Work more strategically, strengthen the shared identity, and use the media proactively. These are three of the concrete recommendations presented by the expert panel as a conclusion to their visit to Aarhus at the beginning of October.

Vivi Schlünssen, Deputy head of department for research, shares her take aways from the expert panel’s visit and report.

What would you highlight from the panel visit?

The atmosphere during the panel’s visit is the first thing that comes to mind. The members of the expert panel were extremely skilled and quick to create an environment of trust and openness. I was impressed by this, and it’s truly crucial to ensure that we receive honest and useful feedback from the effort—so we can actually use it.

I’m convinced that it was the panel’s ability to foster such a positive and open atmosphere that made staff feel comfortable enough to respond honestly and openly to their questions.

Did any of the panel’s findings surprise you?

No, there were no major surprises. But it does leave an impression when outsiders point out some of the challenges, we are already aware of—and that some of us are already working on.

Two things particularly stand out. One of the members of the expert panel described the department, somewhat deliberately in a rough and exaggerated manner, as a construction with many skilled researchers sitting on the shelf, a bit like in a warehouse, but without a shared identity. I found that hard to swallow – even though there is certainly some truth in the idea that we need to consider how we can work on fostering a shared identity and find a solution that makes sense for the staff, so they identify more with the department and not 'just' with their respective research groups. It was a strong statement, and it stuck with me a bit.

The second point that struck me was that, according to the panel, our younger researchers, PhD students, and postdocs speak positively about our work environment. They are happy to be here, happy to come to work. That means a lot, and it makes me feel proud.

Is there anything you disagree with?

No, there was nothing the panel said that I disagree with. There were many constructive reflections that we can carry forward in the process. Of course, there were also some more generic observations, but I feel we took a lot away from it.

For example, I think it’s absolutely correct that the diversity of our research is both our strength and our weakness. When they stated it so explicitly, I can also recognise that it is, for instance, somewhat odd that we have more research areas or at least research topics than we have permanent staff.

What were you most pleased to hear?

The panel acknowledges the quality of our research and the potential we have collectively. That makes me happy. We have many talented researchers who can easily operate at the highest international level, and it’s great that outsiders can also see that. The conditions for conducting excellent research are in place, so now it’s about making better use of the potential.

What have you gained from the research evaluation so far—from the department’s self-evaluation and the panel’s visit?

We were already aware of many of the challenges highlighted, and in that sense, the work with the self-evaluation and preparation for the panel visit has been extremely useful. It has accelerated efforts to improve workflows, systems, and processes, and it has increased engagement among both management and staff.

I also believe that working on evaluating our research quality has given us a shared understanding of the department’s challenges and a common language to discuss the difficult issues. It’s time for change and development, and I sense that the vast majority are ready for it.

Of course, there’s always a risk that processes like this end up being merely symbolic. But we’ve already learned a lot. Staff are ready for change, and there is a genuine desire for increased collaboration across the department. We can definitely use that in the future work.

What will the process be for the action plan you need to create?

We invited all staff to the final meeting with the expert panel, where the four panel members presented their preliminary observations. Since then, we’ve shared the final report with the entire department. Now we’re at the stage where we need to follow up on the report’s conclusions, both at the department level and at the faculty level. Later, the entire collaboration organisation will also be involved.

We’re in a unique situation for the follow-up work, because we’ll soon have a new head of department. It will be entirely natural for him or her to have the opportunity to influence the future work. However, I’m already confident in saying that, in my view, involvement and participation are key to developing the department, working more strategically, strengthening the shared identity, and unlocking the untapped research potential. It has to be a collective project that’s meaningful for the staff and, at the same time, has clear and visible leadership.

"The younger researchers enthused me with their passion"

Professor Alex Burdorf from Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam led the department’s expert panel. His visit to Aarhus gave him a good picture of the department's potential and challenges, which he shares below.

What do you think about the idea of evaluating research quality at the department level?

I think it’s very healthy to do an exercise like this from time to time, perhaps every five years. This applies at all levels of the organisation. An external perspective on some of the challenges we wrestle with can be helpful for all of us, no matter how skilled or experienced we are.

As I understand it, this is the first time it’s been done at the Department of Public Health. I’m glad I was given the opportunity to be part of it.

What do you think about how the visit was conducted?

I’ll admit that beforehand, I feared that a 2.5-day programme would feel long, but the time flew by while we were in Aarhus. The programme was well-organised, and there was absolutely nothing to complain about. Both management and staff were open and welcoming.

The highlight for me was the presentations from the department’s PhD students and postdocs. Their energy and enthusiasm were infectious, and I was caught up in it. Overall, we gained a good overview of the department and its research, which gave us insight into the differences, challenges, and gaps.

For example, it quickly became clear to us that the department encompasses international research quality, relevant research topics, innovative methods, diversity in research themes, and dedicated researchers. So far, so good.

But when we dug a bit deeper, it wasn’t hard to spot the challenges. These include the fact that research is largely driven by external funding and other more or less randomly occurring opportunities rather than by strategic goals and visions.

There are also issues with the department’s internal organisation and structure. These need to be clarified and made more transparent. It seems unclear who has which roles and responsibilities, and what support functions the researchers can draw on.

The individual can only be excellent if the context is excellent. So that needs to be sorted. And it’s just not acceptable that staff primarily identify with their research group or section. The department should play the most important role.

What could the panel contribute?

We weren’t there to praise the department, its staff, or its management, but to help facilitate and push towards development. Our task was to provide input for critical reflection—sort of starting points for change.

The change is then up to the department itself. That’s why we were careful not to offer concrete solutions. I’m absolutely sure that the Department of Public Health can find those on its own.

We approached it critically because we know that the department can make good use of it. That being said, I do think it’s brave of the department to request an evaluation from an external panel. It tells me something about a department that it dares to take a risk and put itself on the line.

Contact

Deputy head of department for research and Professor Vivi Schlünssen
Aarhus Universitety, Department of Public Health
Phone: +45 28 99 24 99
Mail: vs@ph.au.dk

This text is based on machine translation.