstrated competence in such administration.
While academic distinction in terms of research record is the main criterion beyond the `good citizenship' outlined above, other contributions to academic work may be recognised. This provision is specifically designed to cover documented excellence in teaching, especially if such excellence has an impact wider than is expected from the basic duties of the post (e.g. through the development of teaching strategies more broadly in the subject at Oxford and/or beyond, or through innovations adopted in other disciplines). This provision also extends to other forms of leadership in, or in the development of, a field of study beyond and/or within the University. Achievements in teaching excellence and academic leadership will, depending on their significance, lead to an award at a higher level within the range set out below than the individual's narrow research profile alone would merit. In exceptional cases an academic case relating to the overwhelming importance of recruiting and retaining key staff may lead to an award either at a higher level within the range set out below, or above that range (up to a maximum of £37,365). Levels 1--5 below relate to merit, while higher awards are reserved for use in special recruitment and retention cases.
Level 4 (£14,013): this level of award is designed for individuals of very high academic distinction and very significant international reputation. While they may not match the quite exceptional achievements of genuine world- leaders, they will have had a similar international impact and have made a seminal contribution to their broad discipline.
Level 3 (£9,341): this level of award is intended for staff of considerable academic distinction, even when measured against the overall Oxford context. They will often be the leading international authorities in their particular field, and will have made a very significant and lasting positive mark on the University's work in their area (directly through their own research or through their role in their discipline at Oxford).
Level 2 (£6,231): those at this level will have a distinguished academic record clearly well in excess of that which is a prerequisite for appointment to an Oxford chair. Their international reputation will be very significant. This level may also be used to reward quite exceptional and sustained contributions to the academic work of the University from those whose individual scholarship is also above the normal high expectation. No-one who does not qualify for a level 1 award can qualify for one at level 2.
Level 1 (£2,275): this level of award recognises work of uncommonly high value to the collegiate University. It marks an outstanding contribution towards its aims and objectives, in terms of teaching and/or administration (whether college administration, university administration, or both). Subject to the points made in the general preamble above, outstanding research is a necessary condition of an award at this level, but is not by itself sufficient.
In all cases, in accordance with the University's equal opportunities aims, account will be taken of factors which might have affected an individual's performance, thus making the contribution to research, in particular, smaller in quantity (but not in quality) than would otherwise have been expected.