Translation of our Khrono article where we respond to a text by PhD student at UiB, Ida-Elise Seppola Asplund.

Margareth Hagen (candidate for rector)

Kristoffer Chelsom Vogt (candidate for vice-rector for young researchers and internationalization)

Ida-Elise Seppola Asplund invites the rector teams to reflect on the vulnerability and working conditions of PhD fellows.

When Team Hagen wrote our election platform, we chose to emphasize younger researchers in a dedicated section. We also chose to place the responsibility for more targeted work for this group with a vice-rector. This is a deliberate and clear prioritization, which must be seen in context.

In recent years, UiB has been dedicated to promoting the conditions for younger researchers. Margareth Hagen led the work on UiB’s career policy for young researchers, adopted by the University Board in 2020. This led to the establishment of the career centre UiB Ferd, the only one of its kind in Norway, that offers both courses and individual consultations. Our career policy is good, but in light of recent years’ developments, it is wise to revise and further develop it.

PhD students, postdocs and young researchers represent a crucial part of UiB’s research and academic renewal. UiB is an international university, and young researchers contribute greatly to this. As a group, young researchers are important for our academic networks and diversity of perspectives. If we are elected, we will continue our efforts to create favourable conditions for younger researchers. A PhD or postdoc at UiB should provide candidates with strong qualifications in competions for positions in academia and beyond.

UiB is a large organisation with a wide range of academic environments and facilities. We share Seppola Asplund’s expectation that UiB should have a comprehensive policy for young researchers.

Being a PhD fellow is challenging and rewarding, but also demanding. Many different task need to be completed within the three years of the PhD programme. The PhD period is time-limited, and many PhD students battle with high expectations. PhD students are therefore particularly vulnerable if conflicts arise in the research group or work place. It is an important principle that conflicts should be resolved at the lowest organizational level , but issues that are not resolved here, should quickly be addressed at higher levels. Employer responsibility always lies with the institution, regardless of how the PhD/researcher position is funded. The supervisor does not have a formal employer or HR responsibility.

It is also true that the PhD candidates` operating funds vary between the research environments at UiB, and between projects. There are many reasons for this: internal finances, the resources of the research project, infrastructure needs, and the specific nature of the projects. We understand that this is perceived as unfair, and we want to engage in dialogue with the academic environments to even out imbalances that are not well-justified. Some of UiB’s PhD candidates work on customized problems that are not part of a larger project. We know that several of them also want closer academic collaboration and a network of contacts. Seppola Asplund points out that candidates on externally funded projects are less free than those recruited through UiB grants and on individual projects. Being part of a project may provide less flexibility. In most cases, this still gives PhDs the freedom to adjust the research questions and methods used in the project.

For PhD students and postdocs, it is important to realize that there is always an imbalance of power between a supervisor and a candidate. That is why candidates should have a larger academic community to rely on, and also benefit from discussing expectations, systematic onboarding routines, co-supervision, mid-term evaluations and employee appraisals. A new feature of UiB’s quality assurance system is that the institutions need to provide career plans in collaboration with each individual candidate. We believe that UiB’s rather extensive ‘support system’ benefits our candidates, and we would also encourage all young researchers to take advantage of the yearly employee appraisals to strengthen the PhD student’s professional development.

Overall, Seppola Asplund’s text highlights issues that are important to follow up on the university management, faculties and academic communities. UiB should have standards that apply to everyone, based on the central guidelines for PhD programmes and the recently revised common quality system for PhD programmes. We will also be able to systematically follow this work through the annual PhD programme report that is presented to the board.