Report on PhD and Supervisor Survey University of Groningen

Report on PhD and Supervisor Survey

2005-2006

University of Groningen

Published by Grasp!, January 2007 http://www.grasp.name The Grasp! Board is: Ingrid Luijkx, Annemarie Kerkhof, Elke Plovie, Eleonora Rossi, Martin Klok, Anke Schuster, Ika Neven & Tim Van de Cruys This document was typeset using LATEX 2ε .

Contents 1 General Introduction

5

2 PhD Survey 2006 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Overall Results . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Results per gender . . . . . 2.3.3 Results per faculty . . . . . 2.3.4 Results per type of contract .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

3 Rapport Promotoren-enquête 2005-2006 3.1 Inleiding Promotoren- enquête . . . . . . 3.2 Methodologie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Resultaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 RuG-brede beschrijving . . . . . 3.3.2 Verschillen per faculteit . . . . . 3.3.3 Verschillen qua aantal promovendi 4 Key results of both surveys 4.1 Supervisor(s) . . . . . . . 4.2 Graduate Schools . . . . . 4.3 Educational opportunities . 4.4 Information . . . . . . . . 4.5 Bursary situation . . . . . 4.6 Gender issues . . . . . . . 4.7 Formal side of supervision

. . . . . . .

3

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

7 7 7 9 9 34 36 37

. . . . . .

39 40 40 42 42 52 54

. . . . . . .

55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58

CONTENTS

4.8 PhD output (‘promotierendement’) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Facilities at the university . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Other topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Overall recommendations 5.1 Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Graduate Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Information for foreign PhD’s . . . . . . 5.4 Situation concerning bursary PhD students

59 59 59

. . . .

61 61 62 62 63

A Codebook PhD Survey Grasp! 2006 A.1 Codebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Answers to Questions 7, 8 and 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 65 87

B Questionnaire of the Supervisor Survey

91

4

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Chapter 1

General Introduction This report presents the results of two surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 at the University of Groningen (RuG). The first survey was conducted among supervisors (promotoren), the second among PhD students. The aims of the surveys are to obtain detailed information on the PhD training and supervision at the RuG, and to make recommendations as to its improvement. Grasp! – the Groningen Association for PhD Students (formerly GAIOO) – has initiated, designed, and analysed the surveys. A survey among PhD students is conducted every two years, providing a long-term perspective on the development of PhD training in Groningen. For the first time, Grasp! has also conducted a survey among supervisors, in order to obtain important further knowledge on all aspects of a PhD project. Grasp! would like to thank the Board of the University (College van Bestuur, CvB) for financial support with conducting the surveys, and Cerien Streefland for advice and help concerning practical matters. Besides that, Grasp! would like to thank Marieke Georg-Huisman and Carmen Tardez for their practical support. Finally, Grasp! would like to thank the supervisors and PhD students who took the time to fill in the questionnaires. The report consists of five parts. First, the survey among PhD students is presented. Grasp! conducted the survey online in September and October 2006, with the help of the University Centre for Learning and Training (UOCG). The second part presents the results of the survey among supervisors, conducted in December 2005 in a Dutch paper version. This part of the document is in Dutch, but an English summary of key results is included in the fourth part which lists the key findings of both surveys. Finally, a fifth

5

1 G ENERAL I NTRODUCTION

part makes recommendations for the improvement of the PhD training at the RuG. With the introduction of a new PhD system in the Netherlands in 2004, new categories of people doing a PhD have been created, while the old ones continue to exist, making it even more difficult to find adequate English translations for Dutch terms. In this report, English terms are being used in the following way: The umbrella term ‘PhD student’ covers every person doing a PhD (promovendus). There are different kinds of PhD students. The term ‘employee PhD’ refers to all PhD students with an employee position (former AIO’s and OIO’s). By contrast, those PhD students who do not have an employee position but a student status are denoted by the term ‘bursary students’. Bursary students can be either foreign (in which case they are Ubbo Emmius bursary students) or Dutch (promotiestudenten). Finally, the term ‘supervisor’ denotes promotoren (professors as supervisors); ‘daily supervisors’ are the dagelijkse begeleiders.

6

Chapter 2

PhD Survey 2006 2.1 Introduction The Grasp! surveys among PhD students enable Grasp! as well as the University to identify bottlenecks and other difficulties in time and to devise solutions. Moreover, Grasp! can evaluate whether previous measures and recommendations have had the desired effects. Examples of measures implemented as a reaction to problems identified in this way are the Training and Supervision Plan (OBP) and the introduction of PhD coordinators. In the two-yearly surveys, different aspects of the PhD process are addressed, like present and future career options, balancing different requirements such as research and teaching, and facilities at the university. Special attention is paid to the supervision of the PhD student by the supervisor and, if applicable, by the daily supervisor. Supervision plays a vital role in the successful completion of a PhD project; therefore the student survey has been supplemented with a supervisor questionnaire, so as to cover ‘the other side of the story’.

2.2 Methodology The target group of this PhD survey were all PhD students at the RuG, at the time of the survey a total of 874 persons. They received an email by the UOCG with a login name and password with which they could complete the questionnaire on the internet. The email addresses were not distributed to Grasp!. The distribution of the target group over the different faculties is

7

2 P H D S URVEY 2006

unknown. Some difficulties arose during the distribution of the emails to the target group. Not all PhD students could be identified in the administrative system PeopleSoft. This system is used by the ‘Gemeenschappelijk Administratief Intranet’ (GAI) who provided the UOCG with the email addresses. Because not all PhD students had been entered into the system in the correct way, it proved impossible to send the questionnaire to all PhD students. In most cases the problems were related to the status of bursary students. Bursary students were entered in many different categories in PeopleSoft. In the first place the system found 32 bursary students, all of which were in the right category. After questions from bursary students on the board of Grasp!, the GAI found 19 more bursary students in the system who had the status of ‘other external personnel’. According to the figures of the GAI, there were 900 PhD students in total at the time of the survey. 749 of these had an employee status (including PhD students still registered as OIO’s). The rest of them, 151 in number, had another status, namely: • 51 were Ubbo Emmius bursary students • 51 had no given status (‘niet gegeven’) • 27 were unpaid employee Scientific Staff (‘Onbezoldigd medewerker WP (Schaal 00)’) • 22 were unknown (‘Onbekend (Schaal 00)’). The reason why the survey was sent to only 874 out of 900 PhD students is unknown. Recent figures from the CvB give the actual amount of bursary students at the RuG as: • 196 Ubbo Emmius bursary students under the age of 30 • 98 Ubbo Emmius bursary students from the age of 30 • 17 Dutch bursary students This amounts to a total of 311 bursary students and means that at least 160 bursary students did not receive the questionnaire.

8

2.3 Results

The questionnaire was answered by a total of 274 PhD students of which 42 are foreign bursary students and 4 are Dutch bursary students. The overall response was 274 out of 874, that is 31%. The response rate from bursary students was 46 out of 151, which is 30%. The total response period was 3 weeks, and a reminder was sent after 2 weeks. Before the reminder was sent, the response rate was 21%. If we assume that all employee PhD students are listed correctly in PeopleSoft, there are 749 employee PhD students. Furthermore, if we assume the figures of the CvB concerning the amount of bursary students to be correct as well, there are 311 bursary PhD students. The total amount of PhD students at the RuG would then amount to 1060 PhD students. The percentage of bursary students is in this case 29%. The UOCG entered the data of the survey in SPSS; the data analysis was done by Grasp! Most of the results in this part of the report are presented in percentages or frequencies. In some cases, mainly in open questions, the answers are given as absolute numbers instead of percentages, because the number of respondents to these questions was quite low. Possible differences due to gender, faculty or type of contract (employee PhD or bursary) are investigated with cross tabulations.

2.3 Results 2.3.1

Overall Results

The results section begins with the overall results of the PhD survey. This section consists of seven parts: 1. General questions 2. Supervision (a) Supervisor (b) Daily supervisor (c) PhD coordinator 3. Development opportunities 4. Balancing different requirements

9


(a) Teaching and supervising 5. Facilities at the university 6. Current and future career 7. Foreign PhD’s Subsequently the results will be discussed per gender, faculty and type of contract. General questions

10 0

5

Percentage

15

20

In this part we give a brief overview of the general characteristics of the responding PhD students at the RuG. 51% of respondents is male and 49% is female. The age distribution of respondents is shown in the figure below (figure 2.1). Most PhD students are 26 or 27 years old while there are also some who are around 50 years old. Most respondents began their position in 2004 (26%) and 2005 (30%).

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

Age

F IGURE 2.1: Respondents’ age distribution

10

49

51

2.3 Results

70

62% of PhD students is Dutch. The top 6 of other countries of origin are: (1) Germany (7.7%), (2) Italy (3.7%), Romania and Poland (both 2.6%), India and China (both 2.2%). The distribution over types of contract is shown in figure 2.2. Most PhD students have an employee status (80%), 17% are bursary students (both Dutch and foreign). In total 11% of PhD students with an employee status works part-time. Only 15% of respondents are bursary students; this figure does not correspond to the total percentage of bursary students at the RuG (29%).

40 30 0

10

20

Percentage

50

60

Bursary PhD student Full time employee PhD Part time employee PhD External PhD Dutch bursary PhD student Other

Type of Contract

F IGURE 2.2: Type of contract with the RuG The distribution over the faculties is shown in the figure below (figure 2.3). Most PhD students belong to the faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (39%). The largest research schools are: GUIDE (14%), BCN (13%), GBB (8%), SOM (8%) and MSC (7%). Other research schools are represented in the survey by less than 5% of PhD students. 9% of respondents states not to be connected to any research school and 4% states not to know to which research school he/she is connected.

11

50


30 20 0

10

Percentage

40

Theology Arts Law Philosophy Mathematics and Natural Sciences Management and Organisation Economics Behavioural and Social Sciences Spatial Sciences Medical Sciences

Faculty

F IGURE 2.3: Distribution of respondents over faculties

12

2.3 Results

The largest research institutes are: FMW part GUIDE (10%), Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute (7%), MSC (7%), ICOG (6%), CLCG (6%), and FMW part BCN (6%). Other research institutes are represented in the survey by less than 5% of PhD students. 10% is not connected to any research institute and 7% does not know to which research institute he/she is connected. The distribution over the Graduate Schools is shown in table 2.1. BCN is the largest Graduate School according to the survey. 22.9% of respondents is not connected to any Graduate School and 24.8% does not know to which Graduate School he/she is connected. Besides the fact that the Graduate Schools are not well known, their role also remains unknown to many PhD students; only 43% is familiar with the Graduate School and its role whereas 57% is not.

Graduate School of the RuG Graduate School for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies Graduate School for Biomolecular Science and Biotechnology Graduate School for Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Graduate School for Medical and Pharmaceutical Drug Innovation Graduate School for Materials Science Graduate School for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Graduate School for Mathematics and Computing Science Graduate School for Astronomy Graduate School for Atomic and Nuclear Physics Graduate School for Humanities Graduate School for Philosophy Graduate School for Theology Graduate School for Economics and Business Graduate School for Social Science Graduate School for Spatial Science Graduate School Law Does not apply Do not know

% 3.8 6.8 10.2 3.8 4.9 3.0 1.5 0.8 1.5 3.0 0.8 0.8 4.5 3.0 1.9 2.3 22.9 24.8

TABLE 2.1: Distribution over Graduate Schools

13


Supervision The second part of the survey addressed supervision in the broadest sense. After considering some general aspects of supervision, we present results concerning supervision by the supervisor, the daily supervisor and the PhD coordinator. A first set of questions refers to the information received by PhD students. In this case multiple answers were possible. Information on practical matters (e.g. scholarships, subsidies for printing, taxes, health insurance) is mainly supplied by other PhD students and to a lesser extent by the supervisors. For information on research-related topics (conferences, courses, etc.) the main source of information is the supervisor and other supervisors. These results are presented in table 2.2.

Graduate School Research school Supervisors Other PhD students Research network PhD coordinator Other

Practical Matters (%)

Research-related (%)

18 31 47 64 7 18 26

15 39 82 62 27 11 18

TABLE 2.2: Sources of information At the beginning of their PhD position, 70% of PhD students had a prefixed proposal while 30% was free to write their own proposal. 74% is satisfied with the amount of input of their own in the proposal (see figure 2.4). The following results were found with respect to the formal aspects of supervision. 72% of PhD students has assessment talks (‘voortgangs-, beoordelings- en/of functioneringsgesprekken’) on a regular basis, 21% does not and 7% does not know. 78% has a training and supervision plan (OBP), 17% does not and 5% does not know. A little bit less than half of respondents (42%) agrees with the statement that their training and supervision plan is revised when necessary, 42% neither agrees nor disagrees and 16% says that their training and supervision plan is not revised when necessary. Regarding the satisfaction with the supervision of the PhD project, we observe a difference between aspects of content and aspects of project man-

14

70

2.3 Results

40 30 0

10

20

Percentage

50

60

Yes, even too much room Yes No, because of pre−fixed proposal No, because of supervisor(s) No opinion

Opinion

F IGURE 2.4: When I started my PhD, my supervisor(s) left enough room for my own input in the research project

15


agement. 70% is satisfied with the supervision with respect to the content of their PhD project while only half (54%) is satisfied with the supervision concerning the project management. 66% agrees with the statement that their supervisor stimulates them enough to receive their doctoral degree in time. The results of these three questions are summarised in table 2.3. Opinion (%)

Content Supervision

Project Management Supervision

Enough stimulation to finish on time

Totally agree Agree Neither Disagree Totally disagree

32 38 14 11 4

14 39 28 14 4

29 37 20 10 4

TABLE 2.3: Opinion about three topics concerning supervision Respondents were asked to state the main bottlenecks in the supervision of their PhD project. One fifth did not experience any bottleneck while one third named the availability of the supervisor(s) as a problem. The answers to this open question are summarised in table 2.4. Supervisor Here we present the results regarding supervision by the supervisor. The largest part of PhD students meets him or her once per month or less (50%). One out of four PhD students has a meeting once per week or more often with his/her supervisor (see figure 2.5). 63% of respondents states to be satisfied with the number of meetings. A little less than half (47%) makes minutes of these meetings. 67% of PhD students contacts his/her supervisor whenever they have a question and another 70% indicates that the supervisor dedicates time to helping them with problems. Daily supervisor Previous surveys organised by Grasp! were conducted in 2001 and 2003. In the recommendations following both surveys, the daily supervisor was a main topic. In 2001 the CvB promised to ensure that every PhD student had a daily supervisor. One of the main reasons for introducing daily supervisors was the fact that PhD students with a daily supervisor are more motivated to finish their theses on time.

16

2.3 Results

Bottleneck

%

Availability of supervisor(s) (regarding time and face-to-face contact) No bottlenecks /satisfied Project is not well defined / too much freedom / lack of coordination Lack of support/feedback/help/motivation/understanding by supervisor Different opinions of different supervisors Communication/misunderstanding between PhD and supervisor Lack of knowledge of supervisor Supervisor and PhD have different ideas (about content, time management or supervision) PhD student does not know if he/she is doing the right things with the right time planning Too many tasks (PhD student)/combination of different tasks Availability of research material (measurement devices) and explanation on how to use these Do not know (yet, just started) Lack of time by PhD student Confronting colleagues Only one supervisor Adaptation to new life Lack of information on practical situation (Dutch bursary) No colleagues

29 19 10 8 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

TABLE 2.4: Main bottlenecks in supervision

17

15 10 0

5

Percentage

20

25


<1

1

2

3

4

>4

Number of meetings per month

F IGURE 2.5: How often a month do you meet with your supervisor?

18

2.3 Results

In 2006, only 54% of PhD students does have a daily supervisor and 46% does not. 81% of PhD students with a daily supervisor are satisfied with the number of meetings they have with them while only 7% is not satisfied. More or less the same can be said about the supervision with respect to the content of the PhD project. 72% is satisfied with the supervision by the daily supervisor on content while 13% is not satisfied. In 68% of the cases, PhD students are satisfied with the practical support offered by the daily supervisor, while 11% is not satisfied. PhD coordinator Another important outcome of previous PhD surveys was the introduction of PhD coordinators. Therefore it is interesting to see how their position and role have developed. 30% of respondents indicates he or she has a PhD coordinator, 41% does not and 30% does not know. Of the PhD students with a PhD coordinator, 16% meets with him/her more than twice a year and 7% meets twice a year. A little less than half of PhD students (41%) meets their PhD coordinator once a year and no less than 36% has less than one meeting per year. A slight majority (61%) is satisfied with how the PhD coordinator handles his/her tasks. Development opportunities Only 57% of respondents agrees that their supervisor helps them become an active member of a research network by introducing them to colleagues and encouraging them to attend conferences. No less than one fifth (19%) says their supervisor does not help them with these issues. A large majority of PhD students (76%) thinks there is no difference between the way male and female PhD students are supported by their supervisors in becoming active members of the research community. Only 4% says there is a difference and 20% does not have an opinion on this. The Graduate Schools seem to play only a minor role in the supervision of PhD students, as 73% of respondents states that Graduate Schools do not play a role in the supervision of the research project and only 27% states that the Graduate School/research school does play a role. Most of the PhD students (45%) do not yet have a clear idea as to how many courses they will follow. Of the ones who do, most enrol in four to five courses. The results are shown in table 2.5. Regarding the content of the courses, most PhD students plan to attend courses about the content of their project/research and to a lesser extent about

19


Amount

%

Less than 2 2 or 3 4 or 5 Do not know

5 16 23 45

TABLE 2.5: Amount of courses PhD students plan to take during their PhD project research methods (see table 2.6. Course

%

Project management Courses about the content of your project / research Research methods Future career inside academia Future career outside academia ICT Languages Other

42 73 60 26 23 23 51 22

TABLE 2.6: Kinds of courses PhD students plan to take With respect to the quality of the courses and training offered by the Graduate School/research school, only 52% is satisfied. Even less PhD students report to be satisfied with the number of courses (46%). Figures on the satisfaction with the diversity of courses are even more dramatic: only 39% is satisfied and 28% is not. The majority of PhD students is free to select the courses they want to follow (72%). Regarding the opportunities to gain experience in teaching or supervising students, 57% says to have sufficient opportunities but 21% indicates not to have these opportunities. The results of these questions are summarised in table 2.7. 87% has the opportunity to follow courses at the computer centre, language centre and/or Mobility and Education (‘Mobiliteit en Opleiding’) while as little as 2% does not. 69% reports to have the opportunity to follow courses elsewhere (outside the RuG) while 7% does not have this opportunity. One fourth of PhD

20

2.3 Results

I am satisfied with the . . . (%)

++

+

+/–

–

––

Number of courses by graduate/research school Quality of those courses Diversity of courses offered Free to select which courses to follow Sufficient opportunities to teach/supervise students

8 8 6 25 19

39 44 33 47 38

34 32 34 19 22

17 11 22 7 13

3 6 6 2 9

TABLE 2.7: Opinion about courses and other learning opportunities students does not know. 79% has sufficient opportunities to attend summer schools and/or conferences/seminars while 7% does not and 14% does not know. In this set of questions, there were many PhD students who answered ‘I don’t know’. 9% does not know if there is an opportunity to follow courses at the computer centre, language centre or Mobility and Education and another 14% does not know if they have sufficient opportunities to attend summer schools or conferences and as much as 25% does not know if they can attend courses outside the RuG. Balancing different requirements 41% of respondents answers that there are clear requirements regarding the quantity of work they are expected to do (e.g. number of pages, chapters or papers accepted by journals), whereas 59% does not have clear requirements concerning the quantity of the thesis. PhD students are even more insecure about the expected quality (e.g. type of journal or publisher) of the PhD thesis (36% has clear ideas, 64% has not). Table 2.8 8 gives an overview of how the respondents think about these requirements. 57% of respondents expects to finish the thesis in time, 18% expects not to finish in time and 25% does not know. Reasons for delays are displayed in table 2.9 (in absolute numbers). The main reason is the fact that parts of the project have failed or have been delayed for other reasons. In total 40% of those PhD students who expect a delay (this question was answered by 58 PhD students), thinks he/she will get an extension (see figure 2.6). However, only 26% knows how to apply for this.

21


Answer

%

Requirements are too demanding Requirements are all right Requirements are not demanding enough No opinion

6 51 5 39

TABLE 2.8: What is your opinion about the requirements concerning your thesis?

Reason (Parts of) the project have failed/are delayed Too demanding requirements Four years is not enough Pregnancy/parental leave Health problems Bad research management/time planning Unclear requirements Change of topic Experiments are never finished Side projects/too much teaching duties Getting used to other country/language or problems related to moving to another country Laziness Supervisor causes delays PhD has to spend time writing proposals to get money Technical problems in experiments Supervisor left Two supervisors with different opinions Missing value

n respondents 12 6 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 223

TABLE 2.9: Reasons for not finishing doctoral thesis in time

22

15 0

5

10

Percentage

20

25

30

2.3 Results

++

+

+/−

−

−−

Opinion

F IGURE 2.6: I expect to be able to get an extension of my education/contract/position as a PhD student.

23


Teaching and supervising 71% of PhD students teaches courses during his/her PhD and 29% does not. The kind of teaching PhD students do are presented in table 2.10. Most PhD students who teach guide practicals and supervise students. What courses do you teach?

%

Lectures (hoorcolleges) Seminars (werkcolleges) Practicals (practica) Supervising students Other

22 44 52 66 5

TABLE 2.10: Kind of courses PhD students teach For most PhD students, teaching is obligatory (58%), and 42% teaches on a voluntary basis. 12% of PhD students thinks that teaching contributes very much to their PhD project, 52% answers that it contributes, 7% does not know, 24% says that it does not really contribute and 4% thinks it does not contribute at all. 59% receives sufficient support for teaching and supervising, 25% does not receive enough support and 16% does not know. Most PhD students are satisfied with the amount of teaching they do (63%), 17% thinks it takes too much time and 21% would like to teach more. The time PhD students spend on the different tasks they are required to do (research, teaching, attending classes) is shown in table 2.11. The respondents had to indicate what percentage of their overall time they dedicate to the respective task. PhD students spend most of their time on research. Time spent on:

%

Research Teaching Attending classes Other

75 11 8 10

TABLE 2.11: Time spent on different tasks

24

2.3 Results

Facilities at the university The level of satisfaction concerning the facilities at the university and related issues is shown in table 2.12. The largest part of the PhD students is satisfied with most of the facilities. This applies to tasks at the university, contact with other PhD students and other staff members, working space, library, income, budgets and secondary conditions of employment (in case of employee PhD students). Topics that many PhD students do not have an opinion on are the RSI policy and the ARBO, P&O, IT and other facilities. Most dissatisfaction is caused by the situation of being a student (for bursary students).

I am satisfied with my . . . (%)

++

+

+/–

–

––

Tasks at university Contact with other PhD students Contact with other staff members of research group Working space (room, desk, computer) Current income/scholarship Training, travel and conference budget Budget for (empirical) research Secondary conditions of employment (employee PhD’s only) Advantages of being a student (bursary students only) RSI policy ARBO, P&O, ICT and other facilities Library

18 38 25

65 42 50

14 14 17

3 4 6

0 2 2

34 23 23 20 22

47 47 40 42 50

13 16 23 25 21

5 10 10 9 4

2 4 4 4 3

8

30

46

4

12

5 5 21

28 36 55

52 40 16

10 12 4

5 7 3

TABLE 2.12: Level of satisfaction concerning facilities at the university

In an open question, respondents were also asked which recommendations they had concerning the improvements of the facilities at the university. The results are shown in table 2.13. These results are absolute numbers. The main improvements regarding the facilities at the RuG include the library, funding, computer, office and information about general topics.

25


Improvements regarding facilities Library improvements (newer books)/better access to online journals More funding/more clarity of personal budget Better computer (+ ICT facilities) Office improvements (climate control, less persons in one room, better desks and chairs) PhD’s should get more information (about general things like library, filling in forms, future career, scholarships) Improvement of research facilities in the lab (including technical assistance) Less bureaucracy RSI policy can be improved (e.g. by mandatory check by ARBO) More cooperation between research groups Canteen should be cheaper (free coffee) More clarity concerning the bursary position/get rid of bursary system More information about courses PhD’s can follow at the RuG (in English) More clarity about possible extension (also in case of pregnancy and parental leave) More contact with other PhD students More communication with promotor/other supervisors Better supervision Good training and supervision plan Possibility for bursary students to teach Evaluation meetings are not useful Longer opening times of library and other buildings Nothing/do not know Missing value

n respondents 15 14 13 11 11 7 7 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 17 151

TABLE 2.13: Recommended improvements regarding facilities

26

2.3 Results

Current and future career Respondents were asked how they had found out about the possibility of becoming a PhD student at the RuG. The different possibilities are shown in table 2.14, showing that 42% of the RuG PhD students were invited to apply. (Multiple answers were possible.) Where or who?

%

I was invited to apply Through third person (e.g. academic staff at home university, internship) Advertisement of RuG website I have worked at a research institute of the RuG before Advertisement on other website Through other students Advertisement in newspaper I was on an Erasmus program in Groningen Through university cooperation Advertisement in UK (UniversiteitsKrant) Other

42 27 15 13 10 7 5 5 4 1 11

TABLE 2.14: How did you find out about the possibility of becoming a PhD student at the RuG? The next topic in the survey was the reputation of the RuG. Before the start of their project 49% thought that the RuG had a good reputation, 23% thought it had a neutral reputation and 28% did not know. The results are shown in figure 2.7. Most respondents say that their perception of the reputation of the RuG has not changed since they became a PhD student (64%), 25% says their view has become more positive and 12% says it has changed in a negative sense. Most PhD students think that the RuG has a good reputation in their own research area (56%), 1% thinks the RuG has a bad reputation, 31% thinks the RuG has a neutral reputation and 13% does not know. These results are shown in figure 2.8. Of all PhD students, 29% has seriously considered quitting research and 71% has never considered this. The reasons why PhD students considered quitting are shown in table 2.15;

27

30 20 0

10

Percentage

40

50


Good

Bad

Neutral

No Idea

Opinion

F IGURE 2.7: The perceived reputation of the RuG before the start of the PhD project

28

30 20 0

10

Percentage

40

50

2.3 Results

Good

Bad

Neutral

No Idea

Opinion

F IGURE 2.8: The perceived reputation of the RuG in the PhD student’s research area

29


the results are shown in absolute numbers instead of percentages. The main reason for PhD students to consider quitting their position is the supervision: 17 PhD students say they considered quitting because of the bad relation with their supervisor or daily supervisors. Other reasons are: research does not seem to be successful, uncertainty about the choice for a career in research, uncertainty about the situation/feeling lonely; 5 people state that they are not sure if they are capable of fulfilling the position. A worrying answer was given by one person, stating that he/she considered quitting because of problems with the safety in the lab. Reason to quit

n respondents

Bad supervision/difficulties with supervisor(s) Research does not seem to work out/be successful Not sure if research is the right career/bad career possibilities after PhD Uncertain situation/feeling lost/lonely/there is no clear research plan Not sure if I am capable (high standards set for oneself) Long working days/too much stress I did not like it (enough) Job offer (better financial situation and personal challenge) Private problems It was not what I expected Political trouble, not allowed to work Position influences private life too much Not sure if the research is useful Not happy with side projects that had to be accomplished Health problems (caused by work, RSI) Lab safety No extension was given for parental leave, PhD was expected to finish thesis unpaid Missing value

17 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 205

TABLE 2.15: Reasons for quitting the PhD position If they could choose again for doing a PhD, 89% would do it again and 11% would not.

30

2.3 Results

For those who answered that they would not choose to do a PhD again there was an open question asking for the reasons. This open question was answered by only 25 persons. The reasons given were in a way similar to the reasons why PhD students considered quitting in the table above. Respondents were asked what their preferred career would be after their promotion. The results are displayed in table 2.16. The most desired future career lies in science, 62% prefers to do a post-doc. (Multiple answers were possible.)

Future career

%

Post doc Lecturing position at the university Other work at the university Commercial Research Doing research for government institutions (CPB, CBS) Policy advisor for the government Consultancy Management position Setting up your own business Other

62 40 23 34 38 20 19 18 14 27

TABLE 2.16: Preferred future career Of all respondents, 98% thinks their goal is attainable, only 2% does not. 24% of all PhD students plans to write a post doc proposal, 20% does not and 57% does not know yet. Most PhD students are determined to finish their dissertation before accepting a full-time job (68%). To the statement ‘My supervisor(s) is/are of great importance for my future career’, 16% totally agrees, 35% agrees, 33% neither agrees nor disagrees, 12% disagrees and 4% totally disagrees. As to whether a PhD degree will help in finding a job, 21% totally agrees, 43% agrees, 28% neither agrees nor disagrees, 6% disagrees and 2% totally disagrees. Furthermore most PhD students hope that the content of their PhD project is useful for their future career: 28% totally agrees, 47% agrees, 19% neither agrees nor disagrees, 3% disagrees and 3% totally disagrees.

31


Foreign PhD’s The PhD survey was completed by 105 foreign PhD students. The results presented in this part of the report are derived from their answers only. Of all foreign PhD students, 44% have not had practical difficulties while 56% have encountered difficulties in arranging practical matters such as residential permits and nursery. The difficulties they encountered are shown in table 2.17 in absolute numbers. There are many PhD students who have had difficulties with their residence permit. Furthermore, housing is a big problem, and many respondents are dissatisfied with the housing office of the RuG. Besides that, PhD students should receive more information from the university about arranging practical matters. Problems with practical matters Problems with residence permit (e.g. for bursary students has to be renewed every year) Housing (university does not offer any help) PhD’s do not receive enough information/There is no department to help PhD with arranging practical matters Health insurance Lot of paper work of which most is in Dutch Arranging things takes a lot of time Problems due to (uncertainty about) bursary status Too much bureaucracy Bank account Missing value

n respondents 21 9 7 4 3 3 2 2 1 222

TABLE 2.17: Problems with practical matters experienced by foreign PhD’s Furthermore 32% encountered other difficulties during their stay at the university, 68% did not. Problems mentioned were for example language problems. Only 27% of foreign PhD students received sufficient information on contract and tax issues before coming to the Netherlands, whereas as much as 73% did not receive sufficient information. Also on practical matters such as residential permits, housing, nursery, etc., foreign PhD did not receive sufficient information (69%). Finally the foreign PhD students could indicate about which of the following items they would have liked to receive information before or at the start of their PhD position (multiple answers were

32

2.3 Results

possible.). The results are shown in table 2.18. The most important topics are health insurance and the Training and Supervision Plan. Topic

%

Training and Supervision plan Health insurance Regulations concerning the termination of a PhD appointment Regulations for PhD degree (Promotiereglement) Courses Language Centre (‘talencentrum’) Your training, travel and conference budget Performance interview (functioneringsgesprek, only if you are a RUG employee) Cost of living in the Netherlands Grasp! Evaluation interview (for bursary students) Additional leave (ADV dagen, only if you are a RUG employee) Courses computer centre Tax deductible offerings Services of ‘Mobility and Education’ Nursery (kinderopvang) RSI

54 53 34 30 29 26 27 25 20 15 13 7 6 5 2 1

TABLE 2.18: Topics on which foreign PhD students would have liked to have received information Other topics on which foreign PhD students would have liked to receive more information include: • • • • •

Tax Housing Doctors in Groningen Rights of PhD’s (bursary students) Residence permit

About the family situation of foreign PhD students we can say the following: 12% has a partner and/or children living abroad, 39% has a partner

33


and/or children living in the Netherlands and 50% does not have a partner or children. The difficulties they encounter in connection with their family situation are (among others): • Finding a job for husband or wife (e.g. due to language problems) • Residence permit for family members • Travelling back and forth all the time • Combining long working hours with family life • Housing problems • A lot of extra costs To the statement ‘At the moment I started my PhD research I had a clear view of what it would be like being a PhD student at the RuG’, 5% totally agrees, 32% agrees, 28% neither agrees nor disagrees, 24% disagrees and 12% totally disagrees. The next sections of the report address differences within the results with respect to gender, faculty and type of contract.

2.3.2

Results per gender

Cross-tab analysis indicates several differences between female and male PhD students. A first difference we observe concerns the type of contract (χ2 (5) = 12.25, p = 0.032). Female PhD students are more often enrolled as bursary students and as employee PhD’s on a part-time basis than their male counterparts. We find differences regarding the faculty (χ2 (2) = 10.851, p = 0.004), research school, research institute and Graduate School. The faculties are divided in different categories, which are defined as follows: • Alpha: Theology, Arts, Law, Philosophy • Beta: Mathematics and Natural Sciences • Gamma: Behavioural and Social Sciences, Spatial Sciences, Medical Sciences, Economics and Management and Organisation

34

2.3 Results

Male Female

Alpha

Beta

Gamma

24 28

63 43

37 64

TABLE 2.19: Number of PhD students per sex and per type of faculty The beta faculty has more male than female PhD students whereas the gamma faculties have more women working on a PhD project. These results are presented in table 2.19. We do not find any differences regarding the general supervision as experienced by female and male PhD students. However, the number of meetings with the supervisor differs (χ2 (5)=14.83, p=0.01): male PhD students are over-represented in the categories of two, over four, and one or less than one meeting a year. No differences are found regarding daily supervisors and PhD coordinators. Gender results in a number of differences in the field of development opportunities. First of all, female PhD students answer differently to the question whether there is a difference between the way male and female PhD students are coached by their supervisors in becoming active members of the research community (χ2 (2)=7.92, p=0.02). Female PhD students more often say that their supervisors do not help them with this, while male PhD students report they do not know. Secondly, there is a genderbased difference regarding the amount of and satisfaction with courses. Female PhD students expect to attend more courses than the male PhD students (χ2 (4)=13.57, p=0.01). They are more satisfied with the quality of these course (χ2 (4)=17.43, p=0.002), experience more opportunities to follow courses outside the university (χ2 (2)=6.50, p=0.04) and are either very satisfied or not satisfied at all with the number of courses being offered. Male PhD students report less opportunities to attend summer schools or conferences (χ2 (2)=6.52, p=0.04). Cross tab analysis does not reveal any differences in the field of balancing different requirements. The same applies to teaching and supervising. Female PhD students are less satisfied with the contact with other staff members than their male counterparts (χ2 (4)=9.34, p=0.05). The analysis does not reveal other gender-based differences in facilities of the university. A final gender-based difference is found with regard to the future career of PhD students. The main differences between male and female PhD stu-

35


dents lie in the preference for commercial research, management position and setting up one’s own business. All these are favoured by men while women show more interest in lecturing and other work at the university and in doing research for government institutions (see table 2.20) Preferred future career Post-doc Lecturing Other work at university Commercial research Research at governmental institution Policy advisor Consultancy Management position Setting up a business Otherwise

Male

Female

83 49 29 56 47 30 24 30 25 36

87 60 33 37 57 26 29 20 14 38

TABLE 2.20: Number of PhD students per sex and per future career

2.3.3

Results per faculty

Cross-tab analysis between the faculties shows only two significant differences. The kind of research proposal PhD students have at the start of their PhD project clearly depends on the faculty they are affiliated to (χ 2 (271) = 59.940, p = 0.000). In the faculties of Arts, Philosophy and Economics, PhD students tend to make their own research proposal, whereas in faculties orientated towards the exact sciences (Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Medical Sciences), there is a tendency towards pre-fixed proposals. In the other faculties, the number of pre-fixed and free proposals is more evenly divided. The type of contract PhD students have at different faculties also shows a significant difference (χ2 (272) = 79.231, p = 0.001). The number of bursary students in the faculties of Arts, Law, Philosophy and Medical Sciences is higher than expected. By contrast, the number of bursary students in the faculties of Mathematics and Natural Sciences is lower than expected. No bursary students from the faculties of theology and economics participated in the survey.

36

2.3 Results

2.3.4

Results per type of contract

Cross-tab analysis reveals significant differences between nationalities. Not surprisingly, all bursary students are foreign; Dutch PhD students are mainly full-time employees (χ2 (5) = 93.251, p = 0.000). There are few foreign PhD’s employee on a part-time basis. There is an additional difference between EU and non-EU PhD students: European PhD students are more numerous than PhD students from outside of Europe. Half of the bursary students and most of the foreign full-time PhD employees come from EU member states, whereas bursary students from outside Europe are mainly bursary PhD students (χ2 (5) = 35.487, p = 0.000). Almost half of the bursary students report to be free to make their own proposal while only one out of four employee PhD can do this (χ 2 (5) = 22.23, p = 0.000). However, this result is still at odds with the legal conditions of bursary students, who are supposed to be free to write their own proposals. In this respect the number of bursary students with a pre-fixed proposal is rather high. The analysis does not reveal a difference as to the presence of a training and supervision plan. However, bursary students seem to revise this plan more regularly than other PhD students (χ2 (20) = 35.23, p = 0.019). Regarding the supervisor, no differences are found. This is not the case for the daily supervisor. Bursary students report to be less satisfied with the supervision by the daily supervisors on the content of their project (χ 2 (20) = 59.006, p = 0.000). The type of contract PhD students have also has an effect on their satisfaction with the courses being offered. Employee PhD students seem to be more satisfied with the number of courses than bursary students (χ 2 (20) = 35.422, p = 0.018). Bursary students give more extreme answers on their satisfaction with the diversity of the courses: bursary students are either very content or very discontent with the diversity of the courses (χ 2 (20) = 34.2, p = 0.0250). Moreover, they report to have less opportunities than other PhD students to follow courses outside the university (χ2 (10) = 31.744, p = 0.000). They also have less opportunities to gain experience with teaching or supervising students (χ2 (20) = 58.193, p = 0.000). With regard to the different requirements, we find that full-time employee PhD students are more aware than others of the requirements regarding the quantity of their doctoral thesis (χ2 (5) = 11.16, p = 0.048). A considerable difference between bursary students and employee PhD

37


students concerns teaching and supervising (χ2 (5) = 41.184, p = 0.000); bursary students have less teaching duties. However, in the light of the new PhD system (‘promotiestelsel’), it is important to report that 14 foreign bursary students as well as two Dutch bursary students (‘promotiestudenten’) do teach/supervise. Bursary students mainly supervise students. They engage in teaching on a voluntary base while employee PhD students do this as an obligation (χ2 (5) = 33.521, p = 0.000). Clear differences can also be found in the field of facilities at the university. Bursary students are less satisfied with their contact with other staff members (χ2 (20) = 31.485, p = 0.049). They are also less satisfied with their current scholarship (χ2 (20) = 46.788, p = 0.001), their secondary conditions of employment (χ2 (16) = 35.605, p = 0.003) and with the advantages of being a student (χ2 (16) = 33.653, p = 0.006). The following table (table 2.21) presents the results for the preference for future career.

Post-doc Lecturing Other work at university Commercial research Research at governmental institution Policy advisor Consultancy Management position Setting up a business Otherwise

Bursary PhD’s

Employee PhD’s

27 15 4 10 16 9 11 7 6 7

138 92 58 79 83 43 40 38 31 63

TABLE 2.21: Number of students per type of contract and future career Bursary students have more hope that the content of their PhD project is useful for their future career (χ2 (20) = 38.268, p = 0.008) compared to other PhD students. The only significant difference with regard to foreign PhD’s is in the area of difficulties in arranging practical matters. Foreign bursary students experience more difficulties than others (χ2 (5) = 16.437, p = 0.006).

38

Hoofdstuk 3

Rapport Promotoren-enquête 2005-2006 Opvallende uitspraken van de Groningse hoogleraren • De huidige generatie promovendi heeft zoveel andere dingen aan hun hoofd: ze vallen (bijna) om van de sociale verplichtingen en hebben zorgen over de nieuwste mobieltjes! • Een proefschrift is meestal eenmalig; het zal voor de rest van hun leven hun proefschrift zijn. Dit moet de promovendus zich beter realiseren. • Het ABC van begeleiden: A Anarchistisch (vrijheid), B Bourgondisch (lol hoort erbij) en C Calvinistisch (serieus). • Hoe zou u zichzelf als begeleider omschrijven? – Relaxed – Zorgzaam – Streng – Normaal – Schaap met 5 poten – Schaap met 7 poten

39

3 R APPORT P ROMOTOREN - ENQU Eˆ TE 2005-2006

3.1 Inleiding Promotoren- enquête Het perspectief van promotoren op de begeleiding van promovendi zou een aanvulling kunnen bieden op de resultaten van de promovendi-enquête. Grasp! besteedt veel aandacht aan dit punt, omdat wij van mening zijn dat dit een belangrijke rol speelt in het succesvol afleggen van het promotietraject. Eind 2005 werd de promotoren-enquête, waarin het begeleiden van promovendi centraal staat, naar alle promotoren van de RuG gestuurd. De resultaten van deze enquête vormen een aanvulling op de resultaten van de promovendi-enquête die in september 2006 gehouden wordt. De enquête voor promotoren behandelt verschillende aspecten van de begeleiding van promovendi. We zijn de enquête begonnen met algemene vragen over de achtergrond van de promotor, zoals het aantal jaren ervaring met het begeleiden van promovendi. Daarnaast hebben we vragen gesteld over de dagelijkse praktijk. Er werd bijvoorbeeld gevraagd naar het aantal promovendi dat een promotor begeleidt en hoeveel tijd dit kost. Daarnaast hebben we gevraagd hoe promotoren het geven van begeleiding ervaren en hoe ze denken dat ze als begeleider zijn. De formele kant van begeleiden kwam ook aan bod waarbij gedacht kan worden aan het gebruiken van het opleidingsen begeleidingsplan en het voeren van functioneringsgesprekken. Tenslotte hebben we de promotoren gevraagd wat zij de belangrijkste knelpunten vinden in de begeleiding van promovendi. Dit rapport behandelt de resultaten van de enquête die gehouden is onder promotoren in 2005. In hoofdstuk 2 wordt de methode beschreven van de enquête en het onderzoek. Hoofdstuk 3 beschrijft de resultaten.

3.2 Methodologie De doelgroep van de enquête bestond uit alle promotoren en (emeritaat) hoogleraren van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Er is gekozen om de enquête niet te versturen naar andere begeleiders zoals U(H)D’s, post-docs of begeleiders buiten de RuG, omdat de eindverantwoordelijkheid van de begeleiding bij de promotor ligt. De doelgroep was verdeeld over de verschillende faculteiten van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen zoals is weergegeven in tabel 3.1. De enquête is verstuurd naar alle promotoren en emeritaat hoogleraren van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, dit zijn 655 hoogleraren 1 . Van de ver1

40

Peildatum: 13 november 2005.

3.2 Methodologie

Faculteit Bedrijfskunde Economische Wetenschappen Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschap Letteren Medische Wetenschappen Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen Rechtsgeleerdheid Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen Wijsbegeerte Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen Geen faculteit Totaal

Aantal hoogleraren 27 48 13 67 167 54 58 16 9 192 4 655

TABLE 3.1: De faculteiten van de hoogleraren die de enquete hebben ontvangen

stuurde enquêtes zijn er 214 beantwoord teruggestuurd. Dat is 32,7 procent. De enquête bestaat uit 20 hoofdvragen, die in een aantal gevallen zijn opgesplitst in deelvragen. Van de 20 vragen waren er 4 open vragen. De enqu eˆ te is te vinden in de bijlage. De vragenlijst was opgesteld in het Nederlands en verstuurd per post. Grasp! heeft de enquête opgesteld. De Rector Magnificus, dhr. Zwarts, heeft een aanbevelingsbrief aan de enquête toegevoegd. De enquête is verstuurd op 14 november 2005 door het secretariaat van de Rector Magnificus. De promotoren hadden 1 maand de tijd om te reageren. Vanwege de hoge respons was het niet noodzakelijk een herinnering te sturen. De data zijn geanalyseerd door het bestuur van Grasp! Met uitzondering van de open vragen bestaan de data uit kwantitatieve gegevens. De antwoorden werden ingevoerd en verwerkt in het statistische softwarepakket SPSS. Gezien de aard van de data en de onderzoeksvragen bevatten de resultaten voornamelijk frequenties van de gegeven antwoorden. Mogelijke verschillen tussen faculteiten en andere relevante variabelen zijn onderzocht door middel van kruistabel-analyses. De antwoorden op de open vragen zijn als beschrijvende resultaten opgenomen in dit rapport.

41


3.3 Resultaten 3.3.1

RuG-brede beschrijving

Van de ingevulde enquêtes is een derde afkomstig uit de Faculteit Medische Wetenschappen (33.3%) en een kwart uit de Faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen (25.8%). Andere faculteiten met veel respondenten zijn: Letteren (10.8%), Gedrags- en Maatschappij Wetenschappen (8.9%) en Rechtsgeleerdheid (6.6%). De overige faculteiten waren als volgt vertegenwoordigd: Economische Wetenschappen: 5.2%, Bedrijfskunde: 3.8%, Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen: 2.3%, Wijsbegeerte: 2.3%, Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschappen: 0.9%. In tabel 3.2 is te zien hoe het aantal respondenten zich verhoudt tot het totale aantal hoogleraren per faculteit. Faculteit

Aantal respondenten

Bedrijfskunde Economische Wetenschappen Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschap Letteren Medische Wetenschappen Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen Rechtsgeleerdheid Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen Wijsbegeerte Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen Geen faculteit Totaal

8 11 2 23 71 19 14 5 5 55 1 214

29.6% 22.9% 15.4% 34.3% 42.5% 35.2% 24.1% 31.3% 55.6% 28.6% 25.0%

TABLE 3.2: De verdeling van de respondenten over de verschillende faculteiten De 214 hoogleraren die gereageerd hebben op de enquête blijken actief te zijn in 42 verschillende onderzoeksscholen. Gezien het grote aantal onderzoeksscholen is er voor gekozen om deze vraag open te laten aan de respondenten. De gegeven antwoorden zijn dan ook zeer uiteenlopend. Er worden zowel Groningse als landelijke onderzoeksscholen genoemd. Omdat hoogleraren soms in meerdere onderzoeksscholen participeren konden op deze vraag meerdere antwoorden worden gegeven. Dit werd gedaan door

42

3.3 Resultaten

13.6% van de hoogleraren. Ruim 35% van de hoogleraren heeft geen enkele onderzoeksschool opgegeven. De meest genoemde onderzoeksscholen zijn Guide (Graduate School for Drug Exploration, 27 hoogleraren, 12.6%), BCN (School of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurosciences, 24 hoogleraren, 11.2%) en SOM (Research School Systems Organisation and Management, 11 hoogleraren, 5.6%). Andere onderzoeksscholen worden vertegenwoordigd door minder dan 10 hoogleraren. In veel gevallen slechts 1 of 2, dit zijn veelal landelijke onderzoeksscholen. Uit de enquêtes blijkt dat hoogleraren heel wat ervaring hebben in het begeleiden van promovendi. Meer dan de helft (58.9%) van hen doet dit al meer dan tien jaar en nog eens 29.4% heeft tussen de vier en tien jaar ervaring. Slechts 2.8% van de hoogleraren heeft minder dan 2 jaar ervaring (zie figuur 3.1). Een groot deel van de promotoren begeleidt meer dan vijf promovendi (37.9%), terwijl 12.1% e´ e´ n of twee promovendi onder zijn hoede heeft. Verder zijn er hoogleraren met 3 (17.8%), 4 (15.0%) of 5 (15.4%) promovendi (figuur 3.2). Het begeleiden van promovendi neemt aardig wat tijd in beslag, 23.8% is daar meer dan 10 uur per week mee bezig. Een derde van de hoogleraren (32.7%) rapporteert dat ze 4 tot 10 uur per week besteden aan de begeleiding terwijl 25.2% daar 2 tot 4 uur voor nodig heeft (figuur 3.3). De enquête vroeg ook naar hoe de hoogleraren het begeleiden van promovendi ervaren. Bijna 94.4% van hen vindt dit inspirerend tot bijzonder inspirerend. Bijna alle hoogleraren vinden het bovendien leuk (95.8%) en vanzelfsprekend (98.2%) en laten de begeleiding niet graag aan een ander over (77.6%). Over de tijd die ze eraan besteden is er wat meer onenigheid. De helft (49.6%) vindt het tijdrovend terwijl meer dan een derde (36.9%) daar neutraal tegenover staat en 11.2% daar niet mee akkoord gaat. Toch vindt slechts 8.0% dat ze teveel tijd besteedt aan het begeleiden, terwijl 70.1% van de hoogleraren niet vindt dat ze er teveel tijd aan besteden. Er bestaat dus een duidelijk verschil tussen de antwoorden op beide vraagstellingen. Wat de procedure van het begeleiden betreft, valt op dat 69.2% geen standaardprocedure gebruikt. Bij 17.8% neemt de onderzoeksschool een rol op in standaardisering van de begeleiding, iets wat de vakgroep slechts in 5.6% van de gevallen zelf doet. De helft van de promotoren (48.6%) maakt gebruik van een Opleidingsen BegeleidingsPlan (OBP) terwijl de andere helft (50.5%) dat niet doet.

43

30 0

10

20

Percentage

40

50

60


0−2

2−4

4−10

>10

Aantal jaar

F IGURE 3.1: Het aantal jaar ervaring van promotoren in het begeleiden van promovendi

44

20 10 0

Percentage

30

40

3.3 Resultaten

1

2

3

4

5

>5

Aantal promovendi

F IGURE 3.2: Het aantal promovendi per promotor

45

20 0

10

Percentage

30

40


<1

1−2

2−4

4−10

>10

Aantal promovendi

F IGURE 3.3: Het aantal uur per week dat een promotor aan het begeleiden van promovendi besteedt

46

3.3 Resultaten

Meer dan 90% van alle hoogleraren geeft aan dat er nog een andere begeleider betrokken is bij het onderzoek. Slechts in 8.4% van de gevallen is de promotor zelf de enige begeleider. De andere begeleiders zijn: een dagelijkse begeleider (61.7%) of andere begeleiders, zoals een copromotor (42.5%). De inhoudelijke begeleiding gebeurt in de meeste gevallen door de promotor en de andere begeleider samen (70.1%) en bij iets meer dan een vierde (27.6%) door de promotor alleen. De procesmatige begeleiding gebeurt bij slechts de helft door de promotor en tweede begeleider samen (53.7%). De procesmatige begeleiding wordt door de promotor vaker ook alleen gedaan (37.4%) en soms wordt deze taak alleen door de tweede begeleider uitgevoerd (8.4%). In de meeste gevallen voeren de hoogleraren slechts e´ e´ n begeleidingsgesprek per maand (44.0%). 28.5% van de hoogleraren voert 2 gesprekken per maand. In ongeveer 10% van de gevallen wordt er elke week een begeleidingsgesprek gevoerd. Opmerkelijk is dat er een aantal hoogleraren aangeven wel 10 (3 hoogleraren) tot 12 (1 hoogleraar) begeleidingsgesprekken per maand te hebben met zijn of haar promovendus. Van slechts een derde (29.9%) van de gevoerde gesprekken tussen promotor en promovendus wordt een verslag opgesteld. De meeste respondenten (82.3%) oordelen dat de begeleidingsgesprekken regelmatig tot zeer regelmatig plaats vinden. Bovendien stellen ze zich ook regelmatig tot zeer regelmatig beschikbaar buiten de begeleidingsgesprekken (98.1%), waar de promovendi ook gebruik van maken (in 91.1% van de gevallen regelmatig tot zeer regelmatig). Naast de begeleidingsgesprekken kunnen de begeleiders ook functionerings- en beoordelingsgesprekken voeren met de promovendi. 14.5% geeft aan geen van beide te doen terwijl iets meer dan de helft aangeeft (58.9%) deze allebei te voeren, zoals afgesproken in de CAO. Verder is er 18.2% die alleen functioneringsgesprekken houdt en 6.5% voert alleen beoordelingsgesprekken. Deze resultaten zijn weergegeven in figuur 3.4. De enquête verschaft ook informatie over hoe de promotor de promovendi introduceert in wetenschappelijke netwerken. 99.1% van de promotoren geeft aan voor een introductie te zorgen. De helft (52.3%) van de promotoren introduceert de promovendus aan de collega’s van het onderzoeksinstituut en 27.6% introduceert die ook bij de collega’s van de vakgroep. Belangrijk ook is het introduceren via conferenties (80.8%). Vervolgens werden er een aantal vragen gesteld over welke zaken promotoren belangrijk vinden. De inhoudelijke begeleiding wordt door 100%

47

Geen Alleen beoordelingsgesprekken Alleen functioneringsgesprekken Beide, zoals in de CAO

30 0

10

20

Percentage

40

50

60


Type gesprek

F IGURE 3.4: Welke typen gesprekken worden gevoerd door de promotoren

48

3.3 Resultaten

(!) van de promotoren belangrijk tot zeer belangrijk gevonden. De procesmatige begeleiding vindt 87.8% belangrijk tot zeer belangrijk. 75.2% van de promotoren vindt de inhoudelijke vrijheid (zeer) belangrijk, terwijl 22.4% daar toch neutraal tegenover staat en zelfs vijf promotoren (2.3%) vinden dat die vrijheid onbelangrijk is. Iets meer dan de helft (55.6%) vindt dat vrijheid van tijdsmanagement (zeer) belangrijk is, 34.1% staat daar neutraal tegenover en 9.4% vindt dit (zeer) onbelangrijk. Regelmaat in begeleidingsgesprekken (87.8%) en het aanleren van vaardigheden (92.1%) vindt de overgrote meerderheid van de respondenten (zeer) belangrijk, terwijl het bespreken van geschreven stukken het allerbelangrijkste lijkt te zijn (98.6%). De ‘social talk’ met de promovendi wordt ook belangrijk gevonden (74.7%). Bijna de helft van alle respondenten (47.7%) vinden de kwaliteit van een proefschrift belangrijker dan het tijdig afronden van de promotie. Net iets minder (45.8%) vindt dat kwaliteit en op tijd klaar zijn even belangrijk zijn terwijl 5.1% oordeelt dat het op tijd inleveren belangrijker is dan de kwaliteit (figuur 3.5). Vervolgens werden er een aantal open vragen gesteld waar de promotoren andere belangrijke punten kwijt konden. De eerste vraag ging over het optimale aantal promovendi per promotor. De meest gegeven antwoorden zijn: 5 (23.5%), 4 (21.9%), 3 (16.8%), 2 (13.3%) en 6 (10.7%) (figuur 3.6). De volgende open vraag handelde over de knelpunten bij het begeleiden van promovendi. Uit de antwoorden blijkt dat promotoren de hoeveelheid aan taken die ze hebben in combinatie met de tijdsdruk, beschouwen als het belangrijkste knelpunt in de begeleiding van promovendi (46.3%). Daarnaast noemden de promotoren ook het tekort aan vaardigheden van de promovendi (12.5%) en het gebrek aan middelen (6.9%). Andere knelpunten die genoemd worden zijn: tijdsdruk bij de promovendi zelf (4.4%) en de spanning tussen de kwaliteit en het op tijd afleveren van een promotie (4.4%). 3.8% van de respondenten geeft aan dat ze moeilijk geschikte kandidaten kunnen vinden (3.8%). Een opvallend antwoord wordt gegeven door 2 hoogleraren: zij vinden zwangerschapsverlof een belangrijk knelpunt bij de begeleiding van hun promovendi. Gelukkig geven 13 hoogleraren (8.1%) aan geen enkel knelpunt te ervaren bij de begeleiding. Bij de laatste vraag werden de respondenten gevraagd zichzelf als begeleider te omschrijven. Op deze vraag mochten meerdere antwoorden worden gegeven. Hier volgt een overzicht van meest voorkomende omschrijvingen: toegankelijk (26.2%), betrokken (14.0%), motiverend (14.0%), goed/normaal

49

30 20 0

10

Percentage

40

50


Kwaliteit is minder belangrijk

Even belangrijk

Kwaliteit is belangrijker

Opinie

F IGURE 3.5: Mate waarin promotor de kwaliteit van het proefschrift belangrijker/even belangrijk/minder belangrijk vindt dan/als het op tijd afleveren ervan

50

15 10 5 0

Percentage

20

25

3.3 Resultaten

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

15

Aantal promovendi

F IGURE 3.6: Optimaal aantal promovendi per promotor

51


(7.0%), coach (6.5%), geeft (te)veel vrijheid (9.8%), veeleisend / perfectionistisch (8.9%), en inspirerend (5.6%). De hoogleraren kennen zichzelf ook minder positieve eigenschappen toe, bijvoorbeeld 5 hoogleraren geven toe te weinig tijd te hebben voor de begeleiding, en 1 hoogleraar vindt zichzelf slordig. De hoogleraren konden bij de laatste vraag algemene opmerkingen kwijt. Een aantal hoogleraren geeft aan dat het promotietraject per faculteit verschilt en dat er dus niet gesproken kan worden van ‘het promotietraject’. Deze opmerking werd voornamelijk gemaakt door hoogleraren van de Medische Faculteit. Daarnaast werd aangegeven dar er ook geen standaard promovendus bestaat. Verder zijn er opmerkingen gemaakt over de enquête. Enkele hoogleraren geven aan dat de enquête geen verschil maakt tussen de begeleiding van promovendi met een contract van de RuG en bursalen. Andere hoogleraren vinden de enquête teveel gericht op bèta promovendi. Uit deze opmerkingen blijkt dat er veel variatie bestaat in promotietraject en promovendus. Tot hier werden de resultaten van de vragenlijst RuG-breed beschreven. De volgende paragraaf gaat een stap verder door in de eerste plaats de verschillen tussen de faculteiten te belichten en ten tweede na te gaan of het aantal promovendi dat een promotor begeleidt, een verschil maakt.

3.3.2

Verschillen per faculteit

Een eerste verschil dat opvalt, is het feit dat er een verband is tussen de faculteit en het aantal promovendi per promotor (χ2 (45) = 77, p = 0.002). De faculteiten Medische Wetenschappen en in mindere mate Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen hebben een hoger aantal promovendi per promotor. Bij de faculteit Medische Wetenschappen heeft 57.1% van de promotoren meer dan 5 promovendi. Bij Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen is dit 42.6%. Bij de faculteiten Wijsbegeerte en Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschappen hebben 0 promotoren meer dan 5 promovendi. Bij de (kleinere) faculteiten hebben de meeste promotoren 3 promovendi: Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen (40.0%), Rechtsgeleerdheid (42.9%) en Bedrijfskunde (37.5%). Samenhangend met het vorige thema is de tijd die wordt besteed aan begeleiding. Bij Medische Wetenschappen en Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen (FWN) wordt meer tijd besteed aan de begeleiding van promovendi dan bij andere faculteiten (χ2 (36) = 68.02, p = 0.001). Bij Medische Wetenschappen besteedt 38.6% meer dan 10 uur per week aan de begeleiding van

52

3.3 Resultaten

promovendi, bij FWN is dit 30.9%. Uit de resultaten van de tabelanalyse blijkt dat er wat betreft ervaringen bij het begeleiden van promovendi (inspirerend, tijdrovend, vanzelfsprekend, teveel tijd) geen verbanden zijn aan te tonen tussen faculteiten. De analyses laten zien dat de (formele) invulling van de begeleiding van promovendi verschilt per faculteit. Een eerste verschil is te zien bij het gebruik van het Opleidings- en Begeleidingsplan (OBP) (χ2 (9) = 30.04, p = 0.000). Bij de faculteiten Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschappen (100%), Wijsbegeerte (80.0%), Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen (69.1%), Rechtsgeleerdheid (64.3%), Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen (55.6%) en Letteren (52.2%) wordt in meer dan de helft van de gevallen gebruik gemaakt van het OBP. Bij de overige faculteiten is dit minder het geval: Medische Wetenschappen (26.8%), Bedrijfskunde (28.6%), Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen (40.0%), Economische Wetenschappen (45.5%). Het al dan niet organiseren van functionerings- en/of beoordelingsgesprekken vormt een tweede verschil bij de formele kant van de begeleiding (χ2 (27) = 42.22, p = 0.031). Veel promotoren geven aan zowel functionerings- en/of beoordelingsgesprekken te voeren (58.9%). Letteren en Medische Wetenschappen voeren minder gesprekken. Bij deze faculteiten voert respectievelijk 36.4% en 23.2% geen van beide gesprekken. Bij Rechtsgeleerdheid (84.6%), Economische Wetenschappen (81.8%), Bedrijfskunde (75.0%), Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen (73.7%) en Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen (69.1%) worden in veel gevallen beide gesprekken, zoals beschreven in de CAO, gevoerd. Een ander belangrijk punt waarop de faculteiten van elkaar verschillen is de mate waarin de onderzoekschool een rol speelt in de begeleiding (χ 2 (9) = 19.45, p = 0.022). Bij de faculteiten Rechtsgeleerdheid (42.9%), Economische Wetenschappen (36.4%) en Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen (27.3%) speelt de onderzoekschool in een aantal gevallen wel een rol. Bij de faculteiten Bedrijfskunde, Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschappen, Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen is door minder dan 10% van de promotoren aangegeven dat de onderzoekschool een rol speelt. Een ander punt was de aanvullende begeleiding van een dagelijkse begeleider. Hier is er geen verschil tussen faculteiten te zien, noch op het hebben van een dagelijkse begeleider (χ2 (9) = 10.96, p = 0.279) noch op de rol die hij of zij vervult bij de inhoudelijke (χ2 (18) = 8.04, p = 0.978) en proces-

53


matige begeleiding (χ2 (18) = 20.44, p = 0.309). Een laatste resultaat is dat het aanleren van vaardigheden belangrijker is bij de Faculteit der Medische Wetenschappen dan bij welke andere faculteit dan ook (χ2 (27) = 44.91, p = 0.017). Bij deze faculteit wordt het aanleren van vaardigheden door 64.8% van de promotoren zeer belangrijk gevonden. Op overige onderdelen van de enquête zijn geen significante verbanden aantoonbaar op basis van de tien verschillende faculteiten.

3.3.3

Verschillen qua aantal promovendi

Naast verschillen tussen faculteiten verwachtten (of vermoedden) we dat het aantal promovendi resulteert in verschillen op het gebied van begeleiding. Een eerste, logische, bevinding is dat promotoren die meer promovendi hebben meer tijd besteden aan de begeleiding van die promovendi (χ 2 (20) = 106.67, p = 0.000). Promotoren met meer dan 5 promovendi besteden bijvoorbeeld in 39.5% van de gevallen meer dan 10 uur per week aan de begeleiding. Een tweede opvallend verschil is dat promotoren met veel promovendi minder begeleidingsgesprekken per promovendus voeren dan promotoren met minder promovendi (χ2 (40) = 63.48, p = 0.010). Zo voeren promotoren met 1 promovendus in 25.0% van de gevallen 4 begeleidingsgesprekken per maand met hun promovendi, terwijl promotoren met 5 of meer promovendi dit in 11.4% van de gevallen doen. Promotoren die meerdere promovendi onder hun hoede hebben, voeren vaak maar 1 gesprek per maand met hun promovendi, terwijl promotoren met minder promovendi vaak meerdere gesprekken per maand voeren. 54.5% van de promotoren met precies 5 promovendi en 41.8% van de promotoren met meer dan 5 promovendi voeren 1 gesprek per maand. 37.5% van de promotoren met 1 promovendus en 22.2% van de promotoren met 2 promovendi voeren 1 gesprek per maand. Er blijkt ook een significant verband te zijn tussen het werkelijke aantal promovendi en het ideaal aantal promovendi (χ2 (50) = 138.24, p = 0.000), in die zin dat het ideale aantal promovendi vaak overeenkomt met het aantal dat op dit moment ook al begeleid wordt. Echter voor de promotoren met 1 of 2 promovendi geldt dat ze vaker nog 1 extra promovendus zouden willen hebben. Hieruit kan geconcludeerd worden dat promotoren over het algemeen wel tevreden zijn over het aantal promovendi dat ze begeleiden. Naast bovengenoemde punten kunnen geen opvallende verbanden worden aangetoond tussen promotoren met veel of weinig promovendi.

54

Chapter 4

Key results of both surveys 4.1 Supervisor(s) 70% of PhD students is satisfied with the supervision with respect to the content of their PhD project, and only 54% is satisfied with the supervision concerning the project management. In total 66% of the PhD students thinks that their supervisor stimulates them enough to finish their doctoral degrees in time. The supervisors were asked what they thought about supervising PhD students. Most of them like supervising and they even think it is inspiring; they accept supervising as a matter of course. Many supervisors say that they do not like to give the supervision out of their own hands. The time spent on supervising is an issue. Half of the supervisors say that it is time-consuming, but only a minority says that they spend too much time on supervising. Although the amount of meetings that PhD students have with their supervisors is limited, 63% of PhD students states to be satisfied with the number of meetings. The largest part of PhD students says to meet his/her supervisor once per month or less (50%). Most of the supervisors also respond that they have one meeting with each PhD student per month. The majority of PhD students says that they can contact their supervisor whenever they have a question. This is confirmed by their supervisors, almost all supervisors state to be available for informal meetings. Most supervisors spend between 4 and 10 hours a week on the supervision of their PhD students. One third of PhD students names the availability of the supervisor(s) as a main bottleneck. Of all PhD students 29% has seriously considered quitting their position. The main reasons for PhD students to consider quitting

55

4 K EY RESULTS OF BOTH SURVEYS

are problems concerning the supervision. The supervisors say that the main bottleneck in the supervision of their PhD students is the amount of different tasks they have to perform in combination with the limited time they have. Minor bottlenecks are the lack of certain skills of PhD students and shortage of funding. Only 57% of the PhD students agrees that their supervisor helps them become an active member of a research network by introducing them to colleagues and encouraging them to attend conferences. No less than one fifth (19%) says their supervisor does not help them with these issues. On the contrary: 99% of the supervisors responds that he/she does introduce the PhD student in their scientific network. 80% of the supervisors replies that they introduce their PhD students to their colleagues at conferences. Only 54% of PhD students reports to have a daily supervisor. Most of the PhD students with a daily supervisor are satisfied with his/her role. On the other hand, 90% of the supervisors say that other persons than themselves are involved in the supervision of their PhD students, mainly the daily supervisor and the ‘co-supervisor’.

4.2 Graduate Schools 22.9% of the PhD students claims not to be connected to any Graduate School and 24.8% does not know to which Graduate School he/she is connected. Besides the fact that the Graduate Schools are not well known, the role of the Graduate Schools also remains unknown to many PhD students; only 43% is familiar with the Graduate School and its role and 57% is not. The Graduate Schools seem to play only a minor role in the supervision of PhD students, as 73% states that they do not play a role in the supervision of the research project and only 27% states the Graduate School/research school does play a role. Only 18% of the supervisors say that they use standard procedures of a research school in the supervision of their PhD students.

4.3 Educational opportunities Most of the PhD students take the opportunity to follow courses, mainly focused on the content of their project/research and also on research methods. PhD students are not very positive about the quality, quantity and diversity of the courses offered by their graduate or research school. Many PhD students

56

4.4 Information

report to do not know their rights concerning following courses and attending to summer schools and conferences. This does not align with the fact that the courses PhD students will follow are supposed to be stated in the OBP. A little more than half of the PhD students say they have sufficient opportunities to gain experience in teaching or supervising students, while one of out five would like to teach more.

4.4 Information Information on practical matters (e.g. scholarships, subsidies for printing, taxes, health insurance) is mainly supplied by other PhD students. The PhD coordinator is unknown to many PhD students (including Dutch PhD students). Meetings of PhD students with the PhD coordinator are very infrequent. Throughout the entire PhD survey, many respondents give the answer ‘I do not know’. This indicates that many PhD students lack information on a diverse range of topics, including the Graduate School, courses and training, budget for conferences and many others. For foreign PhD students the situation is even more worrying. There are many foreign PhD students who have had difficulties with practical matters such as the residence permit and housing; many respondents are dissatisfied with the housing office of the RuG. Before coming to the Netherlands only 31% of foreign PhD’s received sufficient information on practical matters and only 27% of foreign PhD students received sufficient information on contract and tax issues.

4.5 Bursary situation The PhD survey showed some differences between employee PhD students and bursary PhD students. First of all, bursary students are less satisfied with their current scholarship, their secondary conditions of employment and with the advantages of being a student. Besides that, bursary students report to have fewer opportunities than other PhD students to follow courses outside of the university. They also have fewer opportunities to gain experience in teaching and supervising students. A considerable difference between bursary students and employee PhD students concerns teaching and supervising; bursary students teach less. This of course has to do with the fact that bursary PhD students are simply not allowed to teach. However, it is important to report that 16 bursary students do teach. Bursary students mainly supervise

57


students. Bursary students engage in teaching on a voluntary basis (which is against the agreement with the tax office (‘Belastingdienst’), while employee PhD students teach mainly on an obligatorily basis. At the start of the PhD-project, 70% of PhD students had a pre-fixed proposal while 30% was free to write their own proposal. 74% is satisfied with the amount of own input in the proposal. Almost half of the bursary students reports to be free to make their own proposal while only one out of four employee PhD can do this. However, this result is still at odds with the legal conditions of bursary students, who are supposed to be free to write their own proposals. In this respect the number of bursary students with a pre-fixed proposal is rather high.

4.6 Gender issues A large majority (76%) of PhD students thinks that there is no difference between the way male and female PhD students are coached by their supervisor(s) in becoming active members of the research community. Only 4% says that there is a difference and 20% does not have an opinion on this. However, a closer look at the answers reveals that female PhD students give different answers to the question than their male colleagues. Female PhD students more often say that their supervisors do not help them with becoming active members of the research community, while male PhD students report they do not know. Besides this, female PhD students are less satisfied with their contact with other staff members than their male counterparts. A last gender-based difference that was found concerns the future career of PhD students. Main differences between male and female PhD students lie in the preference of for commercial research, management positions and setting up ones own business. All these are favoured by men while women show more interest in lecturing or other work at the university and doing research for government institutions.

4.7 Formal side of supervision Most of the PhD students, 72%, has assessment talks (‘beoordelings- en/of functioneringsgesprekken’) on a regular basis. Only 60% of the supervisors

58

4.8 PhD output (‘promotierendement’)

confirms that they arrange both assessment talks as provided for in the collective labour agreement (CAO). A majority of 78% of PhD students says to have a training and supervision plan (OBP). According to the supervisors, this is only 49%. 42% of PhD students agrees that their training and supervision plan is revised when necessary.

4.8 PhD output (‘promotierendement’) Of all PhD students, 57% expects to finish the thesis in time, 18% expects not to finish in time and 25% does not know. In total 40% of PhD students expecting a delay thinks he/she will get an extension. However, only 26% knows how to apply for this. Of the supervisors 48% says that they think the quality of the thesis is more important than the time required to finish it. A somewhat lower percentage thinks that quality and required time are equally important and only 5% thinks that the time within which the thesis is finished is more important than the quality of the thesis.

4.9 Facilities at the university Most PhD students are satisfied with the facilities at the RuG. The topic that causes most dissatisfaction is the situation of bursary students being regarded as students. The main improvements regarding the facilities at the RuG recommended by the respondents include the library, more clarity about funding, computer, office and information about general topics.

4.10 Other topics • Of all PhD students 42% were invited to apply for their position. • The most desired future career for PhD students lies in science, 62% would like to do a post-doc. This is remarkable since the amount of post doc positions available is much lower. Still, 98% thinks this is an attainable goal, only 2% does not. • 41% of PhD students has clear requirements concerning the quantity of the thesis, 36% answers that there are clear requirements concern-

59


ing the quality of the thesis. 51% of PhD students thinks that these requirements are all right. • Before the start of their project 49% of the PhD students thought that the RuG had a good reputation, 23% thought it had a neutral reputation and 28% did not know. Most PhD students say that their idea about the reputation of the RuG has not changed since they became a PhD student (64%), 25% says it has changed in a positive sense and 12% says it has changed in a negative sense. Most PhD students think that the RuG has a good reputation in their own research area (56%), 1% thinks the RuG has a bad reputation, 31% thinks the RuG has a neutral reputation and 13% does not know. • Many supervisors supervise more than five PhD students (38%), while 12% has one or two PhD students. Besides that, 18% of the supervisors has 3 PhD students, 15% has 4 PhD students and 15% has 5 PhD students. In an open question, the supervisors could indicate what they think is the optimal amount of PhD students. The most frequent answers were: 5 (23.5%), 4 (21.9%), 3 (16.8%), 2 (13.3%) and 6 (10.7%). The average optimum is below the amount which the CvB would requires.

60

Chapter 5

Overall recommendations 5.1 Supervision In 2001 and 2003 Grasp! (then GAIOO) organised previous PhD surveys. In the recommendations of both surveys, the daily supervisor was a main topic. In 2001 the CvB was asked to ensure that every PhD student has a daily supervisor. One of the main reasons for this was the fact that PhD students with a daily supervisor are more motivated to finish their theses in time. The PhD survey shows that the main bottleneck in the supervision of PhD students is the availability of the supervisor (and possible other supervisors). The supervisor survey also shows that the supervisors have too little time to spend on the supervision. Sufficient supervision is important for an efficient PhD process leading to a thesis in four years. The time which supervisors have to supervise PhD’s is an important issue that deserves more attention. A daily supervisor could play an important role. The PhD survey shows that 54% of PhD students does have a daily supervisor but 46% does not. By contrast, the supervisor survey shows that 90% of supervisors states that another supervisor is involved in the supervision of a PhD student. Another topic that could increase the efficiency of the supervision is the Training and Supervision Plan (OBP). Half of the supervisors says they do not to use an OBP nor standard procedures from a graduate or research school. The majority of PhD students states that they have an OBP. The OBP appears to be more familiar to the PhD students than to their supervisors. Assessment meetings (‘functioneringsgesprekken’) can also be important in the PhD project, but less than 60% of supervisors has these meetings. 72% of

61

5 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

PhD students reports to have assessment meetings with his/her supervisor. The formal side of the supervision should be given more attention in order to increase the efficiency of the supervision. Grasp! thinks the Graduate Schools could play an important role in this issue.

5.2 Graduate Schools The Graduate Schools were introduced on 1 September 2005. More than a year later it turns out that 23% of PhD students does not know that he/she is connected to a Graduate School of the RuG and another 25% does not know to which Graduate School he/she is connected. Furthermore, 57% of all PhD students is not familiar with the Graduate School and its role. The results suggest that the Graduate Schools do not fulfil the role in the PhD process that they are supposed to fulfil. Grasp! thinks that it is important to inform PhD students about the Graduate Schools.

5.3 Information for foreign PhD’s Many foreign PhD students have difficulties in arranging practical matters (56%) and they also did not receive sufficient information about them (69%). Another 73% of foreign PhD students did not receive sufficient information on contract and tax issues before coming to the Netherlands. PhD students say that the main source of information concerning practical matters are other PhD students. The survey has also shown that many PhD students do not know about PhD coordinators. This leads to a situation in which PhD students have to spend a lot of time finding information themselves. Grasp! thinks that it is important that foreign PhD students receive more and better information on contract and tax issues and other practical matters. This will stimulate foreign PhD students to choose for a PhD in Groningen. A comprehensive information brochure will be a good start. The International Service Office should become better known to foreign PhD’s as well as to their supervisors and coordinators. An important topic related to the supply of information is the incorrect registration of the different types of PhD students in the administrative system. In order to supply all PhD students with the required information, this situation should be improved.

62

5.4 Situation concerning bursary PhD students

5.4 Situation concerning bursary PhD students The PhD survey has shown that there are major differences between employee PhD students and bursary PhD students. The position of a bursary PhD student offers less possibilities for individual development as regards gaining experience in teaching and supervising students. Grasp! thinks that this is an important part of a PhD project and that this will make Groningen less attractive for (foreign) graduates. Furthermore, bursary PhD students find themselves in a position that is considerably worse than that of their employee colleagues concerning secondary conditions of employment, income, health insurance and other important social security topics. Grasp! thinks that these differences are not acceptable and that the situation should be changed.

63

5 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

64

Appendix A

Codebook PhD Survey Grasp! 2006 A.1 Codebook N

Question

Answers

Part 1: General questions 1.

Gender

2.

Age

3.

Nationality

1: Male 2: Female 9: Missing value Age is answer -9: Missing value See Appendix 2 Drop-down bar met opties 1 t/m 196 999: Missing value

65

A C ODEBOOK P H D S URVEY G RASP ! 2006

4.

Type of contract with the RuG

5.

Start date of contract

6.

Which faculty are you affiliated to?

7.

Which research school(s) are you connected to? If you are connected to more than one research school, choose the one you are primarily connected to.

66

1: Bursary 2: Full-time Promovendus/ PhD-fellow (employee status) 3: Part-time Promovendus/ PhD-fellow (employee status) 4: External PhD 5: Dutch bursary PhD-student (promotiestudent) 6: Other 9: Missing value 1: <2000 2: 2000 3: 2001 4: 2002 5: 2003 6: 2004 7: 2005 8: 2006 9: Missing Value 1: Theology 2: Arts 3: Law 4: Philosophy 5: Mathematics and Natural Sciences 7: Economics 8: Behavioural and Social Sciences 9: Spatial Sciences 10: Medical Sciences 99: Missing value Zie bijlage 2 op pagina 31 Drop-down bar met opties 1 t/m 40. 99: Missing value

A.1 Codebook

8.

9.

Which Research Institute(s) of the RuG are you connected to? If you are connected to more than one Research Institute, choose the one you are primarily connected to. Which Graduate School of the RuG are you connected to?

Zie bijlage 3 op pagina 33. Drop-down bar met opties 1 t/m 29. 99: Missing value.

Zie bijlage 4 op pagina 35. Drop-down bar met opties 1 t/m 18. 99: Missing value.

Part 2: Supervision 10.

Are you familiar with your Graduate School and its role?

11.

From whom do you receive information on practical matters (e.g. scholarships, subsidies for printing, taxes, health insurance etc.)?

12.

From whom do you receive information on research related topics (e.g. conferences, courses, etc.)?

1: 2: 3: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 9:

Yes No Don’t know Missing value Graduate School Research school Promotor/supervisors Other PhD-students From a research network PhD-coordinator Other Missing value Graduate School Research school Promotor/supervisors Other PhD-students From a research network PhD-coordinator Other Missing value

67


13.

What kind of your research proposal did you have at the start of your PhD-project?

14.

When I started as a PhD student, my supervisor(s) left enough room for my own input in the research project.

15.

I have a training and supervision plan (opleidingsen begeleidingsplan).

16.

My training and supervision plan has been revised when necessary.

17.

Is your performance assessed on a regular basis? (voortgangs-, beoordelings-en/of functioneringsgesprekken)

68

1: I was free to make my own research proposal. 2: There was a pre-fixed proposal. 9: Missing value 1: Yes, even too much room 2: Yes 3: No, the pre-fixed proposal did not leave enough room for my own input 4: No, my supervisor(s) did not leave enough room for my own input 5: No opinion 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Does not apply 9: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No 3: Don’t know 9: Missing value

A.1 Codebook

18.

I am satisfied with the supervision I get with respect to the content of my PhD project.

19.

I am satisfied with the supervision I get with respect to the project management, e.g. time planning, of my PhD project.

20.

My supervisor(s) sufficiently stimulate(s) me to get my doctoral degree within time.

21.

What do you experience as main bottlenecks in the supervision you receive? Promotor 22. How often a month do you meet with your promotor(es)?

23.

I am satisfied with the number of meetings I have with my promotor(es).

1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value Open question.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

<1 1 2 3 4 >4 Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

69


24.

25.

26.

Do you make minutes of the meetings with your promotor(es)? I contact my promotor(es) whenever I have a question.

My promotor(es) always create(s) time to help me with problems I encounter.

1: 2: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Yes No Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

Daily supervisor 27.

Next to my promotor(es) I have been appointed a daily supervisor.

28.

I am satisfied with the number of meetings I have with my daily supervisor(s).

29.

I am satisfied with the supervision I get from my daily supervisor(s) with respect to the content of my PhD project.

70

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 31 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value

A.1 Codebook

30.

I am satisfied with the practical support I receive from my daily supervisor(s).

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

PhD coordinator 31.

I have been appointed a PhD co-ordinator.

32.

How often do you have meetings with him/her?

33.

I am satisfied with the way he/she handles his/her assignment.

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 34 3: Do not know ♦ proceed with question 34 9: Missing value 1: > twice a year 2: twice a year 3: once a year 4: < once a year 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value

Part 3: Development opportunities 34.

I feel that my promotor(es) help(s) me in becoming an active member of a research network by introducing me to colleagues and encouraging me to attend conferences.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

very much sufficiently somewhat not sufficiently not at all Missing value

71


35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

72

Do you think there is a difference between the way male and female PhD candidates are coached by your own supervisor(s) into becoming active members of the research community? My Graduate School/ research school plays a role in the supervision of my research project. How many courses in total will you (approximately) have attended by the end of your PhD-research? What kind of courses did or do you plan to attend?

I am satisfied with the quality of courses and/or training being offered by my Graduate School/ research school.

1: 2: 3: 9:

Yes No No opinion Missing value

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value Open question.

1: Project management 2: Courses about the content of your project / research 3: Research methods 4: Future career inside academia 5: Future career outside academia 6: ICT 7: Languages 8: Other 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value

A.1 Codebook

40.

I am satisfied with the number of courses and/or training being offered by my Graduate School/ research school.

41.

I am satisfied with the diversity of courses and/or training being offered by my Graduate School(s)/ research school.

42.

Do you have the opportunity to follow courses at the ‘Rekencentrum’, ‘Talencentrum’ and/or ‘Mobiliteit en Opleiding’? Do you have the opportunity to follow courses elsewhere (not at our university)?

43.

44.

45.

Do you have sufficient opportunities to attend summer schools and/or conferences/seminars? I am free to select the courses which I want to follow.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Yes No Do not know Missing value

1: 2: 3: 9: 1: 2: 3: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Yes No Do not know Missing value Yes No Do not know Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

73


46.

I have sufficient opportunities to gain experience in teaching/supervising students.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:


Part 4: Balancing different requirements 47.

48.

49.

Are there clear requirements your doctoral thesis has to meet regarding the quantity (e.g. number of pages, chapters or papers accepted by journals)? Are there clear requirements your doctoral thesis has to meet regarding the quality (e.g. type of journals or publishers)? What is your opinion about these requirements?

50.

Do you expect to finish your doctoral thesis in time?

51.

What do you think will be the main reason for not being able to finish your doctoral thesis in time?

74

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value 1: Requirements are too demanding 2: Requirements are all right 3: Requirements are not demanding enough 4: No opinion. 1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 54 3: Do not know ♦ proceed with question 54 9: Missing value Open question.

A.1 Codebook

52.

I expect to be able to get an extension of my education/contract/position as a PhD student.

53.

I know how to apply for an extension of my education/contract/position as a PhD student.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

Teaching and supervising 54.

Do you teach any courses or supervise any students during your PhD?

55.

What courses do you teach? (Multiple answers possible)

56.

Is this on a voluntary or obligatory base?

57.

Do you think that the courses you teach or the supervision contribute to your PhD project?

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 59 9: Missing value (Multiple answers possible) 1: lectures (hoorcolleges) 2: seminars (werkcolleges) 3: practicals (practica) 4: supervising students 5: other 9: Missing value 1: Voluntary 2: Obligatory 9: Missing value 1: Yes, very much 2: Yes 3: Don’t know 4: Not really 5: Absolutely not 9: Missing value

75


58.

Do you receive sufficient support for teaching and supervising?

59.

What is your opinion about the amount of teaching during your PhD?

60.

How much time –in percentagesdo you approximately spend on: Research, Teaching and Attending classes? (Totally 100%)

1: Yes 2: No 3: Do not know 9: Missing value 1: It takes too much time 2: Satisfying 3: I would like to teach more 4: Missing value Procenten zijn het antwoord (cijfers). Research..% Teaching..% Attending classes..% Other..% 999: Missing value

Part 5: Facilities at the university 61.

I am generally satisfied with what my tasks at the university.

62.

I am satisfied with my contact with other PhD-students.

63.

I am satisfied with my contact with other staff of the research group.

76

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

A.1 Codebook

64.

I am satisfied with my working space (room, desk, computer).

65.

I am satisfied with my current income/ scholarship.

66.

I am satisfied with my training, travel and conference budget.

67.

I am satisfied with the budget for my (empirical) research.

68.

I am satisfied with the current secondary conditions of employment (only if you are registered as an employee at the RuG).

69.

I am satisfied with the current advantages of being a student (only if you are registered as a student at the RuG).

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

77


70.

I am satisfied with the RSI policy at the university.

71.

I am satisfied with the support I receive from the ARBO, P&O, ICT and other facilities.

72.

I am satisfied with the library

73.

Which improvements do you recommend regarding the facilities for yourself and your research project?

1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value Open question.

Part 6: Current and future career

78

A.1 Codebook

74.

How did you find out about the possibility of becoming a PhD student at the RuG? (multiple answers possible)

75.

How did you value the reputation of the RuG before the start of your research project?

76.

Have your ideas of the reputation of the RuG changed since you are a PhD student?

(Multiple answers possible) 1: I was invited to apply 2: Advertisement in UK (UniversiteitsKrant) 3: Advertisement in newspaper 4: Advertisement of RuG website 5: Advertisement on other website 6: Through other students 7: Through third person (e.g. academic staff at home university, internship) 8: Through university cooperation 9: I have worked at a research institute at the RuG before 10: I was on an Erasmus program in Groningen 11: Other 99: Missing value 1: The RuG has a good reputation 2: The RuG has a bad reputation 3: The RuG has a neutral reputation 4: I had no idea about the reputation of the RuG 9: Missing value 1: Yes, in a positive sense 2: Yes, in a negative sense 3: No 9: Missing value

79


77.

How do you value the reputation of the RuG in your research area?

78.

Have you ever seriously considered to quit your research?

79.

If you have ever seriously considered to quit, please briefly state why? If you had to choose again, would you choose for the function of PhD again? If you will not choose for the position of PhD Student again, please briefly state why not?

80.

81.

80

1: The RuG has a good reputation 2: The RuG has a bad reputation 3: The RuG has a neutral reputation 4: I have no idea about the reputation of the RuG 9: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value Open question.

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value Open question.

A.1 Codebook

82.

What kind of work would you prefer to do after your promotion (Multiple answers possible)?

83.

Do you think this is an attainable goal?

84.

Are you going to write a post doc proposal?

85.

I am determined to finish my dissertation before accepting a full time job.

86.

My supervisor(s) is/are of great importance for my future career.

(Multiple answers possible) 1: Post doc 2: Lecturing position at the university 3: Other work at the university 4: Commercial Research 5: Doing research for government institutions (CPB, CBS) 6: Policy advisor for the government 7: Consultancy 8: Management position 9: Setting up your own business 10: Otherwise 99: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No 3: Do not know 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value

81


87.

Getting my PhD degree will help me in finding a job.

88.

I hope that the content of my PhD project is useful for my future career.

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:

Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value Totally agree Agree Neither agree / disagree Disagree Totally disagree Missing value

Part 7: Foreign PhD’s These questions are for foreign PhD students only, other PhD students can continue with question 100 89.

90.

91.

92. 93.

82

Did you ever encounter difficulties in arranging practical matters such as residential permits, nursery, etc.? If you encountered difficulties in arranging practical matters such as residential permits, nursery, etc., please elaborate Did you ever encounter other difficulties during your stay at the university? If you encountered other difficulties, please elaborate Did you receive sufficient information before coming to the Netherlands on contract and tax issues?

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 91 9: Missing value Open question.

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 93 9: Missing value Open question. 1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value

A.1 Codebook

94.

Did you receive sufficient information before coming to the Netherlands on practical matters such as residential permits, housing, nursery, etc?

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value

83


95.

About which of the following items did you receive information before or at the start of your PhD position? (Multiple answers possible)

96.

On which topics would you like to have received more information?

84

(Multiple answers possible) 1: Health insurance 2: Training and Supervision plan (’opleidingsen begeleidingsplan’) 3: Your training, travel and conference budget 4: Additional leave (ADV dagen, only if you are a RUG employee) 5: Regulations concerning the termination of a PhD appointment 6: Tax deductible offerings 7: Nursery (kinderopvang) 8: Cost of living in the Netherlands 9: Services of ‘Mobility and Education’ (Mobiliteit en Opleiding) 10: Courses ‘Rekencentrum’ 11: Courses Language Centre‘talencentrum’ 12: RSI 13: Regulations for PhD degree (Promotiereglement) 14: Performance interview (functioneringsgesprek, only if you are a RUG employee) 15: Evaluation interview (for bursary students) 16: Grasp! 99: Missing value. Open question.

A.1 Codebook

97.

How is your family situation?

98.

Which difficulties do you thereby encounter? At the moment I started my PhD research I had a clear view of what it would be like being a PhD student at the RuG.

99.

1: My partner and children (if any) live in my home country 2: My partner and children (if any) live in the Netherlands 3: Not applicable ♦ proceed with question 99 9: Missing value Open question. 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 9:


Part 8: Grasp! 100. Are you a member of Grasp!

101. If you are not a member of Grasp!, would you tell us the reason(s) why? 102. Did you receive the Grasp! leaflet at the start of your PhD appointment? 103. Do you ever attend Grasp! activities?

104. If yes, via which source of information did you hear about these activities? (Multiple answers possible)

1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 102 9: Missing value Open question.

1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No ♦ proceed with question 105 9: Missing value (Multiple answers possible) 1: E-mail 2: Website 3: Through a friend 4: Else:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9: Missing value

85


105. If you have never attended Grasp! activities, why is that? (Multiple answers possible)

106. What is the main task of Grasp! in your opinion?

107. I am satisfied with the functioning of Grasp!

108. Do you have any suggestions for improvement of Grasp!? 109. Have you ever visited the Grasp! website ? 110. Do you receive the Graspoll?

(Multiple answers possible) 1: Not enough time 2: Not interesting for me 3: Inconvenient timing 4: Else:. . . . . . . . . 9: Missing value 1: Supplying information to PhD students 2: Organising social activities 3: Representing PhD students at Groningen University (belangenbehartiging) 4: Organising general courses 5: Organising excursions 6: Organising thematic sessions (themamiddag) 7: Otherwise:. . . . . . . . . 9: Missing value 1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree / disagree 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 9: Missing value Open question. 1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value 1: Yes 2: No 9: Missing value

End of the questionnaire: thanks a lot for your cooperation!!

86

A.2 Answers to Questions 7, 8 and 9

A.2 Answers to Questions 7, 8 and 9 Research schools used in question 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Archon (Interuniversitaire Onderzoekschool Archeologie) ASCI (Advanced School for Computing and Imaging) BCN (School of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurosciences) CEES (Groningen Centre for Ecological en Evolutionary Studies) DISC (Dutch Institute of Systems and Control) DPI (Dutch Polymer Institute) EPP (School voor Experimentele Psychopatologie) Fantom (International Research school for Fundamental and Applied Nuclear and Atomic Physics) FE (Functionele Ecologie) GBB (Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Technology Institute) GRSSH (Groningen Research School for the Study of the Humanities) GUIDE (Research Institute for Drug Exploration) GVC (Groningen Visualization Centre) ICG (Interuniversitair Centrum voor Geo-ecologisch Onderzoek) ICO (Interuniversitair Centrum voor Onderwijsonderzoek) ICS (Interuniversitair Centrum voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek) IOPS (Interuniversitair Onderzoekscentrum voor Psychometrie en Sociometrie) IPA (Institute for Programming Research and Algorithms) ISED (Institute for the Study of Education and Human Development) J.M. Burgers Centrum voor Stromingsleer (Research Institute for Fluid Dynamics) KLI (Kurt Lewin Instituut) Logica (Onderzoekschool Logica) LOT (Landelijke Onderzoekschool voor Taalwetenschap) LOTN (Landelijke Onderzoekschool Theoretische Natuurkunde) Mediëvistiek (Onderzoekschool Mediëvistiek) MRI (Mathematics Research Institute)

87


27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

MSC (Materials Science Centre) N.W. Posthumus Instituut (Onderzoekschool voor Economische en Sociale Geschiedenis) Nethur (Netherlands Graduate School of Housing and Urban Research) NOVA (Nederlandse Onderzoekschool voor Astronomie) OIKOS (Interuniversitaire Klassieke Oudheid Studies) OSPT (Onderzoekschool Procestechnologie) PTN (Polymeertechnologie Nederland) Research Institute for Psychology and Health SENSE (Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment) SOM (Systems, Organisation and Management) WTMC (Wetenschap, Techniek en Moderne Cultuur) Other Does not apply Do not know

Research institutes used in question 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

88

Groningen Research Institute for Philosophy (GRIPh) Centre for Religious Studies (CRS) Instituut voor Cultuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (ICOG) Centre for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) Groningen Institute of Archeology (GIA) FMW-deel School of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurosciences (BCN) FMW-deel Groningen University Institute for Drug Exploration (GUIDE) Biomedical Materials Science and Application (BMSA) Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken (NCG) Centre for Behaviour and Neurosciences (CBN) Groningen Centre for Ecological en Evolutionary Studies (CEES) Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute (GBB) Groningen Research Institute for Pharmacy (GRIP)

A.2 Answers to Questions 7, 8 and 9

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Instituut voor Wiskunde en Informatica (IWI) Kapteyn Astronomical Institute Materials Science Centre (MSC) Stratingh Instituut voor Chemie en Technologie Centrum voor Energie en Milieukunde (IVEM) Centrum voor IsotopenOnderzoek (CIO) Centrum voor Theoretische Natuurkunde (CTN) FEW-deel Systemen, Organisatie en Management (SOM) FBK- deel Systemen, Organisatieen Management (SOM) Centrum voor Recht, Bestuur en Samenleving (CRBS) Urban and Regional Studies Institute (URSI) Heymans Institute for Advanced Psychological Research Nieuwenhuis Instituut voor onderzoek van onderwijs, opvoeding en ontwikkeling (voorheen GION) Gronings Centrum voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (GCS) Does not apply Do not know

Graduate Schools used in question 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Graduate School for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies (FWN/CEES) Graduate School for Biomolecular Science and Biotechnology (FWN/GBB) Graduate School for Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience (penvoerder UMCG, participatie FWN,GMW, FWB, FLet) Graduate School for Medical and Pharmaceutical Drug Innovation (penvoerder UMCG, participatie FWN) Graduate School for Materials Science (FWN/MSC) Graduate School for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (FWN/Stratingh) Graduate School for Mathematics and Computing Science (FWN/IWI) Graduate School for Astronomy (FWN/Kapteyn)

89


9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

90

Graduate School for Atomic and Nuclear Physics (KVI) Graduate School for Humanities (FLet) Graduate School for Philosophy (FWB) Graduate School for Theology (FGG) Graduate School for Economics and Business (FEW/FBK) Graduate School for Social Science (GMW) Graduate School for Spatial Science (FRW) Graduate School Law (FRG) Does not apply Do not know

Appendix B

Questionnaire of the Supervisor Survey Hieronder vindt u een aantal vragen die betrekking hebben op uw ervaringen met het begeleiden van promovendi.U kunt bij de meerkeuzevragen het antwoord van uw keuze aankruisen. Bij de open vragen kunt u kort en bondig uw antwoord opschrijven. Bij voorbaat dank voor uw deelname. 1. Bij welke faculteit bent u werkzaam? (kruis aan) o Bedrijfskunde o Economische Wetenschappen o Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschappen o Letteren o Medische Wetenschappen o Psychologische, Pedagogische en Sociologische Wetenschappen o Rechtsgeleerdheid o Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen o Wijsbegeerte o Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen 2. Bij welke onderzoeksschool(en) bent u aangesloten?: 3. Hoeveel jaren ervaring heeft u met de begeleiding van promovendi? (kruis aan) o 0-2

91

B Q UESTIONNAIRE OF THE S UPERVISOR S URVEY

o o o

2-4 4-10 >10

4. Hoeveel promovendi begeleidt u op dit moment? (kruis aan) 1 2 3 4 5 >5

o o o o o o

5. Hoeveel tijd besteedt u aan het begeleiden van al uw promovendi? Antwoord in uren per week. o <1 o 1-2 o 2-4 o 4-10 o >10 6. Hoe ervaart u het begeleiden van promovendi? Geef voor elke stelling aan in hoeverre u het er mee eens bent:

‘De begeleiding van promovendi inspireert me’ ‘De begeleiding van promovendi is tijdrovend’ ‘De begeleiding van promovendi is een vanzelfsprekend onderdeel van mijn werkzaamheden’ ‘Ik vind het leuk om promovendi te begeleiden’ ‘De begeleiding van promovendi kost me teveel tijd’

92

––

–

+/–

+

++

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

‘Ik laat de begeleiding graag aan een ander over’

o

o

o

o

o

7. A. Maakt u gebruik van een standaardprocedure voor het begeleiden van promovendi? (kruis aan) o Nee o Ja, namelijk: – van de vakgroep – van de onderzoeksschool – anders, namelijk:........ o Weet niet B. Gebruikt u het Opleidings- en Begeleidingsplan (OBP) van uw promovendi als leidraad bij de begeleiding? (kruis aan) o Ja o Nee, omdat . . . 8. A. Zijn er in naast u nog andere mensen, zoals copromotoren of dagelijks begeleiders die uw promovendi begeleiden? (kruis aan) o Nee o Ja, namelijk: – dagelijks begeleiders – anderen B. Wie is er verantwoordelijk voor de inhoudelijke begeleiding van uw promovendi? (kruis aan) o Uzelf o Copromotor/dagelijks begeleider o Uzelf en copromotor/dagelijks begeleider beiden C. Wie is er verantwoordelijk voor de procesmatige begeleiding (tijdmanagement, algemene voortgang van het onderzoek etc.) van uw promovendi? (kruis aan) o Uzelf

93


o o

Copromotor/dagelijks begeleider Uzelf en copromotor/dagelijks begeleider beiden

9. A. Hoe vaak voert u met iedere promovendus een begeleidingsgesprek? (aantal invullen) o Gemiddeld...............per maand B. Wordt er een verslag gemaakt van deze gesprekken; bijvoorbeeld in het Opleidings en Begeleidingsplan? (kruis aan) o Nee o Ja o Weet niet ––

–

+

++

10. Hoe regelmatig vinden begeleidingsgesprekken plaats? 11. Bent u ook buiten deze gesprekken bereikbaar voor vragen?

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

12. Maken promovendi daar ook gebruik van?

o

o

o

o

13. Voert u functionerings- en/of beoordelingsgesprekken met uw promovendi? (kruis aan) o Nee o Alleen beoordelingsgesprekken o Alleen functioneringsgesprekken o Beide, op de tijdstippen zoals gespecificeerd in de CAO 14. Introduceert u uw promovendi in uw wetenschappelijk netwerk? (kruis aan) Let op: meerdere antwoorden mogelijk! o Nee

94

o o o o

Ja, ik stel ze voor aan de collega’s van de vakgroep Ja, ik heb ze voorgesteld aan de collega’s in het onderzoeksinstituut Ja, ik neem ze mee naar congressen Ja, ik breng ze op andere manieren direct in contact met wetenschappers in hun vakgebied 15. Geef aan hoe belangrijk u onderstaande aspecten van de begeleiding van uw promovendi vindt: (kruis aan)

Inhoudelijke begeleiding Procesmatige begeleiding Vrijheid van promovendi m.b.t. inhoud onderzoek Vrijheid van promovendi m.b.t. tijdmanagement (werktijden, werktempo) ‘Social talk’ met de promovendus Regelmatig (begeleidings-) gesprekken voeren Geschreven stukken bespreken Aanleren van vaardigheden (schrijven, publiceren, plannen)

––

–

+/–

+

++

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

16. Het kan voorkomen dat er een spanning bestaat tussen de kwaliteit van het proefschrift en de termijn waarin het proefschrift dient te worden afgerond. Geef in onderstaande stelling aan wat u belangrijker vindt: ‘Ik vind de kwaliteit van het proefschrift . . . dan het op tijd afleveren ervan’ (kruis aan)

95


o Minder belangrijk o Even belangrijk o Belangrijker 17. Wat zou voor u het optimale aantal promovendi zijn om te begeleiden? Met andere woorden, bij welk aantal promovendi kunt u optimaal aandacht besteden aan alle aspecten van begeleiding? (aantal invullen) ... . . ... promovendi 18. Wat ervaart u als knelpunten in de begeleiding van promovendi? (open vraag) 19. Hoe zou u zichzelf als begeleider omschrijven? (open vraag) 20. Als u nog iets wilt toevoegen, op- of aanmerken, dan kunt u dat hieronder kwijt:

96

Report on PhD and Supervisor Survey University of Groningen

Recommend Documents