Ph D Annual Reporting 2014 Annual reporting from

Ph. D Annual Reporting 2014 Annual reporting from Ph. D candidates and supervisors Faculty Ph. D programmes: Electric Power Engineering Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering Cybernetics Information Technology Mathematical Sciences Telematics Faculty of Information Technology, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology

at a glance: Ph. D Community at IME Total number of Ph. D candidates: 354

Phd Community at Departments IDI IMF ELKRAFT ITK ITEM IET 73 65 54 60 35 67

Annual Reporting by Ph. D candidates 2010 -2014

Annual Reporting by Ph. D Supervisors 2010 -2014

Academic discussions • Ph. D • Supervisors • • 11 Ph. D candidate (4%) responded that the supervision do not work satisfactorily. 35 Supervisors (10%) responded that the supervision with the candidate do not work satisfactory. • 47% of the candidates have revised their research plan within the last 12 months. PHIT PHELKT PHET PHMA PHTK PHTELE 59% 39% 42% 41% 47% 50%

PHMA PHTK PHTELE PHET (3)-(5) Reviewing industrial and social implications of the research work Exercising research with professional and ethical integrity (3)-(5) Discussions of choice of method and approach PHIT Introduction to international research partners (3)-(5) Promotion of early and frequent (if relevant) publication and participation in conferences PHELKT Direction and content of the research work (3)-(5) “In the guidance received in the past year, to what extent have you been discussing. . . ” in percentage (5) very thorough Faculty / Ph. D programs | Ph. D candidates | Supervisors | (3)–(5) Academic assessment: Guidance 89 39 84 89 88 90 93 91 87 36 83 84 84 93 91 75 78 73 57 63 80 72 51 55 60 65 27 25 19 18 26 24 12 8 17 27 80 79 53 71 79 91 54 63 75 60 71 65 46 59 77 84 36 61 53 69 69 73 57 68 79 74 29 24 43 52 84 91 68 78 83 91 69 70 76 96 83 66 55 60 82 75 69 60 73 60 82 61 64 42 79 73 55 53 60 50 IME The results, Figure 11, are based on identical questions for Ph. D candidates and supervisors and expressed by the following scale: (1) Not discussed/Not touched – (2) – (3) – (4) - (5) Very thorough.

Ph. D – Academic Assessment

Ph. D’s activity in their academic environment: - participating in the internal academic environment • Candidates: 57 candidates (20%) have a low or no activity • Supervisors: 50 candidates (17%) have no or low activity. No or low activity PHIT PHELKT PHET PHMA PHTK PHTELE Ph. D candidates 32% 14% 15% 21% 17% 14%

Ph. D’s activity in their academic environment: - participation in colloquia and discussion fora • Candidates: 126 candidates (45%) have a low or no activity (Norm every second week). • Supervisors: 78 candidates (27%) have a low or no activity No or low activity PHIT PHELKT PHET PHMA PHTK PHTELE Ph. D candidates 60% 29% 44% 43% 41% 39%

Ph. D’s activity in their academic environment: - rounds for questions and critical discussions • Candidates: 107 candidates (38%) have a low or no activity (Norm: each semester) – as presenting their work, – rounds for questions and critical discussions. • Supervisors: 72 candidates (25%) have no or low activity. No or low activity PHIT PHELKT PHET PHMA PHTK PHTELE Ph. D candidates 47% 31% 33% 47% 27% 39%

Ph. D candidates evaluation of the academic training

Ph. D education; follow up issues • Integregration and involvement – Introduction to international research partners (Obs. differs between supervisor and candidate) • Conference participation is ok • Stay abroad could be improved, better planning. – Increase interdepartment activities • Colloquia • Presentation and discussion of candidates work • Our research in a “societal” context? – – Contact with "users" of research results? Industrial and social implications Increased awareness of ethical issues [Cf. Requirments for ITN (Innovative Training networks)] • Academic training; no urgent issues

Follow up from the Ph. D programmes • PHIT – – • PHTK – – – • – – – PHET – – • The Faculty should discuss whether a tour at the faculty for new employees should be arranged for, i. e. a few hours where they will tour the faculty and departments. At the Department we will better facilitate the venues where students can present and discuss their research. Establish research meetings at the department every week or every second month. PHELKT – • Introduction and running the compulsory mid-term evaluation of Ph. D-student works on a regular basis Analysis of reported ethical issues and reasons they appear Promoting Ph. D students for collaborative work with Norwegian and international partners and institutions from early stages in studies PHTELE – • Welcome package, i. e. guidance and training, and integrated to the information “package” by IME. Improved arrangements for supervising Ph. D students with a lack of progress, If possible focus on proactive measures, not just reactive. Communication between candidate and supervisor could be improved • The supervisors reports more frequent academic discussions than the candidate does. • The department reports significantly lower frequency of supervisor discussions than the other departments. Low reporting by candidates (70 %) and supervisors (86 %) Ph. D admission rate is decreasing. • 1(!) new candidate in 2013 High internal activity on academic discussions High quality and relevance of the Ph. D academic training We will have special focus on cases where the candidate and or supervisor feels that the supervision does not work satisfactory, and the Department of Electronics and Telecommunications have initiated dialogue with the candidates. We will also discuss at the leadergroup how to ensure good routines for good Ph. D training, including how to motivate the professors to take part in the Ph. D supervision seminars arranged by the IME faculty. PHMA – – The Department administration follows closely the fulfillment of Ph. D program. This is done both at the Department level as well as within each research group through seminar activities, formal and informal conversations etc. We also maintain our own database which contains detailed information regarding the progress of each Ph. D student. The surveys provide us with aggregated information which in a sense is complementary to personal information which contains in the database, in particular it allows to follow the statistics in a way unified for the whole IME and thus gives possibility to compare Ph. D program in all IME units. Some reports are also useful since (in some rare cases) they serve as "warning bells" and also may give formal motivations for administrative actions if need be.