Community Research and Development Information Service - CORDIS

FP7

PIPERS Report Summary

Project ID: 643330
Funded under: FP7-COH
Country: United Kingdom

Final Report Summary - PIPERS (Policy into Practice: EURAXESS Researcher Skills for Career Development)

Executive Summary:
The PIPERS project, led by the British Council along with 5 partners and 17 associated Third Parties from both the EURAXESS Service Network and other academic and non-academic stakeholders from across Europe, aimed to support researcher career development.

The project focused on capacity building within the EURAXESS Network to support researchers in the proactive development of their career paths through the provision of tools and trainings, selected and developed in the framework of stakeholder engagement and dialogue. The development of an on-line self-assessment tool enables researchers to undertake self-assessment and thus become truly proactive in their professional development.

The online tool forms a key aspect of the project’s plan for sustainability. Researchers will be able to set personal targets and demonstrate evidence of achievements based on knowledge and behaviours which will help them navigate complex research careers, both within academia and industry as well as develop skills such as leadership, entrepreneurship, working with industry, public engagement, information literacy and IPR to help them to maximise the impact of their research. It will enable researchers from all over Europe to explore their career motivations and expertise, and plan their next steps. It will also play a key role in signposting other resources and will invite researchers to discuss their career development plans widely with colleagues.

The projects’ recommendations and operational conclusions will be used as a starting point for the compilation of a tool kit for the Career Development Model developed through EURAXESS TOP III, as well as ensuring optimal cross-over between the two projects to support complementarity of effort and outputs. The coordination with other EURAXESS and SGHRM members will ensure that the relevance and utility of the resources and tools produced through the project are maximized and that there is a common understanding of how they can be used to support researcher career development across Europe. This will guarantee continuity beyond the lifetime of the project, through on-going EURAXESS activities.
The project identified and cascaded existing good practice and training resources from the EURAXESS Service Networks and the wider research community, developed new tools to support proactive management of researcher career paths and provided a sustainable way of disseminating these across the Network.

The policy dialogue with key stakeholders and groups representing researchers’ interests produced a set of recommendations on how to foster professional development and identified good practices through policy case studies that should provide documentary support for any EURAXESS members planning their researcher career development actions.

The project collated, reviewed and refined training resources, which were available throughout the EU and exchanged good practices with the aim to develop workshop training programmes. The training programmes were tested at nine train the trainer workshops organised for researcher career development staff from EURAXESS Service Network institutions and at five demonstration workshops with researchers. Feedback was collected that provided direction for further improvement of the training programmes and resources. The trainers trained at the project workshops cascaded the training workshops and disseminated the identified good practice more widely and will continue act as multipliers in the future, which is aligned with the Euraxess prospect for provision of RCD services.

Project Context and Objectives:
21st century researchers need 21st century skills – not just research specific skills but those that help them navigate and contribute to a global knowledge economy.

The establishment of strong knowledge economies is crucial for sustainable and prosperous futures for all. It is critical that Europe establishes world-leading research and innovation capacity, built on a strong public science base, to help achieve lasting economic recovery and secure its position in the new world order. In order to do this, Europe must train, attract and retain a sufficient talent pool of researchers and innovators, and support their mobility across Europe and across academic and industry sectors, enabling free movement of talent and ideas. It has been shown that mobile researchers are more productive and that collaboratively produced research has a greater impact and reach, and so supporting mobility and collaboration across Europe helps to build it as a leading knowledge economy.

The European Research Area (ERA) priorities, as set out in the ERA communication include: more effective national research systems; optimal transnational co-operation and competition; optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge including via digital ERA; gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research; and an open labour market for researchers. The latter includes the removal of barriers to researcher mobility, training, and attractive careers, and progress has been made on this following the European Partnership for Researchers which set out to: systematically open recruitment; meet the social security and supplementary pensions needs of mobile researchers; provide attractive employment and working conditions; and enhance the training, skills and experience of researchers.

A key instrument of this over the past ten years has been the EURAXESS Initiative, which through its four strands of Jobs, Services, Rights and Links, has promoted and supported the mobility of researchers; championed the rights of researchers through the European Charter for Researchers and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers; recognised institutions which support researchers’ careers and working conditions through the HR excellence in research recognition; and connected Europe with researchers working in key countries globally with an existing or growing research capacity. As it moves forward into the next phase under Horizon 2020, EURAXESS falls under the Science with and for Society programme and will further develop its activities in order to support all researchers in Europe, including the career development of non-mobile researchers. As the EURAXESS initiative spans 40 countries, and has more than 200 services centres it can be a powerful tool for building and maintaining a strong talent pool of researchers who have the transferable skills necessary for careers both within and outside academia, who are empowered to be responsible for their own career development, and knowledgeable about the tools available to support them in this.

A considerable amount of work on researchers’ careers has been done by a number of groups and organisations, such as the League of European Research Universities (LERU), European Science Foundation, Science Europe, and the ERA Steering Group for Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM), and these have pointed to a number of barriers, including ‘human resources policies which result in poor career prospects for young researchers, inadequate gender equality practices, social security obstacles and insufficient academia-business mobility with only one in six researchers in academia having experience in the private sector’. There is also a problem with a lack of transparency in career structures, with early career researchers having to navigate a confusing array of research opportunities without comparable career progression pathways across different countries. A step towards this has been made through the proposal for a European framework for research careers which sets out the profile of experience, knowledge, competencies and skills that would be expected of researchers at four different stages of their career. This framework can be useful in supporting researchers to develop their career plan over the longer term, think about what is expected of them at each stage, and plan professional development accordingly.

The project addressed those objectives listed in the DoW:
Policy-level discussion and identification of good practice (WP 2)
Policy dialogue with employer stakeholders and groups representing researchers’ interests and identification of good practice through policy case studies.
Selection of resources and workshop preparation (WP 3)
Identification and exchange of good practice and training resources and the development of workshop training programmes.
Delivery of training workshops (WP 4)
Nine train the trainer workshops were organised for researcher career development staff from the EURAXESS Service Network institutions who will act as multipliers to disseminate the identified good practice more widely and five demonstration workshops with researchers, which tested and provided feedback on training resources.
Development and testing of tools to support researcher career development (WP 5)
Development and testing of a self-assessment tool for researchers and development of an e-platform, which ensured that the good practice, resources and self-assessment tool are easily available to as wide a range of researcher career development staff and researchers as possible.

Project Results:

3.1 Overview
4. The PIPERS project started with a literature review in a parallel with research on policy and collecting case studies, which fed into a high level policy discussion workshop that took place in Madrid 2015.
5. Training materials for training programmes were developed via a process of identification of existing resources, collation and shortlisting. In-depth quality-assurance was carried out on four training resources. Following QA criteria and recommendations, six of the training materials were improved and a Guide to running a training course was developed. This process was again subject to a QA to ensure the set quality standards and requirements of the project were met. The training programmes were tested at nine train the trainer workshops, organised for researcher career development staff from EURAXESS Service Network institutions and at five demonstration workshops with researchers. The trainers trained at the project workshops cascaded the training workshops and disseminated the identified good practice more widely and will continue act as multipliers in the future. The project developed an online Career orientation tool and online resources in support of career development for researchers.

The key achievements of the project include:
1. Researchers can have access to online tools and resources to support their ongoing professional development and research career pathways. Researchers can self-assess their skills and capabilities, and use this to plan a career pathway and articulate relevant knowledge and attributes during recruitment.
2. The project exceed the planned deliverables by developing training materials specially oriented to researchers, which were which were Quality Assured by Vitae. In addition, the project developed Guide to Run Training Courses to be used by multipliers as a self-access manual, to be made available online. This tool will be reviewed regularly, and complemented with more specific provisions after consultation with stakeholders.
3. Researchers as primary beneficiaries have improved skills in the following areas: managing a research career and self-assessment; professional development; leadership skills; interdisciplinary working; entrepreneurial skills; project management, team working; working with industry; IPR issues; information literacy and public engagement.
4. Multipliers (research support staff, careers advisers) were trained in delivering skills training in all the areas above, plus career development advice, and were given access to quality assured, free to use, materials and web resources.
5. Examples of best practice were shared across Member States and institutions have access to guidelines to support the professional development of researchers.
6. Through the training mentioned above and with involvement by industry stakeholders, researchers are equipped with skill sets which enable them to move more easily from academia to industry.
7. The involvement of industry stakeholders in the External Advisory Board, the recruitment of workshops trainers with industry experience and engagement of participants from the industry sector in policy debates ensured that industry needs in terms of skills are reflected in the trainings and e-platform.
8. Stakeholders from academia are more aware of the skills that researchers need to make the transition to industry.
9. Research institutions are informed by policy guidelines and good practice examples which support academia-industry mobility.
10. EURAXESS Service centre staff are able to deliver skills training and career development advice to researchers (mobile and non-mobile).
11. EURAXESS Service centre staff can learn from best practice examples of researcher support, and use these to deliver and advocate for improved researcher support within their institutions.
12. The PIPERS project offered significant visibility to the whole EURAXESS initiative across EUROPE and contributed to enhance EURAXESS as brand among researchers and other stakeholders in Europe.

Impact of the project:
• Researchers can identify their skills and capabilities, set personal targets, and plan their professional development.
• Researcher mobility between academia and industry is made easier.
• EURAXESS is recognised by other stakeholders as an initiative providing support for the career development of researchers.
• The policy actions have helped other organisations/initiatives to become aware of the “new” services EURAXESS can provide e.g. PIPERS train the trainers workshops were mentioned as a good practice in the report of last year’s WG on inter-sectorial mobility of the SGHRM report.
• The support offered by the EURAXESS Services network has an increased focus on career development of researchers, and is offered to mobile and non-mobile researchers.
• The audience reached via the project was as follows:
Engagement with Face to Face audiences Numbers
Participants at kick off and Final events (Durham and Thessaloniki) 50
Participants at Policy Workshops (Madrid and Sofia) 50
Participants at training workshops 671
Total number of participants 771
5.1 WP 1

5.1.1 Activities
WP 1 includes three tasks as follows:
1. Project management and coordination
2. Project Monitoring and Evaluation
3. Project Promotion
WP1 includes 7 deliverables in total, which have been addressed in the following way:
D1.1 The Project PIPERS kick off took place in Durham, UK. The meeting provided an opportunity to generate and exchange ideas between project partners, associate external stakeholders and third party consultants.

Following the kick off meeting, there were extensive communications via emails and Skype calls, and also five face to face project meetings - Heraklion conference, April 2015; Budapest kick off of TOP III, September 2015; Brussels BHO, November 2015 (see details in Annex 2); the Final Project meeting, in Thessaloniki, in September 2016 and an Interim teleconference meeting, (D1.4) in October 2015.
Two of the meetings were organised back to back with Euraxess BHO conferences, which saved resources for the project. Those meetings provided forum for very important discussions engaging wider audiences with significant associated impact for WP3 and 5. At the Final Project meeting (D1.5), organised back to back with TOP III project meeting, the project was presented to TOP III, REFLEX and EURAXIND projects’ participants and shared achievements, experience and outcomes. This meeting identified areas of collaboration with other initiatives and established close cooperation with projects related to EURAXESS Career Development and EURAXESS outreach to industry.

D1.2 Project promotion
The aims and objectives of the project were promoted by all partners throughout the two year period at national, European and international research events as well as on the EURAXESS websites at both national and European levels. Priority was given to virtual/on-line promotional material. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qebi69zs7csty9v/AAADyEdBoenyxXkRdhetOcmsa?dl=0

D1.3 The External Advisory Group was set up for the PIPERS project including the Project Coordinator and three external stakeholders representing the academic and non-academic sectors. The exact remit of the External Advisory Group was agreed amongst partners at the PIPERS kick-off meeting. The external experts were selected based on their experience in the area of researcher careers and mobility - Javier Lopez Martinez, General Director, Fundación Barrié, Dr Diana Beech as representative of the Voice of Researchers, Dr Conor O'Carroll - EC Steering Group for Human Resources and Mobility.

D1.6 The submission of deliverables and reports and management and co-ordination of the project had impact on all WPs and was overseen by BC.

D1.7 Project Monitoring and Evaluation
The external evaluation subcontractor was identified via transparent tender process, which was launched in September 2015 in an open announcement.
The sub-contractor conducted primary research to design methodology, carried out research and analysed data collected from a sample of stakeholders and compared the results against proposed project outcomes.
The external evaluation included an evaluation of the impact of the PIPERS project against its purpose, outcomes and stated success indicators, evaluation of the impact of the 9 train the trainers workshops and 5 demonstration workshop with researchers, and a final recommendations report on further development of the project outputs: covering both the e-self-assessment tool and training materials.

Statement on the use of resources
The BC led on the programme development and coordination of all project meetings; subcontracting relationships and collaborations with third parties and other partnership projects. This included content development of the respective events and logistical support to each individual participant as well as being responsible for monitoring the implementation of the follow up action plans. This process ensured that the logistical expenses were well managed and quality standards were achieved with best value for money spending. Therefore there was a substantial saving against the BC led workshops’ planned budget. Upon approval by the EC, WP4 funds were re-allocated to WP3 for QA assurance and training materials development. This additional activity responded to the need and demand for adapting the training materials to the standards set up in the project QA criteria specification, and placed more focus on content objectives. It also allowed all mid-term recommendations to be actioned within the timeline of the project, which reinforced the high-level objectives of the programme. The subcontracted activities led by the BC ensured that adequate ToRs and briefings were provided to trainers and the external evaluator.

British Council’s re-allocation of resources: The budget of 2000 euros allocated to British Council for the final audit certificate report, was re-allocated upon approval by the EC, to Other costs (travel and subsistence), to cover the following activities:
• The participation by 2 members (Svetlana Dimitrova, Sofia University and Sally Goodman, British Council) of the PIPERS team at the REFLEX project kick off meeting. The total actual cost of that activity was 880 EURO.
• Project planning and hand over meeting, Brussels, 30-31 October 2014. The meeting was attended by Krassimira Tantcheva, Project Coordinator, Sally Goodman, Project Manager and PIPERS proposal coordinator, Gaëlle Croisier, EU Affairs Manager, EU Office and Claire McNulty, Director Science. The objectives of the meeting were to hand over and plan the overall project management and to pay a visit at the EC Project Manager’s office. The actual total cost of the activity was 826 Euro.
• The participation of Gaëlle Croisier, EU Affairs Manager, EU Office at the PIPERS Kick-off meeting. The objective of her participation was to support the financial management of the project and to ensure smooth transition from proposal to the implementation stage. The actual cost of the activity was 260 Euro.

5.1.2 Scientific and Technical Results
The recommendations and conclusions of the external evaluation report will help to maximise the use of projects results by contributing to building and elaborating on strategies and policies in career development and will ensure optimal interaction and linkages with other Euraxess projects. The participants were invited to be as critical as possible in their feedback. The project organisers emphasised the significance of it to follow-on projects and the contribution it will make in improving the EURAXESS Career Development offer.
The project promotional activities raised awareness and recognition of the socio-economic relevance of researchers career development, potentially leading to increased commitment and funding thereof.
The collaboration with other projects helped to find synergies and specific recommendations were formulated to feed into the implementation of and informed the development of tools under EURAXESS TOP III.

5.1.3 Impact on other WPs
The BC, in the capacity of project coordinator, provided active support to all partners to ensure they were engaged and motivated to contribute effectively. The BC communicated in the most positive manner difficult situations in order to achieve the project objectives. This included monitoring of potential risks and where identified assisting partners to achieve successful outcomes. There were efficient and effective communications on a regular basis to share progress, identify and resolve risk areas by proposing alternative solutions,, which kept the project smoothly running. In the implementation of the project, the partners were encountered by unexpected issues and unavoidable barriers, which required additional time to meet the objectives of the project and to reach the desired impact. One of risks identified was meeting the deliverables’ deadlines; therefore the BC initiated a request for non-financial extension of the project and obtained approval from the EC. The request was based on the following objectives:
WP4 Delivery of training workshops
The main objective of this work package was the successful delivery of a series of ‘train the trainer’ workshops aimed at researcher career development staff and associated demonstration workshops aimed at researchers.
Expected Impact - The support offered by the EURAXESS Services network has an increased focus on career development of researchers, and is offered to mobile and non-mobile researchers.
Issue – The workshops calendar ran from October 2015 to March 2016. The cascading trainings to be delivered by the multipliers, (career development staff) trained at the workshops, were to be planned, prepared and organised from September to December 2016 in line with the academic calendar at the universities. The longer term impact of behavioural change and integration of content at a local level after the earliest workshops had to be measured in the period of November - December 2016 and had to be included in the external evaluation report.
WP3 Selection of resources and workshop preparation
The key objective of this Work Package was to identify, select and adapt quality-controlled training tools, resources and best practice in researcher career and skills development.
Expected impact - Researcher mobility between academia and industry is made easier, lowering the dropout rate from within the research profession
Issue –The delay in the collection of resources resulted in an associated delay in the Quality Assurance of the training materials and subsequently there was a delay in the built-in modules on the platform. However, the extension of the project timeline provided opportunity for additional work on the elaboration of six training materials in addition to the planned deliverables.

5.2 WP2
5.2.1 Activities
WP 2 includes three tasks as follows:
1. Compilation and follow-up of policy documents and developments in support of researcher career development
2. High-level policy discussion
3. Selection of policy resources to support and disseminate to the EURAXESS Network of Service Centres
Researcher career development (RCD) is a core element for the establishment of the European Research Area (ERA). It is a key issue for many national and international science-related organisations, and many initiatives are currently in place or are being planned to support researchers in this sense. This task builds upon the liaison with the Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) working group of 2014 on Professional Development of Researchers which looked into the existing on-line tools for researcher career planning and development as a possible step towards a common European Researcher Development Framework. It also followed other relevant policy actions from European organisations like Science Europe (whose current Roadmap includes research careers as one of their priority action areas) or the European Science Foundation (which has addressed a number of policy issues around researcher careers, including career tracking), in order to identify relevant policy actions supporting researcher career development. This desk work was further complemented by a scientific literature review, all aimed at providing policy support to EURAXESS members wishing to get involved in career development support for researchers.
FECYT lead the preparation and dissemination of the several policy reports for EURAXESS members addressing recommendations for stakeholders, good practices and measuring impact of RCD actions. UDUR undertook the research work for the literature review and produced the report. BC coordinated all actions and organised the policy and practice debate with researchers from the project’s focus group. Finally, Vitae provided a significant support across the entire task thanks to their long-term expertise in RCD in general, and in researcher competency frameworks in particular.

5.2.2 Scientific and Technical Results
WP2 includes 7 deliverables in total, which have been addressed the following way:
D2.1 Literature review:
As explained during the mid-term report, a first draft of the literature review was prepared at an early stage of the project to guide the work within the task upon launching the project, although the final literature review was made available in June 2016 and includes a comprehensive collection of references addressing a wide range of issues concerning mobile researchers’ career development, across various disciplines and all career stages. It covered the higher education context in regions worldwide, including United Kingdom, Asia, North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. In total, 208 references (Asia: 22; Australia and New Zealand: 19; Europe: 69; North America: 32; UK: 66) have been identified as focusing on the career development of mobile researchers in the global context. The references are listed in alphabetical order and in two chapters, Core Readings (12 references) and Regional Readings. These references include research projects, literature-based studies and theoretical debates in the form of reports, books, journal articles, PhD theses and conference papers. It covers all levels of researchers including doctorate candidates (postgraduate research students), post-docs, lecturers, senior lecturers and professors. The key targeted area for literature search was Europe, due to the focus of the PIPERS project. However, popular hubs attracting international mobile researchers such as America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are also included. Some searches were conducted for literature from Asian countries.
The literature review was thus conducted over a total of 5 months (at one day per week) from April 2015 to May 2015 and from October 2015 to January 2016. The literature search was performed completely on-line using sources such as Google Scholar, as well as several databases in the field of Education such as ArticleFirst, ERIC, First Search and Web of Science. Considering the length of time available for this task, the project researcher searched for references published since 2008, also because it seems that academic mobility started attracting significantly more attention from around that time.
In order to ensure extensive coverage of the issues concerning mobile researchers’ career development, the project researcher adopted the approach of identifying publications not only directly dealing with mobile researchers’ career development, but also those dealing with researchers’ international mobility experiences overall. Considering the above, the key words used for literature search were, international researchers, international academics, international post-docs, international PhDs, international research students, mobile researchers, international mobile researchers, researcher mobility, foreign mobile researchers, mobile researcher employment, mobile researcher career, mobile researcher jobs, researcher career development, academics career development.

A special effort has been made to ensure the Core Reading list includes references that contain variety of key issues regarding mobile researchers’ career development from different regional perspectives within the global context. The core readings have been identified based on following criteria:
• Nature of the study (empirical research or theoretical paper)
• Time of the study (how recent is the study, esp. if evidence-based)
• Location of the study (is it worldwide? Or is it focused on any particular country or region?)
• Scale of the study (number of participants involved)
• Target of the study (who is being investigated)
• Issues investigated (what the study wants to find out, what questions the study set out to answer)
• Contribution to the knowledge (originality of the study and how much it can add to the existing knowledge on mobile researchers’ career development in the global context)

Key findings are:
• There has been a steady increase in the number of doctoral degrees being awarded across the OECD, rising by 38% from 154 000 new doctoral graduates in 2000 to 213 000 in 2009.
• Despite the growing supply of doctorates, the available evidence points to a sustained (possibly increasing) labour market premium on individuals holding doctoral qualifications, relative to other highly qualified individuals.
• Although female and younger doctorate holders fare relatively worse in terms of employment rates than their older and male counterparts, these biases are less marked for doctorate holders than for individuals with lower levels of educational attainment.
• Employment rates for recent doctorates are also high, but figures for 2009 still do not account for the wave of fiscal adjustment in many countries and its potential impact on the public funding of R&D. Temporary positions are increasingly common in the academic sector, but less so in business.
• Although the higher education sector is the main sector of employment for doctorates, demand for doctorates is apparent across other sectors of the economy. The take up of jobs outside higher education is often, but not necessarily, related to take-up of non-research occupations.
• Natural scientists and engineers are more likely to be engaged in research while social scientists find more opportunities in non-research occupations.
• Job mobility patterns differ markedly across countries but mobility is more frequent among doctorates not working in research. Very few countries have more mobility from the higher education to the business sector than vice versa.
• International mobility is a widespread and increasingly important phenomenon, although less common than it might be assumed for researchers.
• Even when not in research, jobs are in most cases related to the subject of doctoral degrees and doctoral graduates are satisfied with their employment situation. A wide range of monetary and non-pecuniary factors contribute to explaining the reported attractiveness of research careers. Satisfaction levels on aspects other than pay are particularly high for individuals working in research.

D2.2 Policy workshop with stakeholders/employers
In July 2015 FECYT organized in Madrid a high-level policy workshop bringing together representatives of different organizations with expertise in researcher career development. This meeting was used to discuss and produce a number of policy recommendations for the different levels of stakeholders involved in RCD (European Commission, Member States, research funding organisations, research performing organisations, researchers themselves, and of course, the EURAXESS network). An extended explanation of the recommendations can be found in the report, but can be summarized as follows:
For the European Commission (EC):
• Gather and share data on researcher careers to support evidence-based Policy making
• Develop a researcher career development roadmap for EUROPE (covering R1-R4 researchers)
• Develop a European researcher development framework (RDF)
• Support the uptake of researcher career development awareness through HORIZON2020

For Member States and Research Funding Organisations (RFOs):
• Endorse and commit resources to researcher career development
• Improve researchers careers in all its aspects
• Reflect on the current researchers evaluation systems

For Research Performing Organisations (RPOs):
• Develop researcher career development strategies
• Contribute to the reflection on current research evaluation systems
• Contribute to and use the European Research Development framework with autonomy

For researchers:
• Actively support and request more flexible and harmonised research performance evaluation systems
• Actively participate in decision making bodies of their institutions
• Support the uptake of mentoring activities as a key guidance on researcher career development for young researchers

For EURAXESS:
• Become one of the communication bridges between different stakeholders in researcher career development
• Become an open on-line platform for data and projects of researcher career development and to disseminate information to other stakeholders
• Continue to explore the role of EURAXESS in RCD support in Europe within PIPERS, REFLEX and TOP III and to ensure a connection between the projects

These recommendations have been disseminated and used extensively throughout the project duration, in particular to trigger discussion around the involvement of EURAXESS in RCD support.

D2.3 Set of good practice policy case studies
This deliverable includes a selection of good policy examples of supporting RCD, which together with some extra desk research elaborated on the state of the art of researcher professional development in some members and non-member states countries, including the implications to different levels of stakeholders (international organizations, national governments, regional bodies, institutions, etc.).
The report highlights the trends in, and diversity of policies supporting researcher professional development. Through sharing good practices, and fostering collaboration between the Service Centres and other relevant stakeholders, the information will be distributed across the EURAXESS network. Thus, the aim was to provide a general overview of the current state of policies in support of researcher career development around the world, and identify different models which might be transposable to other institutions. This will be useful for institutions and other stakeholders currently developing their own strategies.
In total almost 50 references are compiled in the document from more than 25 organizations across more than 15 countries. Priority was given to ongoing policies and actions with further accessible on-line content.

D2.4 Impact study of the selected policy developments / case studies
In the same spirit as the previous deliverable, this one focused on measuring the impact of RCD actions, follows the project’s core objective of enabling EURAXESS service centres to support researcher career development.

Specifically, this report is the next step of the process after sharing good practices and focuses on the impact of researcher career development initiatives, by attempting to highlight for EURAXESS members the importance of taking into account the measurement of impact when implementing any researcher career or professional development initiative. In this sense, the report draws three key conclusions:
• Most efforts for measuring the impact of researcher career development activities focus on the immediate individual output following the activities.
• This is so because measuring the impact of research career development activities can become very complex and time consuming, especially when looking for medium and long-term effects.
• To make a good impact assessment there is a need for having robust baseline information that would later allow for comparisons.

Considering that EURAXESS has only recently received the mandate for providing career development services for all researchers, mobile or not, the network members getting involved in the organization and implementation of such activities should try to:
• Establish a good knowledge of what the baseline situation is before launching any initiative. Furthermore, the wide geographical coverage of the EURAXESS initiative could actually be used to organize coordinated efforts to evaluate the status quo and compare between organizations, regions, countries, etc.
• The measuring of impact should be included as part of the design of any activity to support researcher career development. The frameworks described in this report offer the guidelines to facilitate the design of an impact evaluation plan. Examples and templates are currently available through the Internet.

In line with the policy recommendations contained in D2.2, the report also analyses the drivers for measuring impact for the different level of stakeholders.

Drivers for the European Commission:
• Analysing the impact of the implementation of the Charter & Code in the advancement of ERA.
• Promoting a common language for measuring the impact of researcher professional development strategies and activities in Europe.
• Setting up new concrete goals for ERA based on evidence.
• Securing the commitment to researcher professional development in the national, institutional, and individual level.
• Continuing to work towards the construction of the “European researcher identity”, having researcher professional development as a core principle.
• Continuing to work with the EURAXESS network in giving support to researcher professional development in Europe.

Drivers for Member States and Research Funding Organizations (RFOs):
• Monitoring the progress of the Charter & Code principles, including those relating to researcher professional development.
• Monitoring the impact of the European and national policies developed to support researcher career development.
• Leading the behavioural change required for research performing institutions to start offering measurable researcher professional development strategies.
• Identifying researchers´ skills gaps and strong points in the country and develop policies accordingly.
• Allowing researcher professional development benchmarking between countries.

Drivers for Research Performing Organizations (RPOs):
• Better tailoring the strategies according to the gathered impact data.
• Securing funding and high level commitment towards researcher professional development based on evidence.
• As practitioners, informing research funding organizations and government administrations of research career development needs.
• Using impact data on branding material of the institution, showing its commitment towards supporting professional development of researchers and proving its impact on researchers’ careers.
• Adjusting doctoral training curricula and researchers training in general according to the impact data related to career tracking.

Drivers for researchers:
• Through the participation in the evaluations of research development activities and strategies, researchers can influence future policies put in place after the evaluation of impact data.
• Using impact analysis in their own self–assessments allows researchers to monitor their own progress against their personal professional goals.

Drivers for EURAXESS:
• Gathering relevant and comparable impact data
• Displaying a common language for researcher career development (ideally, agreed at the national even the European level).

D2.5 Content for on-line depository based on a selection of researcher career development policy case studies
The previously described D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4 were utilised to create public reports aimed at summarising all the policy work carried out within the project and highlighting its relevance for other EURAXESS members. The individual reports addressing policy recommendations, policy good practices and the measurement of impact are designed to be directly included into the EURAXESS on-line training platform which will be developed in the following project EURAXESS TOP III, and in the meantime are publically available at https://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/fecyt-analyzes-researcher-professional-development-policies-across-europe

D2.6 Policy debate at European cross-disciplinary research event
At the time of drafting the project proposal, there were plans for discussing the policy outputs with the researcher community within a wider event In line with these plans, the coordinators submitted an application for organising such a workshop at ESOF 2016 in Manchester. Unfortunately, the application was rejected and thus, it was necessary to modify the plans. In November 2016, BC organised the stand-alone workshop Research career and skills development in Europe – a debate on policy and practice, in Sofia, Bulgaria with the support of the researcher focus group arranged within WP5.
The workshop was organised in an interactive format consisting of panel presentations and a breakout session to discuss specific aspects of career and skills development, allowing participants to articulate the specific needs and requirements of their sector with the following objectives:
• Identification of future developments and policy changes that need to take place;
• Identification of training and policy resources that could feed into a toolkit for career development centres;
• Testing and feedback on functionality of the PIPERS online tool and e-platform.
The workshop was an opportunity to step back and take stock, giving participants – who previously had only been involved as individuals – a forum to test some of the outputs; articulate their first impressions and debate pros and cons; and suggest potential improvements and pathways to making the outputs sustainable. The feedback of the workshop has been incorporated into the final version of the tools, policy recommendations and training materials. The active engagement and energy of the focus group was a key factor for the constructive input. Amongst the fact that they were so knowledgeable, young and experienced, it was evident that there was a strong ownership and commitment to be part of the process. The achieved results were more than expected for one single day, which covered all aspects of the project and get a valuable feedback from the primary beneficiaries.

D2.7 Published final policy recommendations / guidelines (on-line)
Starting from mid-2016, EURAXESS national networks have been working in the mandatory update of their national portals in coordination with the revamping of the EURAXESS European portal managed by the EC. A significant part of this revamping is actually related to the mandate extension of the EURAXESS initiative to also provide RCD support to researchers. In line with this, D2.7 provided guidelines for the on-line publication of relevant RCD policy content. The application of these guidelines can be seen for example in the new career development section of the EURAXESS Serbia national portal, which is managed by the PIPERS partner MEF: https://www.euraxess.rs/serbia/information-assistance/career-development-tools

5.2.3 Impact on Other WPs
Consultation and coordination with the focus group, set up under WP5 incorporated the researcher community viewpoint into the discussions. The planned D2.6 outcomes, which aimed to share and debate the final recommendations (D2.7) with a wider public, were exceeded because the workshop covered not only one as envisaged initially but all key outputs of the project. The participants were engaged in activities to debate and to work in groups. The discussions led to a lot of constructive ideas related to WP3 and WP5. All suggestions for improvement were taken on board by setting up a follow up action plan, which tackled the recommendations as much as possible.

Conclusions
The WP2 outputs will be of benefit to policy development of EURAXESS CDCs and any EURAXESS members planning their researcher career development actions.
The project’s findings will feed into TOP III and therefore it is important that there is a cooperation and collaboration to ensure the legacy of PIPERS and the success of other EURAXESS projects.
The members of the project e-Focus Group played an active role into shaping the design and development process of the self-assessment tool and validating the selected resources as well as contributing to the policy discussions.

Differences
The planned participation at the ESOF conference was replaced with project focus group workshop. The event produced very good results thus proved to be a better alternative and contributed to more successful project outcomes, which exceeded the plan.

Societal implications
The recommendations and outcomes from the policy workshops will benefit and impact on policy development of researchers’ career development.

5.3 WP 3
5.3.1 Activities
WP 3 includes three tasks as follows:
1. Selection of training resources
2. Mapping of key multipliers
3. Preparation of training workshops
The existing network of EURAXESS Service Centres collaborated to map existing resources aimed at developing researcher careers and facilitated inter-sectorial mobility. The resources have been classified and analysed. In this WP, key multipliers have been identified in order to cascade the training to a wider network across Europe. Training programmes and the trainer teams were structured based on the specific training needs of the workshop target groups.

5.3.2 Scientific and Technical Results
WP3 includes 3 deliverables in total, which have been addressed in the following way:
D3.1: Regional mapping of training needs
CERTH conducted a survey with all members of the EURAXESS Network, in order to identify their training needs. The questionnaire designed in Google forms was disseminated via the Extranet (Emailer and Wall posts). The first announcement of the survey was 3rd of March 2015 and was followed by two reminders on 13th of March 2015 and on 7th of April 2015.
In order to have a better geographical coverage, the EURAXESS Network countries were grouped in 6 regions: Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, South Europe, North Europe and Western Europe. In total, from all regions, CERTH collected 198 responses.
After the analysis of the survey results, CERTH identified the 3 key training needs per region. More specifically:
• Central Europe: Managing Research, Working with industry, Public Engagement
• Eastern Europe: Managing Research, Professional Development, Entrepreneurial skills
• Mediterranean: Managing Research, Working with industry, Public Engagement
• South Europe: Professional Development, Leadership skills, Entrepreneurial skills
• North Europe: Professional Development, Leadership skills, Public Engagement
• Western Europe: Managing Research, Leadership skills, Working with industry
Based on the number of the responses (considered as a factor of interest) the potential venues for the trainings were identified as key multipliers. More specifically:
• Central Europe: Belgium (Liege), Austria (Vienna)
• Eastern Europe: Poland (Warsaw)
• Mediterranean: Spain (Madrid), Italy (Rome)
• South Europe: Turkey (Ankara), Bulgaria (Sofia)
• North Europe: Ireland (Dublin)
• Western Europe: France (Paris)

D3.3: Preparation of training workshops (BC)
The BC led the organisation of an extensive consultation to identify possible venues and hosts for the workshops, in view of the geographical and theme relevance. The results of the recommendations were collated and a list of potential venues was drawn up. The respective institutions from those countries were required to confirm officially to host the two - day train the trainer workshop / and the researcher demo workshop. BC prepared a calendar of the workshops and action plans, with roles and responsibilities, were confirmed. In parallel existing training resources were identified aimed at developing researcher careers and facilitating inter-sectorial mobility through the EURAXESS Network of Service Centres and beyond as well as examples of freely accessible on-line resources provided on an in-kind basis by suppliers were collated. The materials were sourced from both the public and non-academic sector. The themes covered managing a research career and researcher self-assessment; professional development; leadership skills; interdisciplinary working; entrepreneurial skills; spin-off companies/market exploitation of research results; working with industry; IPR issues; information literacy; public engagement. A portfolio of training modules was created according to the relevance to the local context. One set was targeted at local researcher career development staff within country to prepare them to cascade training to researchers and one set was targeted directly at researchers. The modules covered the ten areas of career development, grouped into four themes:
• Managing careers and professional development and researcher self-assessment
• Research and enterprise: entrepreneurship, managing intellectual property and setting up companies
• Maximising the impact of research: engaging the public and key organisations, working with industry
• Leading in the research context: including key skills in information literacy, e-research skills
• interdisciplinary working
Programmes for the ‘train the trainers’ workshop and the researcher training workshops were developed using these modules. The BC identified and subcontracted experienced trainers to deliver the trainings.

D3.2: Collection of training resources
This deliverable included identification of existing training resources aimed at developing researcher careers. The materials were shortlisted and quality-assured by Vitae (as subcontractor) based on criteria agreed by project partners and informed by the policy discussions in WP2.
The process of collecting Researchers’ Training Materials was conducted in three stages:
• The first stage, led by Sofia University, included a request to CDCs across EU to identify, share and contribute to the training resources collection.
• The second stage was focused on the analysis and classification of the training materials.

Dr Linda Hui Yang, project researcher, developed a collection of training resources as well as a comprehensive guide. The first version of the collection has the complete collection including free and not free materials in the global contexts as well as input from the EURAXESS network.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7k3cse863jcyuph/PIPERS%20Training%20Resources%20COLLECTION.pdf?dl=0
The version two, which is shorter, includes only free materials for quality assurance by Vitae.
In both of these versions, all the materials have been organised based on its location (i.e. country).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5iq9u3m0zhidu3/PIPERS%20Training%20Resources%20COLLECTION%20FOR%20QA.pdf?dl=0

• The third stage was a process of QA, which was carried out as follows:
1. Identification and development of criteria for including external materials in the QA process was developed by Vitae, BC and University of Durham, and was based on the following structure:
Include (top priority) Exclude
Training materials intended for delivery by a trainer, supervisor or manager etc. Services
Train the trainer materials e.g. practice-sharing guidance notes, case studies or filmed sessions aimed at those delivering training to academic researchers. Can be general or specific to a course/ module/ topic
Include (lower priority)
Online training courses aimed at the individual
Other tools or guidance that could be used or adapted to enhance face-to-face or online courses, e.g. guidance documents, skills frameworks, videos
Online advice/ web pages
The set of criteria included:
• On-topic (one of the pre-agreed topics)
• Intended to be in the public domain, e.g. available online to view, download or request
• Intended for academic researchers OR for use with them OR considered to be suitable for them. Inspiring but ‘unsuitable’ materials (e.g. because of level, language or context) might also be presented as a way to generate ideas
• Any access level but only QA materials that are open access OR for general non-commercial use OR reserved for use by a relevant audience or sector e.g. ‘education’ or ‘HE’. Materials only accessible as part of a subscription or membership OR through payment of a fee could be listed but not QA -ed
• Materials for QA should be available for use across Europe or beyond but others, e.g. only available nationally, could be listed
• In English for QA, consider materials not in English on case-by-case basis
The materials included on the platform were all reviewed through the quality assurance process and were assessed as having at least a good standard in all or most areas considered.

2. Initial review of QA shortlist carried out by Vitae (shortlist provided by University of Durham).
The drafted documents were discussed with stakeholders and the final Criteria for inclusion in the QA process were agreed. Vitae carried out a full review of the shortlist and also carried out further research, to produce a spreadsheet of 78 materials recommended for inclusion in an online database, including descriptions, identifying tags and basic information such as type of resource, audience and conditions of use. A more intensive QA assessment was carried out on 4 training resources (from the 78 identified for listing) which met the criteria. Two of them were recommended for inclusion in the PIPERS database. Notes were made on the assessments using a previously agreed format.
3. Development of Guide to running a training course and improvement of six training materials.
Following up the notes of the QA assessment, six training materials were improved, and re-submitted for QA. As a follow up action plan, discussed at the Final Meeting in Thessaloniki in September 2016 and also following up the feedback of the project focus group of researchers at the Policy workshop in Sofia in November 2016, Vitae and the BC led on the development of Guide to running a training course. The Guide is a tool to support and compliment the delivery of an experiential approach to learning and was uploaded on the project platform, alongside the training resources, and can be updated on an on-going basis.

5.3.3 Impact on other WPs
The planned collection of training materials, proved that such were not available as per the expectation and therefore the project trainers used their own materials
http://www.slideshare.net/NikolayStoyanov5/presentations. The trainers, organisers and hosts committed a lot of resources in preparation of the workshops. The efforts invested and harnessed in planning and customisation of the training materials was provided as in-kind contribution to the project by the trainers and hosts. The project staff time required for trainers’ recruitment, preparation of the training programmes and support in QA process was above the planned in the project. The workshops’ content was designed in collaboration with the host institution in view of local needs and priorities, and also in view of the feedback of the previously held workshop.

Conclusions
The workshops’ content based on identified needs, supplemented by additional subjects relevant to the broader Euraxess objectives was positive. A lot of efforts were made to engineer the training programmes to meet the priorities of the host institutions. The QA process fostered the improvement of the training materials, which were adapted to best fit the aims of the project.

Differences
The collection of training resources that were available for free use did not meet expectations and the QA criteria. Considerable effort was put into both an on-line search and calls to EURAXESS contacts for such material. The large number of potential training resources were catalogued, but there was very little material that was both fully documented and at the right level for researcher development. Following these findings, the collected training materials were not used at the workshops. Instead the workshops were delivered with trainers’ own materials. Based on the feedback both from the participants and the observations of the trainers, six of the training materials were further developed and improved via the QA process and the updates were uploaded on the PIPERS project platform. The structure of the training materials was modified and included:
• Description
• Learning objectives
• Evaluation
• Preparation
• Programme
• Instructions for trainers
• Additional material
• Licensing and conditions of use

Six training materials were specially developed, which exceeded the planned activities and overcame an unfavourable circumstances encountered during the execution of the project.
• A Guide to Running Training Courses was compiled, based on the good practices of the partners’ experiences; partner projects i.e. ImpactE and with input from the trainers. The aim is that the Guide:
• includes some general guidance on how to deliver experiential learning - trainer hints and tips,
• provides some guidance for each resource on how to run every 'exercise' - e.g. group work, one-on-one, feedback and evaluation.
• The Guide and all project resources will be curated in the External Library to ensure open access by all Euraxess members.
• The D3.2 and D3.3 of WP3 were led by the BC, which proved to be more convenient in view of its role in communication with subcontractors on QA and the trainers for the delivery of the workshops; the links with key responsibilities in WP4; and the overall coordination with WP5.

Societal implications
The themes of the workshops were identified and coordinated with the support of the local host in order to tackle local priorities and needs; therefore the impact to the society is beneficial on a local scale.

Use of resources:
The BC has raised a case with the EC and received approval on the re-allocation of funding to additional QA and further development of the training materials, which also involves an increase of BC staff time claim. The re-allocation was made possible due to considerable savings in the logistical costs of the workshops.

5.4 WP 4
5.4.1 Activities
WP 4 includes two tasks as follows:
1. Train the trainers workshops
2. Demonstration researcher workshops
Based on the results of the mapping exercise conducted in the framework of T3.2, BC developed and coordinated the BC and CERTH organised workshops in association with other partners who agreed to host workshops. BC identified and sub-contracted trainers and led on planning and monitoring of delivery.

Following the training needs analysis and as a result of extensive communication with the host organisations to identify content in line with local priorities and needs, the training programmes were further amended in line with feedback from surveys and planning Skype meetings. These were led by BC with support from Svetlana Dimitrova, and aimed to determine specific participants’ expectations. Subsequently, the workshops were tailored by the trainers to the needs of the participants.

The hosts of the workshops helped to identify suitable venues and recruited researchers and career development staff from neighbouring countries. The workshops were free of charge for participants and travel and subsistence costs were covered to ensure maximum uptake of the training. The impact and outcomes of each workshop was evaluated by the external evaluator based on the success measures, feedback questionnaires, and trainers’ feedback, and supplemented with feedback prepared by the hosts and organisers.

The workshops series were launched in October 2015 with back to back trainings for researchers and staff of the CDCs. The following workshop in Ankara encountered communication issues, with little and delayed response from the host on the preparation phase on recruitment of participants and local trainers. The Ankara workshop host did not feedback on opportunities for cascading and other impact important for the project. The parallel preparations for the workshops created a very intense schedule for the BC in particular, as a lead organisation for 6TTT and 3 Demonstration workshops (Sofia, Vienna, Madrid, Liege, Dublin and Romania) and as a subcontractor of the trainers for all 14 workshops. In addition, the Warsaw workshop, led by CERTH, was supported by BC on logistics due to local procurement issues in Greece. Therefore the logistical costs for accommodation and subsistence will be claimed by the BC. The last workshop in Romania was organised as a follow up of the recommendations of the first workshop and the drive, interest and commitment of the local management team at the University. It was also made possible thanks to the savings of logistical expenses made by the BC during the previous workshops and of savings made in the Final meeting costs as it took place as a back to back with a TOP III workshop, which allowed the sharing of some of the costs.

The workshop videos and materials were uploaded on Google drive folder and shared with participants.

D4.1 Train the trainer workshops were organised in 9 different European countries. Each workshop took the form of a two-day session aimed at local trainers and career development staff from EURAXESS service centres and research institutions from the host country and neighbouring countries with a similar research context. Each workshop was open to 24 researcher career development staff. Participants were trained in how to cascade the training modules to different profiles of researchers and had the opportunity to feedback on their relevance and ease of use. Feedback from the early workshops was used to improve and consolidate the resources for use in the later workshops and so that the final versions could be made available on the e-platform.

D4.2 Demonstration researcher workshops
Four of ‘train the trainer’ workshops were followed by a two-day demonstration workshop for researchers. The savings made by carefully managing the budget enabled the organisation of a 5th workshop. The workshops were focussed on one or more of the training modules. Each workshop was open to 24 R1, R2 and R3 level researchers from the host country representing a wide range of disciplines. Researchers involved in the focus group from WP5 were specifically encouraged to participate. Training sequences from these workshops were filmed and the films were made available as a resource to support the cascading workshops and are to be hosted on the e-platform developed under WP5. These workshops gave researchers the opportunity to provide feedback on the training resources and on early versions of the self-assessment tool being developed in WP5.

Calendar of trainings:

• 21-23 October 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria (Demo + TTT), Project and time management, Presenting to an audience, Professional Development, Leadership skills, Entrepreneurial skills, Public Engagement
• 19-22 Jan 2016, Ankara, Turkey (TTT + Demo), Career Coaching methodology, Planning Your Research Career, Self-marketing, Funding opportunities, Entrepreneurial Skills, Public Engagement, IPR
• 8-9 February 2016, Vienna, Austria, Managing Projects and Managing Time, Entrepreneurial Skills, Managing Research, Public Engagement, Planning a training session
• 15-18 February 2016, Madrid, Spain (Demo + TTT), Entrepreneurship: Market exploitation of research results (including licencing Spin-offs, social enterprises, partnerships, sole trader – structuring your business, IPR – including patents, copyright, knowhow, conceptualising a business idea and preparing a business plan, Business Model Canvas, presentation skills, Information Literacy, Managing research. Academia vs Industry, Working with Industry, Public engagement, Planning a training session
• 7-8 March 2016, Dublin, Ireland, Professional Career Development, Leadership skills, Public Engagement
• 21-22 March 2016, Liege, Belgium, Managing career and professional development, Leadership skills, Public Engagement, Planning a training session
• 21-22 March 2016, Rome, Italy, Managing Research, Working with industry, Public Engagement, Proposal Writing, Proposal Writing, Project Management, Successful Project Implementation
• 12–13 April 2016, Paris, France (TTT + Demo), Leadership, Working with industry, Public Engagement, Professional Career Development, European Research Area - An open labour market for researchers: EC policies, Planning a training session
• 05-08 April 2016, Warsaw, Poland, Career Development, Interdisciplinary working, Public Engagement, Professional Development, Managing Research, Entrepreneurial skills, Planning a training session
• 11-12 July 2016, Târgoviște, Romania, (Demo) Enterprising and Leading Researchers

Key achievements
The achieved workshops feedback had average scores of: expectations met 80%, learning and knowledge experience: 85%, quality of the event: 85% and recommendation rate: 30%. The tools set up via the external evaluation process provided independent assessment of the success of WP4 outcomes. The external evaluation report (D1.7) outlined the encountered challenges and observed that the big number of cascading workshops is an evidence of the efficiency and effectiveness of the trainings, it also made the following note: “The survey results received by the evaluator from the participants of both TTT workshops and Demonstration researcher workshops are also overwhelmingly positive, with regard to participants’ assessment of the relevance of the workshop content for their professional needs. Qualitative analysis of feedback demonstrates that the overall level of satisfaction of PIPERS workshops also reflects participants’ enthusiasm and support for researcher career development training, as well as participants’ appreciation of networking and learning from peers.”

D 4.1: Train the trainer workshops (BC)
BC organized 5 Train the trainer workshops in Sofia 23 October 2015, in Vienna 8 – 9 February 2016, Madrid 17 – 18 February 2016, Dublin 7 – 8 March 2016, Liege 21 – 22 March 2016

Venue: National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Bulgaria
Participants: 25 from Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, 1 representative from the PIPERS Focus Group, 1 researcher, who was invited to present a success story of a mobile researcher with academia and industry background, 1 local and 1 international trainers. The workshop themes were identified via survey but the local aspect and the focus were based on the recommendations by the host and reflected the local specifics. More than 90% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations.

Venue: University of Vienna, Austria
Participants: 21 from Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany
The organization of the PIPERS Workshop in Vienna was based on the PIPERS workshops in Sofia. The team worked in very good cooperation with the local host.
More than 60% of the participants stated to have acquired new knowledge at the workshop.

Venue: Fundación Madri+d (in collaboration with Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology), Madrid, Spain
Participants: 20 from Spain and Portugal - 2 representatives from the PIPERS Focus Group attended the workshops. There was one local researcher, who was invited to present a success story of a mobile researcher with academia and industry background. There were 2 local and 1 project trainers engaged with the delivery and also invited speakers presenting specific cases.
The workshops in Madrid were one of the most successful events. The success was due to the fact that it was built on feedback and the experience from the previous events, which helped to balance the programme almost perfectly. More than 80% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations, 90% stated to have acquired new knowledge and the recommendation score was the highest 52%.
The workshop was promoted on the FEYCT website: https://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/fecyt-co-organizes-madrid-two-training-workshops-support-researcher-professional-development

Venue: National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
Participants: 26 and 10 observers - 2 representatives of the PIPERS Focus Group, 2 PIPERS project partners, from CERTH, 3 hosts and 1 local observer and a contributor to the project – Dr Linda Deeks. Conor O’ Carroll, the representative of the project advisory group, opened the event.
The long preparation period of 6 months allowed more time for planning and organisation. The leading and the local trainers worked together for first time, which required more staff time for preparation (unfortunately, such preparation stage was not planned within the budget). More than 70% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations and 74% acquired new knowledge.

Venue: University of Liege, Belgium
Participants: 21 - Belgium, Western Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Northern France. The host initiated a very helpful system for online registration and a survey of skills and expectations, which provided the trainers and organisers with useful information on the participants’ expectations and specifics in their work and responsibilities. The collated information of the pre-course registration showed that participants had different level of experience. Moreover, it was difficult to identify one or two priority themes to meet the demand. If more themes were to be included the length of the workshop should had been increased. It was a challenge to tailor the programme to such wide range of expertise and demands and the trainers put a lot of efforts to prepare accordingly, however their previous experience of working together facilitated the planning stage. More than 70% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations; 76% acquired new knowledge.
The work continued although in less comfortable but still uninterrupted manner during the second day, which coincided with the of Brussels terrorist attacks on 22 of March.

D4.2: Demonstration researcher workshops (BC)
BC organised 3 Demonstration researcher workshops: Sofia 21 – 22 October 2015, Madrid 15 – 16 February 2016, Târgoviște 11 – 12 July 2016.

Venue: EC Delegation, Sofia, Bulgaria
Participants: 35 from Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania,
The themes were identified through survey, consultation with the host and in discussion with the leading trainer. The recruitment of the participants was led by the host, who provided individual consultation to promote the objectives and benefits of the training as there is less awareness of the career development in Bulgaria.

Venue: Fundación Madri+d (in collaboration with Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology, Madrid, Spain.
Participants: 16 international researchers based at that time in Spain.
The workshop’s feedback was very positive for the provided opportunity for researchers’ development. The participants were graduates and postdoctoral researchers with interest in engaging with industry (e.g., MSCA ITN grantees), therefore the topics covered and the trainers, of both of industry and research background, were of relevance to their perspective outlook.

Venue: Târgoviște, Romania
Participants: 35 from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Romania.
The CTT methodology applied enabled participants to self-assess the state of their personal development; to broaden their perspectives, and to learn how to boost and nurture their own careers. More than 80% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations, 90% stated to have acquired new knowledge. The host provided in-kind contribution to the budget of the workshop by covering filming and part of the catering costs. The workshop was back to back with TOP III workshop, which made savings to both projects.

D4.1 & 4.2 CERTH prepared in collaboration with BC 6 trainings (4 Train of the Trainers and 2 Demonstration Workshops). More specifically:
• South Europe: Turkey (Ankara), 19-22/01/2016
• Mediterranean: Italy (Rome), 21-22/03/2016
• Western Europe: France (Paris), 12-13/04/2016
• Eastern Europe: Poland (Warsaw), 21-24/06/2016
In some cases like Rome and Paris, CERTH had the opportunity to add more topics in the training pogramme and invited experts to deliver them.

Venue: TUBITAK, Ankara, Turkey
Participants: 27 participants (24 from Turkey, 2 from Greece and 1 from Bosnia Herzegovina).
The numbers of the trainees involved was good, taking into consideration the extremely bad weather conditions on those days (heavy snowstorms) which resulted in the cancellation of many flights. Fortunately, only 2 participants did not manage to attend.
The collaboration between trainers was excellent. The participants expressed their satisfaction with the trainers and the delivered training materials. The colleagues from TUBITAK made very important contribution to the organisation.

Venue: Fondazione CRUI per le UniversitaI Italiane, Rome, Italy.
Participants: Train the trainers Workshop: 31 participants (16 from Italy, 4 from Greece, 3 from Croatia, 2 from Malta, 2 from Slovenia, 2 from Albania and 2 from Montenegro). The colleagues from CRUI had signification contribution to the organisation. More than 90% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations.

Venue: Conférence des Présidents d’Université, Paris, France.
Participants: 13 participants (9 from France, 4 from Greece).
The participants expressed their satisfaction with the trainers and the relevance of the training materials. The support towards the organisation and hosting by colleagues from CPU was very important contribution. The presentation of Mrs Sigala on EC policies was an added value to the workshop since most of the trainees were not familiar with the latest developments. More than 75% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations.

Venue: Institute of Mathematical Machines, Warsaw, Poland.
Participants: 25 participants (20 from Poland, 3 from Greece, 1 from Lithuania and 1 from Latvia).
The number of the registered participants was bigger but some of them didn’t manage to attend he workshops. The participants expressed their satisfaction with the trainers and the training materials. The colleagues from Institute of Fundamental Technological Research of Polish Academy of Sciences provided excellent support in the organisation and hosting which played important contribution to its success. More than 90% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations.

D 4.2: Demonstration researcher workshops (BC and CERTH)
CERTH organized 2 Demonstration researcher workshops in Ankara 21-22/01/2016 and in Warsaw 23-24/06/2016.

Venue: TUBITAK, Ankara, Turkey
Participants: 17 participants (15 from Turkey and 2 from Greece)
17 trainees the attended the workshop, a number which can be considered good, taking into consideration the extremely bad weather conditions at those days (heavy snowstorms) which caused cancellation of many flights, however only 4 participants did not manage to attend the workshop. More than 80% of the participants stated that the workshop met their expectations.

Venue: Golden Tulip Hotel, Warsaw, Poland
Participants: 27 participants (24 from Poland, 2 from Greece and 1 from Lithuania)
27 trainees attended the workshop. The number of the registered participants was bigger but some of them did not manage to attend. The participants expressed their satisfaction with the trainers and the training materials. The workshop was recorded and the training materials were uploaded on the PIPERS online folder.

Summary of face to face audiences reached and themes covered:
Outcome
Number of participants Themes covered
Number of participants at Workshops for researchers 139 • Public Engagement
• Professional Development
• Entrepreneurial skills
• Leadership skills
• Planning your research career, Self-Marketing and Funding opportunities
• Entrepreneurship
• Information Literacy
• Enterprising and leading researchers
Number of workshops for researchers 5
Number of participants at Workshops for trainers 219 • Managing careers and professional development and researcher self-assessment
• Leadership skills
• Entrepreneurial Skills
• IPR Issues
• Managing Projects and Managing Time
• Fostering Entrepreneurial Skills
• Public Engagement
• Planning a training session
• Experiencing experiential learning
• Other career development interventions
• Managing research. Academia vs Industry
• Working with Industry
• Proposal Writing
• Project Management
• Successful Project Implementation
• European Research Area - An open labour market for researchers: EC policies
Number of workshops for trainers 9
Number of cascading workshops 13
Number of participants at cascading workshops 313
Total number of workshops 27
Total number of participants 671
Geographical coverage Approx.40 cities in 29 countries
Albania, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the UK

The members of the e-Focus group were invited to all workshops to ensure there is a good representation.

Terminology in Documentation:
University of Durham and British Council raised a concern on the term ‘career development’ or ‘career consultant’ in our publically accessible documents and suggested a change to ‘researcher development’ or ‘researcher development consultant’ respectively. The reason for this clarification was due to the fact that in the UK, Career development implies special education, which is not linked to ‘researcher development’ or ‘researcher development consultant’.

5.4.2 Scientific and Technical Results
The programmes were communicated, coordinated and built in collaboration with host institutions and project organisers. The needs analyses showed similar themes across multiple regions, which meant compromising by repeating some of the themes and not covering others. Some of the demonstration trainings that were repeated, used different resources ensuring that the training session were presented in a slightly different way and used local content. The rationale behind this was to ensure that the training sessions were demand driven and responded to the needs identified by the target audience. In some of the cases the host organised additional pre-event surveys to collect information on the participants’ skills, experiences and expectations for the workshop and also their interests and endeavours for future development. In other cases, the collation of this information was provided via the Skype calls and discussions with the host institutions. This information was particularly valuable to the trainers in order that they could prepare and adjust the training materials more appropriately. The post-event feedback from the participants helped to further improve the subsequent training materials as much as possible. There was strong communication between the international and local trainers, who tailored and elaborated the programmes, using their own long term experience, feedback from participants and trainers of the previous workshops and the responses from the surveys. The main method used for the delivery was experiential learning. The project partners held feedback meetings immediately after the workshops to analyse achievements but also to identify weak points and plan appropriate actions to correct and alleviate possible repetition in the following events. The feedback was accurately documented and provides 360 degree feedback.

Demonstration workshops
The feedback results show that training in career management and personal development, as well as entrepreneurship and leadership, is considered crucial for the future of any researcher. The majority of researchers have never before participated in any career development training. The trainings were appreciated as ground-breaking and very meaningful for all stakeholders.

Train the trainers workshops
The length of the workshops was short in order to accommodate all the pre-set objectives, therefore the trainers’ priority was to facilitate experiential learning by brainstorming ideas, making pitches, tweets, demonstration presentations and templates for training programmes. Despite the fact that the trainings took place in the second half of the academic year, 12 cascading workshops took place to date and more will be planned in future.

The intense calendar of events was a big challenge for the project WP leaders. However, the organisation was excellent and required minimum involvement by the participants in the logistics.

Conclusions
Workshop delivery model:
1. The best practice idea of ImpactE project was implemented at the workshops, which included practically oriented activity programme with interactive parts such as discussions, games and tasks. The participants enjoyed the content and were fully engaged. The project concluded that in future in order to achieve a balance between the time limit and large volume of theory the workshops should be preceded by a pre-course on-line self-pace training, followed by a second part of face to face training with a focus on practical and experiential learning. The planned two-day workshop format was very short and resulted in an imbalance between theory and practice.

2. The different levels of participants’ experience can suggest specific roles and assignments, which will be of benefit to the whole group. This will help to meet expectations of participants with different kinds of experiences.
3. The best balance of speakers and trainers, theory and interactive exercises, well designed and coordinated by an experienced lead trainer was achieved at the Madrid workshop.
4. Experiential learning can be a very effective and valuable approach, in particular if combined with theoretical background that provides participants with the context for the learning experience. In practice, experiential learning-based methodologies are still used rarely and had not been experienced by many of the researchers in the room. Participants established that experiential learning approaches can be beneficial beyond traditional learning settings. Researchers do indeed undergo experiential learning in their day-to-day work, at least to some extent.
5. An experiential approach to learning is ‘learning-by-doing’ - participants worked collaboratively in small groups on activities designed to promote their learning. Not only do people learn more effectively and remember much better this way, they also find they can learn faster because this kind of learning is lively and interesting, and captures the whole of their attention. It is much more difficult to doze off during a discussion or a role-play! Crucially, experiential learning in groups capitalises upon the educational benefits arising from group processes.

Career development trainings:
1. Observations from the trainers show that Europe is in its infancy concerning RCD and there is a great demand for career development training.
2. The recommendations from the trainers are that researchers should as early as possible be engaged in their career development plan as a priority, which will help them realise their potential by providing them with motivation and inspiration to think proactively which career path they would like to follow.
3. The trainers observed that Researchers should be provided with info face to face training and also supported by the e-tool in tandem. The will provide, for each career pathway, the required skills in addition to directing researchers towards sources of information where they can gain a deeper insight into the working environment that they would like to be involved in(self-directed learning).
4. The feedback reports from trainers show that researcher career pathways should be defined as early as possible Ideally PhD students should engage in self-assessment and development & career planning as a priority during their first year. It is important that they develop this mind-set as soon as possible. Early developmental engagement promotes/cultivates motivation and confidence and improves morale. By keeping the emphasis on helping researchers to develop career & professional self-awareness we are equipping them to appropriately manage their own career pathways through its entirety. The online training materials & support can be used to encourage researchers to engage with career planning & professional development as early as possible.
5. Policy awareness and the research landscape are to introduce a reality check on research careers and should influence development plans.
6. Feedback on the interest for involvement indicates that there is great hunger and enthusiasm for EURAXESS career support & development services.
7. Feedback from the professional development training underlines that the realities & demands of a researchers’ working life reinforces the need for these services. Suitably informed researchers will seek out specific, identified training that has direct contextual relevance to them and their developmental plans. This increases both the impact and cost-effectiveness of the training. The next challenge is to develop the training & support materials required.
8. PIPERS has been the foundation for a comprehensive and context-sensitive approach to career development across the network, but more work is required to maximise its utility and address specific challenges (e.g. industry engagement).
9. It was also observed that there is a need to work much more with the career development centres in Central and Eastern Europe as there is less awareness of researchers’ career development support. The activities should ensure that there is engagement at all levels and in particular the management of the universities. One positive example the project achieved to some extend to contribute to this process was by organising additional demonstration workshop in Romania, where the management appreciated and acknowledged the importance of developing such services.
10. Many of the participants had low level of understanding of the thematic areas. The trainers were informed about that by the local hosts and were prepared accordingly. It was common view in the region that the focus of the CDC’s work involves mostly students and almost none of them considered PhD students and researchers as target audience.
11. Future EURAXESS projects are expected to play a key role in taking lessons learnt and content/tools collated and developed for PIPERS forward.
12. Participation in EURAXESS workshops can be perceived as advantageous when getting involved in EC funding proposals. For example, the practical development of a business plan at the workshops was valuable experience, which had a positive change in the way of thinking and built confidence to apply in practice what have been learnt.
13. The workshop experience helped setting up the correct terms of reference when contracting trainers for delivery of such trainings.
14. Industry/NGO engagement in PIPERS was not developed appropriately and has to be the focus for future large scale project work.

Trainers:
It is important to identify experienced trainers for inclusion into a trainers list for the CDM toolkit to be developed in TOPIII and thus ensure and recommend high quality trainers with the ability to deliver range of materials. What makes a good trainer ideas were generated by the Focus Group at the Sofia workshop (WP2) and provides a very fresh model of possible profile:
• Skills for knowledge transfer
• Humour => emotional management
• Management of success and failure
• Observant
• Clever
• Good listener
• Good communicator and focussed speaker
• Friendly and approachable
• Flexible
• Embracing/inclusive
• Dynamic and moving around
• Intention to help people
• Communicative and engaging
• Competent in the topic
• Assessing the needs of the trainees
• Knowledge on tools and methods
• Facilitator
• Well-trained
• Motivator
• Open-minded (thinks outside the box)
• Good team player
• Dynamic
• Patient
• Experienced professional
• With backup support
• Inspiring and inspired

Organisation, roles and responsibilities:
1. Getting an appropriate training room is critical. Particularly the workshop in Vienna was organised in small room, which affected the quality of delivery.
2. Agreement on the numbers of participants, well in advance of the preparation stage, is very important.
3. The ownership of training programme should stay with the lead trainer.
4. The project relied a great deal on pre-training surveys & they do not always provide the trainer with the information needed. The lessons learned from each workshop show on the importance of pre-training participant surveys:
• Sometimes it was a challenge when confronted with a mismatch between the stated learning objectives of a given workshop and the expectations of the participants in the room.
• The dependence on these surveys is something to move on from but to follow a model, as described above – a mixed approach of on-line pre-preparation stage and face to face experiential learning.

Participation:
Ankara: Taking into consideration the extremely bad weather conditions during the days of the workshop the participation was satisfactory and the trainees stated that the workshop met their expectations.
Rome: Taking into consideration the limited time of a workshop it was challenging to efficiently provide training in 5 subjects in 2 days.
Paris: The implementation of the workshop was difficult because of the room which was equipped with fixed seats and this caused difficulties to arrange team exercises.
Warsaw: As the last of all the workshops CERTH led on, it was organised in the best way based on the experience of the previous workshops.

Differences
• The distribution of the certificates in Ankara raised an organisational issue.
The certificates couldn’t be distributed without the approval from TUBITAK administration, since TUBITAK was co-organiser. Unfortunately, approval was not obtained on time, so TUBITAK took the responsibility to prepare the certificates and distribute them by post to all participants in due time.
• Change of project roles and responsibilities:
The PIPERS partners and the EC Project Manager approved a change in the responsibilities of the British Council’s tasks in WP4, following the resignation of Sally Goodman, who left the British Council in August 2015. Part of her responsibilities and tasks related to planning of the workshops in WP4 were handed over to the University of Sofia, therefore there will be a staff time claim in WP4. The British Council maintained a leadership role as well as roles related to activities of organisations and logistics in WP4 alongside CERTH.
• One additional workshop was organised in Romania.

Societal implications
The successful implementation of the train the trainer and Demonstration researcher workshops had positive impact to researcher career development in these regions.

5.4.3 Impact on other WPs
The recommendations of WP4 provided important insights into WP5 and WP3 objectives. The WP4 conclusions were debated at the Sofia workshop (WP2) with the Focus Group.

5.5 WP 5
5.5.1 Activities
WP 5 includes three tasks as follows:
1. e-Consultation with researcher focus group
2. Building an e-platform for training and policy resources
3. Development of on-line tool for researcher self-assessment
WP5 includes 3 deliverables in total, which have been addressed the following way:

D5.1 A user focus group, composed of 20-30 researchers from across Europe, was formed to feed into the design and development process of the self-assessment tool developed in Task 5.3 as well as contributing to the policy discussions in WP2 and validating the resources selected in WP3. The main researcher organisations and associations (such as Voice of Researchers, EURODOC, ICORSA and Marie Curie Fellows Association) were encouraged to participate and all partners were invited to propose candidates as well as the partner project REFLEX team. The group was created on time and consisted of 37 selected researchers with gender balance(20 female and 17 male) and research level (7 R1, 12 R2, 12 R3, 6 R4) representation, and some of the members are also members of main researcher organisations and associations (such as Voice of Researchers, EURODOC, ICORSA and Marie Curie Fellows Association). The group was made up of selected researchers who were asked to provide their feedback in a structured way. A core group comprised up to 10 researchers, while others contributed depending on availability.
The group also focused on validating the Researcher Development Framework (whilst taking into account the recently published report on assessing the applicability of a generic framework for the professional development of researchers across Europe, by the ESF).
• Consultation with the group was done primarily online, within the virtual community, facilitated by forum discussions, social networking and online surveys to support D5.2 and D5.3.
• The Focus group members were encouraged to attend the researcher training workshops where possible D4.2.
• The core group of the focus group was invited to attend Policy Debate workshop in Sofia on 4 of November 2016.

As per the DoW the development of the e-tool included three stages:
• Review of the existing evidence base around researcher motivations, career values and decision-making and career aptitude tools in order to underpin the tool. The output of this task was a research report which summarised the existing evidence and research base about researcher careers, and highlighted gaps. The researcher focus group also reviewed the findings.
• Design and deployment of a European wide survey which provided the required evidence to fill the gaps in the existing knowledge and evidence base from a European perspective. The survey responses were analysed and a short report published as one of the project resources.
• Development of the self-assessment tool was undertaken by MEF (who undertook the technical design and implementation) with support from Vitae, who advised on the content for the tool as outlined above.

D5.2 E-learning platform
The e-learning platform distinguishes between two sets of resources, adapted on the one hand to the needs of trainers and, on the other, to researchers themselves. The platform and online training resources are planned to be installed on the EURAXESS Handbook website (www.EURAXESSmanual.com) and syndicated and advertised on relevant social platforms, such as videolectures.net, slideshare.com, linkedin.com and free access e-learning platforms. While MEF was in charge of setting up the resources online, selection of the platform and deployment, FECYT’s role was to liaise with WP2 and 3 in the scope of which the learning content is created. Finally, CERTH, as the organization with responsibility for the update and maintenance of the EURAXESS Handbook under the EURAXESS TOPII project, was there to ensure the technical compliance of the e-learning platform and assist in its deployment.
Key outcomes of the development process were achieved, as follows:
• The document with technical requirements and use cases has been developed and shared with all partners in order to achieve a timely consensus on the structure and format of e-Trainings.
• The e-Platform was developed and installed in the production environment. After considering different options, it was decided to choose a shared hosting provider, instead of CERTH hosting resources, in order to achieve optimum level of flexibility, security and availability of the published online resources.
• Online trainings have been developed by trainers (Dean Hogan and Natalia Blagoeva) and published in the e-Platform, namely Enterprising Researchers (for researchers), Planning your research career (TTT and for researchers), Introduction to public engagement (TTT) and Leadership (TTT), Working with Industry (for researchers) and Introduction to Team working (for researchers).
• A collection of external learning resources in the topics of entrepreneurial skills, information literacy, disciplinary working, IPR, leadership skills, managing a research career, professional development, public engagement, researcher self-assessment, market exploitation of research results and working with industry were made by University of Durham and quality assured by Vitae and implemented by MEF. The resources are aimed at trainers and people who are responsible for training researchers. They consist of a range of different types of resources: training materials; links to online career activities and webinars; articles, advice or guidance; case studies and presentations covering the above topics.
• The policy documents (recommendations, but also hints on measuring impact and the case studies), output of the WP2, has been transformed to appropriate form in a joint work of FECYT and MEF and will be published on the new EURAXESS portal, outside of e-Platform (already online in the Serbian Portal: https://www.euraxess.rs/serbia/information-assistance/career-development-tools)
• PIPERS outputs will be hosted in the Extranet Library, together with other project outputs

D5.3 PIPERS No Limits – self-orientation career development tool for researchers
The tool was developed based on the conclusions of the background report. The tool has 4 sections: Values and motivations, Skills, Career options and Plan your development, presented in 4 tabs. Each of the sections has an advice page and a page for searching useful online resources in the respective topic. All online resources are stored in the E-learn platform database, with tools for their maintenance. Hence, the resources can be easily removed, added or updated. In addition, Values and motivations and Skills sections also have specific orientation quizzes.

Additional tabs are the home tab, with an introduction to the tool, a link to the self-orientation quiz and a link to the training and other resources for those who support researchers’ professional development; and Your feedback tab.

Impact on other WPs
The contribution by the project Focus group exceeded the planned objectives. The commitment and the ownership of the Career Development policy and activities by the members of the group were above expectations. The surveys conducted by Vitae in WP3 and WP5 were made successful due to the timely, prompt, constructive and creative contribution by the Focus Group. The surveys were carried out in a number of stages, to ensure that evidence based decisions were made in the development of the tools. The members of the Group remained very active and engaged in all WPs of the Project but the highlight and, most beneficial to the project was the participation at the Final Policy Debate on 4 of November 2016 in Sofia. The level of expertise and the capacity to put forward innovative ideas were the key factors for the constructive feedback, which was taken into account by the project partners and implemented as much as possible within a very short period of time. The project acknowledged the valuable input of the researchers and initiated within LinkedIn recommendation features, which will help them in their career paths. This will have an enhanced effect both as a valuable experience for the researchers but also a validation of the acquired skills.
The project maximised the impact of the involvement of the Focus group at the workshop, as it had both valuable feedback for the project and skills development for the researchers.

Conclusions:
The work of the Focus Group proved one of the most successful stakeholders’ engagements of the project. The recommendation to future projects is to apply the same method of involvement of key target audience throughout the overall lifetime of a project and span across all WPs. The commitment by the members of the Focus Group was essential and guaranteed the quality of the designed activities, but also the continuous contribution was important to ensure the completion of the full cycle of the process, from planning and development to test and feedback, which led to more improvements and followed by further tests. The contribution of the researchers, members of the focus group was remarkable and the project expressed gratitude for their input in:
• WP1 - promotion campaign
• WP2 - participation at the final workshop, and in particular feedback on tools, policies and materials
• WP4 participation at the workshops as external consultants
• WP5 participation in surveys and tests of the tool at implementation and development stages.
The benefit to future projects could build on this experience and further engage researchers in dissemination activities similar to the promotional video produced by the project. The project recognised the strengths in researchers’ role in public campaigns, where they can act as ambassadors to raise awareness of the career development strategies and the opportunities available within Euraxess, by sharing their experience of involvement and benefits in career development.

The recommendations for further developments of the tool were identified as follows:
Interactivity
• Allow users to save information to the platform
o inviting users to share external links relevant to professional development for researchers that would either add to our existing database of external links or create a new ‘from the users’ database
o inviting users to add their career story (using a template).
These options would both require moderation which is not currently in place
“maybe some personal experience of the previous users who sent their comments how the tool was helpful for them”

• Interaction between users
“I think in the future it could be great include a blog for news about RCD, and a well moderated forum for people to discuss about this issues. Finally, this could promote even a platform for European mentorship initiatives on RCD”

• Allow users to talk to EURAXESS - A ‘helpdesk’ contact email could be provided to report issues and suggestions.

• Add social media buttons - To encourage dissemination.
“Having the option to share the tool through twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. I would definitely send out regular twitter and LinkedIn messages to gain attention for this tool. having that option will make it even easier to do”

Personalised experience for users
The idea is to make use of alternative ‘quiz’ formats. For example, to achieve what is now ‘suggested’ by the values and motivations worksheet but in a more user-friendly manner, where you work through the process in stages to create a collection of saved responses personal to you, each one building on earlier responses. The platform currently supports ‘one choice – one response’ type quizzes which have limited scope for personalisation.
“Like creating a profile with my log in, where I can make continuous inputs on my motivations, skills, etc and I have always got a report ready with more tailored answers and that can change if I modify the input”
“maybe a touch of more personal driven approach would give more an individual impression to the users”

Maintenance
External links should be checked and new could be added to from time to time.

Further selected feedback that includes specific ideas:
“Sometimes I find texts slightly repetitive, especially in the reports, and that prevents me for understanding better the suggestions I have to follow”
“it would be good to have an interactive quiz under "Career options" and "plan your development" “
“more practical information would be good but this is good as an introduction”
“I would include a small audio-visual documentary with people speaking about the importance of RCD and maybe a walkthrough the tool explaining more the highlights and functionalities”
“Career paths for PhDs: adding description of particular successful case studies in listed areas”
These recommendations reflect
• User feedback (researchers via the project’s e-focus group and EURAXESS network members)
• Some options we considered but rejected, either due to insufficient resource for development or lack of resource for on-going moderation/update.
Quotes were taken directly from feedback.

Potential Impact:
The dissemination of the results and outcomes of the PIPERS project targeted five different audiences: EURAXESS network members, researcher career development staff in the wider research community, researchers, employers and the policy-makers. As far as possible, the local and national contacts of the EURAXESS Service Centres and related research centres, as well as local professional communication expertise were used for this dissemination. Promotion of the project as a whole was planned under WP1 and the relatively low level of budget allocated for this activity is a reflection of the focus on on-line and virtual forms of dissemination rather than producing paper-based dissemination products. Dissemination of the WP outcomes - specifically the policy guidelines and recommendations, the training resources and the self-assessment tool - was integrated into each WP and mainly took place via on-line dissemination through web-sites and social media targeting researchers and researcher career development staff. Social media was an important tool for the project allowing different types of stakeholders to access the project outputs. One of the main aims of the PIPERS project was to enlarge the assistance provided by the EURAXESS Service Centres and to strengthen the interactions between research institutions in researcher career management. The promotion of the project therefore targeted EURAXESS Service Centres to ensure that they are aware of the work carried within the project and are motivated to contribute their local knowledge of the policy and training resources available in their countries. This dissemination was done mainly through e-mail contact and by participation in EURAXESS related events (Network Management Working Group, BHO Meetings and the EURAXESS Biannual Conference, organised in Crete in Spring 2015).
The interim recommendations from the policy workshop in Madrid, which have been agreed, were disseminated to the EURAXESS Service Centres in electronic form for comment. The final deliverables of WP2 (final policy recommendations and policy case studies), WP3 (modules of training resources and tools) and WP5 (self-assessment app and e-platform) were widely disseminated to the Centres in the form of web links.
Researchers were targeted throughout the project, by regular information being sent to specialist social media sites. Other more general social media sites such as LinkedIn were used to disseminate information on the workshops and to help recruit for these. The final output of the project aimed directly at researchers, the self-assessment app in WP5, will be promoted through EURAXESS Service Centre networks and researcher associations such as Voice of Research. There will also be promotion of the app and resources aimed at researchers through physical presence at European-level general science events.

4.1 Impact of WP1 – partnerships with other Euraxess projects:
An effort was made to ensure that all Coordinators and WP leaders of other related EURAXESS projects, such as TOP II and III and ImpactE, are kept informed of the objectives and outcomes of the project so that these can be shared within those project consortiums and to ensure coherency of activity.
The REFLEX project was also funded within FP7, tackling similar objectives. While REFLEX mainly focused on the designing of an intelligent career development framework, PIPERS followed a very practically based approach, identifying existing policies and practices to build capacity within the EURAXESS Network. As a result Service Centre staff are able to support researchers in the proactive development of their career paths through the provision of tools and training, selected and developed in the framework of stakeholder engagement and dialogue. Both projects provided a lot of input useful for existing and future EURAXESS projects.

At the joint PIPERS-REFLEX workshop of the Heraklion conference, April 2015, the participants gained a better understanding of existing and planned researcher Career Development Services, tools, policies and best practice, shared common and country-/centre-specific needs to be addressed under the expanded EURAXESS remit. As a result they were able to make specific recommendations formulated to feed into the implementation of EURAXESS TOP III and inform the further development of tools under the EURAXESS REFLEX and PIPERS projects.

4.2 Impact of WP2 – policy debates and the publications
Targeted online audience with an interest in researcher careers and skills were regularly kept informed of developments in the project. This included examples of the researcher development policy case studies and researcher career case studies and highlighting the issues that need to be addressed to facilitate sector and geographical mobility of researchers and recognition of their competences. This ensured that a wider spectrum of stakeholders were aware of the issues surrounding researcher career progression and ensure that as wide a range of researchers and researcher career development staff as possible are made aware of the resources available to them at the end of the project.
Policy-makers were targeted in country via the EURAXESS Service network partners and their national networks. A small number were invited to contribute to the initial policy discussion under WP2. The interim recommendations on researcher development and training arising from this discussion were disseminated for comment and feedback to a wider group of policy-makers involved in researcher HR issues, including members of the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM, which officially represent the Member States).

4.3 Impact of WP3 – QA process of training materials
The output of WP3 will directly feed into the EURAXESS TOP III project which is looking into the feasibility of including a “Skills” section in the EURAXESS national portals and where outputs may feature in the EURAXESS Handbook.

4.3 Impact of WP4
Career development staff in European universities and research centres were targeted throughout the project to raise awareness of the project aims and objectives, via the EURAXESS Service Centres and their networks of national contacts.
As one of the key objectives of the project is to facilitate researchers’ career progression between the academic and non-academic sectors, the results of the projects will be made available to CDCs and disseminated through cascading information via key national bodies representing the non-academic sector and associations representing industry and non-academic HR. This dissemination will aim to promote access to the e-platform of training and development resources and the self-assessment app.

4.4 Impact of WP5
A message to Euraxess members was issued at the end of the project to direct attention to the e-platform of resources, the self-assessment app for researchers and the policy recommendations. The outputs of WP5 should form the base and be further exploited and incorporated within other Euraxess projects. The tool and the e-platform have been produced with researchers’ involvement, which was a key factor to achieve successful results. The PIPERS online professional development tool for researchers is seen by most of those who have provided feedback as potentially useful and a good starting point. It is an innovative way for researchers to take control of their career development and to use as a basis to discuss their career plans and motivations with their supervisors and managers to engage in professional and career development. The resources are described accurately, organised in a user-friendly way to help the user to identify resources of potential interest quickly, set in context for the European researcher, at any career stage, looking to explore all career options.

4.5 Dissemination activities - Conferences, universities meetings, BHO:
During its lifetime PIPERS sets out various dissemination activities aimed at promoting its research and at reaching the widest and most varied audience possible.

The dissemination plan was written by BC, which defined the audience for dissemination, and some key dissemination tools and dissemination activities:
• Website
• Logo & PPT and deliverable templates
• Leaflet
• Contact database
• Posters
• Meetings with participants of other projects
• Dissemination at events
PIPERS presentations were made available and standard templates have been used when creating the presentations to make sure that a unified graphic design is preserved.

4.6.1 Dissemination material and tools
1. Project website
The project website is available at http://euraxess.eventiotic.com/piperstool/ as described in D5.3
The website was created and updated by MEF (with support of all participants), and will be maintained and hosted by MEF after February 2017.

2. Logo, PPT and deliverable templates
A logo was created to maintain the corporate identity of the PIPERS project. Templates for Power Point presentations and deliverables were designed to ensure a united presentation to those external to the project.

3. Leaflets
The project leaflets were designed early in the project. They provide a thorough but simple to understand description of the project’s concept.

Contact database
In the first phase of the project, a database was defined and filled with contact data of relevant stakeholders. These stakeholders were repeatedly contacted during the project lifetime. Information about the project was provided, according to the project objectives, a distinction was made between different groups of stakeholders:
• Policy makers at EU, national and local level
• Beneficiary organisations
• Subcontractors: External Evaluation, local trainers and international trainers
• Focus Group member
• Participants at the workshops
Different roles were assigned to stakeholders, distinguishing those who only want to get project information of the more interested stakeholders expected to participate in PIPERS events. The database was updated continuously during the project lifetime adding new stakeholders, updating the stakeholders’ roles and identifying stakeholders who left the project’s scope.

5. Promotional videos and national activities and links
Special promotional videos were prepared by FECYT and BC and distributed to stakeholders to advertise the events of the PIPERS project. The videos were also uploaded and shared on Euraxess websites as presentation material by project partners and included links in their web pages: both to announce the project and relevant milestones, and particularly to disseminate PIPERS outputs.

6. PIPERS workshops and final conference
Four workshops with external participants were held during the project lifetime:
1. Joint Career Development Workshop run at the Heraklion conference, April 2015
2. Madrid Workshop, June 2015 (D2.2)
3. Final Project meeting (D1.5), Thessaloniki September 2016, organised back to back with TOP III project meeting, the project was presented to a wider audience of the TOP III, REFLEX and Euraxind projects’ participants to share achievements, experience and outcomes.
4. Sofia Workshop, November 2016 (D2.6)

External workshops and conferences
During the project lifetime, members of the PIPERS consortium participated in workshops and conferences. These events have been an opportunity to establish or reinforce links with other projects, to identify and use synergies between research projects and to figure out the requirements and relevant topics for future research and collaborations.

7. Publications: As described in WP2.

4.6.2 Dissemination in Numbers
• 5 papers published (WP2)
• 3 external events organised by PIPERS (WP1 and WP2)
• conferences, exhibitions and workshops attended as described in Table A2.

4.6.3 Publications& list of dissemination activities
PIPERS dissemination activities including the participation at events, publications, websites which provide a link to PIPERS.
• European Day of the Entrepreneur, Sofia 15-16 Oct 2015
• European Researchers’ Night, Sofia 2015 and 2016
• A workshop entitled ‘EURAXESS network career development activities’ ran at the Vitae conference, Manchester, UK, 2015.
• Career Days (planned in 2017)

List of Websites:
The project consortium consists of:
• British Council, United Kingdom
• Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología, Spain
• Durham University, United Kingdom
• Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Greece
• Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Univerziteta U Nisu, Serbia
• Sofiiski Universitet Sveti Kliment Ohridski, Bulgaria.

The following organisations are also associated with the project as Third Parties:
• University of Vienna, Austria
• University of Liège, Belgium
• University of Zagreb, Croatia
• Aarhus University, Denmark
• Estonian Research Council, Estonia
• Association Bernard Gregory, France
• Irish Universities Association, Ireland
• Bar Ilan University, Israel
• Fondazione CRUI per le Universitàitaliane, Italy
• Fondazione ADAPT, Italy
• Nuffic, The Netherlands
• Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Romania
• Fundación Barrié, Spain
• Epigeum, United Kingdom
• P&G, United Kingdom
• Vitae, United Kingdom

The project External Advisory Board:
• Javier Lopez Martinez, General Director, Fundación Barrié
• Dr Diana Beech, representative of the Voice of Researchers
• Dr Conor O'Carroll, EC Steering Group for Human Resources and Mobility

6. Use and dissemination of foreground
6.1 Dissemination measures
Throughout the course of the project, the PIPERS partners spent a considerable amount of time, efforts, and resources on the dissemination of foreground, both towards the scientific community and relevant target groups in the public sector and towards the organisers. The main target of these efforts was to encourage the uptake and exploitation of the project’s output and results, which was one of PIPERS’ important long term objectives.
6.1.1 Overview of planned dissemination activities & scientific publications
There are planned activities for further use of PIPERS results for the period after the termination of the project. More activities may be added later on. A more detailed description of the activities as well as the background as to why they were planned can be found in WP2. University of Nis runs workshops on regular base for first year PhD students, to introduce career development opportunities in Serbia and abroad. The workshop programme covers European Charter and Code principles, key professional skills, available government and European Commission grant programmes. The recent three events, titled "Standards, principles and tools of European Union related to researchers career development", the PIPERS No Limits tool and Career Development content kit were presented.

6.1.2 Societal impact
Looking at the results achieved in the project, PIPERS will have impact on the further development of supporting tools for analysis, and recommendations for stakeholders at the European level. The output of the project will improve career development.

6.1.3 Expected impact listed in the Work Programme
The results of PIPERS are made available to all relevant stakeholders.

6.2 Exploitation plans of partners
Partners will use the results gained by the work in PIPERS for future research. The state-of-the-art literature review, case studies, training resources and tools are extremely valuable as a starting point for new activities. The project outputs will be used in several on-going and future national and European projects. Results from PIPERS will be used in national and international presentations, lectures and articles. In a national context, the PIPERS results will be disseminated to the stakeholders mainly through discussions and material distribution and also will use the results in national projects. The partners will be disseminating results from PIPERS in presentations wherever relevant both in national and international conferences. The PIPERS deliverables are planned to be used as a basis for other projects involving mobility to provide examples of best practice and CDC recommendations.

Contact

Claire McNulty, (Director Science)
Tel.: +442073894049
E-mail
Record Number: 197967 / Last updated on: 2017-05-12
Follow us on: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Managed by the EU Publications Office Top