Beyond the CV: Rethinking what counts in academic impact
Anthony Weber, M. Sarah-Jane Gregory, Christina North, Holly Hosking and Matt Riddle, CQUniversity
We are all familiar with the adage, ’publish or perish’. It’s shorthand for how academic success is often measured in higher education, but it overlooks a huge part of what many academics actually do.
Think about the academic who spends years redesigning assessments to improve engagement, or mentoring colleagues in inclusive teaching, or embedding sustainability into their curriculum. Their efforts boost pass rates, spark developmental conversations, shape team practices, and even influence industry partners. Yet when promotion time comes around, these contributions often fade into the background, either overshadowed by traditional research metrics or reduced to vague narrative statements in a portfolio.
Higher education talks a lot about valuing teaching, but our recognition systems haven’t quite caught up. That’s why we’re excited by a practical innovation from CQUniversity: the Scholarly Educator Evidence Portfolio. It’s not another compliance exercise. It’s a structured, evidence-informed way to make teaching impact visible, measurable, and genuinely career-shaping.
The problem we’re all grappling with
This isn’t a new problem. Teaching-intensive academics often feel undervalued compared with their research-focused peers (Bull et al 2025; Evans, 2025; Harlow et al, 2022; Rowsell, 2026). Meanwhile, third-space professionals like learning designers, academic developers, and capability leaders can fall between the cracks of established academic career pathways (Grant & Kennie, 2024; Whitchurch, 2026). Even research-active academics who invest heavily in teaching may struggle to meaningfully evidence their educational impact.
Current approaches don’t offer much help. Reflection and peer review can feel subjective, while simplistic ‘activity counting’ rewards volume over genuine transformation. At the same time, universities are under increasing pressure to respond to student success, equity, digital transformation, and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). The interim Statement of Strategic Priorities (SPP) released by the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) highlights the importance of strengthening both the “quality” and “recognition” of higher education teaching. In developing its interim SSP, the interim ATEC Commissioners considered the Letter of Expectations issued to them by Minister Jason Clare, which also references continuing “the work on professionalisation of teaching… through the progression of advice developed by the Enhancing Professional Practice in Higher Education Working Group and any other sources of advice that you deem necessary”.
Put simply, there’s a growing gap between what we say as a sector we value and how we actually measure and reward it.
A framework that centres impact
The Scholarly Educator Evidence Portfolio tackles this by recognising three connected dimensions of academic work:
Scholarly practice – the everyday work of improving teaching, like redesigning assessments or responding to student feedback;
Scholarly praxis – connecting research and theory to practice through curriculum renewal, workshops, communities of practice, and internal dissemination; and
Scholarly research – rigorous inquiry generating and sharing new knowledge through publications, grants, and sector leadership.
What brings this to life is an impact credit model where each activity earns credits through a simple but principled formula:
Impact Credits = Base Credits × Transformative Reach × Evidence Quality
Base credits reflect the complexity of the activity (intentionally conservative to avoid gaming the system).
Transformative reach scales from 1X (individual impact) up to 5X (broader institutional, community, or disciplinary influence), encouraging educators to think bigger about who benefits.
Evidence quality rewards stronger proof from 1X (basic reflection) to 2X (measurable outcomes or peer-reviewed outputs).
The combination creates balance and fair weighting. It means a thoughtfully redesigned unit with demonstrated impact that is shared across a program can be recognised, alongside larger funded projects. Scale still matters, but it’s transparent rather than implicitly privileged.
The framework builds on existing work around academic career development (e.g., Gregory & Cresswell, 2025) and recognises diverse forms of scholarly contribution while keeping a clear focus on impact, evidence, and progression across contexts.
Built for fairness, not performance
The framework’s strength is its calibration by role and level. Teaching-intensive staff, research-active academics, and third-space professionals are all recognised uniquely, reflecting their contexts. It’s not perfect. No framework is. It needs calibration, cultural buy-in, and thoughtful governance (including a quality panel for consensus on novel contributions). From the outset, it may appear to risk impact credits becoming a kind of ‘game currency’, encouraging accumulation, comparison, and strategic play over reflection, evidence, and impact. However, far more compelling is the opportunity to ensure the ‘game’ rewards what actually matters: transformative reach, meaningful evidence, and contributions that extend beyond the individual, fostering a culture where scholarly teaching is genuinely career-enhancing, collaborative, and future-focused.
What could this unlock?
Early reflections from across CQUniversity suggest it helps academics tell richer, more meaningful stories about their work. At the same time, it gives leaders clearer, more consistent evidence for promotion, workload allocation, and strategic investment.
At a time of AI disruption, shifting student expectations, and calls for more inclusive, sustainable education, tools like this help us align our priorities with everyday practice. Imagine promotion discussions grounded in transparent, consistent evidence of teaching impact and recognition for the ‘quiet’ innovations that transform student belonging or regional employability.
The Scholarly Educator Evidence Portfolio moves us beyond the false binary of ‘teaching vs research’ towards something more useful: integrated scholarly impact assessment that truly serves students, staff, communities, and the sector.
Associate Professor Anthony Weber Director, Learning & Teaching Futures, CQUniversity
Dr M. Sarah-Jane Gregory Lecturer, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity
Christina North Project Officer, CQUniversity Office of Education, Strategy & Quality
Dr Holly Hosking Executive Officer & Coordinator Projects, CQUniversity Office of Education, Strategy & Quality
Matt Riddle Deputy Director, Learning Design Futures, CQUniversity