Comment on:
The following comment refers to this/these guideline(s)
Guideline 3
Organisational responsibility of heads of research institutions
The heads of HEIs and non-HEI research institutions create the basic framework for research. They are responsible for ensuring adherence to and the promotion of good practice, and for appropriate career support for all researchers. The heads of research institutions guarantee the necessary conditions to enable researchers to comply with legal and ethical standards. The basic framework includes clear written policies and procedures for staff selection and development as well as for early career support and equal opportunity.
Explanations:
The head of each HEI and non-HEI research institution is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate organisational structure is in place at the institution. He or she makes certain that the tasks of leadership, supervision, quality assurance and conflict management are clearly allocated in accordance with the size of individual research work units and suitably communicated to members and employees.
With regard to staff selection and development, due consideration is given to gender equality and diversity. The relevant processes are transparent and avoid implicit bias as much as possible. Suitable supervisory structures and policies are established for early career researchers. Honest career advice, training opportunities and mentoring are offered to researchers and research support staff.
Guideline 4
Responsibility of the heads of research work units
The head of a research work unit is responsible for the entire unit. Collaboration within the unit is designed such that the group as a whole can perform its tasks, the necessary cooperation and coordination can be achieved, and all members understand their roles, rights and duties. The leadership role includes ensuring adequate individual supervision of early career researchers, integrated in the overall institutional policy, as well as career development for researchers and research support staff. Suitable organisational measures are in place at the level of the individual unit and of the leadership of the institution to prevent the abuse of power and exploitation of dependent relationships.
Explanations:
The size and the organisation of the unit are designed to allow leadership tasks, particularly skills training, research support and supervisory duties, to be performed appropriately. The performance of leadership tasks is associated with a corresponding responsibility. Researchers and research support staff benefit from a balance of support and personal responsibility appropriate to their career level. They are given adequate status with corresponding rights of participation. Through gradually increasing autonomy, they are empowered to shape their career.
Guideline 5
Dimensions of performance and assessment criteria
To assess the performance of researchers, a multidimensional approach is called for; in addition to academic and scientific achievements, other aspects may be taken into consideration. Performance is assessed primarily on the basis of qualitative measures, while quantitative indicators may be incorporated into the overall assessment only with appropriate differentiation and reflection. Where provided voluntarily, individual circumstances stated in curricula vitae – as well as the categories specified in the German General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) – are taken into account when forming a judgement.
Explanations:
High-quality research is oriented towards criteria specific to individual disciplines. In addition to the generation of and critical reflection on findings, other aspects of performance are taken into consideration in the evaluation process. Examples include involvement in teaching, academic self-governance, public relations, and knowledge and technology transfer; contributions to the general good of society may also be recognised. An individual’s approach to research, such as an openness to new findings and a willingness to take risks, is also considered. Appropriate allowance is made for periods of absence due to personal, family or health reasons or for prolonged training or qualification phases resulting from such periods, and for alternative career paths or similar circumstances.
Implicit bias in assessment and decision-making processes
As a matter of principle, it is important to recognise and avoid implicit or unconscious bias in decision-making processes. Such stereotyping and bias effects are mostly automatic or unconscious and can relate to various dimensions such as gender, ethnicity or religion. Since no one is free of implicit bias, it is vital to be aware of such processes. This is particularly relevant in science, which is per se driven solely by factual evidence.
The well-known example of the “John” and “Jennifer” application illustrates this gender bias: a study* analysed identical applications differing only in name and gender. “John” was considered more competent and received more job offers than his competitor. This indicates that women are often seen as less capable of pursuing an academic career, frequently giving rise to further stereotypical characteristics that are linked to success.
Areas in academia that are particularly relevant in this context include selection processes for personnel (staffing and appointment procedures) and performance evaluations (including review processes).
As a countermeasure, it is vital to be aware of these phenomena and thought processes at the strategic level as well: this involves critically examining one’s own actions, taking the appropriate amount of time for selection and decision-making processes, and reducing implicit bias at various levels. One way to review your own implicit bias is to use the Harvard University test.
___
The comment belongs to the following categories:
GL3 (General) , GL4 (General) , GL5 (General)
Keywords:
early career researchersdiversityreview processprofessional ethicsequal opportunitiesabuse of power