1 / 9

Evaluating the research priorities

Evaluating the research priorities. Jean-Marie Hombert & Bruno Curvale. Overview of presentation. Panel composition Preparatory phase Site visit Reporting document Report Questions?. Panel composition. 5 expert panels , each including: two Committee members, one chairing the panel

skah
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating the research priorities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the research priorities Jean-Marie Hombert & Bruno Curvale

  2. Overview of presentation • Panel composition • Preparatory phase • Site visit • Reporting document • Report • Questions?

  3. Panel composition • 5 expert panels, each including: • two Committee members, one chairing the panel • three international experts • one PhD student • one secretary • Composition: see annex 1

  4. Preparatory phase • Panel Training (Luxembourg, Feb. 17th 2012) • for panel members only • introduction to context for external evaluation (specificity, history and background of the University of Luxembourg) • overview of the context and the results from the first external review • clarifying the new Handbook, procedures & evaluation framework • Internal preparation of panels (first panel meeting this afternoon) • preliminary findings on draft self-assessment report • decision on need for additional information • defining work plan, including schedule for site visit (in consultation with priority) • Secretary of panel liaises with priority through nominated liaison person(work plan, additional information, practical arrangements,…)

  5. Site visit • 1 ½ days (7- 8th or 8 -9th of May 2012): • meetings with, at least: • the author(s) of the self-assessment report, • the policy makers of the unit, • academic staff • PhD-students + possibility to be heard in private meeting • See Annex 4: proposal for schedule of meetings • schedule is a first proposal and should be further established by the panel • research priority should be given the possibility to comment on schedule. • practical arrangements (accommodation, transport, meals)should be taken care of by university (secretary of panel contacts liaison person of priority)

  6. Reporting document • See Annex 5 • To be used by the individual panel members before, during & after visit • After the visit each panel member completes the reporting document and sends it to the secretary of the panel. • Reporting document indicates: • opinion about the research priority for each theme (max. ½ page per theme) , taking into account (but not necessarily addressing all) the elements listed. • general opinion about the research priority in relation to the quality of performance and outcomes of the units • Suggestion for a grade on 5-point scale

  7. Report (1) • Panel writes report, checks factual information with priority and submits report to Committee (before June 15th 2012) • The Committee, panels or panel members will not formally report at this stage on intermediate findings • Report contains: • the panels’ findings (input/process/output/QA) • list of recommendations. • overall verbal conclusion assessing quality of performance and outcomes of unit • a score on a 5 point scale

  8. Report (2) – scale for peer-assessment

  9. Thank you for your attention Questions?

More Related