Transitioning to a permanent contract from an external fellowship - FAB Meeting 4 Summary number 22/14/2020 Fab meeting 30th Jan Heather Mortiboys led a discussion that covered independent reviews of fellows at other Universities designed to monitor progress and decide whether they should be made permanent at the end of their fellowships. Typically fellows are recruited to positions with their salaries paid from their grant awards. Sometimes an “underwrite” or promise of transition to a permanent position will be negotiated during the recruitment/application process with the host university. This is often simply stated as being subject to satisfactory progress, but there is often little monitoring of fellows and support can vary wildly, even across departments or faculties from university to university. Heather has previously been invited to take part in this independent review process. One of the ideas behind this process, which happens at a number of other Northern Universities that are part of the N8 group, is to ensure that transitions to permanent contracts are not simply a University/Departmental decision and to add transparency to this process. As part of this criteria are discussed at start of the fellowship that constitute success/expectations. Around a year before the end of the fellowship the review takes place. For the review to take place a document is prepared during fellowship that covers progress, problems, things not achieved, aims going forward etc. This can then lead to a discussion of what the University/department/institute wants going forwards. Currently there isn’t a defined situation in either IICD or Neuroscience and things tend to be covered on a case-by-case basis. Discussions are being had regarding this by senior managers at faculty and departmental level and on University committees such as FRIC (Faculty Research and Innovation Committee) and the Early Careers Group. It will be important for those of us it affects (and who doesn’t it affect? We care what happens to our fellows even if we have been through the process already, right?) to make our voices heard. As important stakeholders it is important that we feedback on suggested models – so, what is a good model? Is this the answer? Is this something we would welcome? Heather would be very keen to hear your thoughts and is happy for you to get in contact with her ([email protected]). Some of the things that were discussed included: • It’s hard to compare one situation with another as the fellowships are not all equivalent • The SRDS process is not given equal significance by different line managers, so this is helpful for some in defining expectations, monitoring progress, finding support, but less so for others • Not everyone who is partially through their fellowships were given clear objectives and criteria for permanence at the start • There is not necessarily the funding available for all fellows to be made permanent • Perhaps 12 months before the end of the fellowship is too close to the end, it could put fellows in a tricky situation regarding future employment • There could be scope for manipulation via who is appointed as external reviewers • What criteria should be covered/considered? Publications? Funding? Supervision? External visibility (talks, grant review panels, reviewing of grants)? Leadership roles? Maternity leave, illness? Teaching? Innovation? • All appointments have to go through financial case approval so even if there is a recommendation to make someone permanent it may not be approved at a higher level • What happens if someone has been promised a position and this is not carried through? • How can it be made a level playing field when fellowships vary so greatly? • Help can we help ensure fellows have a portfolio of skills to meet the department’s needs? • Would these changes/processes need Union approval, as per changes to the SRDS form? Clearly these are complicated and important discussions, so please do feedback your thoughts to Heather, your FAB reps or even have a chat with your head of department
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Authors
Participants write their own contributions to cover topics covered at our meetings or of use to our network's members Archives
August 2021
Categories
|