Guidelines for Interim Review

Introduction

The School believes strongly in developing the potential of those lecturers whom it has recruited. The School recognises that individuals will be appointed who are at different stages of their academic careers and considers that a process of structured review is beneficial to both lecturers and the School.

A review process operates for lecturers new to the School which divides into two stages, described as Interim Review and Major Review. These are designed to reflect key stages in career development. The purpose of Interim Review and Major Review is to provide the opportunity for detailed and careful consideration of progress.

A lecturer without a proven track record regarding either teaching or research can expect to be appointed subject to Interim Review and Major Review. Interim Review may be waived and a lecturer appointed subject to Major Review only where there is an established record of teaching and research but the period is less than five years.

The Promotions Committee is the formal School decision-making body which reaches decisions about success at Interim Review. The Promotions Committee's Terms of Reference are available on the Human Resources website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/PromotionsCommittee.htm

Decisions about success at Interim Review are made solely on merit, as gauged by the lecturer's research and scholarship, teaching, and the contribution he/she is making to the general life of the department and the School.

Aim of Interim Review

The aim of the Interim Review is to assess the lecturer's progress during the early part of his/her appointment and to confirm whether he/she is on track for a successful Major Review. The procedure is designed to evaluate the extent of the individual's promise in research, the extent of his/her commitment and success in teaching, and the extent to which he/she has made a contribution to the work of the School. Under Promotions Committee procedures, there is no self-sponsored procedure for Interim Reviews.

Criteria for Interim Review

In particular, in considering Interim Reviews the Promotions Committee evaluates the candidate's activities across research and publication, teaching and contributions to the Department.

Criteria for Interim Review

Evidence of emerging research programme with, at minimum, work submitted for publication in high quality outlets
Evidence of effective teaching
Evidence of constructive contributions to the life of the department, the work of the School and where appropriate, School Research Centres.

The Promotions Committee bases its decision on its view of the evidence presented in the following documentation:

A report from the candidate's Head of Department on the candidate's progress in research, teaching and contributions to the Department
A CV presented on the standard template including a statement of planned research
A statement from the candidate on their teaching contribution and related activities
School student survey results.

The Committee may also seek such other evidence as it deems appropriate.

Academic Career Development Scheme and Mentoring

The Promotions Committee expects that all academics and particularly those coming up for promotion or review will receive constructive advice on career development from senior academic colleagues. Lecturers who are appointed subject to an Interim Review can expect to receive advice and support from senior members of their departments.

A new Academic Career Development Scheme (formerly known as appraisal) was implemented in the Summer term of the 2006-2007 session. The Academic Career Development Scheme is designed to serve the needs of individual academics, enable Heads of Department to manage staff promotions and reviews, and in that context, to flag at an early stage, any issues of concern to the Promotions Committee. The shift in nomenclature from appraisal to career development was deliberate, tipping the balance towards proactive support, mentoring and career guidance for staff throughout their academic careers.

Members of academic staff pre-Major Review and through the first five years post-Major Review, will have an annual Career Development Meeting (CDM).

The VCAC, in conjunction with Human Resources, will keep the Academic Career Development Scheme under review and report annually on its implementation and effectiveness to the Appointments Committee. Where the VCAC is concerned about a particular academic's progress towards Interim/Major Review, the Career Development Reports (CDRs) or information derived from them, may be presented to the Promotions Committee. The Promotions Committee may then advise the VCAC to discuss with the Head of Department the steps that should be taken to ensure successful progress towards Interim/Major Review. It is assumed that this would be infrequent and would only be initiated in the interests of the academic in question. This should be seen in the context of the School's commitment to ensure that all academic staff receive the best possible advice in relation to career development. The Academic Career Development Scheme is available on the Human Resources website:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/
AcademicCareerDevelopmentScheme.htm

For lecturers pre-Major Review the role of the Mentor as set out in the Mentoring Guidelines for Newly Appointed Academic Staff is considered to be of vital significance in supporting career development. Lecturers will be assigned a departmental Mentor by their Head of Department. The Mentor assumes responsibility for undertaking regular reviews of the lecturer's progress towards successful Interim Review. The lecturer should expect that his/her Mentor will liaise on a regular basis with the lecturer's Head of Department. Between them, the lecturer's Mentor and the Head of Department share responsibility for supporting the lecturer towards his/her Interim Review. Lecturers who encounter difficulties in the mentoring relationship are advised to discuss the situation with their Head of Department in the first instance to explore whether a change of Mentor is necessary.

New lecturers are also offered a programme of induction activities run by the Teaching and Learning Centre. Further information is available from Dr Liz Barnett, Director, TLC.

Interim Review and Part-Time Staff

Interim Reviews for part-time staff will normally take place in the third year of the appointment.

The Promotions Committee cannot offer specific guidance across all School departments regarding the quantity of publishable output for Interim Reviews. To this extent the Committee's advice on part-time staff is that they are judged pro-rata against departmental criteria for full-time appointments. The VCAC may be contacted for advice on individual cases.

Temporary Lecturers and Interim Review

Where appropriate, temporary lecturers will be given a date for Interim Review (normally in the third year of a three-year fixed-term appointment). The Promotions Committee considers it important that a temporary lecturer should be able to confirm that standards were appropriate for them to pass Interim Review at LSE when applying for their next position. Individuals should be offered appropriate guidance towards meeting School expectations for a successful Interim Review.

In cases where a temporary lecturer is appointed initially for a period of one, or two, years but the appointment is subsequently extended to three years or beyond, it will normally be the case that Interim Review will be scheduled in the third year of the temporary lecturer's employment with the School. It is therefore expected that temporary lecturers will be undertaking the full range of academic activities - i.e. teaching, research and contributions to departmental and School administration at a level sufficient to meet the School's expectations for a successful Interim Review.

It follows that temporary lecturers (regardless of length of contract) should be assigned a departmental Mentor and offered appropriate career development advice and guidance under the framework of the Academic Career Development Scheme.

Administrative workload pre-Major Review

The Promotions Committee's expectation is that, normally, members of staff pre-Major Review should not be asked to carry heavy administrative workloads.

Research Student Supervision

The School's Code of Practice for research students and supervisors states that the departmental Doctoral Programme Director has responsibility for ensuring that members of staff pre-Interim Review should not have sole supervisory responsibility for research students.

Timing of Interim Review

Interim Reviews usually take place in the November of the third year of appointment. There is scope for the Interim Review to be held either earlier or later than this if circumstances warrant the advancement/deferral of Interim Review. (Further information about the procedures to follow for advancement/deferral is provided below).

Implementing the Recommendations of the Teaching Task Force

The Teaching Task Force recommended the development of complementary and additional forms of evaluation to improve the evaluation of individual teaching performance. Section 5.2 of the Teaching Task Force report states that '....student responses cannot be the sole means to evaluate teaching, but should be combined with the following: more detailed reports on teaching at Major Review and other stages of the promotion procedure by the relevant Head of Department; more extensive use of teaching observations of staff by TLC (for its own sake and to feed into evaluations), which, in the case of staff applying for promotion, should be done by the relevant Head of Department or by a senior member of the department on his/her behalf...'.

Major Reviews: Teaching Observations implemented from 2008-2009

In accordance with the above, the VCAC has agreed that teaching observations for all Major Review candidates should be implemented from next session, 2008-2009. For reasons of timing, this will mean that a teaching observation should take place before the Promotions Committee meeting to consider Major Reviews (4 February 2009). The deadline for submission of additional information on the teaching observation will be 12 January 2009. The Head of Department will be responsible for submitting this information to Human Resources. Further guidance on this aspect will be available shortly.

From 2009-2010, the report on the teaching observation will form part of the documentation for Major Reviews which should be submitted to Human Resources by the deadline to be published in the promotion and review Timetable.

Promotions: Teaching Observations implemented from 2009-2010

From 2009-2010, the Promotions Committee will expect teaching observations to be carried out for all promotion candidates The report on the teaching observation will form part of the documentation for promotion proposals which should be submitted to Human Resources by the deadline to be published in the promotion and review Timetable.

Interim Reviews: Teaching Observations implemented from 2009-2010

From 2009-2010, the Promotions Committee will expect teaching observations to be carried out for all Interim Review candidates. The report on the teaching observation will form part of the documentation for Interim Reviews which should be submitted to Human Resources by the deadline to be published in the promotion and review Timetable.

In all cases, the Promotions Committee reserves the right to approach the candidate's Head of Department to request that any evidence of poor teaching should be addressed.

Procedure for Interim Review

The basic format of Interim Review is that a recommendation from the lecturer's Head of Department about whether the lecturer should pass Interim Review is made to the Promotions Committee, which then makes the decision. The lecturer's Head of Department will also decide on recommendations for advancement/deferral of Interim Review. In reaching any recommendation, the lecturer's Head of Department will consult his/her professorial colleagues for their views, and, in addition, at his/her discretion, non-professorial colleagues.

The detailed procedure for Interim Review comprises the following stages:

1. Lecturers scheduled to undergo Interim Review will receive a letter from Human Resources prior to the academic session in which the Interim Review is expected to take place informing them of the forthcoming procedure and enclosing a copy of these guidelines. Lecturers will be informed where the documentation for Interim Review can be located on the Human Resources website and in Public Folders. Human Resources will send each lecturer subject to Interim Review School student survey results for the preceding two academic sessions. The questionnaire results are also sent for information to the Head of Department. The teaching data is provided to enable candidates to comment on their scores on the Teaching Contribution Form and Heads of Department to refer to candidates' teaching performance in their recommendations (see note 3 of this section for more information on the documentation for Interim Review).

2. The lecturer has the opportunity to submit to his/her Head of Department any information that he/she considers relevant, or to ask for a deferral of the Interim Review if he/she so desires. The practice for submitting information varies between departments: the Head of Department will offer the opportunity of a discussion meeting with the lecturer and/or the lecturer will be given the opportunity to submit a written statement about his/her work which the Head of Department will use in preparation of his/her report to the Promotions Committee. The Head of Department should give the lecturer a reasonable period of notice in either case.

3. The documentation for Interim Review consists of three elements:

The Interim Review Form: completed by the Head of Department reporting the lecturer's progress and activities in research and publication, teaching, and service to the School, and recommending whether the lecturer should pass Interim Review.
The CV Template for Interim Review: completed by the lecturer.
The Teaching Contribution Form: completed by the lecturer.

4. If, after appropriate consultations with colleagues and consideration of the information provided by the lecturer subject to Interim Review, the Head of Department is of the view that the required level of progress is being made towards Major Review the Head of Department will submit a full report to the Promotions Committee recommending that the individual should pass Interim Review.

5. If, after the consultations and consideration referred to above, the Head of Department is of the view that the lecturer is not making the required level of progress towards Major Review in due course, the Head of Department will submit a full report to the Promotions Committee setting out the reasons and reporting the lecturer's progress and activities in research and publication, teaching, and service to the School. In addition to his/her report, the Head of Department will be asked to suggest the names of external referees for the Promotions Committee's consideration. Where it considers it appropriate, the Promotions Committee may canvass the views of one or more such outside referees.

6. If, in the period between the Head of Department submitting the Interim Review recommendation and the Promotions Committee considering the case, any new information arises which the candidate/Head of Department wishes to be taken into account by the Promotions Committee, the candidate/Head of Department should submit the information to Human Resources.

7. In considering Interim Reviews, Promotions Committee members will have before them a full set of papers relating to each candidate, comprising:

The Interim Review Form.
The candidate's CV on the CV Template.
The Teaching Contribution Form.
School student survey results.

8. The Promotions Committee will consider each recommendation individually and then reach a decision whether the lecturer should pass his/her Interim Review.

The Promotions Committee is in no way bound to follow the recommendation of the Head of Department. It is a basic School principle that Interim Review recommendations are subject to assessment and evaluation by Professors from other departments. It is open to the Promotions Committee either to endorse the recommendation, to reject it, or to defer the lecturer's Interim Review. This latter step will be taken only where the Promotions Committee considers that either the School or the lecturer, or both, would benefit from the Promotions Committee having the possibility to consider the lecturer's position again after the deferral (and so offering scope, where relevant, for any material coming into being during the period of the deferral to be considered by the Promotions Committee). The Promotions Committee may ask the VCAC to maintain a watching brief on progress.

If a majority of the members of the Promotions Committee are doubtful about the Head of Department's recommendation, the Committee may ask the Head of Department to suggest the names of external referees for the Promotions Committee's consideration. Where it considers it appropriate, the Promotions Committee may canvass the views of one or more such outside referees.

Head of Department's Report for Interim Review

The Head of Department's report on candidates for Interim Review is the most important piece of evidence considered by the Promotions Committee. The Interim Review report should provide an evaluative commentary on the candidate's academic profile, with particular emphasis to teaching, research and publication strategy, contributions to departmental administration and any other relevant professional activities. The report should look forward to the Major Review commenting on the candidate's planned trajectory to meet the criteria for a successful Major Review. The report should also confirm that Career Development Meeting(s) (CDMs) have taken place and outline the career development advice provided to the candidate by their Mentor and other senior members of the Department. Under the School's Academic Career Development Scheme, members of academic staff pre-Major Review and through the first five years post-Major Review, will have an annual Career Development Meeting (CDM).

The Promotions Committee would expect that should the Head of Department have any serious concerns regarding the lecturer's prospects for a successful Interim Review, the Head of Department would have sought the advice of the VCAC at a much earlier stage.

Views of the Departmental Professoriate

The Head of Department should have consulted professorial colleagues regarding the candidate and the Head of Department's report should be based on the information submitted to and considered by, the departmental Professoriate. The Head of Department's report should make clear which members of the departmental Professoriate were involved in reaching the decision to recommend that the lecturer should pass Interim Review (e.g. Professors on leave, Emeritus Professors). If there are differing opinions these should be explained in full in the Interim Review report.

Work cited on the CV

There is no requirement for the submission of writings in support of Interim Review. Candidates should, however, note that the Promotions Committee reserves the right to request sight of any work cited on the CV. It follows that work should be available in physical form in case the Promotions Committee should request it. The (ink) signatures of the candidate and Head of Department on the CV are required as confirmation that the information provided is accurate. A hard copy of the CV should be submitted to Human Resources.

Responsibility for Submission of the Case to the Promotions Committee

Heads of Department are responsible for the submission of all documentation (Head of Department's report, CV including research trajectory, Teaching Contribution Form) concerning Interim Review proposals to the Promotions Committee via Human Resources. It follows that Heads of Department are expected to take an active role in advising candidates on presentation of their CVs, ensuring that information is set out clearly - particularly in relation to the publication profile, and that there are no omissions.

Submissions should be checked against department held information before being submitted to Human Resources to ensure consistency in the submission as considered by the Department and the submission to the Promotions Committee. In the event that the submission to the Promotions Committee differs from that considered by the Department, the Committee will be able to seek clarification from the Head of Department.

Documentation submitted directly to Human Resources by candidates will not be accepted.

Notification of Decisions

Decisions of the Promotions Committee remain confidential until lecturers have been notified in writing of the outcome. Letters under the Director's signature, copied to Heads of Department, will issue as soon as possible following the conclusion of the meeting.

Successful Interim Review
If a majority of the members of the Promotions Committee agree with the Head of Department's recommendation, the lecturer concerned will pass Interim Review.

Unsuccessful Interim Review
If the Promotions Committee's decision is that the lecturer has not passed Interim Review, the lecturer will be advised that he/she has a right, if he/she wishes, to appeal against the decision of the Promotions Committee. Further information about the appeal process is available on request from Human Resources.

Advancement or Deferral of Interim Review

The Promotions Committee is prepared to consider requests for the advancement/deferral of Interim Reviews. If a lecturer considers that he/she may wish to have their Interim Review held earlier or later than the original timescale, he/she should discuss the reason(s) with his/her Head of Department. Requests for advancement/deferral of Interim Reviews are considered at the Promotions Committee's first meeting of each session.

Advancement
The Head of Department will consult the lecturer's Mentor and the Professors within the department for their views on whether the lecturer's progress is such that he/she is ready to go forward for Interim Review. If, after appropriate consultation(s), the Head of Department considers that the lecturer's progress is such that he/she may undergo Interim Review earlier than originally anticipated, the Head of Department should request that the Interim Review be advanced. The reasons for the request should be set out by the Head of Department on the Advance Interim Review Form and submitted together with the candidate's CV completed on the Interim Review CV template for the Promotions Committee's consideration. Requests for advancement of Interim Review will normally be submitted in the academic session in which it is proposed that the advanced review should take place.

Deferral
The Promotions Committee is willing to consider deferral of Interim Review for either one or two years in appropriate cases.

The following are examples of circumstances in which deferral may be agreed:

Family related absence (for example adoption leave, paternity leave etc.)
Extended sickness absence
Personal circumstances which have disrupted the lecturer's duties
Academic leave (for example special leave buyout)
A change in hours of work (for example a temporary period of part-time working or a permanent reduction in hours).

Maternity leave: will constitute an automatic interruption in progress towards Interim Review. Heads of Department are not required to request deferral of Interim Review on grounds of maternity leave. The timetable towards Interim Review will be extended (pushed back) by one year to take account of time spent on maternity leave unless a member of staff specifically requests that the session date for Interim Review should remain as under the original timescale. Following notification that a member of staff will be taking maternity leave, Human Resources will inform the member of staff of the provision for extension and ascertain their wishes regarding the session date for Interim Review. Human Resources will inform the candidate's Head of Department of any proposed change to the timing of Interim Review. A one-year interruption in progress towards Interim Review on grounds of maternity leave will not preclude Heads of Department submitting a request for deferral of Interim Review on other grounds in a subsequent year, should that be considered necessary. Any deferral of Interim Review on other grounds would require the approval of the Promotions Committee.

It should be noted that the above are merely examples of when deferrals may be agreed should a request be made; there is no presumption that a lecturer will necessarily wish to request deferral in such circumstances. For example, where a lecturer takes up a part-time appointment, the Head of Department's recommendation and decision of the Promotions Committee will have due regard to the lecturer's hours of work.

Whether to request deferral is for the lecturer to decide in the first instance, in consultation with his/her Head of Department. The Head of Department will consult the lecturer's mentor and the Professors within the department for their views. A request for deferral and the corresponding decision will not be regarded as reflecting unfavourably on a lecturer's standing.

Deferral of Interim Review may also come about in the circumstances set out above where the Promotions Committee considers that either the School or the lecturer, or both, would benefit from the Promotions Committee having the opportunity to consider the lecturer's position again. The Promotions Committee may ask the VCAC to maintain a watching brief on progress.

The reasons for the deferral request should be set out by the Head of Department on the Defer Interim Review Form and submitted together with the candidate's CV completed on the Interim Review CV template for Promotions Committee's consideration. Requests for deferral of Interim Review will normally be submitted in the academic session in which the review was expected to take place.

Interim Review and Major Review in the same session

The Promotions Committee is prepared to consider requests from Heads of Department for a lecturer to undergo Interim Review and Major Review in the same academic session. The two are, in principle, separate processes. If it is necessary for the Head of Department to make a request to advance the Interim/Major Review the usual procedures for advancement should be followed.

Where a candidate is proceeding for Interim Review and Major Review in the same session, the documentation consists of the following elements:

1. Interim & Major Review Form: completed by the Head of Department indicating the candidate's research and teaching activities and administrative contribution.
2. The CV Template for Interim & Major Review: completed by the candidate.
3. The Teaching Contribution Form: completed by the candidate.
4. The Referees for Major Review Form: completed by the Head of Department giving names and full contact information (including email, telephone and fax) of five outside referees (including one reserve) to be consulted by the Promotions Committee.
5. Three properly-ordered sets of up to four writings which the candidate believes best represent his/her qualities.
6. Three copies of any reviews which have appeared on the candidate's books (whether they are favourable or unfavourable).

Interim Review, Major Review, and Promotion in the same session

Normally, it will be the case that no candidate will go through more than 2 of the above stages in any one session - i.e. Interim and Major Review, Major Review and Promotion. The Promotions Committee recognises that there may be exceptions when it would prove helpful to relax the 2-stage limit.

Heads of Department wishing to put forward a case on this basis should, in the first instance, contact the VCAC to discuss the circumstances. The VCAC will determine whether circumstances warrant relaxation of the 2-stage limit to permit the member of staff to undergo Interim Review, Major Review and Promotion in the same session. If it is necessary for the Head of Department to make a request to advance the Interim/Major Review the usual procedures for advancement should be followed.

Each stage is, in principle, separate. Candidates must pass Interim Review and Major Review before they can be considered for promotion. Heads of Department are asked to bear this in mind when writing their reports on candidates to ensure that appropriate weight is given to the Major Review recommendation and that discussion of the merits of the case is not restricted solely to the case for promotion.

See also the deadlines and documentation for Interim Review, Major Review and Promotion in the same session.

Teacher of the University Status

The names of all those lecturers who have been successful at Interim Review will be reported to the Appointments Committee and to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London. Lecturers passing Interim Review will also acquire Teacher of the University status.

General

Lecturers will be notified at appropriate times on an individual basis of the position as regards their appointment (for example, on application to defer Interim Review; after Interim Review).

These Guidelines are subject to periodic review and may be amended or updated as the School considers necessary.