Results & Development Interview
PhD student
The preconditions for Results and Development Interviews (R&O; Resultaat- en Ontwikkelingsgesprek) are
set out in the University of Groningen Regulations for Results and Development Interviews 2012, of which the
R&O form forms an integral part. Please consult the guidelines/explanatory notes to R&O interviews if you
need more information about certain components of the R&O interview.
Personal details
Personal number
:
Name
:
Job title
: PhD student
Date of appointment
:
Intended final date of appointment :
Funding basis
:
Research institute
: Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies
Research group
:
Salary scale
:
Details of supervisor(s)
First thesis advisor
:
Second thesis advisor
:
Day-to-day supervisor
:
External supervisor
:
Details of R&O cycle
Date of interview
:
Appraisal period
: from … to …
Date of previous interview
:
Reason for R&O Interview
: insert one of the following three options:
6-month interview
Go/no-go interview (after 9 months)
Annual R&O interview (2nd or 3rd year)
Page 1 of 8
Part 1: Review and Preview
Review
Which agreements were made in the project proposal, the Training and Supervision Plan (TSP) and/or the
previous R&O interview?
Before the R&O interview, the PhD student reports their most important results and achievements and how
these were arrived at. Self-reflection on strengths and points for improvement.
The supervisor subsequently comments on this self-report.
Preview
Which agreements are being made about the results to be achieved in the coming period?
In the preview, the supervisor and the PhD student make agreements on the results that should be achieved
in the coming period.
If possible, the PhD student should fill in advance what he/she wants to achieve in the coming period,
including back-up plans for the case that something goes wrong.
Agreements must be defined in SMART terms: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound.
Research progress
In this part, the progress of the PhD project and the most relevant academic output output (lectures, posters,
manuscripts, chapters of PhD thesis, publications, media attention and other forms of popularisation) should
be discussed in relation to the original planning and the limited duration of a PhD project.
What were your main achievements in the last year? To what extent have earlier plans been
realized? Give a brief (≤ 500 words) overview of your activities over the last 6 months/1 year.
Include information on new techniques learned, data collected, analysis completed and
publications (if any). Discuss departures from your planning (also positive discoveries!) and how
you coped with setbacks. (to be filled in by PhD student)
Which academic output did you strive for according to earlier meetings with the supervisor(s)? (to
be filled in by PhD student)
Which academic output was actually achieved? (to be filled in by PhD student)
Rate the overall progress of your thesis research (good/fair/poor) (to be filled in by PhD student):
Perception of supervisor(s):
Were there any delays or changes of plans in the last year? What was the cause of these delays or
changes? What was the response to unexpected events? (to be filled in by PhD student):
Page 2 of 8
Perception of supervisor(s):
Is the project as a whole sufficiently underway; is the time schedule still realistic? Is it realistic that
the project will result in a PhD thesis within the allotted time? (to be filled in by PhD student):
Perception of supervisor(s):
Research planning
In this part, the planning of the PhD project should be discussed in relation to the original plans and the
progress made until now. PhD students in their 3rd year should attach a rough sketch of the envisaged PhD
thesis; PhD students in their 4th year should attach a detailed overview of the PhD thesis, including a list of
chapters, a brief description of the state of affairs for each chapter (e.g. already published; already submitted;
complete version of chapter available; data collected, still need to be analysed; etc.), and a time planning per
chapter. This is particularly important if a prolongation of the project might be necessary.
Describe your research plans for the next period/year (≤ 250 words). What do you anticipate to be
the most important milestones? Are there any risky aspects, and do you have a ‘plan B’ in case
complications arise? (to be filled in by PhD student):
Perception of supervisor(s):
New agreements on research in the coming period (SMART):
New agreements on academic output in the coming period (SMART):
Teaching (if applicable)
In this part, all achievements related to teaching (e.g. lecturing, assisting in practicals, supervision of BSc and
MSc students) should be discussed in the light of previous plans.
Which teaching activities were planned in the TSP or in previous meetings with the supervisor(s)?
(to be filled in by PhD student)
Which teaching activities did actually take place, and what was the outcome? (to be filled in by
PhD student)
Perception of supervisor(s):
New agreements on teaching (SMART):
Page 3 of 8
Assessment of progress (part 1) by supervisor(s):
Assessment Part 1: (delete what is not applicable)
Very good / Good / Not yet satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
(see the last page of this document for an interpretation of these qualifications)
Part 2: Competences and professionalization
This part of the R&O interview is about knowledge, abilities, and competences of the PhD student and on
activities related to training and professionalization.
Knowledge and abilities
In this part, newly acquired knowledge and abilities should be discussed in the light of previous plans. Topics
that might be addressed include: proficiency with relevant research techniques; planning and organization of
the research; interaction with supervisors; execution of research; quality of data; data analysis; presentation of
data to research group or a wider audience; writing of scientific manuscripts; involvement in the publication
process (e.g. submitting manuscripts, adequate response to referees and editors) connection to the scientific
community; development of a broader perspective on the PhD project; adaptation to unforeseen circumstances; etc.
Which knowledge and abilities did you acquire in the last period? (to be filled in by PhD student)
Where do you see room for improvement? (to be filled in by PhD student)
Perception of supervisor(s):
New agreements related to knowledge and abilities (SMART):
Competences
This part is not on results but on the competences relevant for a PhD student. These core competences
include: learning ability; ability to achieve a goal; ability to organize a project (including time management);
ability to monitor progress and adapt plans as required; ability to acquire resources and to recruit the help of
others; communication ability; ability to convince others; critical attitude; perseverance; etc.
The PhD student should consult the UFO-profile PhD student (My University  Infonet), where a list of core
competences and the corresponding “behavioural indicators” can be found. These indicators should be used in
the self-reflection on competences.
Self-reflection on competences, with special emphasis on the development of competences in the
last period (to be filled in by PhD student, preferably illustrated by concrete examples):
Page 4 of 8
Perception of supervisor(s):
New agreements on the development of competences (SMART):
Training and professionalization
In this part, training and professionalization activities should be discussed, with reference to the Training and
Supervision Plan (TSP) and the planning made in earlier R&O interviews. Topics that might be addressed
include: courses; master classes; lab visits; presentations; conferences; literature clubs; activities and/or
responsibilities at the levels of research group, research institute, graduate school, research school; etc.
Which educational or professionalization activities were planned in the TSP or in earlier meetings
with the supervisor(s)? (to be filled in by PhD student)
Which activities have actually been realized? (to be filled in by PhD student)
Discuss changes/additions to your TSP since the last progress meeting, as well as wishes for
courses (e.g., presentation skills, etc.) and professional training (e.g., conferences). (to be filled in
by PhD student)
Perception of supervisor(s):
New or follow-up agreements (SMART):
Potential changes to the TSP:
Assessment of knowledge, professionalization, and competences (part 2) by supervisor(s):
Assessment Part 2: (delete what is not applicable)
Very good / Good / Not yet satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
(see the last page of this document for an interpretation of these qualifications)
Page 5 of 8
Part 3: Feedback of PhD student to supervisors
What is your overall impression of the intensity and quality of the supervision of your PhD
project? Do you have suggestions on how your supervisory situation could be improved?
What is your overall impression of your research environment (research group, CEES, facilities,
etc.)? Do you have suggestions on how your research environment could be improved?
What is your overall impression of the quality of your educational/training environment (research
group, RSEE, GSS, etc.)? Do you have suggestions on how your training environment could be
improved?
Rate your overall satisfactions with the present situation (good/fair/poor):
Part 4: Academic integrity
This part of the R&O interview discusses questions related to academic integrity. For more information, the
PhD student should consult the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice (VSNU) and the
University of Groningen Regulations for the Protection of Academic Integrity.
(delete what is not appropriate:)
During the R&O interview, the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice (VSNU) and the
University of Groningen Regulations for the Protection of Academic Integrity were discussed with
the PhD student.
The PhD student is familiar with the Code of Conduct and the Regulations.
The PhD student is familiar with the CEES regulations concerning archiving primary and secondary
data and simulation programmes. In particular, the PhD student is aware that the data and
programmes underlying a scientific publication have to be archived within one month upon
acceptance of the article; and that the student can only be permitted to the public defence of the PhD
thesis if all relevant data and programmes underlying the thesis have been stored in the central
CEES archive that has been created for this purpose.
Part 5: Additional agreements (if applicable)
Additional activities:
Terms of employment:
Agreements with regard to leave:
Development days:
Page 6 of 8
Other (please specify):
Part 6: Final assessment
The final assessment concerns the performance of the PhD student as a whole (including the realization of
results, the quality of work, the realization of agreements) and the PhD student’s overall development.
Assessment by supervisors: (delete what is not applicable)
Very good / Good / Not yet satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
(see the last page of this document for an interpretation of these qualifications)
Signatures
Supervisor (for approval – name and date):
PhD candidate (for approval of agreements made and to indicate that the assessment has been
read – name and date):
Third parties: (only if applicable – names and date)
Recommendation/proposal to the Faculty Board (if applicable)
Based on the R&O interview, the supervisor can make a proposal to the Faculty Board or the Graduate
School of Science with regard to decisions to be taken concerning the PhD student's legal position. The
decision itself will be taken by the Faculty Board, the Graduate School of Science, or the Service Management, and it may deviate from the supervisor’s recommendation.
Recommendation/proposal to the Faculty Board/Service Management/GSS:
NB: The completed R&O form, signed by all relevant parties, will be stored in the PhD student’s
digital personnel file and/or in the PhD student’s file at the Graduate School of Science.
Don’t forget to send the completed form to the Graduate School of Science and your HR-Advice
department!
Page 7 of 8
Interpretation of assessment scores:
Very good
The PhD student performs well above the requirements in all aspects. He/she achieves very good
results and is one of the top PhD students in the department.
Good
The PhD student fulfils the requirements of the position in all aspects and performs above (or well
above) the requirements in at least some aspects. Moreover, the PhD students generally achieves the
agreed results and develops in a positive manner.
Not yet satisfactory
The PhD student does not yet fully satisfy all requirements of the position. He/she should be able to
achieve better results and/or to show signs of a faster development.
Unsatisfactory
The PhD student does not satisfy all requirements and fails to achieve the agreed results. There is
insufficient fit between the staff member and the position, and is unlikely that the situation can be
improved within a reasonable time frame.
Page 8 of 8