Robust, objectifiable data are data and descriptions that are soundly argued, convincing and verifiable. Such data do not have to be quantitative, however ( i.e. produced by counting). Rather, it is all about demonstrability in the descriptions of processes, (collaborative) networks, or showing how the work has impacted that of others; in academia, in society, or both. See the examples.
SEP Appendix E: Merit and Metrics (p. 34) sets out the different quality domains for Research and Social relevance, each of which can be distinguished in terms of the categories ‘product’, ‘use’ and ‘recognition’. For each of these categories, the protocol suggests a number of indicators, which can be interpreted quantitatively or otherwise. This means that there are ultimately six categories.
The following points are important with respect to the humanities:
- Coherence of the indicators: Table E1 is primarily a guide. Whilst the indicators to be selected for research and relevance may fit into the six categories, they are ultimately dependent on the research unit’s overarching aims, plan and process. For this reason, you should select indicators that together support the narrative referred to in Appendix B (Appendix B: Strategy – aims, plan and process, p. 29).
- The categories: The six categories in the table should not be considered in isolation:
- Aspects: in much work in the humanities, the quality of research and social relevance are aspects of the same products, use or recognition. à For this reason, the products, use and recognition should be described in context. For example: series/books with demonstrable social and academic use.
- Part of work process and development: products, use and recognition are process features of the work carried out by researchers in the course of their careers, or of a group’s research. à Therefore describe products, use and recognition as aspects of the strategic development of the research, for example in a long-term context. For example: FASOS interdisciplinary work.
- Profile of the unit or sub-unit: not all work in the humanities has the same profile in terms of specialisation, international orientation or collaboration; these depend on the unit’s goal (see SEP, p. 29). à Therefore describe the nature of the products, use and recognition in relation to the unit’s profile, as set out in the strategy. For sub-units, see aggregation level
- Comparisons: research units in the humanities are usually so distinctive in terms of their subject, approach and strategic profile that it will be difficult to compare units on the basis of quantitative indicators; it is like comparing chalk and cheese. Qualitative comparison offers a more useful approach, in which the unit’s mission, strategy and outcomes are measured against or compared to those of related units. See benchmarking
- Development: as an extension of the above, the development of the research unit can also form the starting point for a comparison; a comparison with itself, in other words. In this case, describe how the research unit has developed with reference to the relevant set of (quantitative) indicators.