Dear everyone,
This was an extraordinary week: On Monday I received the joyful news that Lars Herfindal, head of the Center for Pharmacy, has won the Olav Thon Foundation Prize for Outstanding Teaching in Higher Education (Read more for links) Then it was announced on Wednesday that K2 will get a new KG Jebsen Center for Medical Research (Epimutations in Cancer), led by Stian Knappskog ((Read more for links) I am incredibly proud and congratulate you! The awards came just in time before the visit of the university management on Thursday where I took the opportunity to brag about both outstanding teachers and researchers at K2.
And when it comes to awards: The faculty has, as every year, announced the faculty's awards. For the research awards, K2 can nominate one candidate per category (except PhD work, in which case we can nominate 2 candidates). For the teaching award, the candidates must be nominated by an environment (e.g. departments, programme committees, subject groups, semester boards, research groups, networks and student organisations/cohorts. An environment can also nominate itself.)
The nominations must include a description of the initiatives in question, refer to the results achieved and discuss the transfer value and further plans for the initiatives.
The following may be grounds for nomination:
Quality-enhancing initiatives in education, including practical training
Initiatives to promote good learning environments
Work to facilitate increased internationalisation
Testing of new forms of teaching and assessment, including digital innovations
Extended use of student-active learning
Reasoning Publication of the Year
The departments are asked to provide a justification that includes arguments for quality, originality and innovation. Where relevant, the institute should also account for the consequences for further knowledge acquisition, clinical application or innovation. Nominations for publication of the year should reflect the department's own research.
Reasoning for this year's PhD work
The departments are asked to provide a brief justification that includes arguments for quality, originality and innovation. Where relevant, the institute should also account for possible consequences for further knowledge acquisition, clinical application or innovation. In addition, the candidate's own contribution and independence must be described.
Reasoning Research Environment of the Year
The institutes are asked to provide a justification that includes arguments based on research production, scientific quality or ability to innovate. The working environment, recruitment, gender balance and the ability to develop young researchers will also be emphasised and must be presented in the justification. The environment that is nominated should have close cooperation and not have the character of being a loosely linked network. In addition, contributions to national and international research collaboration, networking and contributions to the education of students and PhD candidates should be commented on.
Reasoning for the Dissemination Award
The institutes are asked to provide a brief justification that includes arguments for how a researcher or a research group has been able to communicate recent research in an outstanding way to a broad audience. Research dissemination shall be of high quality with regard to academic content, design and execution. It should engage, arouse curiosity, provide inspiration and new knowledge. The dissemination shall respond to society's need for information and knowledge about research and higher education.
Reasoning for the Innovation Award
The OECD defines innovation as the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method in business practice, workplace organization, or external relations. Innovation also includes innovation activities in education.
The Innovation Award at the Faculty of Medicine is awarded to a person, a group or an innovation environment that meets one or more of the following criteria:
1) Has worked proactively, creatively and research-based to produce health-promoting
solutions to solve current societal challenges. This includes, but is not limited to, products, services, educational tools, etc.
2) Has worked to promote innovation culture and talent development within the field of innovation at MED.
3) Has worked to promote innovation activities in the field of education at MED.
Therefore, I ask to nominate candidates via the following links by February 2:
• (Read more for links)
Have a really good weekend!
Silke
Read more →
