Career portfolios – assessment guidelines and compilation instructions

Career portfolios: assessment guidelines

1. Introduction

These guidelines for assessing qualifications in teacher recruitment are aimed at the Board of the Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, the Recruitment Committees and external reviewers involved in recruitment of teachers at the Disciplinary Domain, at Uppsala University. They are also addressed at teachers and researchers, and applicants for teachers’ appointments, wishing to know how to compile career portfolios and how they are assessed. Readers seeking simple instructions for compiling their own career portfolios are recommended to read the second part of this document, Career portfolios: compilation instructions.

These guidelines, supplemented by Career portfolios: compilation instructions, are intended to clarify which skills and qualifications are appraised in teachers working at the faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy. In recruitment, the guidelines serve as a basis both for the applicants and external reviewers involved and for the Recruitment Committee. Based on these guidelines and the appointment profile, applicants can present the qualifications considered important for a particular appointment in a simple manner, and the Recruitment Committee can judge the qualifications accordingly.

All researchers should be encouraged to consolidate and systematise their personal qualifications in accordance with the structure of these career portfolios, since these documents support their individual skills development. The qualification portfolio can be used not only in recruitment and promotion, but also in the regularly recurring performance reviews between employees and managers, and in pay negotiations.

2. Starting points for judging qualifications in teacher recruitment

Uppsala University’s Appointment Regulations prescribe that when new teachers are appointed, following a qualitative overall assessment of the applicants’ skills and expertise, those deemed to have the best prospects of implementing and developing the duties concerned, and contributing to favourable work development, must be selected.

The goal is for all teachers to have completed both doctoral education and teacher training. In addition, they must demonstrate ample expertise in the areas relevant to the appointment in question.

Prior to recruitment, the Board of the Disciplinary Domain, or the body to which the right to initiate recruitment has been delegated, must state in the appointment profile the eligibility requirements and assessment criteria for the individual appointment, and also assign their relative importance. Great importance and accuracy must be attached to the drawing-up of the appointment profile, since it will be the basis both of the applicant’s compilation and of the reviewers’ qualification appraisal.

It is crucially important, both in compiling an appointment profile and in the subsequent scrutiny and assessment, to understand clearly the distinction between eligibility criteria and assessment criteria. The former are the minimum requirements for employment within every teacher category, defined by law, ordinance and the University’s Appointment Regulations, and they must be met for an applicant to be considered eligible. Assessment criteria, on the other hand, are the essential foundation for ranking the various candidates.

The following aspects of applicants’ proficiency must be considered when their qualifications are judged for teaching appointments:

• research expertise
• teaching expertise
• clinical expertise (for an appointment entailing a clinical position) • administrative and management expertise
• collaborative expertise.

The expertise categories above are assessed separately, after which a balanced assessment is made. This assessment is based on the criteria set out in the profile for the appointment concerned.

Research and teaching expertise constitute eligibility requirements, while the other forms of expertise are further, supplementary assessment criteria. The latter criteria are categorised in the Appointment Regulations for Uppsala University, and Guidelines and assessment criteria for recruiting and promoting teachers at the Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy (Riktlinjer och bedömningsgrunder för rekrytering och befordran av lärare vid vetenskapsområdet för medicin och farmaci), as administrative, management and collaborative expertise.

Clinical expertise constitutes a further eligibility requirement for appointments that involve clinical positions.

2.1 The assessment process

Both the Recruitment Committee and the external reviewers need to assess the applications submitted by candidates for a position. For appointment of adjunct teachers and promotions, and in recruitment for positions where there is only one applicant, it is essential to assess whether the candidate meets the set eligibility criteria. Moreover, in recruitments where there is more than one applicant, a ranking among the candidates is required.

For assessment to be as problem-free, transparent and legally secure as possible, it must always be based on a common process, as follows.

1. The Recruitment Committee and the external reviewers must be clear about which criteria confer eligibility for the various forms of expertise assessed. This is most important of all for research and teaching expertise. The appointment profile, as presented in the job advertisement, shows which assessment criteria are relevant for the appointment in question and thus, in the event of several eligible candidates, the weight to be assigned to the various qualifications in relation to one another.
2. Every candidate must be assessed in terms of research expertise, teaching expertise, clinical expertise (where applicable), administrative and management expertise, and collaborative expertise. These assessments are based on their respective portfolios and must primarily focus on whether the candidate is eligible to apply for the position concerned. Thereafter, strengths and weaknesses within every category of expertise are considered and reported. As a tool in the assessment, the Disciplinary Domain’s checklists for various teaching positions must be used where possible.
3. In the event of several applicants all being eligible, the foremost candidates must be ranked. This ranking is based on the appraisal in the various areas described in point 2.

3. Guidelines for qualification compilation and assessment

It is the applicants’ responsibility to compile their qualifications in a manner that allows an objective, qualitative assessment. The application must always contain a curriculum vitae (CV), listing positions held and concisely summarising the qualifications cited in reverse chronological order (with the most recent qualification specified first and the oldest last). Detailed documentation of the qualifications cited must be presented in separate qualification summaries, or portfolios, for the various types of expertise forming the basis for the assessment. This account must be as concise as possible, and relevant to the position in question.

Research, teaching, administrative and management, and collaborative expertise must invariably be reported. Clinical expertise must be described where it is required for the position. Special accounts of other occupational expertise must be included, when it is required to supplement research expertise.

Many qualifications may relate to more than one of the portfolios concerned. One particularly clear example of this is in doctoral education, where contributions may be categorised as conferring both research and teaching qualifications. In the application, qualifications of this kind must be described in both these portfolios. In the above example, the applicant’s qualifying experience thus relates to both research and teaching.

Under the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance (Chapter 4), equal attention must be given to assessing teaching and research expertise. For each, it is incumbent on the Board of the Disciplinary Domain and the Recruitment Committee to decide which requirements this imposes, as well as its implications for selection of external reviewers. As a rule, the Board’s Executive Committee assigns one of the reviewers to carry out a special scrutiny of teaching qualifications. For positions with a particular emphasis on teaching, there is also scope for appointing, besides the usual reviewers, a dedicated specialist expert to review teaching expertise.

For every recruitment, the Board of the Disciplinary Domain, or body to which the right to initiate recruitment has been delegated, must decide on the weighting of various assessment criteria and how to balance them against one another. The duties defined in the appointment profile determine which assessment criteria are used and their relative weighting.

The Recruitment Committee and external reviewers must clearly state their starting points for and conclusions from the appraisal in relation to the assessment criteria adopted by the Board of the Disciplinary Domain.

The applicants’ expertise must be explained in such an all-round way as to permit a fair assessment. This assessment must be based on application documents, reviewers’ statements and interviews and references, if any. Recruitment groups are also entitled to use further tools, such as test lectures, if they consider them relevant to the recruitment concerned.

4. Research expertise: compilation and assessment

The compilation must include the applicant’s scientific production; external research funding obtained; research collaborations; research supervision and contributions in doctoral education; scientific positions of trust; and other research qualifications. In presenting their own research work, applicants must reflect on it and its significance. The basis for assessing the applicants’ own contributions in the projects that resulted in joint publications must be described. Appraisals of applicants reported in, for example, national research evaluations, and their ability to obtain external funding awarded after quality reviews, must be documented.

To fairly assess applicants’ expertise for senior academic positions, valuation parameters that measure various types of expertise are used. The main starting points for assessments are the applicant’s independence, productivity and quality. A distinction must be made between assessment criteria that constitute purely quantitative indicators and those that measure quality in the research carried out. It is also important to consider creativity and visions in the researcher’s work, and to judge contributions that may have a bearing on future healthcare.

4.1 Assessment of research qualifications

Research production

In addition to a numbered, complete publication list, the application must include a personal statement of the applicant’s research activity. Here, the individual’s own role in research work should be clarified and the research results highlighted from an international perspective. The applicant must attach to the application no more than ten works, from which the applicant’s research activity and its quality should be assessable. The applicant’s personal role in the inception of these works should, in particular, be considered. Greater importance must be assigned to quality than to quantity. Further, the degree to which the works have a bearing on the international development of the subject area in question should be assessed. Equal value should be assigned to implications of the research work for clinical practice and purely basic research findings.

Bibliometric measurements may vary from one subject and publishing tradition to another. One manifestation is differences between clinical research results and the results in certain areas of basic research in medicine and pharmacy. This should be borne in mind by reviewers appraising applicants’ research qualifications for appointments entailing clinical positions.

External research funding

An indirect parameter reflecting researchers’ national and international success in the research community is their ability to compete for external research funding. In this context, ‘external research funding’ means grants obtained in national or international competition and where applications are subjected to a thorough assessment of research quality. Examples of such grants are those from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, the EU or European Research Council (ERC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Other types of grant obtained must also be specified.

Research collaboration

Besides scientific production, ability to establish contacts and join in research collaborations is an important aspect of research expertise assessed. The capacity to attract visiting researchers from abroad should be a qualification for employment in the

Disciplinary Domain. This should, above all, concern guest researchers with PhDs who are not postdoctoral students, and who visit the researcher for more than six months. In order for medical and pharmaceutical research to be consistently of the highest international standard, and to make forging clinical ties possible in study programmes for students of medicine and pharmacy in the first and second cycles (basic or Bachelor and advanced or Master education respectively), it is important for the academic representatives in the clinic to have frequent contacts and close collaboration with experimental research groups, and vice versa.

Supervision of doctoral students and doctoral education

One factor that may reflect applicants’ expertise and aptitude for senior academic positions is their ability to lead and supervise research and development projects. A quantitative assessment of this ability is the number of doctoral students who have been supervised up to their completion of the doctoral and/or licentiate thesis. Research supervision as the principal and/or assistant supervisor of doctoral students must be documented. Supervision of postdoctoral researchers must also be documented here.

A key parameter in research supervision is whether the applicant has taken part as lecturer and course organiser, and in similar activities, in doctoral education. Since this parameter is a good gauge of commitment in doctoral education, and also provides some measure of research quality, it should permit comparison among applicants in the same discipline.

Scientific positions of trust

It must be deemed valuable if the applicant has been engaged as a scientific expert in international and national surveys and committees. Expert assignments for academic appointments, as the opponent in public thesis defences (disputations) and as a member of evaluation committees must also be included.

Other scientific qualifications

Other qualifications to which some value should be assigned for assessment purposes are editorship for scientific journals and participation in editorial committees; holding, or being invited to speak at, research symposia, congresses and the like; and being awarded scientific prizes and distinctions.

5. Teaching expertise: compilation and assessment

The compilation of teaching qualifications should include teacher training, teaching administration, production of study resources, teaching development work, teaching experience, collaboration with the local community, evaluations and quality assessments, and the applicant’s basic view of education theory and practice (or educational philosophy). In addition, qualification summaries must include statements describing how the applicants view their own teaching activities.

The qualification summary must contain self-appraisal, and not only information of a quantitative nature, such as the extent of various qualifications. Above all, it must provide the kinds of information that enable qualitative assessments of the applicant’s teaching expertise. Applicants must describe their basic view of education and reflect on their own teaching activities, methods and so forth.

Assessment of the applicant’s teaching qualifications must not be confined to, for example, teaching skill alone. It needs to be based on a broader interpretation of the concept of ‘teaching expertise’. Wide-ranging, solid and up-to-date knowledge of the applicant’s own subject taught is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for teaching expertise. This expertise covers all teaching activities, from planning and implementation to evaluation, feedback and development. In this case, ‘teaching skill’ means how well a teacher performs in the actual implementation – that is, in a teaching situation. Teaching skill is a vital component, but teaching expertise also includes awareness, inclination to engage in development, ability to cooperate with others and contributions to development of teaching and learning in higher education.

5.1 Assessment of teaching qualifications

In assessment of teaching expertise, the focus should be on the quality of the teacher’s work to date. The crux is how far the teacher has worked to promote prospects for student learning. Most important, therefore, is not what the teacher has done in purely quantitative terms but how the teacher has worked, why the teacher has worked in this particular way and what the outcome of the work has been. Here, applicants’ self-appraisal and reflection on their own educational contribution are immensely important.

1. Teacher training

In an assessment, it is important for the listed study programmes in academic teacher training to be genuinely qualifying enough for the applicant to attain eligibility for the job applied for. Such an assessment must be based on the specifications in the University’s education programmes. Other courses cited that are not inherently related to teaching in higher education but may nonetheless be judged to have qualifying value must also be assessed on this basis. Finally, the most important part of the assessment is appraisal of applicants’ reflection on the bearing of the study programmes on the individuals’ development of their own teaching skills.

2. Teaching administration

In assessment of qualifications in teaching administration, the greatest emphasis must be laid on applicants’ independence and capacity for influencing their own work. Major importance should also be attached to the ability to engage in successful collaborations.

3. Production of study resources

The account must include the type of material produced and its bearing on the applicant’s teaching, whether it has been developed independently and whether it is available to other teachers. If so, its dissemination and use, and the results of any evaluations of it, must be described. In assessment, great emphasis should be laid on self-reflection concerning both the study resources developed and the process of developing them.

4. Work to develop teaching

The account must include the nature, scale and independence of the applicant’s development work. Whether the costs of this work have been met with special funding, scholarships or other funds not included in the regular teaching budget must also be stated.

In assessment, great emphasis should be laid on the applicant’s self-reflection on the development process and assessment of its results.

5. Teaching experience

The account must include experience of teaching; of supervising, for example, dissertation writing and degree projects; and of clinical supervision and supervision in specialist education. Participation in teacher exchanges for teaching at higher education institutions (HEIs) abroad should also be specified. In assessment, great weight should be given to self-reflection on choices of teaching forms and methods, and their respective advantages and disadvantages.

6. Evaluations and quality assessments

The account must contain both completed course evaluations and other forms of external assessment. In assessment, heavy emphasis must be laid on self-reflection on the results, both positive and negative, of the appraisals. Showing that negative ratings in course evaluations have led to reassessment and further development of teaching methods may have greater qualifying value than just reporting unreflectingly positive course evaluations.

7. Basic view of education

Applicants must provide a comprehensive account of their educational philosophy. In assessment, great weight should be given to how their basic view of education is connected with the applicants’ everyday teaching. Reflections on further development of their own teaching and goals set for this should also be considered in the assessment.

6. Clinical expertise: compilation and assessment

Good healthcare and clinical expertise are prerequisites for successful, high-quality clinical research. Clinical skills are also essential for prompt application of new research findings to clinical practice for the patients’ benefit. Thus, it is vital for clinical expertise to be systematically assessed when vacant senior academic positions involving clinical work are to be filled. Here, ‘clinical expertise’ covers all clinical activities.

The compilation must, accordingly, include the applicant’s clinical expertise and formal education and training. It must also include a description of the applicant’s own specific area of expertise. Similarly, clinical development work must be documented. This comprises, for example, drug trials, routine changes, development of methods and quality, and work on developing new forms of care and treatment. Both the quantitative breadth and the qualitative standard of applicants’ qualifications must be considered, but the focus should be on the applicants’ reflection on their own clinical work.

7. Administrative and management expertise: compilation and assessment

The summary of administrative and management expertise must include formal training in staff (human resources, HR) administration, leadership and financial administration. In addition, positions of trust and leadership, both clinical and academic, and skills in staff supervision must be reported. Experience of assignments such as membership of boards, committees and working groups, or assignments in other areas such as work on policy issues in ethics, gender equality, equal opportunities, diversity, accessibility, work environment or environmental issues etc., is also reported here.

As for the criteria for assessing management and administrative expertise, these consist, first, in various particulars that are quantifiable and describe a person’s formal proficiency and suitability as a leader and, second, in data constituting judgements on a person’s characteristics as a staff supervisor. Here, the assessment needs to be based on information from referees, employment testimonials and other, similar, written value judgements.

8. Collaborative expertise

Collaboration with the local community is an increasingly important part of the University’s mission. It is therefore important for applicants to describe their ability and experience in terms of scientific popularisation, editorship, education and training, and other activities related to knowledge exchange between universities and the outside world, as well as experience of innovation and entrepreneurship. Collaboration may also involve implementation of new methods and treatment options in healthcare.

Assessing contributions in innovation and entrepreneurship requires quantitative data, such as the number of the applicants’ own patents, products, business ventures and industrial collaborations; and a qualitative assessment of these contributions’ significance. The applicant’s own self-appraisal should constitute an important part of the assessment.

Career portfolios: compilation instructions

The Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy at Uppsala University uses a model of career portfolios to document qualifications. The purpose is to provide tools and a basis for appraising productivity and quality in research, educational activities, clinical practice, administration, leadership, collaboration and other skills that may have a bearing on work at the University. All these skills help to develop the research carried out, and education provided, in the Disciplinary Domain.

The purpose of this document is to give applicants for teaching positions in the Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy at Uppsala University firm guidance on what should be included when the various portfolios are compiled. The document is also supplemented by the previous part of this document, Career portfolios: assessment guidelines, which covers how various qualifications should be assessed. Although the latter document mainly addresses external reviewers and members of recruitment groups, it is highly recommended as guidance for applicants as well. The better applicants understand what will be assessed and how, the better prepared they are when they compile their portfolios.

Broadly, the qualification portfolio has four uses:

1. In recruitment to new appointments. The appointment profile and assessment criteria drawn up ahead of a vacant position being advertised are based on the areas of the portfolio, which makes it easy for applicants to compile the qualifications requested and equally easy for the Recruitment Group to assess them. The qualification portfolio then serves as the basis for ranking of candidates.
2. In promotion from senior lecturer to professor, and from lecturer or assistant senior lecturer to senior lecturer. The qualification portfolio is the basis for the Recruitment Group’s and reviewers’ assessment of whether the applicant meets the Disciplinary Domain’s promotion criteria.
3. In staff performance reviews and for individuals’ skills development.
4. In pay negotiations.

The qualification portfolio comprises six parts: first, a CV, including a list of positions held; then a research portfolio, teaching portfolio, clinical portfolio and administration and management portfolio; and finally a collaboration portfolio.

Note that what to include in the career portfolios is listed below. Nevertheless, it is up to applicants, of course, to cite other qualifications they deem to be relevant. In this case, these should be listed in the appropriate portfolio.

1. Curriculum vitae and list of positions held

• Personal particulars
  • Full name
  • Birth date
  • Address
  • Phone number (if possible, more than one)
  • Email
• Current job
  • State the workplace, job title and when the employment commenced.
• Previous job
  • State previous employment in reverse chronological order (that is, starting with the most recent position). Past employment lacking relevance to the position applied for may be excluded.
• Education and training
  • Post-secondary education in reverse chronological order.
• PhD thesis and associate professorship (docenture or readership)
  • Disputation year, thesis title, supervisor(s), university
  • Associate professorship, year, subject, university
• Research activities
  • Number of original scientific publications
  • Number of original scientific publications as first and last author
  • H-index (Note: to be retrieved from Web of Science.) Number of review articles
  • Number of book chapters
  • Publications (per year) in the past five years
  • Number of citations (per year) in the past five years
  • Number of patents
  • Number of principal supervisorships, completed and ongoing
  • Number of assistant supervisorships, completed and ongoing
  • Number of postdoctoral researchers supervised, completed and ongoing roles
  • Number of opponent assignments at public thesis defences (disputations) Number of evaluation committee assignments at disputations
  • External funding as the main applicant (‘principal investigator’, PI) External funding as a co-applicant
  • Total amount of funding obtained in the past five years
• Teaching
  • Completed course in teaching and learning in higher education, number of weeks and/or number of higher education (HE) credits Teaching hours in the past five years
  • Teaching awards and distinctions
• Clinical expertise and training
  • Licence, occupation and year
  • Specialist degree or diploma, subject and year
  • Number of years’ service as specialist
• Leadership
  • Formal leadership and management training courses, number of weeks and/or days
  • Management assignments
• Academic awards and distinctions
• Major positions of trust
• Other significant qualifications
• References

2. Research portfolio

The purpose of this portfolio is to provide a comprehensive, overarching compilation of the applicant’s scientific production and activities, which in turn can serve as a basis for appraisal of proficiency and qualifications. To allow a fair assessment of applicants’ competence for senior academic positions, valuation parameters that measure various types of skill are used. The main starting points for assessments are the applicant’s independence, productivity and quality.

1. Scientific production
   Under this heading, the following are to be documented:
   • Compilation of all original scientific works, numbered in reverse chronological order. Only works published, in print or accepted are included. In the application, the ten foremost scientific works are marked.
   • Compilation of review articles, numbered in reverse chronological order. Only works published, in print or accepted are included.
   • Numbered compilation of book chapters.
   • Compilation of summaries (abstracts) of lectures as an invited speaker, numbered in reverse chronological order.
   • Compilation of other scientific works and other scientific production.
   • Evaluation of the applicant’s own scientific work to date, with reflection on its significance, both national and international; its breadth and depth; and the applicant’s own scientific independence (maximum two pages).
   • Current research plan, highlighting goals, strategies, methods and the importance of the projects in an international perspective.
2. External research funding
   To be documented:
   • External research funds obtained, listed as grants applied for, first, as the main applicant and, second, as a co-applicant. ‘External research funding’ means grants obtained in national or international competition and where the applications are subjected to assessment of scientific quality. The funder(s), amount(s) of grant and funding period(s) must be stated, listed in reverse chronological order.
   • Other grants.
3. Research collaborations
   To be documented:
   • National and international collaborative projects.
   • Commissioned research.
   • Visiting researchers with PhDs (not postdoctoral) who were hosted by the applicant and stayed at least six months.
4. Supervision of doctoral students and doctoral education
   To be documented:
   • Contribution as a principal or assistant supervisor for a doctoral student who has been supervised up to completion (the public defence or disputation) of the PhD. State name, disputation date, university and thesis title.
   • Contribution as a principal or assistant supervisor for a doctoral student who has been supervised up to completion of a licentiate degree. State name, disputation date, university and thesis title.
   • Supervision of postdoctoral researchers. State name and duration.
   • Ongoing supervision of doctoral students as principal or assistant supervisor. State name, date of midpoint and expected disputation date.
   • Reflection on the applicant’s own teaching in connection with supervision (maximum one page).
   • Contributions as an organiser of doctoral education courses.
   • Participation in doctoral education as a teacher.
   • Contributions to development in doctoral education.
   • Assignments as the person responsible, or other assignments, in doctoral education.
5. Scientific positions of trust
   To be documented:
   • Assignments as a scientific expert in international and national investigations and committees.
   • Assignments as an expert in academic appointments.
   • Assignments as an opponent in public thesis defences (disputation; state the thesis title and university).
   • Assignments as a member of an evaluation committee.
   • Assignments as a member of a research council, committee or other grantapproving board.
   • Assessment of national and international project applications.
   • Participation in national and international evaluations.
   • Assignments on an ethical review board or equivalent.
   • Other relevant positions of trust.
6. Other research qualifications
   To be documented:
   • Editorship for a scientific journal (specify journal and duration).
   • Participation in editorial committees.
   • Assignments as an organiser of national and international conferences.
   • National and international prizes and distinctions received.
   • Membership of academies.
   • Other relevant qualifications.

3. Teaching portfolio

In recruitment of university teachers, the degree of teaching expertise must be assessed with the same attention as other assessment criteria. The aim of the teaching portfolio is therefore to provide a template for how teaching qualifications are to be documented, but also to provide a basis for assessing the scale and quality of the candidate’s teaching work. In assessment, the rule is that quality is more important than quantity. It is thus not what the teacher has done, but how and why, that matters most. Self-appraisal and reflection on the applicant’s own teaching contributions are central in the account of teaching qualifications.

For employees of Uppsala University, Uppsala County Council and Uppsala University Hospital, MedfarmDoIT has developed a tool for electronically structuring a teaching portfolio. This is available in English at Teaching portfolio (www.meritportfolj.se). Applicants who can use the electronic tool to compile the portfolio are highly recommended to do so.

1. Teacher training
   To be documented:
   • Completed courses in teaching and learning in higher education. For each, specify the course provider, duration (in weeks and days) and dates.
   • Other courses on education theory and practice completed, and other formal teacher training. Specify the course provider, duration and dates.
   • Participation in national or international conferences, seminars, workshops or similar on teaching and learning in higher education.
   • Account for and reflect on how the courses affected the applicant’s teaching expertise.
2. Teaching administration
   To be documented:
   • The scale of the applicant’s own teaching responsibility for planning and implementation of courses and study programmes.
   • Experience of responsibility for courses.
   • Experience as a director of studies.
   • Committee work in basic (first and second cycles (basic or Bachelor and advanced or Master education respectively)) and/or research (licentiate or doctorate, or thirdcycle) education.
3. Production of study resources
   To be documented:
   • Work on production of, for example, textbooks, compendia, educational films or digital study resources for e-learning. Include a description of teaching and learning considerations and evaluations, if any, and reflect on the process.
   • State whether the study resources are available to other teachers too. If so, describe their dissemination and use, and results of evaluations of the resources, if any.
4. Teaching development work
   To be documented:
   • Development of new courses and/or updating of undergraduate education. State course and level, scale of updating and teaching considerations.
   • Teaching development work and teaching project funding obtained.
   • Contributions to development of e-learning.
   • Active participation in national and/or international teaching conferences (specify the conference name, dates and venue).
   • Presentations of local, national and international teaching development work.
   • Reflect on processes and results of completed development projects.
5. Experience of teaching
   To be documented:
   • Experience of teaching in the first (basic, Bachelor or undergraduate education), second (advanced or Master education) and third (research, licentiate or doctoral education) cycles, in-service training and further education, specialist training and courses for other occupational categories.
   • Describe the scale of the teaching and forms of teaching used and reflect on them.
   • Experience of supervision for dissertation writing, degree projects or similar.
   • Experience of clinical supervision and supervision in specialist education.
   • Teacher exchanges for teaching at higher education institutions (HEIs) outside Sweden.
6. Evaluations and quality assessments
   To be documented:
   • Completed course evaluations. State course, level, dates and share of course participants responding to the questionnaire. Reflect on both positive and negative results.
   • Quality assessments, such as the students’ study results.
   • Evaluations conducted by other teachers.
   • Teaching awards and distinctions obtained.
   • Conferral of Excellent Teacher status (specify date).
7. Basic view of education
   To be documented:
   • Basic view of education, with reflection on how it has been put into practice in everyday teaching, and how it relates to the job applied for (maximum three pages).
   • Educational starting points and goals.
   • Plans for the applicant’s own teaching work in the near future.

4. Clinical portfolio

Good healthcare and clinical expertise are prerequisites for successful and high-quality clinical research. Clinical skills are also a prerequisite for prompt application of new research findings to clinical practice for the patients’ benefit. Thus, it is important for clinical expertise to be systematically appraised when vacant senior academic positions with clinical duties are filled. Clinical expertise includes all clinical activities. In assessment, both the quantity and the quality of the applicant’s clinical qualifications will be considered.

1. Clinical expertise and training
   To be documented:
   • Clinical training and education completed, documented through specialist expertise and/or further education.
   • Number of years’ service in various positions.
   • The applicant’s own clinical expertise and clinical profile area.
2. Clinical development
   To be documented:
   • Participation in drug recommendations, drug committee work.
   • Development, establishment and/or evaluation of new forms of care and treatment.
   • Drawing-up of healthcare programmes and/or guidelines.
   • Quality development.
   • Drug trials.
3. Administration and management of clinical work
   To be documented:
   • Responsibility as head of clinic and/or in the field.
   • Administrative assignments in healthcare.
   • Quality work implemented.
   • Building of team activities/multidisciplinary collaborative projects.
   • Reflection on the applicant’s own interaction with other staff categories in healthcare (maximum two pages).
   • Outreach activities providing information to patient associations, mass media, etc.
   • Participation on ethical review boards for research on humans.

Referees, employment testimonials and other types of written value assessment from employers and other clients should serve as documentation.

5. Administration and management portfolio

Successful research and teaching cannot be conducted without well-developed management and administrative ability. In the department setting, a need arises for multiple skills and a productive interplay among research, development, teaching and administration, and healthcare in the clinical departments. It is important for all these skills to be assessed when vacant teaching positions are filled, and the purpose of this portfolio is to serve as a tool for such assessments.

1. Training
   To be documented:
   • Education and training in staff (human resources, HR) administration, leadership and financial administration.
   • Education and training in ethics, gender equality, work environment and environmental issues.
   • Other relevant training.
2. Management positions
   To be documented:
   • Presidencies on academic boards (equivalent), investigations, national and international projects, etc. (number and type).
   • Congress organiser (number and type).
   • Positions of trust in academic organisations (number and type).
   • Positions of trust, such as board assignments, in industry, public agencies and national or international organisations (number and type).
   • Governing member of professional and community-oriented organisations.
3. Administrative experience
   To be documented:
   • Experience of work on operational planning and follow-up.
   • Ability to plan, organise and prioritise work based on given conditions, with reflection on how it can be applied to current employment (maximum two pages).
   • Experience of administrative development and quality work.
4. Mentorship
   To be documented:
   • Mentorship and the like that have not involved supervision or been part of training.
5. Work supervision skills
   To be documented:
   • Work supervision skills.
   • ‘Employeeship’ (medarbetarskap).
   • Reflections on the applicant’s own leadership (maximum two pages).
   • Referees, certificates of employment and other forms of written value assessment from employers and other clients should serve as documentation.
6. Work on various policy issues
   To be documented:
   • Active work or assignments in ethics, gender equality, equal opportunities, diversity, accessibility, work environment or environmental issues, etc., such as projects and investigations.

6. Collaboration portfolio

Collaboration with the local community is an increasingly important part of the University’s mission. It is therefore important for the applicant’s ability and experience regarding scientific popularisation, editing and other activities relating to knowledge exchange between universities and the outside world, and also experience of innovation and entrepreneurship, to be described. The purpose of this portfolio is to allow assessments of these qualifications.

1. Education and training
   To be documented:
   • Education and training in entrepreneurship and the like.
   • Education and training in scientific popularisation, journalism and the like.
   • Other relevant education and training.
2. Innovation and entrepreneurship
   To be documented:
   • Patents granted and pending, in chronological order.
   • Other intellectual property (IP) protection.
   • Development of the applicant’s own products and services, such as instruments or analytical methods, that have been commercialised.
   • Development and research in the business sector.
   • The applicant’s own entrepreneurship.
   • Other entrepreneurial skills, such as founding and/or establishing a new business venture, organisation, unit, centre or the like. Applicants should describe the organisation and specify their own contributions.
3. Collaboration with the local community
   To be documented:
   • Scientific popularisation, which may include books, articles, exhibitions, etc.
   • Experience of journalism, editorial work or other media work.
   • Experience of disseminating information.
   • Collaborative projects with schools and course providers.
   • Collaborative projects with government agencies, non-profit organisations, companies, etc.
   • Implementation of new methods and treatment options in healthcare.
   • Teaching activities outside the academic and/or care-giving organisation, addressed at the local community. Specify the target group of clients, scale and dates.
   • Other collaboration with the local community.