Final assessment of the MEDEA Early Stage Researcher programme : MEDEA Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 641789
(2019)- Abstract
- The final assessment of Early Stage Researcher (ESR) activities and development follows the trajectory as previously outlined by the MEDEA Mid-term report presented at the Aarhus meetingJanuary 2017. The herein present follow-up consists of three recent activities: •An ESR group statement of pros/cons/ requested activities (Lund meeting Sep 25th 2018).•Individual ESR web survey ratings of each joint ESR statement (by Dec 3, 2018).•Individual ESR exit interviews on development of research capacities (by Dec 20, 2018).The ESR group statement and follow-up web survey confirm that MEDEA is a highly appreciated ESR programme that participants clearly would recommend for others to join. The disciplinary Crete Summer School was... (More)
- The final assessment of Early Stage Researcher (ESR) activities and development follows the trajectory as previously outlined by the MEDEA Mid-term report presented at the Aarhus meetingJanuary 2017. The herein present follow-up consists of three recent activities: •An ESR group statement of pros/cons/ requested activities (Lund meeting Sep 25th 2018).•Individual ESR web survey ratings of each joint ESR statement (by Dec 3, 2018).•Individual ESR exit interviews on development of research capacities (by Dec 20, 2018).The ESR group statement and follow-up web survey confirm that MEDEA is a highly appreciated ESR programme that participants clearly would recommend for others to join. The disciplinary Crete Summer School was in particular highly rated, and the pedagogical Milano winter school was also strongly rated. The ESRs had however mixed feelings about the quality of the industrial Nice summer school activities. Medea networking, scientific collaborations, ESR journal clubs and webinar series were unanimously appreciated. The Marie Curie funding scheme and participant rights were equally appreciated. So, the overall picture is positive, although there are some areas of possible improvements: “– In general I am very happy on how everything was handled and organized in MEDEA. I don't think any part needs a radical revision, but rather some minor incremental improvements” [anonymous MEDEA Early Stage Researcher].The expected extent of secondments was considered pressing and for some not adequately related to the individual research task. For others, secondments were clearly essential to reach their re sea rch objectives. The requirement to perform secondment in industrial work places also caused some mixed reactions among the ESRs, who agreed that a deeper supervisor engagement in secondment planning would be desirable. Equally, most ESRs found themselves alone organizing the MEDEA outreach activities (which mostly were appreciated when conducted). The compulsory career development plans were mostly regarded static although the MEDEA network as a whole was regarded highly supportive for the ESRs future careers. The ESRs also suggest some activities could have been added or expanded such as proposal-writing training and future academic career advice, along with an overall stronger involvement of local supervisors. There was also a useful suggestion that journal clubs could revolve more around ESRs journal papers and manuscripts during the later period of the network, when ESR research results are disseminated. With some exceptions, the exit interviews showed that the ESRs mainly developed their core research skills and research output with the help of support in their own local workplaces, rather than during MEDEA collaborations. For the majority of the ESRs, the added-value of being a MEDEA member was 1) the development of a network for now and for the future, 2) being forced to a wider scientific breadth, 3) being well-supported (resources), and 4) in some instances that their performed research was developed in another partner lab with local support there. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/b9dc59c7-b954-41f2-a513-18f8fe8d9c26
- author
- Ahlberg, Anders LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2019-01-10
- type
- Book/Report
- publication status
- published
- subject
- categories
- Higher Education
- pages
- 13 pages
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- b9dc59c7-b954-41f2-a513-18f8fe8d9c26
- alternative location
- http://www.medea-horizon2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Anders-Ahlberg-Final-assessment-of-the-MEDEA-Early-Stage.pdf
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-19 16:19:49
- date last changed
- 2019-04-11 12:28:12
@techreport{b9dc59c7-b954-41f2-a513-18f8fe8d9c26,
abstract = {{The final assessment of Early Stage Researcher (ESR) activities and development follows the trajectory as previously outlined by the MEDEA Mid-term report presented at the Aarhus meetingJanuary 2017. The herein present follow-up consists of three recent activities: •An ESR group statement of pros/cons/ requested activities (Lund meeting Sep 25th 2018).•Individual ESR web survey ratings of each joint ESR statement (by Dec 3, 2018).•Individual ESR exit interviews on development of research capacities (by Dec 20, 2018).The ESR group statement and follow-up web survey confirm that MEDEA is a highly appreciated ESR programme that participants clearly would recommend for others to join. The disciplinary Crete Summer School was in particular highly rated, and the pedagogical Milano winter school was also strongly rated. The ESRs had however mixed feelings about the quality of the industrial Nice summer school activities. Medea networking, scientific collaborations, ESR journal clubs and webinar series were unanimously appreciated. The Marie Curie funding scheme and participant rights were equally appreciated. So, the overall picture is positive, although there are some areas of possible improvements: “– In general I am very happy on how everything was handled and organized in MEDEA. I don't think any part needs a radical revision, but rather some minor incremental improvements” [anonymous MEDEA Early Stage Researcher].The expected extent of secondments was considered pressing and for some not adequately related to the individual research task. For others, secondments were clearly essential to reach their re sea rch objectives. The requirement to perform secondment in industrial work places also caused some mixed reactions among the ESRs, who agreed that a deeper supervisor engagement in secondment planning would be desirable. Equally, most ESRs found themselves alone organizing the MEDEA outreach activities (which mostly were appreciated when conducted). The compulsory career development plans were mostly regarded static although the MEDEA network as a whole was regarded highly supportive for the ESRs future careers. The ESRs also suggest some activities could have been added or expanded such as proposal-writing training and future academic career advice, along with an overall stronger involvement of local supervisors. There was also a useful suggestion that journal clubs could revolve more around ESRs journal papers and manuscripts during the later period of the network, when ESR research results are disseminated. With some exceptions, the exit interviews showed that the ESRs mainly developed their core research skills and research output with the help of support in their own local workplaces, rather than during MEDEA collaborations. For the majority of the ESRs, the added-value of being a MEDEA member was 1) the development of a network for now and for the future, 2) being forced to a wider scientific breadth, 3) being well-supported (resources), and 4) in some instances that their performed research was developed in another partner lab with local support there.}},
author = {{Ahlberg, Anders}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{01}},
title = {{Final assessment of the MEDEA Early Stage Researcher programme : MEDEA Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 641789}},
url = {{http://www.medea-horizon2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Anders-Ahlberg-Final-assessment-of-the-MEDEA-Early-Stage.pdf}},
year = {{2019}},
}