Evaluating the research priorities

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?