General Report by the Union Observer on the operations of the Personal Chairs Selection Committee in the 2004 round (December 2004 – May 2005)

2.1 The applicants/nominees

The 18 Personal Chair cases considered by the Committee were of a generally high quality and covered a diverse range of disciplines and scholarly activities at Macquarie University. It was clear that all applicants/nominees are among the University's star performers. It was found that a satisfactory prima facie case for consideration of appointment to a Personal Chair had been made by each applicant and on behalf of each nominee.

A substantial fraction (14/18, 78%) of these star performers have been rewarded by appointment to a Personal Chair. In the carefully considered opinion of the Committee, the remainder (4/18, 22%) did not meet the advertised standards of exceptional distinction in research and scholarship.

The Committee was assured that unsuccessful applicants/nominees would be counselled personally by the VC to provide specific indications of weaknesses in their case, particularly in areas that might be strengthened with a view to success in a future Personal Chair round.

The outcome of each application/nomination was determined after careful consideration of all opinions and comments that the University received in confidence from Assessors and external expert Adviser(s) (see Sec. 2.8 below).

Each case for appointment to a Personal Chair was treated on its merits in the context of the discipline of the applicant/nominee and in terms of the criteria specified in clause 9.03.18 of the MQU EA 2000–3. Without referring explicitly to individual cases, the following list identifies particular factors on which the Committee based its perceptions that particular applicants/nominees had not established sufficiently strong grounds for appointment:

• Lack of distinctive research leadership and/or exceptional international standing (e.g., indicated by few invited keynote addresses at conferences and/or few publications in peer-reviewed media);

• Inadequate coverage by proposed Assessors of the full range of research strengths that a given applicant/nominee might be entitled to claim;

• Nomination of too high a proportion of Assessors who are close colleagues or associates of the applicant/nominee, rather than independent and therefore expected to be more objective;

• An apparently low number of research students (e.g., Honours, Masters, PhD) supervised by the applicant/nominee over the years and/or low completion rates of such research students, relative to opportunities to supervise graduate students within a particular discipline;

• Ambiguities concerning prominence of the applicant/nominee as a research leader in collaborative work carried out in large teams or with eminent co-workers or in multi-author publications (e.g., a Committee member commented: 'S/he is a strong collaborator and supporter of research activities, but does s/he initiate such activities?');

• Difficulty of establishing international research distinction in cases where the applicant/nominee is a research leader in a very small, specialised field of research (i.e., a Committee member asked: 'How big can you ever be in a small research field?');

• Evaluation of objective bibliometric information (e.g., on impact factors and/or citation rates of research publications, where appropriate) provided to the Committee via the DVC (R);

• Questions as to the research standing of some publications nominated by the applicant/nominee (e.g., whether certain major publications are genuine research monographs or teaching/training manuals, or whether the peer-review process of certain major publications is sufficiently robust and independent of the immediate collegial circle of the applicant/nominee);

• Failure, over an extended period, to follow up a series of conference publications by at least one more substantial, scholarly publication in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal or monograph;

• Tendency of the applicant/nominee to concentrate on their own research interests, to the possible detriment of their Department's or discipline's primary needs or their reasonably expected administrative, teaching and/or other scholarly duties.

Some of these factors might not be obvious to all applicants/nominees, so that a list of this type could usefully be made available to prospective candidates in future rounds.

Some of these factors account for the Committee's decisions in each of the four unsuccessful cases.

It should be noted that some of the 14 successful cases displayed none of the above itemised factors and the Committee was able to make favorable decisions in a straightforward fashion. However, there were several borderline cases where some of these factors were significantly in evidence, resulting in difficult (but ultimately favorable) decisions by the Committee.

2.2 Supporters of the applicants/nominees

According to clause 9.03.06 of the MQU EA 2000–3, appointment to a Personal Chair can be sought through either nomination by three members of the academic staff or personal application. Only two of the Personal Chair candidates were nominated, each by a panel of three Professorial colleagues and each with ultimate success. The Committee made no distinction between the two modes of proposal, although a self-effacing element was noticeable in the nominees' submissions, relative to those of the applicants.

At least two applications included unsolicited testimonials or references from colleagues, inside or outside Macquarie University. I watched carefully for signs that this might have created an unfair advantage for those applicants, but found none. However, the application/nomination playing field might be levelled in future rounds if it is made clear either that such testimonials or references are acceptable in the submitted application/nomination documents (which appears to be the case) or that they are not acceptable.

2.3 The Deans of Division

The Deans of Division play a key advisory role in the Personal Chairs process. However, as noted briefly in Sec. 1 above, the extent and implications of that role are not clearly prescribed and there was marked variation from Division to Division. The only definition of that role in the MQU EA 2000–3 is in clause 9.03.10, which requires 'the Head' (i.e., Dean of Division) to provide a report.

The form requesting this report (headed 'Personal Chairs – Assessors & Advisers') asks the Dean, after due consultation, to nominate '8 persons expert in the field of the candidate,' of whom at least four 'will be appointed as Assessors, at least three of whom should be from outside the University'. This process was sometimes problematic, because it had not been made clear that the Committee needed most Assessors not to be close associates of the candidate. Consequently, finding suitable additional Assessors and obtaining their reports delayed the selection process in some cases.

The same form provides a space for 'Comments by the Dean of Division,' providing an 'opportunity to comment on the nomination' plus an invitation to 'attach a separate page if necessary.' Some Deans made extensive use of this opportunity for additional commentary, while others were much less communicative. It is possible that this apparently inconsistent range of practice by Deans could create an undue advantage or disadvantage for some applicants. I watched carefully for such problems in this round, but am satisfied that they had no discernible effect on the final outcomes.

The VC explained that Deans of Division were not expected to serve as expert research advisers. She stated that the optional additional commentary from the Dean was intended mainly to guard against rewarding candidates who might have tended to concentrate selfishly on their own research interests, to the detriment of their Department's or discipline's primary needs or their administrative, teaching and/or other scholarly duties. An opinion of this type was provided by one Dean in the case of one candidate; it was considered at great length by the Committee and eventually resulted in a favorable decision for that candidate. In another case (that proved unsuccessful), minor unfavorable remarks from a Dean's report were not explicitly discussed by the Committee.

A following section of the form allows for 'Comments by the Candidate,' in accordance with clause

9.03.14 of the MQU EA 2000–3. In completing this section, it may be presumed that the candidate is able to read any comments that the Dean has made on that form. However, it seems that the candidate need not necessarily be informed of any separate page that the Dean may have attached.

It seems desirable for clearer guidelines to be provided in this regard on the relevant forms in future rounds. Deans should be reminded that they are not expected to serve as expert research advisers or to rank candidates in order of merit (given that the Personal Chairs process is not intended to be competitive). They should also probably be discouraged from giving an additional report for some applicants/nominees from their Division, but not for others (lack of support by omission?). Moreover, it is reasonably sound practice for applicants/nominees to be able to read a copy of any comments attached to the form by the Dean, not just the 'Comments by the Dean of Division' section of the form itself. If that is not acceptable, then it should be made clear that the Dean's additional report (if any) is to be treated as confidential and is not accessible to the candidate.

Relevant Discipline Profiles were provided for each applicant/nominee.

2.4 The Executive (VC and two DVCs)

The Screening Committee, as in clauses 9.03.09–11 of the MQU EA 2000–3 and comprising the three Executive members (VC, DVC(Ac) & DVC(R)) found that a prima facie case had been made for all 19 applications/nominations received (one of which was later withdrawn, as noted in Sec. 1).

The VC served as Chair for all meetings of the Committee, displaying authority and concern for correct practice. She occasionally delegating that role to the DVC(Ac) for some sections of some meetings. Examples of the guidance that she provided to unsuccessful candidates and to the Committee have already been noted in Secs 2.1 and 2.3, respectively. She gave frequent opportunities for comments or questions on procedure from Committee members and observers.

The first Committee meeting on 21 December 2004 concluded with two questions posed by the VC, whether there were any residual concerns (i) about procedures and (ii) about her rulings in the course of that meeting. In the same spirit, at the conclusion of the final Committee meeting on 4 May 2005, the VC posed for the record the question whether there were any concerns that anyone had been treated unfairly.

The DVC(Ac) and DVC(R) shared major responsibility for providing the Committee as a whole with the information that it needed to reach its decisions. Each of them had much to do in finding additional Assessors and Advisers when necessary. The DVC(Ac) led the Committee through many of the individual cases. The DVC(R) provided quantitative bibliometric information (e.g., impact factors and citation rates of research publications) on each candidate's publications. Incidentally, it was recommended in this context that applicants/nominees in future Personal Chair rounds should be required wherever possible to list their publications under accepted headings as defined by DEST and used in the University's annual Opus research publications data collection.

2.5 The full Selection Committee

The six voting members of the Committee (VC, DVC(Ac), DVC(R), and 3 academic staff representatives) worked diligently to secure a fair, reasonable outcome for the University in selecting its new Personal Chair appointees. It was evident that they had devoted much time to studying the copious papers (filling three large ring-binders and exceeding 8 kg in mass). They provided a reasonably well-balanced cooperative team with a spread of research and other academic expertise that would be difficult to improve. Cross-cultural issues (e.g., comparing humanities to science) were discussed patiently and cordially.

In several cases, Committee members declared that they were closely associated with a particular candidate or research field. As above, I watched carefully for indications of an unfair advantage or disadvantage for those applicants and am satisfied that the Committee acted properly.

In a few cases, the Committee reached a favorable decision quite promptly (but not with undue haste). In many other cases, discussion was exhaustive and extremely thorough, at times exceeding what I guessed might have been necessary to reach a decision in favour of the candidate.

Clause 9.03.19 of the MQU EA 2000–3 prescribes that 'five votes out of six in favour' are needed for a Personal Chair appointment. In all but one case, the Committee reached each final decision in a single vote. In one case, a poorly resolved 'straw poll' was followed by extensive discussion weighing the relative merits of the candidate's application and finally resulted in a favorable vote. In the final analysis, none of the four unsuccessful cases could be regarded as borderline decisions.

In the course of the Committee's business, the DVC(R) observed that it would be helpful to give applicants/nominees more explicit guidelines on University expectations of research leadership.

2.6 The observers

The two observers (myself and the Manager, EEO) were actively engaged in all of the Committee's proceedings, but without the ability to contribute to the evaluation of candidates or the voting.was occasionally asked for an ad hoc opinion based on my research and other academic expertise. I gave such answers cautiously, in a manner consistent with clause 9.03.16 of the MQU EA 2000–3. I was given ample opportunity to express opinions on the selection process as it proceeded.

I found that participating in a telephone link between the final Committee meeting in Sydney and myself at ANU was far from ideal (but not detrimental to my fulfilling the NTEU observer role), as it was difficult to hear everything that was being said via the equipment available. On the basis of this experience, I should counsel any colleague to be cautious about accepting the option of a telephone interview for appointment or promotion under similar conditions.

As indicated in the preamble to this report, it has been suggested that the Union observer (i.e., myself) should write two reports, one in confidence to the VC and the other for general information. This expectation seems reasonable in my opinion, as it would be consistent with clauses 9.01.57–59

of the MQU EA 2000–3 and clauses 9.01.52–54 of its 2003–6 counterpart. However, there appears to be no direct, formal link between the provisions for academic staff promotions (in sections 9.01 and 9.02 of either MQU EA) and those for Personal Chair appointments (in sections 9.03 of either MQU EA); this merits future clarification (e.g., in the context of the next MQU EA). In these circumstances, I propose to send a fully detailed report in confidence to the Vice Chancellor (with copies sent for information to members of and attendees at the Personal Chairs Selection Committee in the 2004 round) and a less expansive general report to the Macquarie University Branch of the NTEU and to the Director, Human Resources for electronic publication to staff by Human Resources and for distribution to intending applicants/nominees in the next Personal Chairs round.

2.7 Secretarial support

Gaby Laudams (Human Resources) merits special commendation for the patient, conscientious, expert role that she played in keeping the Committee's business, correspondence and meetings on track.

2.8 Assessors and Advisers

As noted in Sec. 2.3, the Committee was hindered by lack of clarity in its requirements for suitable Assessors, in terms of their spread of expertise and not being closely associated with the candidate. Deans and candidates should be notified of such requirements in future Personal Chair rounds.

In some cases, there was an undesirably high incidence of proposed Assessors being unable to agree to provide a report on what was sometimes very short notice. In other cases, some Assessors failed seriously to meet deadlines that they had agreed to. When a sufficiently complete set of Assessors' reports was received for a given candidate, the reports were sent to a designated external expert Adviser for report, as prescribed in clause 9.03.13 of the MQU EA 2000–3. On a few occasions, this proved to be an iterative process in which additional Assessors needed to be sought and their reports obtained, causing further unfortunate delays.

The Assessors and Adviser(s) for each candidate provided a vital service to Macquarie University, on which the integrity of its Personal Chairs selection process depends. The majority of their reports were highly informative and enabled Committee members to evaluate each case reliably, at times to the disadvantage of the candidate but more often to their advantage. The Committee exercised particular care and discretion in cases where inconsistencies were perceived between Assessors' reports for a given candidate.