Posted by In today’s blog post, we will present another portion of the results of the research we obtained in the Dialog 2022 project. The research focused on the competencies of the research and support staff of Polish research universities. Our book is still available at the bookstore of the University of Silesia in Katowice:
https://wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/node/27063
This time we will present an excerpt from the results of the research on the social competencies of research and support staff. Their composition is shown in the title graphic of this post, included above.
It should be noted that in the theoretical model – prepared during the evaluation of competent judges – three interpersonal competencies were included in the profiles for both groups studied, i.e., research cadres and support cadres. These are: (1) building relationships, (2) collaboration, and (3) sharing knowledge and experiences.
Based on the results, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, it is worth describing the competence of relationship building. This competence was assessed by the self-assessment subjects and their superiors at a lower level than was specified in the theoretical model (i.e., the level desired in the competence profiles for the type of position) based on the evaluation of the competence judges. Admittedly, only in the case of the level for the position of assistant professor can one formally speak of a competence gap, but one can see a tendency in the respondents to perceive this competence at a lower level than assumed in the competence model.
Secondly, the averaged result of the respondents’ self-assessment and the supervisor’s assessment in the case of the three profiles that contain the competence of cooperation indicates that the survey participants perceive the level of development of this competence at a good level (even slightly above), and in the case of the results for the group of university professors almost expert, which reflects the assumed levels in the competence model. This desirable and rather optimistic result, however, is juxtaposed with the answers to the four questions posed to representatives of research staff in the course of the survey.
Third, the results for the competency of sharing knowledge and experience should also be discussed. In the case of experts, representing support staff, the average score (taking into account the survey participants’ self-assessment and the supervisor’s assessment) for this competence obtained in the survey was higher than the desired level in the competence model. Experts scored this competency at a higher level than the competency model assumes. In contrast, the average score (taking into account the self-assessment and supervisor’s evaluation) for this competency in the research staff participating in the survey was significantly lower than assumed in the model.
These are just a selection of the findings of our study. To learn more about the results, see our book, Competencies of Research University Employees in Poland.