Full Professor 2

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Teaching

• The staff member provides inspiring and effective teaching on the basis of a convincing vision of good teaching and assessment and substantial knowledge of didactics within their own discipline. 
• The staff member guides the students’ learning experience and provides regular feedback to the students about their progress, by formative assessment or otherwise.
• The staff member spends at least 50% of their working hours on teaching (including teaching development), to be calculated according to the norms of the FSE.

Education development

• The staff member plays a leading role in driving educational innovation, reform and/or support that has a sustained and positive impact on student learning and/or engagement. This includes succesfully leading at least one large educational project and offering substantial contributions to the revision/renewal of the curriculum of a degree programmes since the last programme audit. 
• The staff member actively shares materials or teaching methods that can be used in the teaching of colleagues in the degree programme or Faculty, for example through presentations at staff lunches or education events.
• The staff member has been successful in obtaining external (non-FSE) funding for education innovation.

Curriculum organization

• The staff member has successfully played a leadership role in educational programmes, in the role of chair of a Board of Examiners, a Programme Director, or Education Director of a research institute.
• The staff member has played a leading role in the development, management, and review of FSE teaching and learning and assessment policies, including quality assurance and accreditation processes.
• The staff member demonstrates a leadership role in exchanging experiences and ideas with colleagues and the wider teaching community, including through participation in Faculty committees and/or projects.
• The staff member has an excellent understanding of the Dutch higher-education framework and participates actively in working groups on the university, national or international level.

The staff member writes a statement on their education approach (max 750 words) to demonstrate that they satisfy the main and the specific criteria. In this statement, the staff member has particular attention for their education leadership, by describing their impact on the level of the programme, the level of the faculty, the level of the university, and nationally. To support this, the staff member provides an overview of the various leadership roles that they have had (e.g. in education innovation projects, curriculum renewal, policy development, programme management, in national/international committees, as external reviewer/trainer/advisor, as invited speaker at key events in teaching and learning, etcetera) and how they have sought to improve their leadership skills (e.g. via peer mentoring, professionalization activities, etcetera). 

The statement should be supported with details of the courses taught (teaching methods, assessment methods, student numbers, pass rates, etc.). The staff member may use formal student evaluation surveys as well as informal and unsolicited feedback from students or colleagues to substantiate their arguments. A record from Timeless may be used to demonstrate the working hours spent on teaching. Additionally, the staff member could add examples from their course content, objectives and materials. The staff member should provide a brief overview of grants for teaching and learning development projects that have been requested including those that were not awarded. 

Note that the examples of evidence listed above is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive; it offers guidance on the types of evidence that could be used to demonstrate achievement but the evidence selected will depend on each individual case.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Conducting and coordinating research

• The staff member has developed their own research line that contributes to the profile of the research institute, addressing scientific questions that are relevant to their field and researching these questions by developing original techniques or strategies.
• The staff makes a significant contribution to the implementation and coherence of the research programme of the basic unit.
• The staff member maintains international contacts and collaborations, apparent from joint publications and work visits, among other things.

PhD students

• In the 5 years preceding the appraisal, the staff member was responsible for the supervision of at least 2 PhD students, whereby ‘responsible’ means that the staff member has taken the lead in designing, guiding, and finalizing PhD projects, acts as the daily supervisor and determines the direction of the research jointly with the PhD student. The PhD students have either completed their thesis or show sufficient progress to be able to complete it in a short time. 
• The staff member has in the past 5 years recruited at least one new PhD student for their own research group.

Fundraising

• Since their appointment as Associate Professor, the staff member has acquired a substantial amount of external research funding for their own group as principal investigator (PI) or as co-PI, totaling at least EUR 225,000. This includes grants received for research on teaching innovation.

Academic publications and evidence of recognition

• The staff member has produced on average two or more high-quality publications per year (this may also concern education innovation).* The significant contribution of the staff member can be demonstrated, and the work is clearly embedded in their own research line.
• The staff member’s scientific contributions are demonstrably recognized by their peers.

*A different frequency is acceptable if it is in line with the standards of the field.

Conducting research

The staff member writes a statement (max 750 words) to demonstrate that they satisfy the main criterion and the specific criteria under this heading. The statement should concentrate on the staff member’s research vision and steps they have taken and will take to realize their plans. Indicators for a viable group are incoming students (BSc/MSc), PhD students, postdocs and visiting scientists who are producing a continuous stream of output that is recognized by peers. In line with most research activities at FSE the main route for demonstrating original work of high quality is through publications in prominent peer-reviewed journals or peer-reviewed conference proceedings, invitations to speak at national or international conferences and other evidence of scientific recognition (posters, visits, networks, partnerships etc.).

PhD students

The staff member gives an overview of recruited and supervised PhD students. The staff member briefly elaborates on the status of each of the projects, including stage of completion and examples for successes of projects (e.g. evidence of recognition such as conferences, poster presentations, publications, outreach activities, thesis defenses). In case of shared supervision (e.g. in the context of double-doctorates, interdisciplinary collaboration etc.), the amount of supervision is weighed by the percentage contribution of the supervisor. This must be included in the staff member’s promotion file, accompanied by a brief statement on the individual roles of the involved supervisors.

Fundraising

The staff member describes which funds have been (successfully) applied for. Funds provided by the University of Groningen are excluded. Any funding received jointly as part of a consortium must include a clear overview of the candidate's own role in the acquisition of this funding as well as which part of the total funding the candidate received through the application for his or her own research (only this part of the application must be included when calculating the total amount of research grants received by the candidate). 

Academic publications and tokens of recognition

The staff member provides an overview of publications and evidence of recognition of themselves and their group (invited talks, prizes and awards, membership of consortia, etc). In case of collaborations, the staff member briefly elaborates on their role in the resulting scientific work. The significant contribution of the staff member can be demonstrated, and the work is clearly embedded in their original and personal research line. The quantitative criterion for publications can be overruled when the evidence of recognition demonstrates that the staff member has outstanding impact in their field.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criterion:

• The staff member shows to have a growing number “productive interactions”, i.e. exchanges with stakeholders outside of their own scientific field resulting in actual or potential collaboration in research or education.

The staff member provides a narrative with evidence of their own “productive interactions” with societal stakeholders and those of their group members or other collaborators whom they have supported.  Examples are:

• lecturing or publishing about the research to a broad audience;
• collaboration with companies, governments, NGOs or other stakeholders to make the insights gained applicable in those organizations, e.g. preparing and/or writing a joint grant application;
• writing and filing a patent (partially).

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

Contribution to the organization

• The staff member actively promotes an open, safe and inclusive working environment.
• The staff member spends at least 10% of their working time on academic community service (i.e. organizational roles within the university that transcend their own research and teaching interests).

Leadership and collaboration

• The staff member effectively uses various leadership styles, depending on the requirements of the situation.
• The staff member has participated in Selection Committees or committees regarding the organization of teaching and research at Faculty or institute level.
• The staff member has successfully (had) a leadership/management role in the research institute (e.g. leader base unit, board institute) or in degree programmes (i.e. programme director, chairperson programme board, chairperson board of examiners). 
• The staff member contributes substantially to dialogues about education and advances collaboration and partnerships within FSE, at the UG, and nationally.

The staff member describes how their behavior shows that they satisfy the main criterion and each of the specific criteria. They include an overview of activities they have undertaken and the (leadership) roles they have had that show they satisfy the specific criteria. 

Contribution to the organization

The staff member gives an overview of activities that fall under academic community service, such as roles in working groups, committees, boards, at events of the degree programmes or the research institutes, etcetera. 

Leadership and collaboration

The staff member provides a reflection on the leadership styles they employ and how it helps them to navigate different types of situations.

This main criterion is elaborated into the following more specific criteria:

• The staff member has completed leadership and/or management courses, including the Educational Leadership Programme (Leergang Onderwijskundig Leiderschap), or an equivalent programme.

• The staff member has a sufficient command of the Dutch language to be able to speak and understand it well (speaking and listening at least level B2 of the European Framework of Reference).

The staff member describes to what extent they have executed their personal development plan. They give an overview of the professionalization activities that they have undertaken. Satisfaction of the Dutch language criteria should be demonstrated by means of a certificate (not needed if you can show the committee that you can converse well in Dutch).

The following competences receive special attention at this career stage:

• Connecting leadership: The staff member can create common ground and inspire others to collaborate on common goals, in their own research group as well as more broadly in the organization.
• Courage: The staff member dares to take risks and take responsibility for unpopular decisions. They intervene when it is needed and do not avoid difficult conversations.  They are open to alternative viewpoints and criticism and dare to discuss their own weaknesses and be vulnerable.
• Integrity: The staff member is trustworthy and transparent in their goals and decision-making and promotes these values to others. The staff member stimulates an atmosphere in which questions about integrity are raised and discussed. 

The staff member describes how their behaviour shows that they have each of the competences, by providing examples.