Höll igår en liten reflektion under den tilldelade rubriken "What did RQ20 give us?" med anledning av att slutrapporten för RQ20 presenterades. Här nedan är den. Dagens nyhet var dock vicerektor Mickwitz inlägg där han deklarerade att redan innan sommaren bör områden att arbeta vidare med med anledning av RQ20 vara utvalda och kanske även organiserade. Hans förslag på sådana områden var rekrytering och befordran samt tvärvetenskap och infrastrukturer. Vi får se vilka områden som ska utsättas för universitetsledningens särskilda omsorg. Villkoren för rekrytering ser ju väldigt olika ut på olika fakulteter och inom olika ämnen så jag är inte så säker på att de lämpar sig för en universitetsgemensam policy även om det vore bra att ha en tjänstestruktur på plats som alla kan vara nöjda med. När det gäller tvärvetenskaplighet var det lite förvirrande eftersom vicerektor själv just innan sa att han i första hand såg detta som något som borde hanteras av fakulteterna, men att om gemensamma åtgärder krävdes så skulle det kunna gå att arbeta fram. Men frågan är varför det måste vara så obegripligt och omotiverat bråttom jämt. Varför inte lite tid för eftertänksamhet och lite djupare analys?
---
First of
all, I would like to the thank the RQ20 task force for allowing me to share
some of my experiences from this process. In a way, this is my evaluation of
the evaluation exercise we are right now finalizing. I could of course marvel
at the somewhat schizophrenic feeling of high expectations paired with
discomfort that may descend upon any evaluated subject.
But instead,
I would like to highlight the importance of the self-assessments, an exercise
that one could well continue to do every fifth year or so without the external
pressure of a review panel. What do we want to do in say five years from now?
What do we need in terms of resources and competence to be able to do it? How
can this be realized?
We all know
that these are important questions we need to ask ourselves continuously. We
all know that it is hard to answer them truthfully when we are constantly
exposed to external interests such as calls for research on for instance
secure societies to name just one from the latest research bill. Or for that
matter sudden intramural initiatives regarding for instance Agenda 2030
where the budget for the excellence program is two to three times higher than
many national research programs, while the planning horizon amount to little
less than two months.
We live indeed
in an dynamic academic world where external funding amounts to 60 percent of
Lund University’s total research budget and much more at certain faculties. The
implication is that it is as necessary to plan ahead, as it is
impossible. In this situation, we also need stabilizing mechanisms. One
important such mechanism is in my mind the strategic plan for the university
extending over ten whole years, until 2026. We now also have an up-to-date
research evaluation. In the best of organizations, these two collegially
produced documents should be used as a foundation when crafting new
initiatives, as stones when paving the path ahead of us. And in my mind, this
may take a little longer than two months, but also perhaps a little less than
ten years.
Through its
process including question sets, self-assessments, panel reviews and a final
report with 95 theses, the RQ20 evaluation has given us nothing less than a toolbox
to use in order to regularly reflect upon our present situation and to exploit
those reflections to consciously plan ahead. The tools picked out from the
toolbox may vary. In most cases, structured self-assessments are probably
enough to create the inventory needed to project the future. If the stakes are
particularly high though, some would perhaps like to call on critical friends
or even set up a review panel. In my mind, this RQ20 toolbox, could be used at
all levels, from the university management to research groups, whether it is
for keeping up with competition or the planning for new grand programs of
excellence.
Thank you
very much for your time!