This is an unrealistic, counterproductive requirement. Even seasoned research Professors struggle to obtain funding in the current environment, especially in the Humanities and Social Sciences. QUB might end up with a lot of casualised staff in "flexible" contracts. That could be one of the aims of the policy. For some reason HR departments seem to think that it saves money. The fact is it doesn't.
E
Eyad
10 years ago
It would be interesting to see Occupational Stress risk assessment forms that were completed before these changes were introduced.
L
Lucy Michael
10 years ago
Probation is intended for the development of staff and although staff should be required to demonstrate skills in this area, for example, by submitting grant applications, they cannot be penalised for failing to win funding in a highly competitive environment against more experienced academics with wider networks and institutional resources.
M
Majid KhosraviNik
10 years ago
This is insane!!
D
Derek Robbins
10 years ago
Featured
This clearly has not been thought through. There are serious barriers to early researchers obtaining research grants and I have even come accross eligiblity issues with some funders for the award of grants for staff who are probationary .
D
Dr Ethan Hack
10 years ago
Queens is not alone - staff at other universities are facing similar demands.
T
Tanya Serisier
10 years ago
Not only is this unfair and punitive but will not even assist staff in developing their research careers in the ways intended,
K
Karen Laing
10 years ago
It takes time to build the relationships and collaborations necessary for the kind of grant funding that is meaningful and worthwhile. This policy runs the risk of academics seeking 'quick wins' in relation to funding that are not set within a strategic vision of what is needed in the field, and that will meet individual, departmental and University-wide objectives (other than income generation).
S
Simon Philpott
10 years ago
Another unrealistic metric and another with punitive intent. In the last hour I have received news that an application that my internal reviewers thought was excellent got nowhere near being funded. Fair enough, but given the application was as good as it could be, should I now have performance management imposed upon me? No!
D
David Leat
10 years ago
PI status is not easy to achieve and certainly not in the control of academic staff. It is easier to obtain in some disciplines, and with other senior staff to mentor/guide, but there is always an element of chance. This is unfair.
P
Professor Jane Wheelock
10 years ago
As a longstanding member of Probations Committee at Newcastle University until 2008 (I am now a Professor Emerita) this requirement would have been unrealistic then, let alone now, when competition for funding is so much greater. Retrospective application of criteria is completely unacceptable.
D
Dr Bennett Hogg
10 years ago
This is a requirement for probation whose realisation is completely outside of the applicant's control. Given that the general success rate of research-funding applications hovers around the 20% mark, this means only 20% of probationers are likely to pass probation. You can not run a university on that basis.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
This is bad for the freedom of university-based research in general and must not be allowed to spread. Who would plan risky/exciting projects with this threat hanging over them?
M
Matt Jenkins
10 years ago
Featured
As an early career researcher, I feel that this proposal embodies everything which is wrong with the university sector. It puts the cart before the horse, insisting on output for the sake of output, punishing the most vulnerable staff to uphold a factory system of research production.
R
Russell Phillips
10 years ago
For crying out loud talk to your staff!
G
Gerard O Brien
10 years ago
I'm a Newcastle University Lecturer, but the i-petition system was unable to take my e-mail address: gerard.o'[email protected]
J
Joseph Lawson
10 years ago
I wouldn't accept a job with this requirement, nor encourage anyone to apply. Counterproductive and unfair.
Mad
These are unreasonable expectations.
Crazy.
This is an unrealistic, counterproductive requirement. Even seasoned research Professors struggle to obtain funding in the current environment, especially in the Humanities and Social Sciences. QUB might end up with a lot of casualised staff in "flexible" contracts. That could be one of the aims of the policy. For some reason HR departments seem to think that it saves money. The fact is it doesn't.
It would be interesting to see Occupational Stress risk assessment forms that were completed before these changes were introduced.
Probation is intended for the development of staff and although staff should be required to demonstrate skills in this area, for example, by submitting grant applications, they cannot be penalised for failing to win funding in a highly competitive environment against more experienced academics with wider networks and institutional resources.
This is insane!!
This clearly has not been thought through. There are serious barriers to early researchers obtaining research grants and I have even come accross eligiblity issues with some funders for the award of grants for staff who are probationary .
Queens is not alone - staff at other universities are facing similar demands.
Not only is this unfair and punitive but will not even assist staff in developing their research careers in the ways intended,
It takes time to build the relationships and collaborations necessary for the kind of grant funding that is meaningful and worthwhile. This policy runs the risk of academics seeking 'quick wins' in relation to funding that are not set within a strategic vision of what is needed in the field, and that will meet individual, departmental and University-wide objectives (other than income generation).
Another unrealistic metric and another with punitive intent. In the last hour I have received news that an application that my internal reviewers thought was excellent got nowhere near being funded. Fair enough, but given the application was as good as it could be, should I now have performance management imposed upon me? No!
PI status is not easy to achieve and certainly not in the control of academic staff. It is easier to obtain in some disciplines, and with other senior staff to mentor/guide, but there is always an element of chance. This is unfair.
As a longstanding member of Probations Committee at Newcastle University until 2008 (I am now a Professor Emerita) this requirement would have been unrealistic then, let alone now, when competition for funding is so much greater. Retrospective application of criteria is completely unacceptable.
This is a requirement for probation whose realisation is completely outside of the applicant's control. Given that the general success rate of research-funding applications hovers around the 20% mark, this means only 20% of probationers are likely to pass probation. You can not run a university on that basis.
This is bad for the freedom of university-based research in general and must not be allowed to spread. Who would plan risky/exciting projects with this threat hanging over them?
As an early career researcher, I feel that this proposal embodies everything which is wrong with the university sector. It puts the cart before the horse, insisting on output for the sake of output, punishing the most vulnerable staff to uphold a factory system of research production.
For crying out loud talk to your staff!
I'm a Newcastle University Lecturer, but the i-petition system was unable to take my e-mail address: gerard.o'[email protected]
I wouldn't accept a job with this requirement, nor encourage anyone to apply. Counterproductive and unfair.