HRS4R GAP Analysis at the UMH
8. INTERNAL UMH ANALYSIS
The internal analysis (GAP Analysis) has been performed by “comparing the real performance of the UMH to the desired performance” (in this case, the management of human resources by the UMH regarding the 40 principles of the Charter and Code, and the OTM-R system of the European Commission).
Following the profile-based classification system of researchers established by the European Commission.
They were compared to existing categories at the UMH and the corresponding equivalences were established. This information is reflected in the following table:
The administrative and services staff and the management staff of the UMH is also involved, with their in-person participation to review the legal regulation from Europe, Spain and the Valencian Community which is applicable to the UMH, as well as the centre’s internal regulation and procedures regarding the 40 principles of the Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
This analysis is carried out involving UMH staff by way of:
- Anonymous survey of all UMH researchers
An anonymous survey was sent to the 693 researchers (R1, R2, R3 and R4) of the four campuses through a Google form (issued and received by the Department of Quality of the UMH which guarantees its confidentiality) with questions grouped into four categories (I. Ethical and Professional Aspects, II. Recruitment and Selection, III. Working Conditions and Social Security and IV Training and Development) and related to each of the 40 principles of the Charter, the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers and the OTM-R (Open, Transparent and Merit-Based recruitment of Researchers), in order to learn their perception regarding the UMH’s degree of compliance with these documents.
- In-person meetings with UMH researchers of the four profiles (R1, R2, R3, R4)
Open and participatory sessions were held in the four UMH campuses with volunteer researchers from the UMH and divided by profiles (R1, R2, R3 and R4), which were coordinated by the Vice-Rector for Research and Innovation.
Each researcher who confirmed their participation in the in-person meeting was sent a template with the 40 principles of the Charter and Code a week in advance, with two columns where to write their thoughts on each one of them, one with what is done appropriately at the UMH and should be upheld, and another with aspects to be improved.
When the various researcher work teams were put together, each one of the members of the teams had already reflected on the 40 principles of the Charter and Code, and in the meetings of the various researcher profiles (R1, R2, R3 and R4), they shared their varying opinions and had to reach a consensus on points that are being fulfilled and proposals of improvement for each of the 40 principles of the Charter and Code, which were classified into four groups.
- Ethical and Professional Aspects
II: Recruitment and Selection
III. Working Conditions and Social Security
- Training and Development
Once each work team had defined their proposals, the team itself prioritised them, taking into account their interpretation of the degree of importance and ease of fulfilment of each one of them.
- In-person meetings with administrative and services staff and management staff of the UMH to review European, National and Valencian Community regulation applicable to the UMH, as well as the internal regulation and procedures regarding the European Statutes for researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
- MEETINGS ON THE HRS4R STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
- MEETINGS OF THE UMH GOVERNING BOARD (3 meetings)
- MEETINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (4 meetings)
- MEETINGS OF THE UMH RESEARCH COMMISSION (2 meetings)
- MEETINGS OF THE WORK COMMITTEE (10 meetings)
- INFORMATIVE MEETINGS WITH UMH RESEARCHERS (at least one meeting in each UMH campus, for a total of 8 meetings)
- IN-PERSON MEETINGS (Focus Groups) WITH UMH RESEARCHERS (At least one meeting in each UMH campus, for a total of 8 meetings)
- IN-PERSON MEETINGS (Focus Groups) WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AND SERVICES STAFF AND MANAGEMENT STAFF (4 meetings)
9. RESULTS OF THE HRS4R SURVEY SUBMITTED TO UMH RESEARCHERS
The survey was available for four weeks, from 2 to 30 July 2018, and the Vice-rectorate for Research of the UMH sent weekly reminders via e-mail to the researchers involved, whose number by profile is as follows:
|Total Researchers in the UMH||Profile R1 First Stage||Profile R2 Recognised Researcher||Profile R3 Established Researcher||Profile R4 Leading Researcher|
Of the 693 researchers of the UMH, a total 224 filled out the survey, which is a global answer rate of 32%, with the relative answer rate itemised by research categories shown in the following table,
With the number of researchers who took part in the survey being 224, the percentage distribution for each profile is
When looking at the percentage of participation among women and men, we see the following distribution
When looking at the participation focusing on the age ranges, we obtain the following figures
Detailed results of the survey on each of the 40 principles of the Charter and Code of the European Commission
*Values obtained of a maximum of 5.0.
|C&C principle||Questions of the C&C survey||R1||R2||R3||R4||Average score R|
|GROUP I||ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS .|
|1||* Freedom of research.
Researchers freely guide their research, with the limitations that may arise.
|2||* Ethical principles. Researchers follow the ethical rules included in national, sectoral or institutional ethical codes||4,50||4,69||4,57||4,59||4.60|
|3||* Professional responsibility. Researchers do what they can to ensure their research is meaningful for society.||4,54||4,39||4,38||4,47||4.40|
|4||* Professional attitude. Researchers are aware of the possible funding mechanisms, request the necessary licences and notify the UMH of changes to their projects.||4,30||4,36||4,08||4,40||4.30|
|5||* Contractual and legal. Researchers know the regulation on training and working conditions.||3,96||3,93||3,56||3,79||3.80|
|6||* Responsibility. Researchers who are funded with public funds adhere to the principles of competition, transparency and management efficiency.||4,36||4,42||4,43||4,56||4.40|
|7||* Good research practices. Researchers adopt safe work methods to safeguard health and security.||4,57||4,48||4,54||4,41||4.50|
|* Researchers know and comply with current legislation regarding data protection and confidentiality.||4,38||4,37||4,13||4,04||4.20|
|8||* Result dissemination and exploitation. Research results are disseminated and exploited via open access communications or via their commercialisation.||4,29||4,02||3,96||3,98||4.10|
|9||* Public commitment. Researchers ensure their research activities are made known to society as a whole, so they can be understood by non-specialists.||3,79||3,63||3,50||3,69||3.70|
|10||*Non-discrimination. The UMH does not discriminate against researchers based on gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, public opinion, etc.||4,57||4,57||4,43||4,76||4.60|
|11||* Appraisal system. The UMH has a system for appraising professional performance which is periodic and transparent for all researchers.||4,39||4,19||4,12||4,14||4.20|
|GROUP II||RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION|
|12||* Recruitment. The UMH has open and transparent recruitment procedures which are adapted to the position on offer.||4,54||4,42||4,17||4,09||4.30|
|13||* Recruitment (Code). Recruitment. The UMH has efficient recruitment procedures adapted to the position on offer.||4,29||4,24||3,91||3,95||4.10|
|14||* Selection. In the UMH there are specialists with experience and competence in various fields on the candidate Selection Committees.||4,35||4,14||3,88||3,88||4.10|
|15||* Transparency. Candidates are informed of the process and selection criteria before the selection is made.||4,16||4,32||4,05||4,19||4.20|
|16||* Merit assessment. Different scientific production, teaching, transfer, management and dissemination merits are valued in the selection process.||4,39||4,47||4,38||4,40||4.40|
|17||* CV timeline variations. Interruptions during a researcher’s professional career are considered part of the professional evolution, and is not penalised in the selection process.||3,68||3,65||3,14||3,53||3.50|
|18||* Mobility recognition. The UMH sees mobility as a valuable contribution to professional development.||4,54||4,31||4,14||4,12||4.30|
|19||* Qualification recognition. The UMH values and appropriately appraises the academic and professional qualifications of researchers.||4,37||4,16||4,03||4,19||4.20|
|20||* Professional career. The UMH recognises the development of the researcher’s professional career.||4,36||4,07||4,03||4,07||4.10|
|21||* Postdoctoral appointments. The UMH has clear rules on the recruitment of postdoctoral researchers, including the maximum duration and the objectives of their contracts.||4,27||4,14||3,99||3,74||4.00|
|GROUP III||WORKING CONDITIONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY .|
|22||* Recognition of the profession. The UMH recognises all levels involved in a career in research as researchers (from postgraduate).||4,41||4,14||4,14||4,07||4.20|
|23||* Research work environment. The UMH promotes research and learning with resources and opportunities.||4,32||4,19||3,87||4,09||4.10|
|24||* Working conditions. The UMH offers researchers flexibility to reconcile professional and family life to ensure scientific success.||4,18||4,39||3,89||3,98||4.10|
|* The UMH offers support for people with disabilities to ensure scientific success.||4,11||4,27||3,83||3,81||4.00|
|25||* Job stability. The UMH ensures researchers have job stability.||4,11||3,91||3,76||3,54||3.80|
|26||* Funding and salaries. The UMH ensures that researchers have appropriate economic conditions and social coverage.||4,00||3,91||3,84||3,93||3.90|
|27||* Equality of opportunities. The UMH offers equal opportunities among genders on all levels of recruitment.||4,46||4,48||4,26||4,29||4.40|
|28||* Professional development. The UMH has a support strategy for the professional development of researchers.||3,93||3,88||3,50||3,55||3.70|
|29||* The value of mobility. The UMH recognises the value of mobility (geographical, cross-sectional, trans-disciplinarian and between the public and private sector) in its appraisal system.||4,22||4,11||3,84||3,78||4.00|
|30||* Access to professional guidance. The UMH offers professional guidance for researchers in their various stages.||3,89||3,55||3,28||3,51||3.60|
|31||* Intellectual property rights. The UMH guarantees the appropriate protection of the intellectual rights of research and development results.||4,50||4,19||3,97||4,09||4.20|
|32||* Co-authorship. The UMH ensures that the rights of researchers of all levels are recognised with the co-authorship of research results.||4,29||4,24||3,86||3,85||4.10|
|33||* Teaching. The UMH values teaching within the appraisal of a career in research.||3,75||3,70||3,50||3,69||3.70|
|34||* Complaints. The UMH has appropriate complaint channels established (such as an ombudsman, or researcher defender) to help all researchers solve conflicts and complaints.||3,92||3,80||3,35||3,59||3.70|
|35||* Participation in decision-making bodies. The UMH allows the participation of researchers in the institution’s information, consultation and decision-making groups.||3,89||3,86||3,57||3,58||3.70|
|GROUP IV||TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT|
|36||* Relation with supervisors. Researchers in the initial stage of their careers have regular meetings with their supervisors.||4,33||4,21||4,09||4,22||4.20|
|37||* Supervision and management tasks. Senior researchers favour the transfer of knowledge and the development of the career of junior researchers.||4,26||4,07||4,09||4,20||4.20|
|38||* Continuation of the professional development. The UMH promotes the continuous professional development of its researchers during all the stages of their careers, regularly updating and expanding their abilities and competences.||4,11||3,84||3,77||3,70||3.90|
|39||* Continuous professional training. Researchers of all levels have the possibility of undergoing continuous training.||4,21||3,97||3,95||3,93||4.00|
|40||* Supervision. Junior researcher supervisors offer the appropriate support and provide the necessary progress and revision procedures, as well as feedback mechanisms.||4,30||4,14||4,08||4,12||4.20|
|OPINION||* Additional notes.|
|Of a maximum of 5.0|
Of the scores obtained in the survey, it can be surmised that the general degree of satisfaction among researchers of the UMH in regard to the principles of the Charter and Code is of 82% (4.1/5.0), a result considered optimal, especially as it is very balanced among the four researcher profiles, R1, R2, R3 and R4. They all have high values of satisfaction, and scores of over 66% (minimum score = 3.28/5.0) are obtained in all questions, in some cases even reaching 91% (maximum score = 4.57/5.0).
|Researcher profile||R1||R2||R3||R4||Average score Global R|
|Ratio Average score||4,23 / 5||4,15 / 5||3,95 / 5||4,03 / 5||4.10 / 5|
|Percentage of satisfaction regarding the C&C||85||83||79||81||82%|
An analysis of the researchers’ answers shows us that the average score per question is in all cases clearly more than 2.5, which would be an average score for questions with results between 1 and 5, as the minimum score was 3.5, which was only obtained in one of the 40 principles of the C&C – the one related to professional career development.
10. RESULTS OF THE IN-PERSON MEETINGS (FOCUS GROUPS)
In order to obtain the improvement proposals of the UMH researchers regarding the 40 principles of the Charter and Code, the Vice-rectorate for Research and Innovation sent a voluntary participation form for these in-person meetings to all UMH researchers, as well as requesting their participation in the informative HRS4R meetings that were held in the four UMH campuses.
There are a total 693 researchers at the UMH, and applying international sampling standard ISO 2859-1, level II, 80 participants would be regarded as a representative sample.
A total 97 researchers took part in the UMH “focus groups”, meaning the recommended minimum amount was broadly surpassed. There was a balance regarding the gender of the participants, as 58% were men and 42% women.
All research profiles participated, R1, R2, R3 and R4, and “focus group” in-person meetings were held at all four UMH campuses, so the participation is considered to have had an appropriate approach and distribution.
A total 8 focus groups were conducted = 4 in Elche, 2 in San Juan, 1 in Orihuela and 1 in Altea.
A total 22 work teams were created in these = 10 in Elche, 5 in San Juan, 5 in Orihuela and 2 in Altea.
Members of all four research profiles (R1, R2, R3 and R4) participated in these work teams,
. R1 (3 work teams) = 2 in Elche and 1 in Orihuela
. R2 (3 work teams) = 1 in San Juan, 1 in Orihuela and 1 in Altea
. R3 (8 work teams) = 4 in Elche, 2 in San Juan and 2 in Orihuela
. R4 (8 work teams) = 4 in Elche, 2 in San Juan, 1 in Orihuela and 1 in Altea.
The high degree of involvement of all those who participated in these in-person meetings in all four UMH campuses is worth highlighting, as there was great respect, motivation, attitude towards improvement and high levels of satisfaction for partaking in this exciting HRS4R project.
San Juan Campus
All R1, R2, R3 and R4 researcher proposals have been compiled and classified, and those that have been given greater value as regards their importance and ease of implementation by the researchers themselves have been prioritised. These proposals will be the ones analysed in order to determine the Improvement Actions of the UMH for the HRS4R strategy.
All these HRS4R improvement proposals of the in-person meetings of the researchers will be analysed by a multidisciplinary work team in order to determine the Improvement Actions that will be included in the HRS4R Action Plan 2019 – 2020 of the UMH.
- RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF UMH LEGISLATION AND REGULATION
To conduct the analysis of legislation, regulation and procedures of the UMH and compare them to the requirements of the Charter and Code of the European Commission, administrative and services staff and management staff of the relevant UMH departments became involved, which were the following:
Teaching and Research Staff, Administrative and Services Staff, Quality, Ethics, Teaching Staff, Infrastructures, Prevention, University Ombudsman, Research Results Transfer Office, Employment Monitoring, Institutional Relations, Institutional Data, Budget Management, Vice-Manager of Economy, Equality, International Relations, Communication and Library.
A total 19 people took part, who received the template recommended by the European Commission a week in advance so that they would have time to think about and gather documentation on each principle of the Charter and Code.
Four work teams were created (Administrative and Services Staff Focus Groups), who met, shared their thoughts and wrote then down on the template recommended by the European Commission.
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?||Implementation:
++ = 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, list any national/regional legislation or organisational regulation currently impeding implementation
|Initiatives undertaken and/or suggestions for
Afterwards, their recommendations on each of the principles of the Charter and Code were unified.
These improvement suggestions of the UMH administrative and services staff and management staff will be taken into account by the teams that will be created to propose the points of improvement of the UMH regarding the HRS4R strategy.
The unified result of the in-person meetings (focus groups) conducted with researchers and with the administrative and services staff and management staff of the UMH, in accordance with the principles of the European Charter for Researchers, the Code of Conduct for Researchers sorted by the four aforementioned areas, I: Ethical and Professional Aspects, II: Recruitment and Selection, III: Working Conditions and Social Security and IV: Training and Development, and with the OTM-R system (Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment) for Organisations is as follows.
It includes the relevant applicable legislation and regulation, the strong points (+) and proposals and/or deficiencies (-), all of which were analysed by a multidisciplinary work team, along with the Improvement Actions (ACT) proposed to overcome them.
11. OTM-R (Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment)
Transparent and Merit-based principles, and the UMH has regulation for the recruitment of research staff in effect from 11 / 05 / 2017 which is accessible by all the staff on the UMH website.
This represents a great help when implementing the OTM-R open recruitment of the HRS4R strategy.
The Improvement Actions that address the implementation of the Open, Transparent and Merit-based recruitment principles, are the following.
12. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE UMH
As a general description of the UMH in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the policy and practice regarding the four main groups of the Charter and Code, it is worth noting that in the survey conducted on R1, R2, R3 and R4 researchers, all the consulted groups revealed a positive assessment of the UMH regarding the C&C and each of its 40 principles, with an average score of 4.1 over 5.0, indicating a high degree of satisfaction among researchers (82%) with the UMH human resources policy, and therefore, a strength of the UMH regarding the HRS4R strategy.
The in-person meetings with researchers revealed that a general strength of the UMH is that there is a good approach as regards regulation and services, whereas a point of improvement is that it is implemented heterogeneously.
The in-person meetings with administrative and services staff and management staff revealed that they see as a strength that there is extensive internal regulation and procedures, whereas a point of improvement is that they are not all grouped together, which limits its knowledge on behalf of the entire organisation.
In reference to the four areas of the C&C, we would highlight the following:
|AERAS of the Charter and Code (C&C)||FORTALEZAS y DEBILIDADES|
|ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS||(+)Existence of a collegiate body which assesses the ethical aspects
of research, as well as a technical office which provides support
for it, the Office for Responsible Research.
assesses in regard to regulation on industrial and intellectual
There are several means of dissemination and communication of science
There is an Equality plan for men and women.
Decalogue of Social Responsibility of the UMH
Data protection of the UMH
Balanced scorecard for the management of teaching and research staff
– Code of good scientific practices in need of updating
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 1
– Little collaboration among UMH research groups
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 2
– Lack of a Researcher Welcome Manual
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 3
RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION (+) There is extensive recruitment regulation such as the Regulation for the recruitment of research staff
Promotion of staff mobility
Transparency in the recruitment process
Recruitment by competition of merits
Postdoctoral researcher recruitment
– There has to be an OTM-R policy which meets all the requirements set by the European Commission, both in Spanish and in English
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 7
– The regulation for the recruitment of research staff must be translated into English
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 7
– Little dissemination of the recruitment regulation and of the offers on Euraxess Jobs.
Low participation quota of external candidates
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 7
– We have to improve the visibility of job offers on the Internet, the communication of all the phases of the selection process, its dissemination in Spanish and English and expand it internationally
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 8
– The current call process has an administrative burden for researchers
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 8
– Optimise our process of complaint processing and solving in order to provide efficient corrective actions
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 8
– The researcher recruitment regulation should include parity criteria for the selection committees to follow
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 9
– Regulation with a lack of parity criteria for structuring the selection committees that appraise the candidates
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 10
– There is a lack of a more specific guide to follow during the recruitment of research staff
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 11 WORKING CONDITIONS AND SOCIAL SECURITY
(+) Disabled student support service
The figure of the University Ombudsman
Merit assessment of the teaching and research staff with the PAREDITT tool
Criteria for accrediting doctoral programmes through the AVAP (Valencian Agency of Accreditation and Forward Planning), by delegation of the ANECA (National Agency for the Evaluation of Quality and Accreditation)
Occupational hazard prevention management
Mobility is incentivised
Co-authorship agreement with several entities
Procedure for researchers to become professors
With 1/3 of positions guaranteed for research by law
EAITT (Research activity and Technological Transfer Evaluation), a CV manager
Defender of the university community. Work-related grievances
Plenary Commission, a quality-related body where all the members of the university community are represented
– The Department of Teaching and Research Staff of the UMH has a list of services where the teaching and research staff are notified of their duties and of the economic management of human resources. In order to make it more accessible for external researchers, it shall be translated into English
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 15
– The installations have to be reviewed to facilitate the access for people with disabilities
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 15
– We must expand the services that currently exist for the teaching staff for the research staff
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 11
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT (+) There are continuous training plans for the teaching and research staff, as well as specific initiatives for the research staff
Accessibility to the Project Directors
The Project Director. Each Project has a Principal Researcher
EAITT (Research Activity and Technological Transfer Evaluation)
– Funds should be specifically allocated to research staff training
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 16
– Little regulation on Project supervision
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 18
– Members of the Research Committee need to improve their knowledge on the OTM-R strategy
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 8
– Specific basic training for researchers
- IMPROVEMENT ACTION: ACT 19
– To have a system in writing that allows us to assess whether the objectives set in the OTM-R of the UMH are being fulfilled.
- IMPROVEMENT PLAN: ACT 8