MENTOR CRITIQUE FORM

Your thoughtful and honest appraisal will be most helpful. We appreciate your input and will try to implement as many of your ideas as possible. Continue comments on the back if necessary.

The IPF program pairs each Fellow with one or two mentors who are Soros foundations network-affiliated (usually Open Society Institute and Central European University), as well as one 'external' mentor who is an expert in the field working outside the Soros foundations network. Mentors should: 1) Work with Fellows to devise a brief policy paper in their field(s) of expertise based on a lengthy research paper written over the course of the fellowship year, 2) Maintain contact with Fellows at least once every six weeks or so by telephone, fax or e-mail to discuss the development of projects, 3) If feasible, meet with Fellows at least once during the fellowship year to discuss the project, 4) Facilitate Fellows' contact with other relevant experts and participation in appropriate meetings (IPF has discretionary funds to support Fellow attendance at relevant events), 5) Complete brief mid-term and final critique forms supplied by IPF to provide the program with feedback regarding the Fellow's progress.

Your name, position:  Bela Greskovits, Ceu, Professor, Head, International Relations and European Studies Department

Name of Fellow you have assisted: Sabina Avdagic

1. What, in your opinion, have you and your Fellow/program/project gained from your cooperation thus far?

Since my last (positive) evaluation the project showed further promising development, and is on the best way to produce valuable final results. New element is the rather well structured presentation of the EU dimension, and a more detailed and empirically well-funded comparison of the social dialogue scene in the EU and the three countries.
 

2. Do certain areas of this Fellow's work need improvement? Which areas?

• More detailed evidence is needed on the interaction between union organization and strength, economic conditions, and government policy (especially in Hungary and the Czech Republic) on the one hand, and the shape of social dialogue in the course of the EU accession. Given the character of the evidence required to improve this aspect, I suggest a strong focus on primary field research (interviews, and case study).

• While the first steps have been made to include trans-national actors' (EU unions, business and policy makers) impact in the field of study, this is the other aspect where the inquiry has to be deepened.

3. In your opinion, does your Fellow's project make a significant contribution to the field?

YES - NO

In general, not much has been written on labor during the transformation, and - except a few edited volumes - even less comparative research has been done. Thus Sabina works on a much needed research.
 

4. Would the project be important to other countries in the CEE/fSU region?

YES - NO

Especially to other EU applicant countries, given that much of what Sabina writes about the situation of unions and social dialogue in the CEEs also seems to fit (with variation) to the rest of the applicants.
 

5. Could the proposed policy research make an impact on the policy environment in specific countries or regions? (Policy makers, experts and policy research community)

YES - NO

One way of achieving a policy effect would be to ask the help of Friedrich Ebert Stiftung well established in all three countries to organize for Sabina's project (once it is completed) a "dissemination seminar" with invited trade unionists, business representatives, government officials and academics. It is their practice to play the middleman in EU- and labor-related issues.
 

6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?

YES - NO

It depends. While the project is very well advancing, and there is no delay in writing the policy paper, additional time would be needed to more in detail explore and disseminate the related policy suggestions.
 

7. Could the project benefit a large number of people?

YES - NO

(See my comment on point 5.)

8. Does the Fellow show evidence that he/she can think strategically about the relevant project and/or field?

YES - NO

The draft is a proof for this.
 

9. If the Fellow were to re-apply for continued OSI funding for follow-up work associated with the project, would you support continued funding?

YES - NO

Without hesitation, given the importance and actuality of the project, the good quality of the work done so far, and its potential importance in intensifying the dialogue on social dialogue.
 

10. Are there other appropriate funders that may support the project?

YES - NO

One should try to find contacts to the EU and the ILO.
 

Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:

Sabina by now has most important contacts, but people at ILO (e.g. Guy Standing could further help).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Additional Comments (Please comment on your Fellow's work and all aspects of the IPF program using the back of this sheet):