During the Pedagogical Career Ladder Project 2006 – 2007 lecturer A applied to have his pedagogical competence examined. In the first round of applications in 2006 he was assessed to be an Established Teacher27 (minutes of the Academic Appointments Board, 2007-03-06). During the project it was stipulated that the teachers who had been assessed in the first year would be given the possibility of applying to the final round of applications within the framework of the pilot project in 2007.28
When lecturer A’s pedagogical competence was scrutinized in 2007 in two of the expert reports A was assessed as having fulfilled the criteria for excellent teacher. The academic appointments board shared the experts’ assessment and decided to recommend that the lecturer be placed on the level Excellent Teacher according to the Pedagogical Career Ladder Project 2006 – 2007 (Minutes of the Academic Appointments Board 2007-10-19). The vice-chancellor confirmed that lecturer A be placed on the Excellent Teacher Level (Vice-chancellor, 2007c).
In March 2008 lecturer A applied for promotion to senior lecturer in subject X with reference to special pedagogical competence. The Higher Education Ordinance
26 For change to take place the faculty boards have to raise their level of knowledge when it
comes to assessing pedagogical competence. “Crucial to taking pedagogical qualifications into consideration in practice is how the academic appointments boards and the faculty boards in reality weight pedagogical efforts against each other.” (SOU 2001:13, p. 226).
27
Pedagogical Career Ladder is made up of three levels: Qualified, Established, Excellent Teacher. Excellent Teacher is the highest level of the career ladder.
(Chapter 4, 13 §) says: “A lecturer who is permanently employed can be promoted to
senior lecturer even it the qualification requirements are not fulfilled. That applies only if the lecturer has demonstrated special pedagogical competence or special proficiency in developing and leading the activities and personnel at the university or shown a special ability in cooperating with the surrounding community.” In the
application the applicant referred to the decision taken by the vice-chancellor saying that he had that had been placed at the Excellent teacher level in the Pedagogical Career Ladder. The academic appointments board had previously during the course of the pilot project had discussions about the way pedagogical competence ought to be assessed in promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer. In the case of an applicant who has not yet been placed in the Pedagogical Career Ladder, normally one or two experts are appointed to assess pedagogical competence. Since lecturer A was placed on the highest level of the career ladder, the academic appointments board found no reason for examining already demonstrated and documented pedagogical competence.
The application was processed in April 2008 when lecturer A was interviewed by the academic appointments board. All of the members of the board were in agreement that the applicant’s responses and reflections did not give a clear picture of demonstrated pedagogical competence at a high level. Furthermore, the members of the board did not think that the reasoning around pedagogical competence had been satisfactory. Despite the fact that the Higher Education Ordinance clearly states that it is pedagogical competence that shall be grounds for promotion, in practice the members of the academic appointments board took for granted that a certain minimum level of scientific proficiency also should be attained to be a senior lecturer.29 The flaw in the thinking can be traced to the fact that a lecturer can be promoted to senior lecturer in their subject area, but then promotion is based on special proficiency. Normally a senior lecturer is expected to have scientific proficiency that is based on his PhD degree or the equivalent.
Moreover in the academic appointment board’s reasoning around the case it became clear that the criteria for pedagogical competence in the Appointments Procedure30 did not agree with the criteria that are applied in the Pedagogical Career Ladder. An interesting conclusion arrived at by the majority of the members was that there were different requirements for placement on the institution’s Pedagogical Career Ladder and promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer. The case was tabled at the meeting.
29 The reform from1999 regarding promotion in higher education has never been accepted by
a large number of the Swedish institutions in the question of promoting lecturers to senior lecturers. The inquiry on positions in higher education (SOU 2007:98) was clear that the promotion for a lecturer who does not fulfil the criteria for qualification should not be possible. Most of the official responses reflected the view shared the view presented in the inquiry.
30
On nearer examination of the criteria for promotion of lecturers who do not fulfill the qualification requirement, it was evident that the same criteria applied independently of whether or not the special proficiency had to do with administration, cooperation with the surrounding community or pedagogy. The text in the Promotion Procedure was written in connection with the promotion reform in 1999 and can appear to be rather unreflective when seen with today’s eyes.
At the end of April 2008 three representatives31 from the academic appointments board, the personnel section and the head of PIL met for a clarification of her view of scientific proficiency in the promotion of unqualified lecturers to senior lecturers. The conversation resulted in the clarification that there is only one definition of pedagogical competence32, independent of whether it is a question of the Higher Education Act or criteria in the Pedagogical Career Ladder. Moreover the minimum level of scientfic proficiency for permanent employment as a lecturer was fixed at master’s degree.33It became clear concerning promotion of lecturers to senior lecturers on special proficiency that the university’s principle position was that promoted special lecturers demonstrate proficiencies at a high level, but that they are of another character than the usual ones.
The promotion case was reported again at the academic appointments board’s meeting in January 2009. During the period that the case had been resting the vice- chancellor had taken a decision on the definition of pedagogical competence and the minimum requirement regarding scientific proficiency for lecturers. In addition to that, a working group34 that had been commissioned by the vice-chancellor revised the university’s Appointments Procedure where among other things the definition of pedagogical competence was in harmony with that of the Pedagogical Career Ladder. Things that had been unclear at previous meetings of the academic appointments board were thus removed.
The discussions during the meeting were intense and lively, since the majority of the members of the academic appointments board thought that there were no grounds for promoting a lecturer without scientific proficiency equivalent to a PhD degree to senior lecturer. At the same time the members saw that grounds for recommending a promotion existed. Tabling the case yet again was not judged to be a way forward. In my role as chairman it was important for me to see to it that the case progressed. After illuminating different aspects of and consequences for the case an opening came through the information that each individual member has the possibility of registering a reservation against a decision. The complication was that all of the members understood the impossibility of registering a reservation against the decision on promotion, since the requirements had been met. The solution was that all of the members except for the chairman35 registered a reservation against the reasons for the decision. After several deliberations with the university’s lawyer it was decided that a differing opinion would be an appendix to the minutes.
31
Åsa Ryegård, PIL, Jan Romedahl, Personnel secretary and Kjell-Åke Brorsson, Academic Appointments Board.
32
Established in a decison of the vice-chancellor (Vice-chancellor, 2009).
33 Established in a decision of the vice-chancellor (Vice-chancellor, 2009).
34 The chairmen and the secretaries on the the university’s academic appointments boards.
The chairman in the working group was Kjell-Åke Brorsson.
35
I did not share the view of the other members about doubts about promotion based on special proficiency. If examples support that an unqualified lecturer who has applied for promotion fulfills the requirements that are stipulated in the Higher Education Ordinance, the teacher ought to be promoted. It shows that the institution is serious about the importance of
One of the main messages in the reservation was: “The Pedagogical Career Ladder
at Mälardalen University has been made into a question of promotion for lecturers.”
That viewpoint is correct in the sense that it is impossible for a senior lecturer to be promoted to professor only on pedagogical competence. At the same time the career ladder, as I see it, has not implied a way to promotion for lecturers. On the other hand the new order means that examining pedagogical competence can happen in two different ways.
The original variation since the promotion reform in 1999 means that a lecturer applies for promotion to senior lecturer based on special pedagogical competence. The academic appointments board then appoints one or two pedagogical experts to assess the special proficiency. The new way via the career ladder means more steps, namely that a lecturer first applies for the Portfolio of Pedagogical competences Course. Then the lecturer applies to be tested for placement on the Pedagogical Career Ladder. The third step means that the lecturer who has been placed at the highest level can apply for promotion to senior lecturer based on pedagogical competence without further expert assessment. The academic appointments board only interviews the applicant.
Another aspect people had reservations about was the fact that there was no clear connection to salaries as an incentive for teachers to develop their pedagogical competence. Without a connection to salaries there is no reason for lecturers and professors to participate in the Pedagogical Career Ladder. I share the opinion and think that the university ought to be able to arouse interest by introducing the same salary increase as with appointment to unremunerated docent.36
Lecturer A was promoted to senior lecturer in spring 2009.
Case 2. Two experts assess an applicant to be on two different