In general, the proposals attracted positive feedback, and in particular support for the following was affirmed:
- The adoption of three career pathways.
- The introduction of an Enterprise, Engagement and Impact pathway.
- Formally including Citizenship as a category for promotion.
- Including a minimum threshold for Citizenship for progression.
- The new overall approach to promotion.
A wide variety of feedback was received which is summarised in the following list:
- A minimum threshold of performance in one of Education or Research or Enterprise, Engagement and Impact (linked to the individual’s classification/pathway) rather than, for example, a specific one for all applications such as Education was preferred.
- Further clarification on how staff can move between pathways was requested.
- Further clarification on how professional activities (e.g., clinical activities) are included was requested.
- Further clarification on how fractional appointments are dealt with fairly was requested.
- The importance of ensuring ED&I issues were central to considerations was noted.
- A request that the careers of Research Fellows/Senior Research Fellows and how those on Research terms and conditions of employment can be included or otherwise considered within the career framework.
- A request that the position of Teaching Fellows be considered. (See below)
- The need to ensure the BACF programme is evaluated after a specific period of time to ensure it is fit for purpose particularly from an ED&I perspective.
- Clarification on what is meant by “scholarship”. (See below)
- Feedback that the names of two of the pathways (Education and Scholarship and Education and Research) are too similar and potentially confusing.
The definition of Scholarship was discussed at each focus group and it became apparent that no single definition existed which was acceptable to all.
It is noted that teaching fellows (Grade 7) are considered within Workstream 5.