I am also concerned by this statement: "Fixed value per UoA to be set by University Dean of RKE." How is this to be decided? If it is simply an individual's discretion, then where is the transparency which we were promised?

Also, to me it seems band approach disadvantages ECRs as to be able to get more hours you need more publication, funding etc and for these you need an established network and most ECRs are still developing their network. This will make ECRs busy with teaching and they will have limited time for developing their research profile which will make it harder for them to get band 1 or 2 hours. Can the UET consider giving more base hours to ECRs, for example. Or make sure they are not disadvantaged just because they are at the beginning of their career.

I'm not sure that giving everyone 10% citizen hours is the right way to do this however for 2 reasons:

- The EDI implications - research suggests female academics are asked to complete far more citizenship activities than their male colleagues.

- The power dynamics which result in many ECRs or those on temporary contracts likely to be most frequently asked.

We either need a way for activities to be verified and acknowledged and also be made a compulsory element in the academic career framework promotion criteria.

Innovation can be seen to link to research, but neither innovation, nor creativity is linked to education in any form, nor linked to Professional Development and Citizenship. The proposed policy will actually dissuade academics from I&C in pedagogy as time will be taken maintaining the status quo, rather than having the headspace to innovate. If this area is important to BU, then it needs to be encouraged across all three areas suggested in the proposed plan.

50/25 hrs - First Supervisor

25/13 hrs - Other Supervisor(s)

Currently, students have between 2 (75 hours) and 4 (125 hours) supervisors. I have no problem if lead supervisors want a team of 3 or 4 supervisors, but for both the sake of student equity and for our staff capacity I think it should be within a standard tariff of 75 hours. So if you want more than 2 supervisors then go ahead, but the team should then decide how to split the 75 hours.

This is also the case for Training and development (5% FTE pro-rated) - the amount of annual training required by the university is the same regardless of whether FTE or part time, in the previous model an hour allocation rather than a % accounted for the fact that all staff are required to do the training regardless of PT or FTE, will PT staff only do a % of the training to allow for this in the new model? Or are they to be penalised by losing the advertised increase in development hours in order to achieve annual training requirements?

This is also the case for capacity management which is stated as 5% FTE pro-rated.

2.    An annual system of review is inherently inefficient and bureaucratic. Appeals would likely affect teaching plans. A longer-term agreement would be of benefit (e.g. 3-5 years; with mid-term review if necessary).  

3.    Decisions about allocation to a research tier should come from a panel of peers rather than a line manager. There are significant conflicts of interests and discipline biases where individuals are concerned. Peer review systems should not rely on staff naming their favoured reviewer.

4.    There needs to be an appeal process.

5.    In some areas, there are a lack of discipline specialists to review staff plans, how this will be addressed is unclear.

6.    Staff servicing profitable areas of teaching will be discouraged from research. The tiering plan and how it is implemented may entrench inequities between disciplines.