Comments on ‘LIFE’s PhD fellowships reserved for the Elite – isn’t there a better way of using them?’

In this reply to Thure Hauser’s contribution, I would primarily like to comment on the factual aspects of PhD fellowships at LIFE, as I will address many of the relevant issues which have been raised with Thure Hauser and anyone else interested at the planned dialogue meeting on the PhD area on 16 June 2011 at LIFE (invitations to be sent out later).

 

The elite research area initiative is part of LIFE’s strategic action plan 2011-2014 and was decided in consultation with LIFE’s Central Management Forum. An action plan with measurement criteria has been drawn up for each of the elite research areas. The intention is that the initiative will stimulate the development of strong research areas at LIFE, and it will be evaluated half-way in 2012 and again at the end in 2014. The elite research areas are dynamic, and will hopefully develop with time. Moreover, you can ‘move both up and down’.

 

It is correct that some of LIFE’s PhD fellowships this year are earmarked for the elite research areas and the emerging elite research areas. In 2011, this applies to 14 fellowships, which are coming out of the pool of ordinary PhD fellowships.

The remaining ordinary fellowships will be announced at the end of the year. These fellowships are open to applicants within all areas.

 

It is to a certain extent true that the ordinary fellowships, including those now targeted at the elite research areas, are reserved for ‘the elite’, in that the primary selection criterion is the applicant’s academic qualifications. This is how it has been for many years.

Every year, about 220 new PhD students start at LIFE. These are divided between 40 fully financed ordinary/elite fellowships and 180 fellowships which are financed in some other way, largely via external funding.

 

Thure Hauser points out that other researchers have far more use for PhD fellowships, naming for example newly appointed assistant and associate professors and employed researchers who find it hard to attract funding.

 

My comment here is that it is first and foremost the head of department’s responsibility to keep an eye on academic developments and on the potential and needs that exist in the individual research areas.

Erik Bisgaard Madsen

Associate Dean for Research