24
1 CLCG Evaluation 2004 Center for Language and Cognition, Groningen Faculty of Arts 1998-2003 John Nerbonne

CLCG Evaluation 2004

  • Upload
    phila

  • View
    38

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Center for Language and Cognition, Groningen Faculty of Arts 1998-2003 John Nerbonne. CLCG Evaluation 2004. Institute's Goals in Review. Present institutional ecology Understand past successes, failures Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: CLCG Evaluation 2004

1

CLCG Evaluation 2004

Center for Language and Cognition, GroningenFaculty of Arts

1998-2003

John Nerbonne

Page 2: CLCG Evaluation 2004

2

Institute's Goals in Review

● Present institutional ecology● Understand past successes, failures● Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

threats● Formulate strategy as background to research

program 2004-2008

Page 3: CLCG Evaluation 2004

3

Objectives of Evaluation

● Scores on scale 1-5 on quality, quantity, relevance and viability.– for CLCG and for each research group in CLCG

● Peer Review Committee’s reflections on linguistic research in Groningen, ways to improve

● 10-12 pp. report

Page 4: CLCG Evaluation 2004

4

CLCG

● Linguistics Research Institute, Faculty of Arts– ~ 55 staff members, 1/3 research appt. on ave.– ~ 9.4 postdocs, 100% research– ~ 25 grad. stud., 80% research

● Seven research groups responsible for meetings, strategy in grants, reporting.

● Advisory Board, chaired by Kees de Bot

Page 5: CLCG Evaluation 2004

5

Faculty of Arts● Guarantees 30% research time for ass’t profs,

40% for assoc. and full prof.● ~1,000 Euro/researcher/year travel, conf. costs● Provides 10 Ph.D. positions per year (90%)● Identifies vacancies based (almost) only on

student numbers (exception: “Kleine Letteren”).● 60-70% teaching means 6-7 full semester courses

per year. (Full course = 1/3 of student schedule)

Page 6: CLCG Evaluation 2004

6

Dutch Research: Institutes vs. “Schools”● Institutes (CLCG) -- faculty research org.

– Oversee research time allotment, local funds– Hiring, promotion staff members

● Schools are supra-faculty, even national– Provide graduate training courses– Facilitate contacts between faculties, universities– LOT (national Linguistics school)– BCN (Groningen Neuroscience)

Page 7: CLCG Evaluation 2004

7

Membership Requirements● CLCG

– Ph.D. Linguistics, position w. research time– min. 1 scientific publication/year/0.3 research time

● reviewed every three years● LOT (National Linguistics School)

– Institute Membership● BCN (Groningen Neuroscience)

– Institute Membership, 2 publications/year with neuroscientific relevance

Page 8: CLCG Evaluation 2004

8

CLCG Advisory Board

● Group leaders plus all full professors● Two meetings per year

– Wide-ranging agendas (graduate student selection, reaction to faculty research policy proposals)

● Effective in identifying research preferences for positions (given an instructional need).

Page 9: CLCG Evaluation 2004

9

TABU Dag, Colloquia

● TABU -Groningen linguistics on show, some outside speakers to attract participants– Approx. 30-35 half-hour talks– First free Friday in June

● Colloquia– Weekly 30+ times/years– Wide range of speakers

Page 10: CLCG Evaluation 2004

10

Institute's Goals in Review

● Present institutional ecology● Understand past successes, failures● Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

threats● Formulate strategy as background to research

program 2004-2008

Page 11: CLCG Evaluation 2004

11

CLCG Research Groups: Subdisciplines

• PP Phonetics/Phonology Dicky Gilbers

• SS Syntax/Semantics Jan Koster

• DH Descriptive/Historical Peter Houtzagers

• DC Discourse/Communication Gisela Redeker

• CL Computational Gertjan van Noord

• Ed Educational Kees de Glopper

• NL Neurolinguistics Roelien Bastiaanse

Page 12: CLCG Evaluation 2004

12

Groups

● Each group will present– Scientific impact, ongoing work & plans, views on

what’s needed● Four research groups have regular meetings, two

have sporadic meetings – Meetings helpful to graduate students (current

literature, try-outs of presentations)

Page 13: CLCG Evaluation 2004

13

Staffing

PP SS DC DH CL Ed. NL Tot.

Staff 1.5 5.3 2.4 4.8 1.3 1.9 2.7 19.8

Proj. 2.4 4.3 1.5 2.4 8.0 1.4 9.8 29.7

Tot. 3.9 9.6 3.9 7.2 9.3 3.3 12.5 49.5

All figures in fte researchers/yr., where staff are parttime research. See A.4

Page 14: CLCG Evaluation 2004

14

Ph.D. Projects InitiatedPP SS DC DH CL Ed. NL Tot

Internal 2.5 2 1 2 3 2 4.5 17

Matching - 1 0 - 2 1 2 6

External 1 1 0 1.5 5.5 - 3 12

Staff 1.5 5.3 2.4 4.8 1.3 1.9 2.7 19.8

-See p.8, tbl. 2-Internal tracks sum of (Matching + External) except for CL-Internal projects awarded based on candidate quality

-NL attracts most high-quality applicants (EMCL)-Change under consideration:

-Restrict awards to groups w. regular meetings OR-Awards based on program quality

Page 15: CLCG Evaluation 2004

15

Ph.D. Supervision● Supervisor, intended “promotor”, group meetings

– Courses through BCN, LOT, ESSLLI, LSA, ELSNET– Jack Hoeksema (Dir. Studies) on integration w. research MA

● First year report – 25 pp., def. research question, pilot study, replication– No projects stopped, but several conditional passes

● Over 90% completion, but ave. 5.5 yr. + – 2 D&H projects not completed, most too long

● Need improvement everywhere on timely completion

Page 16: CLCG Evaluation 2004

16

Ph.D. PlacementPP SS DC DH CL Ed NL Tot

Univ. Faculty 1 3 - 1 - 2 1 8

Other Research - - - - 5 1 7 13

Other Science/Ed. - 2 1 3 - - 1 7

Elsewhere - 1 - 1 1 - - 3

Unemployed 1 1 - 1 - - - 3

Total 2 7 1 6 6 3 9 34

See B.5 in group sections (added by CLCG)

Page 17: CLCG Evaluation 2004

17

Scholarly ProductionPP SS DC DH CL Ed. NL Tot

Journal Articles 13 106 13 49 33 39 62 315

Book Chapters 37 104 39 122 96 42 43 483

Monographs & Dissertations

1 8 3 13 7 3 9 44

Staff positions 1.5 5.3 2.4 4.8 1.3 1.9 2.7 19.8

Total FTE 23.3 57.6 23.0 43.3 55.4 19.7 74.6 296.7

Art&Chap/Staff/yr 5.5 6.6 3.6 6.0 16.5 7.1 6.4 6.7

Art&Chap/FTE-yr 2.1 3.6 2.3 3.9 2.3 4.1 1.4 2.7

- See B.9, Tbl. 6 in group sections

Page 18: CLCG Evaluation 2004

18

Project Acquisition

PP SS DC DH CL Ed. NL Tot

Grad.Stud. (years) 4 6 - 6 26 2 16 60

Postdoc (years) - 13 1 - 13 2 17 46

Staff 1.5 5.3 2.4 4.8 1.3 1.9 2.7 19.8

See p.8, Tbl.2. Grad. student projects are four years, “matching” counts ½. See p. 13 Table. Added by CLCG.

Page 19: CLCG Evaluation 2004

19

Institute's Goals in Review

● Present institutional ecology● Understand past successes, failures● Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

threats● Formulate strategy as background to research

program 2004-2008

Page 20: CLCG Evaluation 2004

20

Strengths & Weaknesses

• Many linguists• Guaranteed research• Neurolinguistics,

Comp.Linguistics, Syntax & Semantics, Educ. Linguistics

• 400K contract research (Ed.Ling.)

• Declining stud. interest• Little influence on

identifying vacancies.• Demanding instruction

saps staff energies• Limited graduate

student support.• Some inactive groups

Page 21: CLCG Evaluation 2004

21

Opportunities & Threats

● Opportunity: – very popular communications study – the only linguistics area growing in popularity

● Threats: – little expertise in phonetics/instrumental phonology– 11% drop in linguistic positions since 1997

Page 22: CLCG Evaluation 2004

22

Institute's Goals in Review

● Present institutional ecology● Understand past successes, failures● Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,

threats● Formulate strategy as background to research

program 2004-2008

Page 23: CLCG Evaluation 2004

23

Institutional Strategy

● Given reliance on external funds, stimulate CLCG members to seek outside funding.

● Require regular research meetings of groups seeking graduate students

● Strategic research foci: see group reports, but emphasize common projects.

Page 24: CLCG Evaluation 2004

24

Corrections to Report● p.8 “[…] research time was allotted in a way dependent for 80%

on student numbers …” => “[…] staffing levels were determined in a way dependent for 80% on student numbers…”

● p.12 table, only 2 not 3 of these Ph.D. projects were incomplete (both from Descriptive & Historical Linguistics)