Full Professor 2

Staff members demonstrate their effectiveness and leadership in at least two of the following four types of impact, meeting all of the associated more specific criteria of at least one of these two:

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 10 years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has acquired multiple substantial external research funds for their own group as principal investigator (PI) or as co-PI, totalling at least EUR 900,000. (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 started a promising company based on their own research results or those of their research group. 

Influencing policy making

• The staff member demonstrates to be a leader in setting 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. 
• The staff member’s work is regularly referred to in policy documents and/or influential mass media outlets.

Public engagement

• The staff member demonstrates to be a leader by inspiring and educating their peers and/or group members in developing public engagement activities.
• The staff member evaluates the impact of their public engagement activities systematically and uses this to optimize their strategy.
• The staff member undertakes public engagement activities to a diverse general audience that are demonstrably of a very high quality and have a big impact.
• On top of the scientific publications, the staff member has produced at least two forms of output per year for a sizable general audience (e.g. newspapers, magazines, websites, podcasts, exhibits).

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 details in a statement (max. 400 words) the steps taken and the results obtained (e.g. patents obtained, products developed, financial results).

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 contributions to scientific reports prepared for policy makers and roles in councils that advice a government. Evidence regarding contributions to the agenda may include reports, policy papers, consultancy documents, etcetera. 

Public engagement

The staff member provides evidence of demonstrable results 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 and coordinating research

• The staff member has developed a clear and productive individual research line within the research programme of the basic unit or research institute.
• The staff member has a leading role in the implementation and coherence of the research programme of the basic unit and contributes significantly to the profile of the research institute.
• The staff member maintains extensive 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 and contributed substantially to the supervision of at least three PhD students within their own research line until their PhD theses were approved by the PhD Assessment Committee and without incurring unreasonable delays.
• In the 5 years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has recruited at least two new PhD students for their own research group. 

Fundraising

• In the 10 years preceding the appraisal, the staff member has acquired multiple substantial external research funds for their own group as principal investigator (PI) or as co-PI, totalling at least EUR 675,000.* (It is possible to diverge from this 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 excellent scientific contributions are demonstrably recognized by their peers. 

* EUR 900,00 in case the staff member achieves impact by collaborating with industrial partners or other societal partners; see specific criteria associated with impact.

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

Conducting research

The staff member provides a statement (max 500 words) by means of which they demonstrate to meet the criteria. Topics to address:

• What are you known for and how this links/discriminates you from other players in your field nationally and internationally? 
• How is your work embedded in the institute and are there links to other groups within your institute or beyond?
• Which collaborations do you maintain and what makes these particular collaborations fruitful?

If applicable provide examples supporting your statements (e.g. awards, fellowships, publications, keynotes, collaborative publications/grants).

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 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. scholarship students, double doctorate agreements, interdisciplinary projects, MSC Fellows). 

Academic publications and evidence of recognition

The staff member provides an overview of evidence of recognitions of themselves and their group (publications, conference presentations (oral/poster), prizes and awards, consortia etc.). In case of collaborations, the staff member briefly elaborates on their role in the resulting scientific work (e.g. which experiments were part of their package and what did they provide to the full story presented, how do they link to their original and personal research line). 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 an inspiring, effective and skilled teacher.
• The staff member uses a diverse range of modes of instruction and assessment that are based on knowledge about effective teaching and learning.
• The staff member proactively monitors the students’ 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 state-of-the-art and varied learning material which explicitly places the discipline in its academic and social context.
• The staff member spends on average 40% 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 contributes demonstrably and successfully to activities on the level of the degree programme (learning line or variant), such as in educational innovation projects, and/or to education management, including committees in the education organization.

Curriculum organization

• The staff member actively inspires and supports colleagues to develop and improve their teaching, including PhD students in their group, and stimulates them to be informed about faculty’s teaching and assessment policies. 

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
• the staff member’s vision and activities regarding education development on the level of the degree programme
• what the staff member has done to inspire and support colleagues to develop and improve their teaching.

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 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:

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 significantly to relevant national and international networks and introduces colleagues and group members to these networks. 

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 participated in professionalization that concern education activities such as courses, workshops, and seminars.

• The staff member has completed leadership and management courses.
• 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 behavior shows that they have each of the competences, by providing examples.