Associate Professor 2

Staff members demonstrate their effectiveness and leadership in at least one of the following four types of impact and meet the associated more specific criteria:

Collaboration with industrial and other societal partners

• The staff member has realized impact through the collaboration with societal partners, e.g. companies, ministries or NGO’s, leading to substantial knowledge transfer.
• In the five years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has acquired for these collaborations a substantial amount of external research funding for their own group as principal investigator (PI) or as co-PI, totalling at least EUR 225,000. (It is possible to diverge from the quantitative criterion in exceptional cases if the funds available in the staff member’s academic field have been insufficient and the staff member has made sufficient and good attempts to acquire external funding, while the prospering of the research group has been ensured using a different strategy.) 

Entrepreneurship

• The staff member has undertaken activities to (prepare the) start of a company based on their own research results or those of their research group. Preparational activities can include e.g. the writing and filing of one or more patents (partially) paid for by a societal partner, doing market surveys, writing a business plan, building prototypes or demonstrators, or attracting (the attention of) venture capitalists or other investors. 

Influencing policy making

• The staff member has significantly influenced the agenda for the discourse within their field of expertise. 
• The staff member has reached a specific goal regarding an audience like ministries, companies or NGOs (reports, policy papers, consultancy documents). 
• The staff member’s work is regularly referred to in policy documents and/or influential mass media outlets.

Public engagement

• The staff member undertakes public engagement activities to a diverse general audience that are demonstrably of a high quality and have a big impact.
• The staff member evaluates the impact of their public engagement activities systematically and uses this to optimize their strategy.
• On top of the scientific publications, the staff member has produced at least one form of output per year for a sizable general audience (e.g. newspapers, magazines, websites, podcast, exhibit).

Collaboration with industrial and other societal partners

The staff member describes which funds have been (successfully) applied for involving societal partners. 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). Funds fully provided by the University of Groningen are excluded, meaning that included are only: indirect government funding (second cash flow, e.g. NWO) and third-party funding (third cash flow, e.g. companies contributing to consortia ór directly to the research group through contractual research funding).

In case the staff member does not fully meet the quantitative funding criterion, they should also provide a brief overview of requests that were not awarded, including how they were assessed, to demonstrate that they have made sufficient efforts. In addition, the candidate should describe the funding limitations that apply to their field of research, and what alternative alternative/additional routes they chose to safeguard a viable group (e.g. PhD students/postdocs with own funding, double doctorate agreements, 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). 

Entrepreneurship

The staff member provides evidence of their activities in a statement (max. 400 words), specifying a.o. the prospects and timeframe for the actual launch of the company.

Influencing policy making

The staff member provides evidence of their activities (“productive interactions with societal stakeholders”) and their influence of change in a statement (max. 400 words). Examples of such interactions are roles in councils that advise a government and contributions to scientific reports prepared for policy makers. Evidence regarding contributions to the agenda may include reports, policy papers, consultancy documents, etcetera.

Public engagement

The staff member provides evidence of their activities (“productive interactions with societal stakeholders”) in a statement (max. 400 words). Examples of activities are invitations for (mass media) interviews, talk shows or other media outlets, lecturing or publishing about the research to a broad audience. The staff member can demonstrate the high quality of their activities by means of the ‘beoordelingsinstrument wetenschapscommunicatie’ of the Rathenau institute, the PE seed funding criteria of the University of Groningen, and/or tools like the IMPACTLAB toolkit.

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

Conducting research

• The staff member has a viable and productive research group that produces original work of a high quality. 
• The staff member has developed a recognizable research line of their own 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.

PhD students

• In the five years preceding the appraisal, the staff member was responsible for the supervision of at least 2 PhD students in the staff member’s own research line who have either completed their thesis or show sufficient progress to be able to complete it in a short time.
• In the five years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has recruited at least one new PhD student for the staff member’s own research group (not including PhD students funded from the staff member’s start-up package).

Fundraising

• In the five years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has acquired a substantial amount of external research funding for their own group as principal investigator (PI) or as co-PI, totalling at least EUR 225,000. (It is possible to diverge from the quantitative criterion in exceptional cases if the funds available in the staff member’s academic field have been insufficient and the staff member has made sufficient and good attempts to acquire external funding, while the prospering of the research group has been ensured using a different strategy.) 

Academic publications and evidence of recognition

• The staff member has produced on average two or more high-quality publications per year.* The significant contribution of the staff member can be demonstrated, and the work is clearly embedded in their original and personal 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.

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 acquired with societal partners are included (i.e. any funds reported under Impact / Collaboration with industrial and other societal partners). 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). 

In case the staff member does not meet the quantitative funding criterion, they should also provide a brief overview of grant applications that were not awarded, including how they were assessed, to demonstrate that they have made sufficient efforts. In addition, the candidate should describe the funding limitations that apply to their field of research, and what alternative alternative/additional routes they chose to safeguard a viable group (e.g. scholarship students, double doctorate agreements, interdisciplinary projects, MSC Fellows). 

Academic publications and evidence 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 criteria:

Teaching

• The staff member is able to inspire students and to provide research-driven education that is effective. 
• The staff member is capable of teaching basic Bachelor and Master courses and has didactic knowledge that is relevant to these courses, including a good understanding of modes of instruction and modes of assessment.
• The staff member reflects on the effectiveness of their teaching and methods of assessment, and, if necessary, makes adjustments during the execution of their courses to ensure that students are able to achieve the learning objectives.
• The staff member understands the relationship between the learning outcomes of the courses for which they are responsible and the learning objectives of the associated degree programme and communicates this to students and colleagues.
• The staff member proactively monitors the students’ educational and learning experience and responds professionally and in a timely manner to concerns about the structure, context and implementation of teaching (at the course unit and degree programme level).
• The staff member uses learning material which places the discipline in its academic and social context.

• The staff member spends on average 30% of their working hours on teaching (including teaching development), to be calculated according to FSE standards.

Education development

• The staff member updates and improves the teaching material and assessment of the courses assigned to them, accounting for important factors such as changes in the background and level of the students entering the course, developments in the field, societal needs and coherence with other courses.
• The staff member shares improvements in the teaching material or modes of instruction in their courses with colleagues. 

Curriculum organization

• The staff member has a good understanding of the faculty’s teaching organization structure and policies and contributes to the smooth running of teaching processes in which they are involved.

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 the statement, the staff member reflects on how their approach supports effective student learning. Topics to address include: 

• how the students educational and learning experience is monitored
• how feedback from students and colleagues influenced the staff member’s approach
• why and how course improvements were made to course content, objectives and/or teaching materials 
• in what way the staff member contributed to discussions about the design of the curriculum
• how they have contributed to the smooth running of the teaching processes.

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. 

Note that the examples of evidence listed above are 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:

Contribution to the organization

• The staff member contributes to an open, safe and inclusive working and learning 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 coaches colleagues and promotes their development, particularly with respect to research. 
• The staff member conducts annual Results and Development (R&D) interviews with staff members they supervise.
• The staff member has insight in their preferred leadership style and can effectively employ it to motivate others.
• The staff member operates successfully when different interests and perspectives are at play and can effectively deal with resistance.
• The staff member contributes to national and/or international communities.

The staff member describes how their behavior shows that they satisfy the main criterion and each of the specific criteria. In particular:

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 briefly reflects in writing on their preferred leadership style, explaining why you prefer it and how it helps you to motivate others.
• The staff member describes to which national or international communities they are contributing, such as the organization of conferences, memberships of panels, initiating consortia, roles in scientific organisation (e.g. NWO, ERC), etcetera. 

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

• The staff member has participated in education professionalization activities such as workshops and courses.

• The staff member has completed relevant leadership and management courses, including Supervision excellence at the University of Groningen and Academic Leadership 1.
• The staff member has made demonstrable efforts to attain sufficient command of the Dutch language to be able to understand it well.

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:   

• Inspirational leadership: The staff member is able to stimulate and support colleagues to develop themselves and obtain good results, providing autonomy as well as clear expectations. 
• Strategic vision: The staff member has a well-articulated long-term vision, can translate this vision into concrete objectives, and is able to realize these objectives by guiding and steering others.
• Empathy: The staff member is accessible, available and attentive to their team members. The staff member stimulates an open atmosphere in which team members are encouraged to voice opinions and share concerns.The staff member ensures others feel recognised in their contributions. 

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