Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
2 gostaram•1,040 visualizações
A joint Vitae NW & YNE Hub good practice workshop held in Manchester on 26/05/2011. Slides are from the introductory session. More information about this event can be found at www.vitae.ac.uk/nwgp11
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (7)
Semelhante a Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
Semelhante a Implementing the Researcher Development Framework (20)
Mais de Emma Gillaspy
Mais de Emma Gillaspy (20)
Último
Último (20)
Implementing the Researcher Development Framework
- 1. Implementing the Researcher Development Framework A joint Vitae NW & YNE Hub good practice workshop
- 2. Programme 11:00-11:20 12:30-14:00 16:00-17:00 Image FlickrID: University of Exeter Image FlickrID: mickeysucks Image FlickrID: .Imelda 10:00 About the Researcher Development Framework 11:20 What are the issues, challenges and opportunities in implementing the RDF? 11:50 & 14:00 Parallel discussion sessions 14:40 Finding solutions 15:50 Moving forward
- 3. An introduction to the Researcher Development Framework Dr Vivien Hodges Vitae®, © 2011 The Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited
- 12. Researcher feedback ‘ It put career development back into the forefront of my mind as it can often slip back when you’re engaged in what you’re doing day to day.’ ‘ The RDF will encourage me to be more proactive about my career development as it provides me with a framework (list of milestones).’ ‘ It was very good for me to reflect. I realised that nothing is stopping me but myself. The sky is the limit.’ ‘ I’ve always thought of myself as being quite ambitious, driven and focussed on what I want, but the framework made me realise I can have a much larger vision.’
- 14. Development and validation Dr Julie Reeves
- 19. Information and resources www.vitae.ac.uk/rdf Dr Emma Gillaspy
- 20. RDF/RDS
- 23. Glossary & FAQs
- 26. Graphics
- 31. Image FlickrID: 姒儿喵喵
Notas do Editor
- Comes out of JSS and initiative of Policy Forum 2008 Precursor projects at Glasgow Caledonia and Manchester Universities Empirical data from analysis of semi-structured interviews with > 100 experienced researchers Phenomenographic method – Gerlese Akerlind – Individuals experience the same phenonemena differently – we only have a partial perspective – such as being a researcher. But if we obtain sufficient perspectives we may get an idea about the whole. Not pre-defined, but by contrasting the data looking for the similarities and differences in what people have to say about a phenonemena. For us, this approach resulted in over 1,000 characteristics and variants being identified: – For example: a number of people said it was important to be able to analyse data as a researcher we noted that as a characteristic, but a few also said it was important to be able to analyse other peoples data not just your own, so we noted that as a variant. The resulting information was organised and re-organised (or clustered) into areas that seemed most appropriate. Much debate over this and the order of things. The project started with 9 main areas and, after much discussion and deliberation, finished with 4. Much debate over ‘clusters’ and ‘order’
- What wasn’t mentioned – specialist groups came into their own. What wasn’t mentioned – equally noticeable Enterprise, Collaboration & teamwork, Public engagement, Income generation as opposed to grant applications Global perspective, New technologies and research areas, Ethics, health & safety Enterprise – not even mentioned as a characteristic: be interesting to run survey in 10 years time. Collaboration and teamwork - Teamwork - no mention of this although managing individual relationships was viewed as significant by the interviewees. The use of new technology to promote research presence. Internationalism = absent. We drew on the sector and a range of stakeholders to help plug the gaps and give us their perspective. RCUK, Beacons for PE, RIN, careers – employers at the end. Consultation – Sept 2010 Feedback from individuals and project group and advisory group. Expert panel – who validated the RDF. Some given the whole RDF others a Domain - interviewed closely about. Minor tweaks – but all could identify themselves in it. Sector wide view = extremely powerful. Not just what an individual supervisor or PI says is important for a research career – but what the sector says is – based on the professions’ view. May not all be relevant at any one time – but it probably will be relevant in one way or another over time
- Key characteristics include: Having a passion for and curiosity for research area – Use knowledge innovatively and imaginatively Disciplinary differences were neither marked nor significant IN the Research – RDF drawing them out. Outstanding people keep on trying - they don’t give up, they deal with rejection and keep applying, submitting etc. Able to make links within and beyond academia to non-academic, PERSEVRE The characteristics of an outstanding performer appear to be the opposite of those associated with a PGR - i.e. broad range of intellectual focus, interdisciplinary NOT IN RDF - Underperformers – unable to apply knowledge in innovative way, possess an overly narrow focus, ‘terror of rejection’, lack confidence, lack a coherent career plan – never complete things, always talking about them but not actually bringing them to fruition, unable to balance teaching, research and admin etc. Two kinds of researchers linked – but it is not about knowledge per se rather how it is used.
- JSS was one dimensional – this is 3D. Richness, depth, flexibility. Assist individuals, at all stages, with their professional development – i.e. from new researchers to those with Global renown Development framework: knowledge, behaviours and attitudes appropriate for the profession Ethics, integrity, academic writing & publications, enthusiasm, self–confidence and perseverance. Passion and drive not so critical if you are a dentist Shift from ‘training and skills’ to ‘development’ and implies a shift from ‘measuring’ to ‘evidencing’ (personal view) Challenges: Large and scary! Prone to the pitfalls of ‘Perception’ ‘ data’, ‘ethics’, ‘experiment’ Resist the temptation of ‘Phasing’ Can’t measure enthusiasm or creativity Only useful if you want to stay in academia… Audience – who is it for? different perspectives emerge from stakeholders with different purposes for RDF