Dato: 27.8.2014 Vår ref.: 2013/5691 Saksbehandler: Elin Holter Anthonisen Deres ref.: ref. Referat fra møte i FoU-utvalget ved Fakultet for helsefag (HF) Onsdag 27. august 2014 kl. 9-12.15 i P32, N100.021 Til stede: Trine B. Haugen (prodekan for FoU, HF) - leder Astrid Bergland (professor, Institutt for fysioterapi (FYS)) Sølvi Helseth (professor, Institutt for sykepleie (SP)) Astri Syse (eksternt medlem, Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB)) Inger Aakre (stipendiat, Institutt for helse, ernæring og ledelse (HEL)), tilstede fram til kl. 12.00 Fra administrasjonen: Elin Holter Anthonisen (sekretær for FoU-utvalget, Seksjon for FoU, HF). Forfall: Svein Eikeseth/varamedlem Rune Andreassen Dagsorden: Konstituering. FoU-HF-sak 25/14: Vurdering av søknader om etablering av forskningsgrupper vedtakssak FoU-HF-sak 26/14: Vurdering av årsrapporter for forskningsgruppene diskusjonssak FoU-HF-sak 27/14: Prosess for fordeling av stipendiatressurser 2015 vedtakssak FoU-HF-sak 28/14: Orienteringssaker: a) Studentrepresentanter i FoU-utvalget 2014/2015 b) Referat fra sentralt FoU-utvalg, 22/5-14 c) Referat fra sentralt doktorgradsutvalg, 15/5-14 Eventuelt Fakultet for helsefag Postadresse: Pb. 4 St. Olavs plass, 0130 OSLO Besøksadresse: Pilestredet 50, 0167 Oslo, Telefon: 22452400, postmottak@hioa.no, www.hioa.no
REFERAT: Konstituering Referatet fra 19. juni har tidligere blitt godkjent per e-post. Vedtak: Innkallingen ble godkjent. FoU-HF-sak 25/14: Vurdering av søknader om etablering av forskningsgruppe Følgende søknader om etablering av forskningsgruppe ble behandlet: «Experimental Studies of Complex Human Behavior Lab»: Vedtak: Gruppen etableres med følgende medlemmer: Erik Arntzen, professor, AV leder Torunn Lian, førsteamanuensis, AV Christoffer Eilifsen, stipendiat, AV Richard K. Nartey, stipendiat, AV Aleksander Vie, stipendiat, AV Hanna S. Steingrimsdottir, stipendiat, AV Steffen Hansen, stipendiat, AV Følgende masterstudenter er tilknyttet gruppen: Espen Gjerde, masterstudent, AV Camille Østrem, masterstudent, AV Pendram Sadeghi, masterstudent, AV Jon Magnus Eilertsen, masterstudent, AV Ilias Kiriakou, masterstudent, AV Sjur Granmo, masterstudent, AV Kristine Gjerde, masterstudent, AV Tonje Åstad, masterstudent, AV Per Stian Sætherbakken, masterstudent, AV Anine Walle, masterstudent, AV Vedtaket var enstemmig. FoU-HF-sak 26/14: Vurdering av årsrapporter for forskningsgruppene Utvalget diskuterte de innkomne årsrapportene og mente rapportene er viktige for å kunne følge opp forskningsaktiviteten i gruppene. Det ble påpekt at forhåndsutfylling under en del av punktene var arbeidsbesparende for forskningsgruppeleder. Utvalget observerte at detaljnivået i rapportene er svært varierende, og de ønsker rapporter på et mer enhetlig nivå. Dette vil være viktig for kommende evaluering av forskningsgruppene. Utvalget diskuterte videre om evalueringen bør skje tre år etter etablering av forskningsgruppen og ikke to år som tidligere foreslått og mente at det vil være mer Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus side 2
hensiktsmessig. For å forbedre rapporteringen ønsker utvalget at rapportenes form diskuteres i forskningsgruppelederforum (FGLF), og at kommentarer fra FGLF legges ved når utvalget skal vedta justeringer i rapporteringsskjema i ny sak senere i høst. Spesielt bør FGLF diskutere: Hvordan fungerer skjema (inkl. forhåndsutfylte data)? Bør rapportene offentliggjøres på nettsidene våre for å formidle aktiviteten til gruppene? Hvis ikke, bør de offentliggjøres bland forskningsgruppeledere slik at man kan «lære» av hverandre om hvordan forskningsgruppene jobber? På hvilket detalj-nivå bør rapporten foreligge? Hvordan få fram formidlingsaktivitet? FoU-utvalget hadde videre kommentarer til årsrapportene: Oversikt over medlemmer bør foreligge slik den var ved forrige rapportering/etablering. Det bør opprettes en ny tabell der forandringer i medlemslisten tydeliggjøres. Begrepet «stipendiater» skal kun benyttes om personer som er tatt opp på et doktorgradsprogram. Oversikt over stipendiater og avlagte doktorgrader i gruppen bør begrenses til stipendiater som er formelle medlemmer av gruppene. Seksjon for FoU sender årsrapportene til instituttlederen der forskningsgruppene er forankret, til informasjon. FoU-HF-sak 27/14: Prosess for fordeling av stipendiatressurser 2015 Utvalget diskuterte prosessen for fordeling av stipendiatressurser for 2015 med utgangspunkt i prosessene som har vært i 2013 og 2014, samt innspill fra FGLF 22. august 2014. Utvalget vektla i tillegg strategien til fakultetet og diskuterte hvordan fordelingen på best mulig måte kan støtte opp under denne. Utvalget ønsker å basere konkurransen om stipendiatressurser på faglig kvalitet i tillegg til fakultetets strategi og mener innsendelse av prosjektbeskrivelse er nødvendig for å oppnå dette. En slik prosess vil være viktig for: - Å bygge robuste fagmiljøer med en bestemt forskningsprofil. Dvs. forskningsmiljøet bestemmer forskningsprosjektet og ikke ph.d.-kandidatene som søker - Øke ekstern finansiering. Utvalget mener at søknadene som brukes i den interne prosessen også kan brukes ved ekstern finansiering. Det vil også være mulig å søke stipendiatstillinger med videreutvikling av prosjekter som ikke har nådd opp i den eksterne konkurransen. En videreutvikling og gjenbruk av søknader som baseres på konkrete evalueringer vil øke muligheten for å hevde seg i kampen om eksterne forskningsmidler Utvalget har tatt i betraktning at det ved Fakultet for helsefag tidligere har vært en ønske om å rekruttere stipendiater ut fra et bredere perspektiv. Likevel, etter diskusjon i FGLF 22. august, og av erfaring fra 2014-prosessen, ser utvalget at dette er endret og at flertallet ønsker utlysning med prosjektbeskrivelse. For lettere å kunne gjenbruke søknader foreslår utvalget at søknadsprosessen på fakultetet foregår på engelsk. Vedtak: Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus side 3
Prosess: FoU-utvalget opprettholder en intern fordelingsprosess av stipendiatressursene på fakultetet basert på konkurranse FoU-utvalget utvider den interne søknadsprosessen til å inkludere prosjektbeskrivelser i evalueringen FoU-utvalget ønsker å utlyse midlene så raskt som mulig slik at den interne prosessen kan fullføres i høst (se vedlegg 1 for utlysningstekst) Søknadskjema og kriterier vil ta utgangspunkt i kriteriene som bukes av Forskningsrådet Søknader som ikke oppfyller kriteriene (inkl. krav til vedlegg), vil IKKE bli sendt til sakkyndig utvalg for vurdering Evalueringen skal ta utgangspunkt i de samme kriterier som Forskningsrådet bruker, men i tillegg vektlegge fakultetets strategi (se vedlegg 4) Det oppnevnes to sakkyndige utvalg som vil vurdere søknadene, én for søknader tilknyttet ph.d.-programmet i atferdsanalyse og én for prosjekter tilknyttet ph.d.-programmet i helsevitenskap Det vil i utlysningen gis anledning til å foreslå medlemmer til sakkyndige utvalg. Dette vil gi utvalget muligheten til å opparbeide en «pool» av mulige utvalgsmedlemmer. Innspill må inneholde navn, tittel, faglig profil, institusjonstilknytning og kontaktinformasjon FoU-utvalget (evt. med varamedlemmer hvis hovedmedlem er inhabil) vil legge fram forslag til sakkyndig utvalg for dekan. Dekan oppnevner utvalget. Utvalget skal vurdere sin habilitet jfr. forvaltningsloven. Hvis to søknader er prioritert likt av sakkyndig utvalg, vil prosjekter tilknyttet forskningsgrupper bli prioritert. Videre (etter prioritering på forskningsgrupper) vil søker som ikke fikk tildeling i 2013 og/eller 2014, bli prioritert Innstilling vedtas i FoU-utvalget Instituttet hvor stipendiaten skal tilknyttes utformer utlysningstekst i samarbeid med forskningsmiljøet som har fått tildelt ressursen. Ph.d.-stillingen utlyses nasjonalt og internasjonalt. Stillingen må lyses ut fra den utarbeidete prosjektbeskrivelsen som ble brukt i søknaden. Aktuelle søkere skal intervjues. Intervjuet skal som hovedregel utføres av hovedveileder, instituttleder eller en person instituttleder utpeker, tillitsvalgt og HR-rådgiver. Medveileder(e) kan også være tilstede. Innstillingen behandles av tilsettingsutvalget ved fakultetet som vedtar tilsetting. Når ph.d.-kandidaten er tilsatt, sendes søknad om opptak til doktorgradsutvalget ved fakultetet. Doktorgradsutvalget fatter vedtak om opptak til et av de to ph.d.-programmene ved fakultetet. Krav til søknaden: Søknaden skal skrives på vedlagte søknadsskjema (vedlegg 2) og sendes til fou-hf@hioa.no. Vedlegg som skal vedlegges: - prosjektbeskrivelse (se vedlegg 3 for mal som skal brukes) - CV til hovedveileder og medveileder (maks to sider, Times New Roman, pkt. 12. Publikasjonsliste kan ha pkt. 9) - Publikasjonsliste (kun fagfellevurderte vitenskapelige publikasjoner) til hovedveileder og medveileder - bekreftelse på samarbeidspartnere til det spesifikke prosjektet (Dokumenter som ikke er etterspurt, skal ikke vedlegges) Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus side 4
Søknad og vedlegg skal være på engelsk Det vil kun være mulig å søke om ressurser for én stipendiat per prosjektbeskrivelse Det kan ikke søkes med navngitt ph.d.-kandidat Hovedveileder må være medlem i forskningsmiljøet som søker Det må oppgis hvilket av de to ph.d.-programmene på Fakultet for helsefag ph.d.-kandidaten skal tilknyttet Vedlegg 1: Utlysningstekst Vedlegg 2: Søknadsskjema for intern fordeling av stipendiatressurser Vedlegg 3: Mal for prosjektbeskrivelse Vedlegg 4: Evalueringsskjema FoU-HF-sak 24/14: Orienteringssaker: Sekretær av utvalget informerte om skifte av studentmedlem i utvalget. Christopher Dragnes Norderhaug har avsluttet sin periode, og Lillian Eide Sørensen fra Institutt for sykepleie inntrer fra 12. september. Sørensen vil sitte som medlem i perioden 12.9.2014-11.9.2015. Studentrådet har ikke oppnevnt flere studentmedlemmer eller varamedlemmer. Leder av utvalget refererte kort fra de ulike møtene i sentrale utvalg ved høgskolen. Ingen saker ble meldt inn til eventuelt. Oslo, 8. september 2014 Trine B. Haugen prodekan for FoU, leder av utvalget Elin Holter Anthonisen seksjonssjef for FoU, utvalgssekretær Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus side 5
Vedlegg 1 Call: Internal distribution of PhD fellowships at the Faculty of Health Sciences, 2015: Ten PhD positions at the will be allocated, five of which are designated to the PhD programme in Behaviour Analysis, and five of which are designated to the PhD programme in Health Sciences. Application requirements: Established research groups at the Faculty may apply for fellowships. Exceptionally, other robust environments may apply. In the latter case, the environment must be described in relation to the criteria for establishing research groups. The project manager should have completed a doctoral degree The main supervisor must be a member of the research environment that apply It will only be possible to apply for resources for one PhD fellowships within a project Application cannot comprise a named doctoral candidate Applications must use the enclosed application form, and be sent to the Section for R&D of the (fou hf@hioa.no) within the deadline The project description must be submitted using the attached template. All items of information on the template must be completed All mandatory attachments must be included* Application and attachments must be in English It must be stated which of the two PhD programmes at the Faculty the doctoral candidate will be affiliated with *Mandatory attachments: Project description (maximum 10 pages, Times New Roman 12 pointfont. List of references may have 9 point font) CV for the main supervisor and co supervisor (maximum two pages, Times New Roman 12 pointfont) List of publication (only scientific peer reviewed for the last five years) for the main supervisor and co supervisor Confirmation from partners who have committed to cooperate on this specific project. You should not attach endorsements without obligation of support. Unrequested attachments will not be included in the application process. Applications that do not meet the application requirements will NOT be rated. Application deadline is on the 13 th of October 2014. Evaluation Allocation decisions are usually taken by R&D Committee at the Faculty based on referee evaluations. If the referees prioritize two applications equally, the projects associated with formally established research groups will be prioritized. Furthermore, the environment / research group that did not receive a position in 2013 and/or 2014 will be given priority.
Vedlegg 1 The referees will assess the applications in relation to the following assessment criteria: Scientific merit Project management and the project group Feasibility Complies with the R&D strategy of the Dissemination and communication of results Overall mark of the referee/panel Special points to consider will be: International cooperation National cooperation Ethical perspectives A scale of marks of either seven or three levels will be applied. The following levels of quality apply in relation to the assessment criteria: Scale of marks (seven levels): 7 Exceptional 6 Excellent 5 Very good 4 Good 3 Fair 2 Weak 1 Poor Scale of marks (three levels): A Very good B Good C Weak Expert referees External expert referees will review applications before the final decisions regarding grant awards are taken. There will be appointed one referee committee for applications associated with each of the two PhD programmes. Applicants are encouraged to provide suggestions for input regarding relevant expert referees. Comments must include the name, title, professional profile, institutional affiliation and contact information. Feedback on outcome All applicants will get feedback on outcome of the process, and the evaluation by the referees will be distributed to the project manager. Further process for approved applications The PhD position will be advertised nationally and internationally. The Department where the doctoral candidate is to be employed will be responsible for the announcement of the PhD position,
Vedlegg 1 in collaboration with the research environment that has received the allocated resources. The PhD position must be associated with the project described in the project description. Qualified applicants will be interviewed. The principal supervisor, Head of Department or a person appointed by the Head of Department, representative and HR advisor, should normally perform the interview. Co supervisor (s) may also be present. The Recruitment Committee of the Faculty processes the setting and approves the recommendation. The doctoral candidate must apply to the Doctoral Committee at the Faculty for admission to one of the two PhD programmes at the Faculty.
Vedlegg 2 Application Form Internal distribution of PhD fellowships All fields in the application form must be completed. Only documents that are required should be attached. Applications that do not meet the criteria will NOT be considered. Complete applications should be sent to fou hf@hioa.no Deadline: 13 th of October 2014 For questions about completing the application, contact the Section for R&D at the Applicant Project administrator: Name (Head of Department) Department of Application approved by the project administrator (Yes/No) Project manager: Name Title 1 Department Research Group Project info Project title (max 140 characters): Project title Project will be linked to: PhD programme in Behaviour Sciences PhD programme in Health Sciences 1 The project manager should have completed a doctoral degree
Vedlegg 2 Primary and secondary objectives of the project (max 1000 characters): Primary and secondary objectives Project summary (max 2000 characters): Project summary Progress plan Project period: From date To date Main activities and milestones in the project period (year and quarter): Milestones throughout the project From To Year Quarter Year Quarter Add more rows if necessarily Dissemination of project results (max 3000 characters): Dissemination plan
Vedlegg 2 Partners Partners under obligation to provide professional or financial resources for the implementation of this specific project 1. Institution/company Department/section Contact person Partner s role (Financing activity, Research activity, or Financing and research activity) 2. Institution/company Department/section Contact person Partner s role (Financing activity, Research activity, or Financing and research activity) 3. Institution/company Department/section Contact person Partner s role (Financing activity, Research activity, or Financing and research activity)
Vedlegg 2 Attachments Attachments: File name: Project description 2 CV 3 Main supervisor CV 3 Co supervisor List of publications 4 Main supervisor List of publications 4 Co supervisor Confirmations from partner 5 1 Confirmations from partner 5 2 Confirmations from partner 5 3 Referees 6 Add more rows if there are more than three collaboration partners 2 Project description (maximum 10 pages, Times New Roman 12 pointfont. List of references may have 9 point font) 3 CV (maximum two pages, Times New Roman 12 pointfont).this attachment should also briefly outline the supervisors experience with supervising doctoral candidates in the last five years, giving details of the number of candidates who have submitted PhD thesis / defended in this period. 4 List of publication (only scientific peer reviewed for the last five years). 5 You should only attach confirmation from partners who have committed to cooperate on the project. You should not attach endorsements without obligation of support. 6 Suggestions of referees must include name, title, professional profile, institutional affiliation and contact information
Vedlegg 3 Template for project description for internal distribution of PhD fellowships PLEASE NOTE: Please complete all items (the order of the items in the template should normally be followed as this will facilitate the review process) or provide appropriate reference to the item on the grant application form. The project description is not to exceed 10 pages, including the list of references. The page format must be A4 with 2 cm margins, single spacing and Times New Roman 12- point font. It is permitted to use 9-point font for the list of references and any text on figures. Links that are listed in the project description will not be included in the assessment. 1. Aspects relating to the research project The objectives are to be described in the grant application form. 1.1. Background and status of knowledge Applicants are to provide a brief description of the background for the project and document their familiarity with the research area as well as their understanding of the key challenges to knowledge, both nationally and internationally. 1.2. Approaches, hypotheses and choice of method Approaches to the research problem and/or hypotheses are to be presented clearly and must be adequately defined in relation to the objectives and project plan. It is important to describe how the project will serve to expand existing knowledge as well as how it represents original thinking and scientific renewal. Describe the theoretical approach and show how research problems have been defined as well as the scientific methods that will be utilised. Justify the choice of method, and explain how these methods will be appropriate in relation to the project s research problems and/or hypotheses. Alternatively, you may describe how the project will help to develop the necessary methodology and/or theory. When relevant, the application of a multi- and interdisciplinary approach should be described. 1.3. The project plan, project management, organisation and cooperation The project period and progress plan encompassing the project s main activities and milestones are to be provided in the grant application form. The project description is to provide a more detailed description of how the project will be carried out. All of the partners taking part in the implementation of the project are to be listed in the grant application form. Please provide an account of the planned project implementation. The project must be realistic and feasible, scientifically, organisationally, and in relation to planned use of resources.
Vedlegg 3 Describe how the project will utilise national research expertise and promote national network-building. When relevant, a description should be provided of the extent, substance and importance of international cooperation. In the case of applied and industry-oriented research, a description of the impact of the project and its results for key user groups must be provided. An overview of the overall expertise, infrastructure and other resources from the applicant institution(s) that will be significant to the implementation of the project must be provided. A brief summary about the teaching environment and the framework in place for ensuring that the PhD-student complete the programme must be provided. For overseas research grants, information about the research environment that the candidate will be visiting must be provided. 2. Key perspectives and compliance with strategic documents 2.1. Compliance with strategic documents An account must be provided of how the project conforms to the strategic objectives and plans laid down by the. 2.2. Relevance and benefit to society The project s relevance and benefit to society should be described. For instance, it should be stated whether the project will help to provide knowledge that will be useful for meeting important in the public sector, industry or civil society. This may be placed in a regional, national or global context. 2.3. Ethical perspectives If the project raises specific ethical questions, describe how these will be dealt with. 3. Dissemination and communication of results 3.1 Dissemination plan Plans for scholarly and popular science dissemination activities are to be included in the grant application form. Any further details may be provided in the project description. 3.2 Communication with users When appropriate, specification should be provided of any particular user groups that are relevant for the project, and the manner of their involvement should be described. The information channels that will be used to communicate research findings should also be indicated.
Vedlegg 4 Assessment of grant application submitted to the Board of Research and Development at the, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences (HiOA) Grant Application Project title Project manager Research Group Confirmation By completing and submitting this form, I / we confirm the following (applies for the individual referee or the referee panel): We are qualified to assess this application. See Regulations on Impartiality at HiOA (attached) We have read and understood both the criteria I/we have been asked to use for assessing the application and the description of the scale of marks We are qualified to conduct this assessment.
Vedlegg 4 Summary of marks Criterion Scientific merit Mark The project manager and project group Feasibility Compliance with the R&D strategy of the Dissemination and communication of results Overall assessment of the referee/panel Special points to consider International cooperation Answer National cooperation Ethical perspectives
Vedlegg 4 Criteria Scientific Merit How well does the project exhibit scientific merit? Scientific merit is a comprehensive criterion that gives an indication of essential, fundamental aspects of the research project. The scientific merit of a project will be assessed in relation to the following points: Originality in the form of scientific innovation and/or the development of new knowledge. Whether the research questions, hypotheses and objectives have been clearly and adequately specified. The strength of the theoretical approach, operationalization and use of scientific methods. Documented knowledge about the research front. The degree to which the scientific basis of the project is realistic. The scientific scope in terms of a multi and interdisciplinary approach, when relevant. The scale of marks is to be applied as an absolute scale, i.e. marks are to be determined for each grant application independently and not relative to other applications that the panel/referee is assessing. Selected mark: The project manager and project group How well qualified are the project manager and project group? The qualifications of the project manager and project group will be assessed in relation to the following points: Project management. Expertise and experience within the field of research. Publication record. Experience with national and international collaboration on projects. Experience with supervision of students and junior researchers. The degree to which the project manager and project group are part of a research environment that has the competence and resources needed to ensure the success of the project. The scale of marks is to be applied as an absolute scale, i.e. marks are to be determined for each grant application independently and not relative to other applications that the panel/referee is assessing.
Vedlegg 4 Selected mark: Feasibility How feasible is the project? The feasibility of the project will be assessed in relation to the following points: Plans for project implementation, including milestones and deliverables. Feasibility is not to be linked to any factors relating to scientific risk. Selected mark: Compliance with the R&D strategy of the How does the project support the R&D strategy of the? The relevance of the project will be assessed in relation to the R&D strategy of the Faculty of Health Sciences: Strengthen research and development (R&D) with relevance to the professions. Develop robust research groups. Increase the proportion of employees with a doctoral degree. Increase the external funding of R&D projects. Have a high publication level in internationally recognised journals. Participate actively in national and international research forums and networks. Increase student participation in R&D projects. Ensure effective use of R&D resources through professional research management and organisation. The scale of marks is to be applied as an absolute scale, i.e. marks are to be determined for each grant application independently and not relative to other applications that the panel/referee is assessing. Selected mark: Dissemination and communication of results How well are the dissemination and communication plans for the project?
Vedlegg 4 Dissemination and communication of results will be assessed in relation to the following points: Plans for scholarly publication, dissemination and other communication activities. Plans for popular science dissemination and communication activities vis à vis the general public as well as users of the project results, including planned use of channels and measures. Plans for ensuring that important users (in industry, community life and public administration) are incorporated into/take part in dissemination activities for the project. When assessing dissemination and communication plans, importance should be attached to the level of detail provided and how realistic the plans are. Selected mark: Overall assessment of the referee/panel What is the overall assessment of this project? The overall assessment of the referee/panel taking into account the criteria which the referee/panel has been asked to assess. The scale of marks is to be applied as an absolute scale, i.e. marks are to be determined for each grant application independently and not relative to other applications that the panel/referee is assessing. Selected mark: Special points to consider International cooperation National cooperation Ethical perspectives
Vedlegg 4 Comments to special points to consider