The following procedure was approved by Council on 30 March 2007

Cases for promotion to a Personal Chair or the award of the title Reader will be considered by the Sub-Committee for the Award of Titles.   Heads of Departments may recommend a member of staff for promotion to a Personal Chair or Readership at any time but should be mindful that the process of obtaining references can be lengthy.

i. Promotion to a Personal Chair calls for an established record of academic distinction and leadership, including the ability to stimulate and inspire others. Normally a candidate should possess an international reputation in scholarship and research and should be continuing to produce significant work. (See Annexes A and B for detailed criteria). Whilst it would be exceptional to confer a Personal Chair upon a candidate whose research does not meet these criteria, promotion may also take account of the candidate's record of leadership in a wider sense, for example through teaching or professional work.

ii.The award of the title of Reader calls for a high standard of scholarship and a substantial record of ongoing research of international quality. (See also Annexes A and B).

iii.All candidates for promotion should also be able to demonstrate that they have made a "satisfactory" contribution to the administration and general life of the department and the University. Normally, only those candidates with a positive assessment of their contribution will be considered for promotion.

There are three routes by which a personal title case may be considered, although Routes 2 and 3 below will be used only in exceptional circumstances.
 

1. Route 1 ("Standard")

i. When a Head of Department wishes to recommend a member of staff for a personal title, they will submit to the Dean the following, after having consulted senior colleagues as appropriate:

• a purely factual CV
• a publications list which must follow the standard format used in the Publications Database (See Annex B for information regarding practice-based submissions).
• interpretative summaries of six selected publications.  In the case of joint or multiple authorship of any of the candidate’s six selected papers or books, the nature and extent of the candidate’s contribution must be clearly described.
• one copy of each of the six selected publications
• a list of no fewer than five external referees, at least four of whom should have a sound knowledge of the UK HE system and no more than two of whom should be nominated by the candidate.  Referees nominated by the candidate should be clearly indicated as such.  It is the Dean’s responsibility to ensure the quality and prominence of the referees and they should ensure that referees approached are of international repute (by reference to indicators such as the referee’s personal standing, the research quality of their department and the research quality of their institution).
• a statement (no longer than one side of A4) prepared by the candidate in support of their case.

ii. Having reassured themself that the case is not unduly premature or otherwise weak (taking informal or formal soundings internally and externally as necessary), the Dean will seek a meeting with the PVC(R) and the Head of Department to decide whether external referees (five) should be approached.  If it is decided that the case should proceed no further, the Head of Department will advise the candidate at the earliest opportunity.  In the event of disagreement the case will be referred to the Vice-Chancellor for decision.

iii. If the case is to proceed, six copies of the six selected publications will be prepared by the Dean’s Office.  (In the case of books, one copy only will be required).  The Dean will send these to Human Resources together with single copies of the CV, the publications list, the interpretative summaries of the six selected publications, the one page statement and a completed referees’ pro forma (Annex C).

iv. Human Resources will contact the external assessors, providing each with copies of the CV, the publications list, the interpretative summaries of the six selected publications, a copy of the six selected publications (advising as appropriate, of the availability of access to any books or other materials to be considered), and the one page statement from the candidate.

v. When the external assessors’ reports have been received by Human Resources they will be distributed to the Sub-Committee along with the candidate’s CV and one page statement.

vi. The Sub-Committee will review the referees’ reports and will seek additional information or clarification if necessary.  The Sub-committee’s decision whether or not to award a title is final.

vii. The Sub-Committee will report its decisions to the Human Resources Committee and notify Senate and Council of all the titles that have been awarded.

vii. In cases where an individual wishes to be considered for the award of a personal title, but does not have the support of their Head of Department, they may apply to the Dean.

x. If the Dean and/or the Vice Chancellor decline to support a proposal, the individual may apply to the Sub-Committee.  If the Sub-Committee judges that the proposal is worthy of consideration, five referees will be nominated and approached in the normal manner.  If the Sub-Committee judges that the case is unduly premature or otherwise weak, it shall not proceed.  Exceptionally, where the Sub-Committee is unable to decide on the worthiness of the case, it may decide that one or more external assessors should be approached for their views before a final decision is made.

xi. A further personal title proposal in respect of the same individual will not be considered within twelve months of the Sub-Committee’s decision.

2.Route 2 ("Fast-track")

i. In cases where a member of staff has been offered a chair or readership by another institution and the Vice Chancellor accepts a recommendation from the Dean and the Head of Department that a route other than that set out in Section 2.1 would be in the University's interests, the following may be initiated.

ii. The candidate will be interviewed by a panel similar to that constituted for an equivalently graded established post, in accordance with Ordinance VI, and references will be taken up from those nominated by the candidate.  The panel, which shall be chaired by the Vice Chancellor (Chair) or the Dean (Readership), shall have authority to offer such personal title as it sees fit and will report its decision to Senate and Council via the Human Resources Committee.

3.Route 3 ("University’s Interest")

In very limited circumstances, for example, where it is deemed, in the view of the appropriate Dean and the Vice-Chancellor, necessary for academic leadership to be provided in a certain academic area, it may be in the University's interest to invoke the procedure set out in Section 2.2 above for candidates whose research performance alone would not merit the award of a personal title at this time.

Criteria in respect of submissions for Chair and Readership Candidature

 1.For Chair and Reader:

That the candidate is addressing significant substantive subject matters in a specified field/discipline or a sub-area of that field/discipline.

That the candidate is able to articulate the substantive subject matters; and has been addressing them via a systematic, sustained, and progressive agenda and programme of research/scholarly inquiry over a period of years.

That the candidate's activity and its outcomes has made, or is making, a significant impact on or contribution to (1) the principles, practices, theories, knowledge-base, or understanding of the subject matters of the field/discipline or sub-area; and/or (2) the lay community's appreciation, knowledge, or understanding (which can be linked to the candidate's activities).

That the candidate's research agenda and programme are likely to be sustained, to continue, and to develop in significance and value.

1.1 For Chair:

That the quality of the contributions made by the candidate, or the quality of the outcomes of the candidate's academic record in research/scholarship can be substantiated as being of internationally established excellence (when 'international excellence' is defined as research which a Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) Panel would judge to be competitive with the best cognate research conducted world-wide).

That the quality of the candidate's activity and its impact on the field/discipline or sub-area establishes the candidate as an academic research leader in that field/discipline or sub-area.

That, where it can be appropriately applied, the candidate's performance should compare well against measures which can be specifically associated with being describable as a researcher/scholar of international quality, eg: research grant & contract income norms, publications, number of research candidates supervised in the candidates RAE Unit of Assessment.  It would be anticipated that these measures have been satisfied consistently over a period of time and will continue to be satisfied in the foreseeable future.

1.2 For Reader:

That the outcomes of the candidate's research/scholarly activity display a high and sustained standard of research competence; and that the candidate's research agenda and programme are of international significance.

2.Candidates are advised that their one-page statement and interpretative summary of work should take full account of the above criteria.

3.The title of Personal Chair may, exceptionally, be conferred upon a candidate whose academic research record does not meet the above criteria but whose national/international status, authority, and esteem may derive from work in a wider or different professional context. Such status, authority, and esteem may, for instance, be evidenced at the policy and strategic direction and management levels of the civil service, public sector, or international/national commercial/industrial organisations. Evidence in support of any such case will be sought from independent external assessors.

Additional information for practice-based submissions in respect of readership and chair applications

1. Professional competence, commitment, etc are assumed. These are not sufficient to indicate the research quality of practice-based activity and its outcomes; idiosyncrasy is similarly not an indicator of that quality. Evidence is looked for against the following criteria:

That the candidate is addressing significant substantive subject matters (which might, as instances, be concerned with philosophical, theoretic, formal-technical problems of presentation-representation) via a necessarily practical mode of activity/inquiry in a specified field/discipline or in a sub-area of that field/discipline.

That the candidate is able to articulate the substantive subject matters, and has been addressing them via a systematic, sustained, and progressive programme of action/inquiry over a period of years.

That the candidate's programme of action/inquiry is evidenced in outputs/outcomes/actions/events that may be presented or disclosed necessarily or primarily in forms and media that are in other than text-based forms and media.

That the candidate's progressive research programme can be identified through his/her attention to both process and product/outcome over a period of years (as instanced in 'stages'/phases of development that, typically, may be reflected or exemplified in 'landmark' exhibitions/collections/events/compositions/performances.

That the candidate's activity - whether in its mode of inquiry or in its outcomes - has made, or is making, significant impact on (as instances): (1) the field or sub-area (via, for example, a contribution to paradigmatic development/change; via a contribution to an emergent school of practice/theory; via a contribution to a new aesthetic; or the esteem in which the candidate is held by his/her national/international peers); and/or on (2) the lay community (e.g., on the lay appreciation of the candidate's impact; or the enhancement of the lay community's perception, or sensibility, or understanding that can be linked to the candidate's activities).

That the candidate's research agenda and its activities are likely to be sustained, to continue, and to develop in significance and value.

2. Candidates are advised that their one-page statement and interpretative summary of work should take full account of the above criteria.

3. Distinguishing criteria between practice-based submissions in respect of readership and chair applications

i. Promotion to a Chair would require that the outcomes of the candidate's practice-based research, together with the on-going agenda and programme, be recognised and evidenced as being internationally significant in their substance (irrespective of where the work might have been conducted), with evidence also of their actual or potential impact or esteem attracted.

ii. The award of the title of Reader would require that the outcomes of the candidate's practice-based research, together with the on-going agenda and programme, be recognised and evidenced as having national significance (that is, bounded significance), irrespective of where the work might be conducted, in its substance, with evidence also of their actual or potential impact or esteem attracted; and displaying the potential for the development of work having larger significance and capable of attracting wider recognition.
 

PERSONAL TITLES – LIST OF REFEREES

Candidate’s Name: …………………………………

Candidate’s Department: ………………………

Proposed title (ie Professor of …; Reader in …): …………………………………………

Name	Address	Nominated by Candidate?	International Repute and RAE grading

Date: June 2007
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved