Expanded Research Committee
20120516
MINUTES Expanded Research Committee 14.00-16.00 hrs.
Date:
Present
16 May April 2012
M. Salih (Chair); L. de Haan (first 10 minutes); P. van Bergeijk; W.
Hout; S. Bergh; M. Arsel; T. Soukotta; Donzelli; A. Alonso Fradejas;
P. Huber (secretary)
B. Helmsing; K. Arts; M. Spoor; A.Bedi;
Apologies:
Reference
documents
-External Review Report Research Quality Assessment 2003-2010
-IB Memo all staff 9 May 2012 on External Review Report
-Memo PvB on External Review Report
-Email MSp on External Review Report
-Draft Reprog EDEM
-Draft Reprog GGSJ
-Draft Reprog CIRI
-Draft Reprog PER
-Staff Research Profiles 2012 (excel)
-Draft Minutes ERC 2-4-2012
1. Opening
The Rector attended part of the meeting and informed the ERC that he has formally
informed the Rector Magnificus of Erasmus University that the External Review report
has arrived and sent him the memo as it was sent to all ISS staff on 9 May 2012. The
External Review report is crucial for next steps, particular with regards to the Research
Programme development process within ISS. The Institute can be happy with the general
qualifications but also with the notes that it offer many opportunities for improvements.
The rector expresses his gratitude for the work of the ERC for the work on the draft
Reprogs so far and wishes the ERC wisdom for the work that still needs to be done,
inspiration to team up with colleagues and bridge possible differences.
2. Agenda and point of order
IB has asked for a status update. ERC decided that the descriptions of draft Reprogs that
have sufficiently worked out in accordance with the criteria: quality, productivity, social
relevance and viability will be sent to IB for a first consultation. ERC has received 4 draft
Repgrogs for discussion but none of the main authors of CIRI was able to attend the
meeting. The ERC nevertheless accepts CIRI document for initial discussion in light of
the importance not to delay the ERC work plan. With regards to presentation and
discussion of PER, Murat Arsel replaced Max Spoor.
2/15/2016/PH/MoS approved version 1.0
Expanded Research Committee
Point of order: The ERC decides that all Research Programme formation documentation,
including the draft Reprogs and ERC discussions will be public and communicated on
Intranet.
.
3. Minutes 2-4-2012 approved with some changes (see attached final minutes).
Clarification on the minutes page 2 last paragraph regarding benchmark. Wording of last
paragraph will be modified “We need to assess the quality etc”. Page 3 in the paragraph
on Reprogs criteria, research intensive will be replaced by research active.
4. Discussion Implications External Review Report for Reprogs
See memo Leo de Haan en Mohamed Salih, Personal note Peter van Bergeijk, and email
Max Spoor.
5. EDEM discussion draft Research Programme
Comment 1: EDEM resembles very much the old SG1, even if some additional members
would be included. EDEM should explore more new ways of doing things. What is the
change that EDEM is going to bring about? Peter van Bergeijk replies that EDEM has
tried to bring other people on board but these have not accepted the invitation to join.
Although in the past the economics may have had the status of a closed group, this has
changed and particularly in the process of drafting EDEM.
Comment 2: The impression is that EDEM choses to remain a rather mono-disciplinary
group. The synergies listed in paragraph 8 could be explored much further. Likewise,
those that are listed for synergies should take initiative to explore this with EDEM
leading researchers. In choosing some of the themes, for example “economic diplomacy”
which lends itself well for broadening, EDEM has more potential to dilute its monodisciplinary flavor. It is also particular important for ISS that EDEM distinguishes itself
with a unique profile from Erasmus School of Management.
Conclusion: The ERC decides to send EDEM to IB with a preliminary positive advise
and request IB to provide their view on EDEM.
6. GGSJ discussion draft Research Programme
Comment 1: One of the major challenges for GGSJ is to reinvent a ReProg on the basis
of the diversity of themes that is available within the broad available research that could
fall under GGSJ. The draft ReProg is not the old staff group 2.
Wil Hout: Formulation of GGSJ followed a bottom up approach as much as possible
within the timeframe and terms of references that were given to the ERC. As a starting
point GGSJ took a broad conceptualization of “government”. Notions of “development”
have changed (theme 1). The notion of “government” has been expanded to the
framework of governance. A particular innovation of the “governance” concept is
“participation in governance” (i.e. participation and public sector innovation).
2/15/2016/PH/MoS approved version 1.0
Expanded Research Committee
Comment 2: GGSJ does not specify clearly how it embeds PhD students. Although
GGSJ launches “social justice” as an overarching theme in the introduction, it is not
clearly reflected in the three lines.
Wil Hout replies that the themes of governance, globalistion and social justice are spread
throughout the Research Programme’s three Lines. This is a general idea that lies at the
basis of GGSJ. Governance is transforming, it is not nationality based anymore, and
GGSJ tries to reflect this in its Repgrog. GGSJ does not aim to work within three
different sub programmes but instead aims to create research in lines connected to each
other, and subject to change and revision in the future.
Comment 3: It is already an achievement that GGSJ managed to bring all these people
within its common denominator. However, there also seems to be a group of people that
want to create an autonomous line of research although the scientific justification for this
is not convincing so far. Secondly, GGSJ needs to reflect more on the 3,5 score in the
External Review report. In addition the other comments made by the International Peer
Review Committee (IPRC) should be addressed in the GGSJ. Thirdly, it should not only
make more explicit to which lines PhDs would be embedded but also PhDs should be
consulted as to which lines they want to belong.
Comment 4: The research objectives of GGSJ are not clear yet and although it is
understandable that in building a new coherent group one needs space to give room,
GGSJ in particular should very much take the opportunity to learn from the views that
external ERC members will express. Coherence remains a serious concern of GGSJ and
more attention should be given to how the central themes Governance and Social Justice
brought together.
Conclusion: ERC supports the basic idea behind GGSJ, but before it can send it to IB
with a preliminary positive advise attached and request for its view, GGSJ needs to
address the issues raised in this meeting and in the External Review report.
7. PER discussion draft Research Programme
Comment 1: PER is vulnerable in terms of its viability when no new staff can be hired.
ERC should formulate solutions in terms of tenure tracks etc.
Comment 2: PER does is not convincing in how political economy links its two lines
together. This could pose a problem in substance as well as in marketing of PER to the
external world.
Murat Arsel replies: for most present members of PER the political economy forms a
natural link between Marxist economists and attracts the right people. PER tries to find a
balance between actual representation and marketing.
Comment 3: IPRC’s comments in the External Review report are not addressed in PER,
for example regarding coherence of the group. The two lines in PER, are the two existing
2/15/2016/PH/MoS approved version 1.0
Expanded Research Committee
research strands. PER tries too much to justify itself to an internal public; two groups that
historically were in one staff group and now will be in one Reprog. PER does not answer
the question how a common epistemological methodology can form a sufficient basis.
ERC suggests that PER rethinks the concept of environment to do justice to the
researchers that could unite in one coherent undivided group.
Murat Arsel replies that Ashwani and Ben clearly are good examples of researchers that
managed to work in between the two separate lines of PER.
Comment 4: Another one of IPRC’s comments is that PER takes an isolated position
within the ISS. PER is encouraged to make the linkages and synergies with other Reprogs
and EUR research groups more explicit.
Comment 5: PER is not clear in how the PhD researchers fit within its research Lines.
Conclusion: ERC is positive about PER, but before it can send it to IB with a preliminary
positive advise attached and request for its view, PER needs to address the issues raised
in this meeting and to the comments regarding Staff Group 1 in the External Review
report.
8. CIRI discussion draft Research Programme
Comment 1: The group developed from a successful cluster and it forms inspiration for
people to collaborate. Sufficient mass of research intensive staff in CIRI is a serious
obstacle. First because, the leaders of CIRI do not have a research intensive profile which
makes it problematic to justify internally as well as externally. Secondly because those
members of CIRI that do have a research intensive profile have a joint membership with
other Reprogs. As a general condition to guarantee quality, productivity and viability
three full time dedicated leading members with a research intensive profile should form
the absolute minimum for a Reprog.
Comment 2: The justification for CIRI as a separate Reprog should be reconsidered.
Changes in approach with regards to the top down methodology of the Governance line
and the bottom up methodology of Civic Innovation do not pose unbridgeable obstacles
for integrating the CIRI research agenda in GGSJ.
Comment 3: CIRI does not offer sufficient thematic openings for some PhDs who do
have an interest in this field of research. Civic innovation is a contested term, while there
are alternatives available.
Comment 4: The five different subthemes in CIRI, seen in relation to the Rfte’s of its
members, pose a serious risk for fragmentation. The ERC seriously doubts whether CIRI
will be strong enough in time to stand the test of the Midterm Review in 3 years.
Comment 5: CIRI’s objectives are organisational and focused on internal justification. It
is not about content or contribution to knowledge
2/15/2016/PH/MoS approved version 1.0
Expanded Research Committee
Conclusion: ERC does not support CIRI as basis for a Reprog In the circumstances where
no leader of CIRI was present in this meeting, the ERC Chair will seek discussion with
the leading researchers of CIRI before ERC comes to a conclusion.
9. IB´s vision on Research Policy of the Institute
ERC members ask the chair what opportunities academic staff with a teaching intensive
profile will have within ISS. The Chair replies that IB is in the process of developing
thoughts that offer a 2 to 3 year trajectory for TI profiles to become RA/RI.
ERC members ask the chair on IB views on joint Reprog membership. Will it be allowed,
and who is going to decide what happens with people in two programmes regarding
research output, personnel management, finance, incentives, etc.
ERC members ask the chair for an IB view on implications of Reprog implementation for
teaching obligations and workload. ERC notes that with an actual introduction of
Reprogs and its research allocations, teaching capacity will become a serious issue if
nobody can be hired to reduce the workload of researchers with a RI/RA profile.
Conclusion: the chair will include this in a memo to IB in order to obtain input for ERC
on these policy issues that are indeed relevant for the terms of references of ERC.
10. Follow up for upcoming meetings
First upcoming meetings are 31 May and 1 June (with external members).
The revised Reprog drafts will be send to ERC secretary before 23 May who will
circulate them under the external members. If by that date the revised drafts are not
available the current drafts will be send to the external members.
ERC agrees that the meeting with external members on 1 June should include a prepared
Powerpoint presentation by Reprog leaders of max 10 minutes.
With regards to ERC´s final advise to IB a general framework for all descriptions of
Reprogs RPs needs to be agreed. Where relevant the Reprogs discriptions should indicate
how and why it differentiates from this general framework.
Each Reprog should follow the same format, using EDEM as a template.
Publications in the Self-Evaluation Report 2003-2010 should be excluded. Only A and B
publications will be included. Once all the draft Reprogs are ready these should be
discussed with all PhDs.
2/15/2016/PH/MoS approved version 1.0