At the last HSE seminar this was a topic for discussion, and those of us who were present got a good introduction to why and how.

All employees (permanent, temporary, PhD-fellows but not students) are entitled to annual employee appraisals.

This applies regardless of whether a UiB employe is on a full- or part-time position, if one has the main or secondary workspace. (The same applies for a Helse-Vest employee if one has such in their group, they have, however, their own electronic form).

Group leader is responsible for giving the option of employee appraisals to their employees. Department Manager is responsible for providing employee appraisals for group leaders and this has already been largely completed now late autumn.

What one wants to get out of such a conversation is a mutual clarification between manager and employee as regards to expectations for work, how to exploit / utilize competanse / personal resources, how work is perceived and further development / advice with respect to career planning for the employees.

This we believe is useful for both managers and employees?

(Clarification: This is not primarily forums for bargaining, it is done mainly through other channels). The conversation will be confidential and one make a short synopsis according to form available online in the University’s Director’s Handbook, and can be downloaded here:

https://cp.compendia.no/universitetet-i-bergen/lederhandbok/70154#openstep=70159
(only in Norwegian)

There are three different forms according to employee group but in principle they are very similar. It is useful for both parties to look through the forms before the meeting is held.

Generally, it is recommended that there are no supervisors who has employee appraisal with PhD-fellows. If they wish they should be able to talk to someone else. Hopefully the “second in command” in our organizational units can take over the employee appraisal function when such factors are present?

Emphasis should be on constructive dialogue, ie focus on things that can actually be improved or adapted. Those needing a humorous look at how to NOT imagine the mapping of a performance employee appraisal can view attached whining notification form, found in the Administration Department of Research at Stavanger University Hospital: Click here!
(only in Norwegian)

Good Advent!

Jone

The medical curriculum holds that it is mandatory for the students to write a pre master’s thesis. In 2015, altogether 124 pre master’s theses were completed. Of these, 105 were written with supervision from researchers affiliated to K1 or K2. K2 contributed with 51 and K1 with 54 of the pre master’s theses. This says that students choose tasks that are clinically related. For K1 and K2 this implies opportunities for recruitment to subsequent research and also to the specific clinical fields of medicine. There are several examples that the recruitment into research has gone through a pre master’s thesis. One gets the chance to evaluate whether this is a student with both the skills and the ambitions to do research. At the same time, post-docs and experienced PhD-fellows may have an opportunity to try their hands as supervisors.

In the new medical curriculum the pre master’s thesis will play a bigger role than in the old. The research groups that do not have a strategy to use the students and the resource they represent through pre master’s thesis, should consider this. Here lie possibilities that the research groups should exploit.

Per

In an ever sharper competition for research funding, it is important that the next generation of researchers have an opportunity to position themselves early. We as senior researchers should let the next generation forward. This includes giving them the opportunity of being main supervisors and last authors. It may include giving them the opportunity to show that they are independent researchers, by the seniors not being on the author list om publications. All these measures require that the next generation has actually contributed to the merits they then receive. The latter measure, that seniors refrain from co-authorship, is perhaps the most difficult. It impairs the senior’s own merit, thereby reducing his/her chances of success in subsequent applications. It is contrary to past practice. But it can give today’s young generation an increased opportunity of success.

An increased investment in the next generation also sets new requirements for departmental and faculty management. One cannot ask senior scientists to refrain from being main supervisor and last authors while at the same time, this is exactly how they are measured at for instance salary negotiations. Instead the faculty and institute managements should evaluate the senior scientists based on the total research and teaching output of the research group, and perhaps the number of papers from the research group at which the seniors do not have last authorship or are not mentioned at all. Alternatively, senior researchers should be evaluated based on other criteria such as how many of their PhD graduates who have managed to establish themselves as independent researchers. This is no simple matter, and all comments are welcomed!

Per

Departmental management visits Brussels at the time of writing to learn more about how the department of clinical sience can take part in the EU’s research funding. Not only can the EU money fund research – EU projects are always related to international cooperation, which builds important skills and quality of our projects. In addition to searching, you can sign up as an evaluator of EU applications. Some of our professors have done or are doing that, but more may join. Application evaluation provides valuable insight into how the EU works and will undoubtedly help the individual to improve their applications. This can also be a springboard to join the committees that establish the basis for future research programs so that our people can apply.

Most look for announcements in Health program under societal challenges. We got emphasized that one should also look at the other main programs where we as translational researchers can contribute. Moreover, we got a tour of European Research Counciil (ERC) its financing, primarily Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grants.

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions is underused. They finance not only grants to individuals (Individual Fellowships, IF) for pulling out or invite researchers to Bergen. One can also apply for Innovative Training network (ITN) with participation from at least 3 different countries, Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) and Cofunding of existing regional, national, and international projects (http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/index_en.htm). In addition, funding of the research network (not the research itself) sought through COST Actions.

Our man in Brussels Kristof Vlaeminck (kristof.vlaeminck@uib.no) can assist with questions of all kinds. We will prepare a “tax returns” that can be sent Kristof about what you wish and what skills you possess so that he can sugest people from Norway for the relevant committees. Likewise, we, together with the research advisors at department of clinical sience work actively to make the application process easier for K2 researchers. Kristof is visiting UiB once per month and you can schedule meetings with him while he is in Bergen.

UiB’s office is strategically located in the middle of Brussels with similar office for SINTEF and NTNU in the same building and with writing space for visiting UiB researchers. UiB researchers can use conference room in the building for network meetings. NFR’s office in Brussel is 5 minutes away.

The management aims to significantly increase EU funding over the next two years. Writing EU applications is funnier than you think.

Clamgreetings from Brussels

Eystein