Below is a short explanation on the process. Please read the Annex 1 for detailed information.

Transcription

1 TEMPLATE 1 GAP ANALYSIS Name Organisation under review: University of Liege, Belgium Organisation s contact details: Isabelle Halleux, , isabelle.halleux@uliege.be SUBMISSION DATE: NOV 15 TH, 2017 (RENEWAL OF THE AWARD GIVEN ON JANUARY 2011) DATE ENDORSEMENT CHARTER AND CODE: JULY 6 TH, 2010 PROCESS The University of Liège was awarded the logo in early 2011 and worked hard to implement efficiently its Action(s) Plan(s), considering the EU requirements. At that time, it was not required to provide any extensive description of gaps per principles, nor the level of implementation. That s why it was necessary while requiring the renewal to proceed to a self-assessment of what was done, to proceed to a deep and detailed analysis of the gaps, and to report on the actual situation of the University regarding the management of HR and the researchers initiatives. What s new since 2011? - An institutional Strategic plan is published in which HRS4R is strongly embedded ( - An OTM-R policy is published ( - Many progresses and achievements reported ( - Strong engagement in dissemination and exchange of good practices ( - A revised composition of the steering committee for taking into account Uliege evolution (see composition below) - The 4 associations of researchers launched surveys regarding their role, mission and needs. Some results are linked to C&C principles and are integrated in the gap analysis. Below is a short explanation on the process. Please read the Annex 1 for detailed information. The steering committee is responsible for developing and implementing the HRS4R and the Charter and Code principles. It meets once a year in December, or upon request, and is in charge of validating the annual report of implementation, revising the action plan (add actions, give priorities) and reporting to the board of the university. They met in September (1), and November 2017 (2) for writing this gap analysis report of Liege s level on compliance with the principles in Additional meetings with the researchers were organised by the bureau and HRS4R process manager (August, October, November). Due to interest for gender, a sub group was created (Nov 2017) for addressing gender issues.

2 The steering committee s actual composition is: Name G Level Research Role in the Steering Group Responsibility Boards or WG sector/admin Cloots R. M R4 STEM President Vice-rector for research University Board Rectoral College Research Council, Ethics Council, Doctoral Council Pichault F. M R4 Human sciences Professor WG-HRi (Institutional HR working group, see below) Delvigne F. M R4 STEM Professor Vice-Dean for research Research Council Delcenserie V. F R4 Health Sciences Professor, Subgroup gender Research Council Cormann G. M R3 Human sciences Delegate of the CCS, Scientific staff (R2/R3), Subgroup gender Delegated University board WG-HRi Lepoint G. M R3 STEM Delegate of the CC-FNRS, FNRS detached Delegated staff (R1, R2/R3/R4) Blibek K. M R1 STEM Delegate of the RED, PhD networks (R1) Delegated Doctoral Council & bureau Despy L. M Administration Administrator University Board Rectoral College Marcourt M. F Education Adm. Administration General Dir. University Board Rectoral College WG-HRi Halleux I. F Research Adm. HRSR4 manager, Bureau HRS4R Director Research Council, Ethics Council, Doctoral Council WG-HRi Agro L. F HR Admin Subgroup gender, Bureau HRS4R WG-HRi Vandeleene C. F QA services Bureau HRS4R WG-HRi Ernst B. F Euraxess Mobility Centre Secretary, Subgroup gender, Bureau HRS4R Experts can be invited, depending of the agenda. The bureau of the steering group deals with the daily implementation of the HR Action plan and meet quarterly. It is composed of the administrative staff members of the steering committee and are working under the responsibility of their director and the vice-rector for research. They met the groups of researchers individually for this gap analysis, who presented the results of their surveys.

3 About the involvement of researchers in the process: At ULiege, 4 formal groups of researchers exist that are well organised and represent the researchers: the association of the professors (R4, called academics ), the CCS (the scientific staff R2, R3, R4), the RED (the network of the doctoral candidates, R1) and the CC-FNRS (the group of researchers employed by the National Fund for Scientific Research, detached at ULiege and included in the research units, R1,R2,R3,R4). It was requested from those groups to delegate one representative to the Steering Committee and to contribute to a wider involvement of the researchers through consultation in their groups. What they did. See Annex 1 for detailed information of the surveys. Finalising the gap analysis process: The gaps and HRS4R were presented to the researchers and to board of the university which committed in on Nov. 15 th, The board comprises representatives of the professors (1/faculty), of the researchers (6 members), the students (6) and members from the non-academic world. The whole community will be involved directly in the annual meeting where the results and perspectives (initiated in 2011) are presented, and their comments requested on the gaps, actions and priorities. The gaps table below is related to the 2017 compliance to the Charter and Code principles, and is intended to list this gaps accordingly to the strengthened HRS4R, integrating the OTM-R aspects. All the information given is related to the 2017 level of compliance. Considering the gaps, it was decided to revise the AP for being more pertinent regarding the topics, internal coherence and the researchers as targets. This is explained in Template 2. GAP ANALYSIS

4 European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers : GAP analysis overview Status: to what extent does this organisation meet the following principles? Previous principle# (C&C 2005) + = fully implemented +/- = almost but not fully implemented -/+ = partially implemented - = insufficiently implemented In case of -, -/+, or +/-, please indicate the actual gap between the principle and the current practice in your organisation. If relevant, please list any national/regional legislation or organisational regulation currently impeding implementation Initiatives already undertaken and/or suggestions for improvement Ethical and Professional Aspects 1. Research freedom In concordance - Not all the research topics are equal regarding funding : interdisciplinarity is not well evaluated, applied research projects or with added economic value are not enough encouraged/recognised Freedom of research is guaranteed by the University, even if not all the projects are equally funded (priority is given on fundamental research with the internal funds). The ULiege research councils however tried different solutions to support interdisciplinary research. The double evaluation by the sectorial research councils was not 100% successful (downturn to sector rather than to disciplines or faculties). They decide to put in place internal interdisciplinary committee/panels from 2018 and to proceed to a self-assessment of this new procedure. 2. Ethical principles The Ethics and Integrity Committee (CEIS) and the Ethics Committee for Human and Social Sciences were created. They are now running and have to formalize, communicate and disseminate on their procedures. - The CEIS defines a to-do-list (action plan) that should be published. Make recommendation. 1

5 - The training structure was adapted to the public, especially the introductory seminars. Not enough participants to the training sessions. Would have to be mandatory for Doctoral candidates - Increase efficiency, coherence and partnership with supervisors in training and managing ethical issues 3. Professional responsibility Many problems come from ignorance of statistics - Disputes are known on authorship - Work on open data is on track - The scientific staff is overloaded with the supervision of master thesis (now published in OA using Matheo). 4. Professional attitude 4 + Good, and more formalised through dedicated trainings offered to Doctoral candidates and postdocs - Information, reports and forum summaries should have to be disseminated widely (AP ACTION 1 & 2) - Working sessions for supervisors on how to manage ethical issues and work with the committee should have to be organised (AP ACTION 3 & 6) - A white paper on ethics for young researchers will be published (in the framework of the HR excellent project supported by the FWB government, deadline 7/2018) (AP ACTION 3) - Organise an annual sensitisation event on ethics in research (AP ACTION 4) - Efforts were put recently on information and training on results reproducibility - Mutualisation of competences in statistics for advices, support and help to solve problems is initiated. - Recommendations on authorship are written (CEIS) and should be disseminated (AP Action 3) - We are going further on open-data for a good service/support offered to the researcher; see also principle 8 - One of the challenges on principles 2, 3, 4 is to increase the attendance to the trainings (about 15% of the new doctoral candidates are trained, on a voluntary basis) 2

6 5. Contractual and legal obligations New tools (information guides, addendum to employment contracts, documents in English, meeting with cohorts of new researchers) and trainings were developed - All the internal procedures and documents are not yet translated in English and have to be. - Better information (or easier access) should be provided on the institutional web site - Useful documents should be added to the contact (paper format) - Continue to translate essential working documents in English (claim for reimbursement, for instance) - It is urgent to develop interfaces in English with the main databases : myuliège doctorate and Modus (AP Action 17) 6. Accountability Partnership was developed between the researchers and the administrations. - The administration should remain careful not to increase requests and induce excessive control which are time consuming. 7. Good practice in research Lack of knowledge of ethical regulation in Social Sciences was identified. This led to the creation of an ad hoc ethics committee - A 3-days induction seminar was created for new researchers. It is delivered twice a year (one in French, one in English) - Participative trainings are organised on this topic - Back up: the university now offer a backup and exchange system (DoX) but with limited storage size. - New documents and guidelines are available in French and English for facilitating the legal operations and requirements - The induction seminar should have to be delivered in English (1 st session in Feb. 2018) (AP Action 7) - Exchange of the current practices with the FNRS could be useful. Could be integrated in periodic meetings. - Facilitate institutional backup solutions for research units (AP Action 18) 8. Dissemination, exploitation of results Some problems are reported, that are linked to retaining Doctoral candidate thesis completion : "Wait and go further and you will be published in high impact publication" - The roadmap for Doctoral candidate students will be helpful for clarifying publication planning - The cost of Open Access publication is a problem for many researchers and can be - The Doctoral Council is working on the revision of the doctoral program in order to solve the question of publication prior to viva voce. Proposals will be available soon (summer 2018). Ensure a strong link with this group (AP Action 27) - An Open Science policy should be written and promoted (Action18) 3

7 counterproductive. Solution would have to be found to support Open Science. - Issue concerning access to certain articles (subscription fees to journals) 9. Public engagement 9 + ULiege developed very early outreach activities: MT180, Researchers' night, Science Café, participation to debates and forum Non discrimination As employer, ULiege makes no discrimination. But tensions are reported about women and international researchers from Southern countries. - Training are organised on intercultural issues (for researchers and for supervisors) - Integration initiatives are organised for helping international researchers to connect with each other. - Some Doctoral candidates are students without any grant and are not considered as researchers. They point out problems because of their status that can lead to discrimination. - Continue to dedicate personal and budget to public engagement activities - See principle 27 on Gender and diversity which integrate this aspect. - All doctoral candidates enrolled at ULiege should be considered as R1 researchers (in AP Action 27) and benefit from all the services and facilities offered to researchers and the access to the same myuliege whatever their status (AP Action 18) 11. Evaluation/ appraisal systems Doctoral candidate students are to be evaluated each year on their work. This is globally well done but some cases are reported that it was not. - New procedures were developed for the evaluation of professors, considering the 3 missions: training, research, engagement. However, once given the title of "Full professor" (Professeur ordinaire), individual evaluation is organised. - FNRS researchers are the only members evaluated periodically by their funding organisation, but not internally - The rector launched in July 2017 a Working group on HR (crossing road of governance and individuals in the ULiege strategic plan). Its mission is to develop visibility and convergence of career paths and procedures for researchers recruitment, evaluation, training, promotion, etc. whatever their status. - One of the current challenge is to articulate the work of the HRS4R Steering committee and this WG-HR group. For the next 3 years, it was 4

8 - A procedure for the evaluation of scientific staff exist but applies only to permanent researchers and when promotion is expected - The criterion used for evaluation should be more transparent and be defined by a common agreement by all concerned people - The result of the evaluation (for instance for promotion) should be individual and not related to the evaluation of co-workers (the evaluation should not be a contest ) - The evaluation should be based on 4 missions (research, training, engagement and research support). All four missions may not be fulfilled (depending on the missions assigned to the employee and the evolution of his career) and should therefore be flexible enough. - For the scientific staff there is a risk to define distinct careers (assistant, logistician, FNRS, ) with distinct evaluation criteria: a rigid frame will not be adequate to the evolution of the missions of the employees, of the research units, the departments and the university in general decided to delegate to the HRS4R steering committee the task of OTM-R and the researcher development. This could evolve in the next future and will have to be done in perfect coordination between both groups. (AP Action 26) - About evaluation : persons are concerned and new trends in evaluation will be shortly presented : periodic evaluation, with a clear definition of the tasks and/or objectives (AP Action 9 & 26) Recruitment and Selection please be aware that the items listed here correspond with the Charter and Code. In addition, your organisation also needs to complete the checklist on Open, Transparent and Merit-Based Recruitment included below, which focuses on the operationalization of these principles. 12. Recruitment Contracts are clear, available in English, with annexes (incl. a welcome guide for international researchers) - Induction seminaries are organised. - Decision are to be taken regarding the Resaver scheme - Some doctoral fellows are not aware of the impact of their funding scheme on their visa or social security rights See below 5

9 13. Recruitment (Code) Great improvements are recorded since 2010, that are in conformity to what is recommended in the OTM-R system. - OTM-R is generalised to all the internal positions, except assistants and researchers on contract. Some permanent positions still escape the system. - National lockage : recognition of cross-sectoral experience (salary) - Candidates are sometimes informed very late about the format and dates of their interview. Recruitment procedures should mention information regarding the recruitment process and recommend deadlines - The recruitment administrative procedure should include Human Resources staff to ensure the quality of the process 14. Selection (Code) Rules and practices were improved due to internal and external programmes requirements (such as non Fria, Cofund). The 2 phases of evaluation and selection of applicants are well codified. - Conflict of interest is reported and difficult to manage, even with external assessors. - Trends to bias exist on some internal fellowships programmes (excellence vs equal faculty repartition) - FNRS researchers mention that the procedure for the selection of permanent Research associates Chercheurs Qualifiés by ULiege is not fair and should be more transparent and better organised. An independent evaluation of the practices should - All the researchers positions should have to be published, one by one, on the website of the university and the Euraxess portal (AP Action 20) - Selection criteria and feedback are to be generalised as well as information about career perspective (see ImpactE results). Could be done by updating the advertising positing form (AP Action 21) - Compile an internal Good recruiting practices guide including the actual rules and procedures for the recruitment of all researcher positions. This guide will be disseminated widely to the scientific community (see OTM-R policy) (AP Action 22) - Organise training and awareness raising of all the new academics who are involved in the recruitment processes (see OTM-R policy) (AP Action 23) - A gender-equilibrated composition of the selection committee should be verified (AP Action 5.4) - Good practices for avoiding conflict of interest in recruitment (selection) exist that are to be disseminated to new assessors (included in AP Action 23) - Study possibility of e-recruitment (application, selection) for avoiding discrimination against applicants who are to be interviewed (see OTM-R policy) (AP Action 24) 6

10 be performed, involving FNRS researchers in the process. 15. Transparency (Code) Procedures exist for institutional programmes and positions (except assistants and researchers on contract) with a good description all the aspects - Coherence is needed between the job offer and the real job, mostly for logistician vs assistant status - Career prospect should not be theoretical but corresponding to real institutional perspectives - The institutional WG-HRI should have to consider a unique career for academics (prof + scientific staff) for clarity and transparency - See above for assistants and researchers on contract : to be improved - The recruitment procedure should be harmonised, with a strong support from the HR department (AP Action 22) 16. Judging merit (Code) Dealing with excellence vs experience is not easy in universities due to the funding schemes. However experience in evaluation and selection led to a better understanding and knowledge of bibliometrics as well as of and environment impact. - Could be more efficient for analysing non academics or non-standard curricula - The evaluating committees should be better trained to the limits of some quantified criterion such as bibliometrics (see OTM-R checklist) - The potential of some researchers (variety of the experience) are sometimes neglected because focus is only out on the job description/tasks. - Publication in spring 2017 of a Guide for evaluation in Human and Social Sciences written by the Sectorial Research Council in SHS. Should have to be available in English also. - See OTM-R policy regarding the methods according to the position category 17. Variations in the chronological order of CVs (Code) No penalty on CV breaks or variation - Variation in the CV is considered if of added value for the application Achieved 7

11 18. Recognition of mobility experience (Code) 19. Recognition of qualifications (Code) ULiege encourages all forms of mobility and dedicates a significant funding for enabling all the researchers to be mobile - The only limit is the lack of recognition of crosssectorial mobility in the salaries (addressed above) 38 + Clearly done and part of the system (i.e. recognition of experience vs doctorate equivalence) Achieved Achieved 20. Seniority (Code) No divergence, except for the lock still mentioned - Seniority recognition of some researchers is sometimes missing, whatever what they achieved, due to limited budgets on the contracts. Achieved 21. Postdoctoral appointments (Code) Local or national regulation are in accordance. - A special attention was paid on international postdoc (thanks to the Cofund BEIPD project). - See issues regarding seniority (see #20) and renewal of contracts (see #25) - Achieved - Better enforcement of some internal regulations is expected for (local) postdocs Working Conditions and Social Security 22. Recognition of the profession 13 + In concordance - Researchers who undertake tasks enabling to benefit from honorific titles should have to benefit from it Achieved - CCS motion on Honorific titles (June 2016) is not yet considered (AP Action 26) 23. Research environment Research environment is defined as availability of equipment, financial resources and supervision for doing a good research. When positions are offered or when projects are supported, it is considered in the evaluation. - The researchers generally miss running budget for doing their research and publishing their results - Difficulties exist for non-financed Doctoral candidates - Information should be clearer for nonfinanced doctoral students: who supports what, how and when. (AP action 7) - The board of the University voted in autumn 2017 an exceptional budget of 60 millions EUR for supporting renovation and upgrading the research infrastructure 8

12 - Trainings are organised on how to find funding for research (running costs, mobility, grants...) - The safety of some laboratories with hazardous risks could be improved (dilapidated buildings, control of entries, modernisation) 24. Working conditions ULiege is really aware of flexibility. Part-time working and a better family-work balance become more and more culturally accepted. - Due to national regulation, remote working does not exist as such at ULiege but home working is allowed - Evaluation of part-time academics is done separately from full-time academics - Sabbatical leave is promoted and well financially supported for professors only (keep their salary + extra budget) - Some Doctoral candidates are students without any grant and are not considered as researchers. They point out problems because of their status that can lead to discrimination. - Week-end work is sometimes required from young researchers without compensation. (see relation to supervisor for addressing this question) - Permanent F.R.S. FNRS researchers and permanent ULiege scientific staff (R3 researchers) are under the dependence of an academic staff and not always allowed to manage their research project, budget or career (see career development for addressing this question) - The new structure R&I and actions for the optimisation of the support to researchers (should be operational (AP Action 15) - A support for the organisation of congresses and conferences should be available for researchers (AP Action 16) - Sabbatical leaves for permanent researchers should have to be rethink (AP Action 26) 25. Stability and permanence of employment There is a chronic lack of academic position at the University. - Unfortunately, solutions are scarce, due to limited support of the government to the universities. The 9

13 - Regulations exist and are in force for the nonpermanent contracts: limits in time, provision for rupture, institutional support for mutualisation of risks. Unfortunately it is still of limited application. - Progress is still needed regarding the management of social liability for employees recruited on a contract ( provision pour passif social ) - Regularisation of permanence of employment is on track for all the categories of researchers according to the Frascati definition (i.e. management staff), due to the new "logistician of research" status. - Researchers mention that very short term contracts (such as a few months) are not in favour of career development readability and visibility of career paths could help the researchers to know better about their possibility at ULiege (AP Action 26) - Increased implication of the Human Resources Department in informing the supervisors of the rules related to private contracts and ensuring that the regulation is applied (AP Action 22) 26. Funding and salaries Corrected by recognition of Master I diploma, Post-doc salaries for Doctoral candidate graduates, Salaries for Doctoral candidates, - Not all the researchers benefit from the same advantages (free transportation, meal voucher, ) - Differences exist between researchers on contract and civil servant in: Salary Possibility of progression/promotion Pension schemes Paid holidays 27. Gender balance Gender balance was not really considered previously. An expert on gender was appointed in 2014; she made inventories, surveys and pointed out what could be done. However her proposal for action is not really supported nor pushed, so that it - Some small corrections are still needed, mostly on extras and incentives (AP Action 26) - Integration of the gender and diversity action plan (partim research) implementation in the HRS4R process (see hereafter AP Action 5) 10

14 doesn t deliver results. Has to be supported urgently. - Associated to gender are the working conditions and special facilities offered to women in general but also to parents. - A book has been published on The Women at ULiege that highlights the situation. Women are 26% of 632 professors 46% of the 120 permanent researchers 31% of the 126 established FNRS researchers 55% of the 550 assistants 45% of the 2100 doctoral candidates 41% of the post-doc international fellows On 281 PhD graduated in , females are 41% in STEM, 55% in Health Sciences and 62 % in Social and Human Sciences. (Halleux I, in Où sont les femmes?,dor J. & al., Sept. 017) - Integration of the recommendations of the ULiege gender expert on 7 points : 1. Sensitisation to stereotypes and behaviours creating discrimination and bias; 2. Promotion of female researchers as models, especially for the youngest; 3. Specific advices to international female, especially the mothers in mobility; 4. Promotion of gender balance in boards, committees, juries; 5. Recommendation on working hours taking into account work-life balance; 6. Encouragement to do research on gender; 7. ULiege-Annual day on Gender and Diversity. (AP Action 5, 5.1 to 5.7) 28. Career development Special attention was paid on training, but not on guidance and no one has an official role - The development of the research group is rendered difficult to young permanent researchers because they are maintained dependent of academics in place. In some cases, this dependency is purely administrative, while in others it implies not to be the leader of their own research proposals/projects and the associated personal - Although often participating actively to University life, the researchers are only weakly involved in the decision process and this is a barrier to their career development to be linked also to principle 35 - The results of the WG-HRI will probably help in the next future to clarify internal paths, but ULiege should have to position itself on the creation or not of a service for addressing the question of supporting individuals in their own career. While waiting for the decision, individual support is provided through events and in collaboration with other institutions (AP Actions 11 & 12; AP Action 26) - The question of subordination of the FNRS and permanent researchers for 11

15 - Repatriation of FNRS Researcher in Academic career is not facilitated despite the fact that they are teaching and providing services to host Institution like academics and the fact that these parts of this job generally increase when progressing from Research Associate to Research Director. This may have impact at the longer term on career progress of FNRS senior research (from Research Associate to Research Director) due to financial bottle neck (cascading effects). to be linked to principles 13,14 - Information regarding the becoming of alumni could be disseminated - Certification of trainings (ie ECTS or University certificate) would help to valorise competences their research activities has to be clarified (AP Action 26) 29. Value of mobility No special problem on this issue (see above) - Permanent researchers have the possibility to work one day per week outside the university exists 30. Access to career advice Nothing special exist internally - ULiege is working with doctorat.be for Doctoral candidates - Access to career advices should be available to all fixed term researchers (not only doctoral candidates) - See principle 28 above 31. Intellectual Property Rights In concordance. Regulations exist and are running. - A new internal regulation on IP is voted that has to be disseminated. - Training exist on IP and valorisation of research results. - FNRS Researchers should be more efficiently informed/trained on their specific status regarding IP - Increase the number of participant to the dissemination activities and training on IP (AP Action 6, 10) 12

16 32. Co-authorship 25 + In concordance, however - not enough known by the young researchers -Sometimes, researchers have to fade behind academics 33. Teaching Recognition and credits in doctoral education, but not in all the doctoral schools nor for the different categories of doctoral candidates - Since 2016, teaching evaluation is separated from research evaluation in researchers' appraisal - Training by IFRES is mandatory for the teaching staff - Some teaching activities miss recognition, especially when participating in teaching as compared to holding a course 34. Complains/ appeals Complaints can be addressed to contact persons, according to the problem or topic. The procedures and contacts are however not enough visible. - However the researchers point out problem of confidence in the system due to the risk of potential misuse of their complaint against their career. Harassment by hierarchy, for instance, is problematic and generally unsaid. - Dissemination of recommendation on co-authorship, patent and IP (CEIS AP). Could be done in the framework of the HR excellent project supported by the government deadline 7/2018 (AP Action Plan 10) - Teaching and engagement would be more recognised as a transversal skills for researchers. (AP Action Plan 11, 12) - Efforts were made to publish procedures and contact on the website (new internet pages) as well as in the welcoming guide for researchers 35. Participation in decisionmaking bodies Researchers are widely involved in decision bodies, by regulation or de facto. They claim for avoiding co-optation. - FNRS researchers and ULiege scientific staff suffer from differences between institutions regarding their status (considered as professors in other universities). They cannot be full members of faculty boards, for instance - Scientific staff has only limited representation for rector s election (10%) - Improvement are in progress with the new research structures (Research units) and Research councils where permanent scientists may be included in the board or involved as director. To be made for FNRS researchers integration in the university bodies (AP Action plan 13 & 14) 13

17 - The scientific staff have sometimes the feeling that despite their presence in some decision bodies / commission, their opinion have only limited impact - The scientific staff would like to benefit from more recognition in their proposals to decision-making bodies. - They claims for having more weight in the election of the rector (10%, as compared to the professors 65% and the students 15%). Training and Development 36. Relation with supervisors Significant progress were recorded on supervision, reported by the Doctoral Council, working groups, surveys, and the Doctoral candidate network (RED) - However some relational problems (mostly absence of relation) still exist between doctoral candidates and supervisors. The existing procedures for assessing the doctoral candidate progress are to be applied (at least the annual evaluation) - The induction seminar includes this aspect - A special university programme (CUPPD) is organised for developing the doctoral project in 3 months - Permanent researchers are under the supervision of an academic. In some cases, this limits the possibility of the researcher to get his/her own funding or to publish results by him/herself or to exploit further the results of his/her research. The relation schemes with supervisors is to be more open. - The Doctoral Council is working on an Action Plan for improving the management of doctoral studies and doctoral candidates ( maîtriser la durée du doctorat control the duration). 2 working groups were created in September 2017 that will make recommendations on structures and practical aspects of supervision. Their work will be taken into account and will probably have a minor impact the HRS4R: The HRS4R steering committee is in charge of managing the question related to research, transversal skills development, and working conditions; The doctoral council focuses on the educational questions, regulation and graduation. As for the WG-HR, a strong link is created between the 2 groups (AP Action 27) - Write a white paper on the relation to supervisor, incl. co-supervision - 14

18 cotutelle (in the framework of the HR excellent project supported by the FWB government; deadline 7/2018) (AP Action Plan 8) 37. Supervision and managerial duties Significant progress were recorded on this point, with the support of the administrative offices - However some supervisors miss managerial tools or training. - Mandatory training should exist for team managers - The training offer from the RH department is increasing and collaborations are established. - The scheme of Mutual Learning Seminars for supervisor is successful and will be developed according to the academics needs (AP Action Plan 6 & 8) - A correct adequacy between the number of supervisors and master students and doctoral candidates (AP Action 27) 38. Continuing Professional Development 39. Access to research training and continuous development Wide access for free to resources and trainings - Financial support for trainings abroad Has been developed by the research administration and is now running. Access is for free. Evaluation is performed on an action-byaction basis as well as annually. - Impact will have to be measure, but some years are needed for results tracking (expected 4 years) - The researchers and doctoral candidates mention that it is sometimes difficult to join training sessions because of workload or because it is not permitted by the supervisor. Has to be solved. - Is running and thus will continue - If actions are required here, they are integrated as part of the career development actions, see principle Is running and thus will continue. However to be more disseminated and presented to the supervisors for being part of the individual objectives (periodic evaluation) (AP Action 27) - Statistics on participation should be provided (included in indicators for trainings) 40. Supervision In concordance. - A better recognition of the role of post-docs as supervisors is necessary - As authors, co-supervisors are to be recognised for their contribution (AP Action 26 & 27) 15

19 - Coherence is sometimes missing for researchers having 2 supervisors or co-supervisors. The roadmap or similar tools are to be widely spread Any additional issues6 OTM-R policy - The institutional strategic plan was published in May 2017 and the rector created new working groups on research and governance. Those groups will develop Action Plans that will support the HRS4R implementation and vice-versa. It is really important to develop quality control mechanisms and coordination for these actions on a common theme. - Write the OTM-R policy (AP Action 19) - Establish quality control mechanisms of the OTM-R combined with the internal assessment of the HRS4R ((see OTM-R policy) (AP Action 25) 16

20 Template 1 Annex: Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment Check-list 1 OTM-R checklist for organisations OTM-R system 1. Have we published a version of our OTM-R policy online (in the national language and in English)? 2. Do we have an internal guide setting out clear OTM-R procedures and practices for all types of positions? 3. Is everyone involved in the process sufficiently trained in the area of OTM-R? Open Transparent Meritbased Answer: ++ Yes, completely +/-Yes, substantially -/+ Yes, partially -- No Suggested indicators (or form of measurement) x x x + - The document is written and was approved by the board on November 15 th, Indicator : Doc published online x x x +- - Exists for permanent positions and some nonpermanent positions (ie non Fria, Cofund, SRDE). Doesn't exist for non-permanent positions (Art. 63 and assistants). Exists for administrative and technical staff. => Need to be harmonised and aggregated: - Indicator : Internal guide with procedures for all types of positions x x x +- - Supposed by experience for academics and administrative staff - Weak for assistants, but exists in some faculties - A special attention has to be paid on maternity or non-linear career - Indicator : Training session for academics on OTM-R + participants

21 4. Do we make (sufficient) use of e-recruitment tools? x x -+ - Euraxess Job platform well used for posting positions. - Needs mentioned by participant to international projects for applicants' interviews and selection (ie ITN, ERC, H2020, Erasmus+) - Online submission possible for some projects. Has to be improved using follow-up (as it is for students registration). Development projects for a new job platform on the ULiege website. - Indicator : Mutual learning seminar with an invited speaker. Nb of participants. 1st session in 14/1/2016, 14 participants, invited. E. Zimanyi (ULB) New website Nb online applications 5. Do we have a quality control system for OTM-R in place? 6. Does our current OTM-R policy encourage external candidates to apply? 7. Is our current OTM-R policy in line with policies to attract researchers from abroad? 8. Is our current OTM-R policy in line with policies to attract underrepresented groups? x x x +- - Recruitment reports exist for permanent positions. - Has to be extended for all types of positions. - Special attention paid for the H2020 projects - Check by the AEE Administration and by the board before the contractual phase. x x x -+ - Clearly said, but not settled in a policy - Indicator : to be included in the doc published online (see pt.1) x x x -+ - Clearly said, but not settled in a policy - H2020 recommendations for OTM-R + Charter and Code implementation are promoted - Applied for permanent and institutional nonpermanent positions - Indicator : Ref. to be included in the doc published online (see pt.1) x x Yes because internationals are underrepresented - Female is part of the Gender action of the HRS4R - Disabled are considered 18

22 9. Is our current OTM-R policy in line with policies to provide attractive working conditions for researchers? 10. Do we have means to monitor whether the most suitable researchers apply? Advertising and application phase 11. Do we have clear guidelines or templates (e.g., EURAXESS) for advertising positions? 12. Do we include in the job advertisement references/links to all the elements foreseen in the relevant section of the toolkit? [see Chapter a) of the OTM-R expert report 2 ] 13. Do we make full use of EURAXESS to ensure our research vacancies reach a wider audience? - Cross-sectorial recruitment could be considered - Indicator : to be included in the doc published online (see pt.1) x x x + - Yes globally + - Yes globally. However, mentoring and evaluations scheme would have to be more formally developed x x -+ - Internal templates and oral recommendations - More or less, but not for all types of positions - Is not mandatory for non-permanent positions - Templates are missing (see above) - Indicator : Templates for the different types of positions as an annex to policy doc (pt 1) x x -+ - Missing : Entitlements (salary, other benefits, etc.). Professional development opportunities Career development prospects Reference to ULiege OTM-R policy Reference to the ULiege equal opportunities policy Deadlines for application/interview Interview : content and process - Indicator : Incl. in Templates for the different types of positions x x -+ - The share of job adverts are posted on EURAXESS (mandatory for permanent positions, volunteer basis for other positions) - Information is sent to partners. Could be improved through our networks

23 - Has to be extended for assistants and other nonpermanent open positions. - Indicators : Recommendation in the Policy doc Nb positions advertised on Euraxess and other; +% as compared to previous years; +nb of applications per year 14. Do we make use of other job advertising tools? x x +-/-+ - Yes : Academic position, internal jobs links 15. Do we keep the administrative burden to a minimum for the candidate? [see Chapter b) 45 ] x + - Generally ok. However legal requirements are to be considered Selection and evaluation phase 16. Do we have clear rules governing the appointment of selection committees? [see Chapter a) 45 ] x x -+ - Depending of the calls and types of position. Rules are not published. - To be included in the doc policy x x -+ - Not for all types of position 17. Do we have clear rules concerning the composition of selection committees? 18. Are the committees sufficiently gender-balanced? x x -- - Not considered or reported - Is part of the HRS4R gender action package 19. Do we have clear guidelines for selection committees x -- - No written guidelines which help to judge merit in a way that leads to the best - Supposed by experience candidate being selected? Appointment phase 20. Do we inform all applicants at the end of the selection process? x + - Yes. 21. Do we provide adequate feedback to interviewees? x +- - Yes. Generally written feedback report, for permanent or institutional positions + oral feedback is requested. QA on feedback by the R&D Office for positions on institutional programmes 22. Do we have an appropriate complaints mechanism in place? x -+ Exist, but paths are not available enough Overall assessment 23. Do we have a system in place to assess whether OTM- R delivers on its objectives? -- - No. Has to be developed. 20

24 Annex 1 Detailed explanation of the process and involvement of the researchers in the process About the Steering committee and other WG : The steering committee is responsible for developing and implementing the HRS4R and the Charter and Code principles. It meets once a year in December, or upon request, and is in charge of validating the annual report of implementation, revising the action plan (add actions, give priorities) and reporting to the board of the University. The composition of the steering committee was updated in 2017, considering new data: the institutional strategic plan (published in May 2017 ULg is now ULiege) with its working groups, the extended representation of researchers (see below), the representation of research structures (3 sectors: Human Sciences, STEM, Health Sciences), new/obsolete functions (new: vice-deans for research; obsolete: no vice-rector for quality) and finally gender balance. The steering committee actual composition is: Name G Level Research sector/admin Role in the Steering Group Responsibility Cloots R. M R4 STEM President Vice-rector for research Pichault F. M R4 Human sciences Professor Boards or WG University Board Rectoral College Research Council Ethics Council Doctoral Council WG-HRi (Institutional HR working group, see role below) Research Council Delvigne F. M R4 STEM Professor Vice-dean for research Delcenserie V. F R4 Health Sciences Professor Research Council Cormann G. M R3 Human University board sciences WG-HRi Delegate of the CCS, Scientific staff (R2/R3) Lepoint G. M R3 STEM Delegate of the CC-FNRS, FNRS detached staff (R1, R2/R3/R4) Blibek K. M R1 STEM Delegate of the RED, PhD networks (R1) Doctoral Council & bureau Despy L. M Administration Administrator University Board Rectoral College Marcourt M. F Education Admin Administration General Dir. University Board Rectoral College WG-HRi Halleux I. F Research Admin Administration Director Research Council Ethics Council Doctoral Council WG-HRi Agro L. F HR Admin Administration WG-HRi Vandeleene C. F QA services Administration WG-HRi Ernst B. F Euraxess Mobility Centre Secretary Experts can be invited, depending of the agenda. 21

25 The HRS4R steering group is facing a new challenge: acting in complementarity and maintaining strong link and efficient communication with 2 others groups dealing with questions related to C&C principles. The rector created two institutional working groups for suggesting actions for enhancing the governance of the university, considering individuals. A first one has to deal with questions related to the doctoral studies (DC WG), the other one created in July 2017 has to suggest actions regarding HR management for researchers, managers and administrative staff (WG-HRi). The mission of the first group is quite clear. It enquired to the doctoral colleges, reported gaps and created 2 working groups facing to what is not included in the HRS4-AP. Regarding the new HR groups, it was necessary to clarify complementary of action. The document that can be found on document says that 3 additional subgroups are created, that are complementary to the HRS4R group that will work on: (1) the definition of the career steps and criteria for progression (2) the description of function, tasks and roadmap for each employee (3) the development of the citizenship and attractiveness of the institution. It is clear to the rector that the HRS4R steering group will stay in place for the next 3 years and will deal with the questions related to the implementation of the Charter and Code, especially regarding the career development, the support to researchers and the OTM-R. This situation can be seen as complex and could increase the difficulties/risk for implementing the HR S4R action plan. The Steering group is fully aware of that, but see it as a nice opportunity to be more efficient in filling the gaps. About the involvement of researchers in the process: At ULiege, 4 formal groups of researchers exist that are well organised and represent the researchers: the association of the professors (R4, called academics ), the CCS (the scientific staff R2, R3, R4), the RED (the network of the doctoral candidates, R1) and the CC-FNRS (the group of researchers employed by the Research National Fund, detached at ULiege and included in the research units, R1,R2,R3,R4). It was requested from those groups to delegate one representative to the Steering Committee and to contribute to a wider involvement of the researchers through consultation in their groups. What they did. 1. Survey of the Association of the professors: In , the association of the professors launched a survey on the job of university professor in order to suggest priorities for its work in the next 5 years. They realised focus groups and an 2-round on-line survey : 209/658 (31,31%) academics, mostly female, participated to the first online survey focalising on practices regarding the 3 missions (education, research, engagement), and 43,47% participated to the second round focalising on 10 tensions that can help to define priorities for action in the next 5 years. The completion rate is of about 75%. Questions were open to comments. Here are the conclusions that can be related to the HRS4R: - Develop collaborative research, interdisciplinarity and mutualisation of activities - Better recognise engagement and teaching vs research Promote a better balance teachingresearch-engagement - Increase efficiency in communication (internal/external) - Decrease administrative taks, procedures and control The results were presented to the academic staff on July 5 th, 2017 and was published in Open Access ( All the gaps are reported in the gap analysis. 22

26 2. Survey of the CCS: In , the CCS launched a survey to the whole members of the scientific staff of the university (+2500 researchers). Results given according to 3 classes of researchers that make sense internally: the doctoral candidates (R1), the PHD holders (R2 are non-permanent; R3 are permanent), and the research staff without PhD working mostly on contracts (R1 are nonpermanent, R3 are permanent). They recorded 981 responses, which is pretty good: 398 doctoral candidates, 380 PhD graduates, 203 researchers without doctorates. The results of the surveys are published on 4MjAyIiwidCI6ImRlZGVhZTY5LWEyZmItNGQ0MS1iYmMzLWE2NTRjMmIyZDdlZSIsImMiOjh9 and summarized in a Green Book. It was presented to the scientific community in May 2017 and later to the board of the University: Five axes are presented that are of interest for the HR and can summarized as follows: Their main results were extensively included in the gap analysis. 3. Survey of the CC-FNRS: This group of stakeholders paid by the FNRS and detached at Uliege did the same and proceeded to a survey in 2016 with specific questions related to their status (hosted at ULiege, but not employees of the university). The results are published on (in French). 269 of the 509 researchers responded. Researchers levels are more clear for this group: doctoral candidates are R1 (40% responded), Post-docs are R2 (65% responded) and Permanents (81% responded) are R3/R4 (but never full professors). For each of the questions, they drew conclusions and suggested for actions. Not all the actions are related to their relation with the University of Liege, but with their employer. Identified gaps with ULiege are related mostly to their recognition as professors, independence and autonomy and possibility of participated in the decisional bodies (mostly at the faculty level). The CC-FNRS made efforts to write a full gap analysis to be submitted to the FNRS that is not yet awarded the HRS4R. Their conclusions and requests regarding the University are included in the gap analysis. 23