Guide to preparing the self-evaluation report in the field of the Humanities

The first decision to make

A number of decisions need to be made before writing the self-evaluation. These decisions are taken at the administrative level: that of the faculty/executive board or the board of the KNAW or NWO. It is essential to have clarity on these issues, or you will be unable to write a proper assessment. In particular, this concerns:

• the aggregation level or scale of the evaluation, including evaluation across institutional boundaries
• the Terms of Reference outlining the framework of the evaluation

 

I Establish a working group

1. A robust working group should be established to write the report, including members who can produce drafts. As the unit’s strategy lies at the heart of the current SEP, the unit’s researchers should be involved in the self-evaluation from the outset. You also need data-collectors and a good coordinator or secretary.
2. If you are producing an ‘embedded evaluation report’ (see aggregation level), ensure there is proper coordination of who will do what.

II First outline the contours

1. Initiate a discussion within the research unit about the position and strategy to highlight in the report, and then decide which indicators are best suited to supporting the conclusions on this position and strategy in term of quality, relevance and viability (for a more detailed explanation, see III.a below).
2. Note that the SEP not only draws attention to the unit’s mission and strategy on scientific and social quality and relevance and viability/vitality, but also to this in relation to academic culture, PhD supervision, Open Science and HR policy. From the very beginning, you should develop these elements and dimensions in relation to the strategy followed (for more information, see III.b below)
3. Immediately record the results of the discussions under (a) and (b) in writing: this will give the self-evaluation greater unity and save much time and effort, because it will allow you to gather more targeted material.

 

III Develop the contours

1. The discussions under points II.a and II.b address the unit’s core mission and strategic goals over the past six years, including how these have evolved;

 

1. 1. A general characterisation of the unit’s position and mission, as captured in:
   2. The strategic goals, the scientific and social orientation of the research, including in terms of audience: whom does the unit target with its output/products/activities/processes, including in the light of domain profiles
   3. Resources: with what commitments and resources, including, e.g., national and international partnerships and direct collaborations
   4. Characterisation of own position: how does the unit differ from similar research groups/institutes in terms of its goal, strategy and resources, see also Benchmarking
   5. Which indicators and case studies are best suited to demonstrating developments in the light of the above, using robust quantitative and qualitative data; see:

• • • • • SEP Appendix E1
        • explained in more detail in SEP Appendix E2
        • detailed examples and definitions of indicators are available on the QRiH website

 

2. Strategy followed: what has been done in the past period to develop the dimensions listed under II.b? See descriptions in the SEP.

• • 1. Academic culture: Policy on open culture, integrity, diversity;
    2. PhD supervision and HR policy: Selection, supervision, training;
    3. Open Science Open Access, stakeholder involvement, basic principles on data storage, reuse and provision, contested knowledge;
    4. HR policy: Personnel policy, talent management, diversity.

 

IV Further development: data-collection

1. Once you have established (a) what the goals and strategy are and (b) which indicators and case studies to use to show what has been achieved, data can be collected and case studies can be drawn up (‘filling in’ the cells of table E1/E2 or case studies).
2. The same applies to the dimensions Academic culture, PhD supervision, Open Science and HR policy.

 

V Write the results sections

Draft chapters on the basis of the outcomes of III and IV in the light of the formulated goals and strategy.

 

VI Discuss draft and hold discussion about the future (SWOT)

After completing the draft self-evaluation: debate the final draft, culminating in a discussion about a SWOT analysis and the strategy for the next six years.

 

Note on transparency

The SEP calls for transparency in the evaluation process; that is, both the evaluation report and the administrative responses to it should be made public at the end of the process.