IV.5.2. Programme for young female researchers and teachers – I competition
Rules of the 1st competition in Action IV.5.2 “Programme for young female researchers and teachers”
1. Can a female researcher take part in the Programme during an academic leave of absence?
A female researcher who is on an academic leave of absence may apply to the programme; the developmental activities which are carried out in the Programme (in accordance with the Description of the programme in Section 2) are not work tasks (completing work-related tasks).
In accordance with labour law, it is necessary to forego an academic leave of absence in the event of circumstances which do not permit the leave to be used in accordance with its purpose, e.g., a temporary inability to work due to illness, maternity leave, or the necessity to complete work responsibilities.
2. Can female researchers take part in the competition if they have been employed in the group of academic teachers who are carrying out academic research?
The competition is intended for researchers who at the moment of applying are employed in the group of research/teaching or teaching staff.
3. What should be written in the application form in the first table in part B, “Title of implemented research in which the candidate took part or is taking part (if financed with external funds awarded by other financing institutions; if IDUB, please specify”?
The table shows the applicant’s research activities. It is necessary to include all of the projects in which the researcher has participated (or is currently participating) in the specified capacity.
Funding for some of the research projects may have been obtained by the researcher herself; in that case, information on that subject will again be included in the second table.
4. What should be written in the application form, part B, in the second table “List of submitted grant applications for research/obtaining funding for research from other sources”?
The table shows the activities of the researcher in obtaining funding. Only applications initiated by the researcher herself should be included.
5. Can I include applications which have been submitted but that have not yet been approved in the second table “List of submitted grant applications for research/obtaining funding for research from other sources” in part B of the application form?
Yes, the applications may include those which have not yet been approved. In the “Result” column, you should write “Unapproved” (Note: that option has not been included in the form).
6. In the rules of the programme, it is written that “An opinion should be issued by a person who represents the same discipline, or one of the disciplines which the candidate has declared at UW”. My supervisor has broad knowledge of…, and the division of disciplines is not entirely equivalent to that in Poland. Can that person still issue an opinion for me? Will it be accepted? (Topic area)…. is just beginning to develop in Poland and as part of…. there isn’t anyone with the title of Habil. Doctor in Poland. Due to that fact, I cannot ask anyone for an opinion…
When an opinion concerning an Individual Research Plan (IPB) is issued by a person from outside of UW, which does not allow for undeniable confirmation of the equivalence of the discipline represented by that person and the candidate, it is necessary to add a statement to the opinion which states: “I hereby declare that I have the experience and scientific background to complete a substantive assessment of the action plan submitted for my opinion”).
This statement may also be presented as a separate attachment to the individual research plan, along with the name and surname of the researcher that the opinion concerns, the name of the employing university (University of Warsaw) and the number of the Action and the name of the programme (IV.5.2 Excellence Initiative – Research University).
It is also recommended that in such cases, the email address of the researcher issuing the opinion should be included (in case of a need for verification).
7. In the document “Individual Research Plan”, there is a place for the opinion of the supervisor. In the USA, opinions and letters of recommendation are always sent separately – directly, and personally by the supervisor. Of course, I can ask the supervisor to send me an opinion on the research plan, and I could then paste it into the document somehow, but I expect that they might find it a bit odd. Is it possible to have the supervisor send the opinion to you directly?
The opinion of the IRP may be sent by the person issuing it in such a way that the email address given by the applicant is in the CC line. It should be emphasised that in such cases it remains the responsibility of the applicant to send the full documentation (including resending the opinion) in accordance with the guidelines in para. 7 points 2 and 3 of the Rules for the 1st edition of the competition in the Programme.
8. How should I proceed regarding the requirements for the application to Action IV.5.2 within IDUB? I completed my PhD in …., Germany. The thesis reviews are considered confidential there, so they cannot provide them to me directly (see email below).
In a situation where, at the institution awarding the doctoral degree, the content of the dissertation review is not made available to the author of the dissertation, we recommend applying the solution described in Art. 7, section 3, point 2 of the competition rules for a similar situation, i.e. obtaining a doctoral degree at an institution that does not require a review of the dissertation. You should then attach an explanation to your application. It will also be helpful if you include the message you received from the university.
Please note that, alternatively, a review of the candidate’s chosen publication is allowed to be attached to the application.
9. Can a female researcher whose work agreement with UW expires during the programme period (for instance in 2024) apply to take part?
Pursuant to section 6 para. 3 point 1 of the Rules for the 1st competition, the researcher should be employed at the time of submitting an application form.
Pursuant to section 6 para. 4, the condition for participation in the Programme is remaining employed at UW throughout the entire period, from the date of submitting the application to the completion, which is affirmed in section 2 para. 3 point 3, which refers to loss of employment at UW among the reasons for ending one’s participation in the programme.
Simultaneously, the rules foresee a simplified procedure for restoring participation in the Programme (section 6 para. 5) in case of a participant’s loss of employment at UW.
10. Can the mentor in the programme be chosen by the researcher?
Pursuant to section 3 para. 1 point 2, the mentor will be chosen for the researchers by the organiser from among experienced employees of UW. Although there are plans to gather information from the participants concerning their preferences, there is no possibility of guaranteeing all of the participants’ expectations, including choices of particular people.
11. I would like to include a bibliography (in the research description, various publications are mentioned). Can an additional section be included in the application? Of course, I will not be able fit it within the two-page limit given for the project description; it would be an additional page that only contains a bibliography.
The application form does not provide any space for a bibliography. The candidate may not add her own section to the document templates provided in the competition announcement.
12. Is the bibliographic information counted towards the maximum text length in the Individual Research Plan?
13. Can the documents in the application under the “Programme for Young Female Researchers and Didactics” be signed electronically?
Yes, documents can be signed with a qualified signature if the signatory has one.
14. In section 8, item 7 of the Rules of 1st Competition states that the candidate must be present at the interview and the Development Centre session “conducted either in-person or online, depending on the decision of the Programme Board … I wanted to ask whether, if I were successful in the second stage of recruitment, I could participate in the said interview and session remotely. Are there specific criteria for the Programme Board to agree to remote participation?
There are no established criteria or circumstances that the Programme Board should take into account when deciding how to conduct the interview and Development Centre (DC) sessions.
The essence of the DC is the observation of the participants’ behaviour during the tasks, for some of the tasks are required to be carried out in groups. Therefore, it seems unlikely that remote participation of a female participant in exercises conducted for other female participants stationary and vice versa would be allowed.
Such objections are unlikely to arise in the case of individual interviews. However, the final decision lies with the Programme Board.
15. When are the interviews and the Development Centre session estimated to take place?
At the moment, it is difficult to determine the exact time frame, as it depends, among other things, on the number of formal deficiencies in the submitted candidate documents and the length of the first stage.
16. The phrase “1st competition” appears in the name of the competition. Is it known whether further editions will be planned? If so, approximately when?
Yes, a second edition of the competition is planned, but the date of its announcement is not yet known.
17. I do not actually have a review of the doctorate. I do, however, have reviews of a grant … that I received from … … ago. Perhaps I could submit alternatively (instead of a publication review) reviews of the grant?
Given that the rules clearly indicate which reviews will be taken into account, it is difficult to determine whether the document you are writing about will be taken into account by the Programme Board. If you decide to include this document, please include the required explanation at the same time.
- prof. dr hab. E. Bulska, Biological and Chemical Research Centre – chairperson
- prof. dr hab. P. Kulesza, Faculty of Chemistry
- prof. dr hab. J. Sujecka-Zając, Faculty of Modern Languages
- dr hab. M. Wrzosek, prof. ucz, Faculty of Biology
- dr hab. J. Choińska-Mika, prof. ucz, Faculty of History
- dr hab. K. Imbir, prof. ucz, Faculty of Psychology
- dr K. Łudzińska, Faculty of Management
- mgr J. Wąsowska, Human Resources Office – Action IV.5.2 Coordinator