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-assessmentGrade Description

Excellent The unit produces research that is world leading. Researchers are working at the forefront of their field internationally and their research has an important and substantial impact in the field.

Very good The unit produces research that is internationally competitive and that makes a significant contribution to the field. The unit is considered a regional leader.

Good The unit produces work that is competitive at the regional level and makes a valuable contribution in the international field. The unit is considered internationally visible.

Satisfactory The unit produces work that adds to our understanding and is solid but pedestrian. The unit is considered regionally visible.

Unsatisfactory The unit produces work that is pedestrian, not solid, flawed in the scientific and or technical approach and/or repeats other work.

9

Thank you for your attention

Questions?