Strengths of the Proposal

1. A minimum of 20% research, which is compromised by the fact that up to now, no accommodation has been made to transition those on 10% Research into this Model;
2. An attempt to keep research to about 40% on average in the Faculty of Business and Law;
3. A potential very minor increase in hours (teaching-related) for Unit Chairs and Curriculum Development.

Our Concerns

1. There seems to be no scope for even considering moving to an increased estimate of teaching-related activities to ensure “reasonable and sufficient” estimates, as per Plan A, proposed by the Faculty of the Business and Law Consultation Committee
2. The proposed FREM’s approach towards staff currently on 10% research is a serious concern – this is in stark contrast to the accommodating and supportive approach in at least Arts and Education;
3. There has been a very strong reluctance from Faculty Management (as explained by the Chair of our Committee) to move away from the current lists of ranked journals in the Deakin Law School (DLS) and the Deakin Business School (DBS) – proposals to move back to previously adopted ranking lists in the DLS (prior to 2020), and to include the previous list of the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) were considered not to be an option at the moment;
4. Revised teaching hours are demonstrably not “reasonable and sufficient” estimates to perform these tasks. The practical effect of this is that staff that will be:
   1. that staff on (a) a 10% (minimum) Service; (b) a 20% Research (minimum prosed); and (c) a 70% Teaching (as a result of (a) and (b)) allocation will never be able to escape from this allocation over the 3-year period from 2025-2027. Again, this is in stark contrast with the Arts and Education model to move everybody to a 40/40/20 Model.
   2. That staff who are moved to 20% research minimum will be required to publish without the required changes to either the FREM or more accurate time estimates to undertake teaching activities. The result will likely continue the widely reported practice of staff using their annual leave to meet research expectations (above 55% of responses to our February survey).

Health

The Faculty is to be commended for the approach taken to the WAM revisions. Intensive and inclusive efforts were made by the Faculty of Health FDAC to improve on the existing workload allocation model. The feedback from the Union and University surveys was highly influential, and modelling was regularly revisited to ensure that current data (e.g. regarding publication outputs) informed evaluation of proposed changes. All views and suggestions were welcomed and considered by the Committee, and while potential resource constraints that might impact the Faculty’s ability to implement proposed changes were noted, these concerns were not a barrier to consideration of ideas.

The proposed Faculty of Health model comprises a number of improvements (compared with the 2017 model), in particular with regards to allocation of time for coordination and administration of teaching, allocations for HDR supervision, and improved flexibility for staff in determining service contributions and evaluating quality of research. It also places an important and sorely needed emphasis on guidance to support consistent and fair implementation of the WAM, especially when discretionary powers are applied.

However, there is still considerable work to be done in the Faculty with respect to quantification of workload associated with the diverse range of teaching and assessment activities and consequent adjustments to time allocated for these tasks. It will also be essential to review the impact of proposed new metrics for research time allocation on staff at different levels and within different research disciplines, to determine whether these advance equity and allow for all staff to develop and sustain fulfilling academic careers that contribute to the diverse goals of the Faculty, University and wider communities we serve.

Strengths of the Proposal

1. Substantial increase in workload allocations to cover teaching coordination and administration across a range of unit types of varying complexity.
   1. Addresses major concern identified by teaching staff regarding various time costs associated with unit administration.
   2. Rather than itemising allocations, e.g., for student engagement, a collective allocation can be distributed across relevant activities and staff – allowing flexibility in light of diverse units and teaching staff priorities.
2. Allocation of time for HDR supervision within teaching that recognizes the educational component of such supervision.
   1. While this time doesn’t reflect the entire workload associated with HDR supervision, supervisors will continue to benefit from time allocated for research as a result of work to which HDR students contribute (e.g. through co-authored publications).
3. Adjustments to metrics used to allocate research time that
   1. Decrease the expectations of earlier-career academics (supporting level As and Bs).
   2. Reduce the maximal allocations for research available based on publications alone (recognizing in part the work associated with grant income generation). This may help to reduce the sometimes perverse pursuit of publications. It may also support recognition of teaching as a routine and valued expectation of well-rounded senior academics.
   3. Allow for greater flexibility in determination of quality research outputs.
4. Affirmation of the 10% minimum service allocation that notably gives staff greater freedom to define their service contributions, with support and oversight via Deakin Achieve rather than burdensome quantification through workload allocation systems. Up to 15% (and more in exceptional cases) service allocations allowed for, with greater accountability required to demonstrate evidence of service commitments if exceeding 10%.

Our Concerns

1. The model makes no changes to allocation of time for teaching and marking activities, many of which have been identified by staff as requiring adjustments to ensure reasonable time is allocated.
   1. While the changes to unit administration allocations should reduce burdens on some teaching staff, those who are primarily involved in delivery of teaching and assessment rather than coordination may experience little change in their current workload. Irrespective of positive adjustments to coordination and administration loads, urgent review of teaching and assessment delivery allocations is needed.
   2. The FDAC notably recognized this, and has committed to reviewing teaching allocations. This will be a challenging task requiring substantial time and resources in order to accurately map the many diverse teaching and assessment activities across the Faculty.
2. The impact of the proposed changes to the research metrics are difficult to predict, in part due to limitations of the data used to assess current research outputs and real research time available to staff at different levels within different teams across the Faculty. The flow-on impact on teaching workload distribution is also unpredictable
   1. While it is hoped they will make it easier for more junior staff to meet expectations and retain research time allocations, this is likely to depend on how effectively the proposed changes to teaching, service and research allocations are implemented.
   2. It is also unclear how adjustments to metrics will impact more senior staff, particularly those from research fields with a lower volume of publications. Increased publication expectations to secure research time at levels D and E may have a negative impact on some staff and thus negatively impact the multidisciplinary research outputs for which the Faculty is known.
   3. In short, while the research adjustments likely represent an improvement on the current model, timely and careful review will be needed to ensure they don’t simply reaffirm the status quo or, worse, exacerbate inequities.

Additionally, the diversity of teaching and research within the Faculty and within the five Schools of the Faculty is a major challenge.

While there are many common concerns about workload models across the Faculty, developing a Faculty-wide model that addresses these concerns satisfactorily is very difficult, due to the diversity of teaching and research programs.

For example, the Faculty includes both semester and trimester based units, and many health professional courses that require teaching work to be distributed across large and complex teaching teams as well as a range of placement and teaching activities that may differ significantly in terms of workload requirements.

Similarly, research programs include those that regularly generate substantial grant income and a high volume of large-author group Q1 publications, as well as those that may produce less frequent but equally impactful sole or dual-author publications. Some individuals or research groups make substantive research contributions to health policy and practice through publications that take the form of governmental reports, professional guidelines or similar, rather than peer-reviewed journal articles.

Accommodating such differences without disproportionately disadvantaging or advantaging particular groups is difficult, and in part explains some of the limitations of the proposed new model.