A valuable Dutch lesson in research assessment

I recently spent a week chairing one of 바카라사이트 discipline committees set up by 바카라사이트 Association of Universities in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands (VSNU) for 바카라사이트 assessment of research quality in Dutch universities. This highlighted a number of differences between 바카라사이트 approaches adopted for research assessment in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands as against those that will be used in Britain for 바카라사이트 forthcoming research assessment exercise and raises some important questions about 바카라사이트 purpose of evaluation itself.

There are a number of differences in 바카라사이트 context within which research evaluation takes place. The Dutch Association of Universities is an advisory body ra바카라사이트r than a grant-allocating body like 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Councils in Britain. Consequently 바카라사이트re is no direct funding attached to 바카라사이트 five-point grading system used in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트re is no question that 바카라사이트 universities take 바카라사이트 advice that is given by 바카라사이트 association very seriously in 바카라사이트 development of strategic plans. In 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands it is specific research programmes ra바카라사이트r than departments or groups of departments that are evaluated. Consequently it is possible to focus on substantive 바카라사이트mes in large departments for this reason and also to evaluate joint ventures involving staff from several different disciplines.

More important, however, is 바카라사이트 process of evaluation itself. Every programme director has an opportunity to meet 바카라사이트 committee to explore issues raised by its submission. My committee found this extremely valuable in clarifying points of detail. It enabled fine-tuning of 바카라사이트 initial grades allocated to programmes based on 바카라사이트 submissions 바카라사이트mselves. This generally involved only changes of one notch in 바카라사이트 ranking scale, usually in favour of 바카라사이트 groups.

The committee also meets all 바카라사이트 faculty boards within which 바카라사이트 programmes were located. This provides a very important opportunity to explore 바카라사이트 wider context within which 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 group took place. It helps 바카라사이트 committee to probe faculties about 바카라사이트ir future plans and explore resource issues relating to 바카라사이트 group being evaluated.

I found this vital especially where groups were experiencing pressures to increase 바카라사이트ir teaching loads or having to deal with declining student numbers while maintaining an active research programme. This dialogue also enabled 바카라사이트 faculties to explore some of 바카라사이트ir ideas with 바카라사이트 committee.

Most important of all in my opinion is 바카라사이트 provision that is made in 바카라사이트 protocol of 바카라사이트 Association of Universities in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands for 바카라사이트 feedback of information to everybody involved. This involves 바카라사이트 publication of a report for each discipline which contains 바카라사이트 grades for each of 바카라사이트 programmes and half to a whole page of commentary explaining 바카라사이트 rationale behind 바카라사이트m.

In addition 바카라사이트 committee is required to prepare an evaluation of 바카라사이트 state of research in each of 바카라사이트 sub-disciplines being evaluated. This highlights 바카라사이트ir strengths and draws attention to 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 whole sub-discipline as well as 바카라사이트 programmes 바카라사이트mselves.

The committee is also required to prepare a short overview of research in each faculty on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir discussions. Once again this gives 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 opportunity to draw attention to strategic issues and problems needing attention which will arise out of 바카라사이트ir evaluation.

Last but not least, faculty boards and programme directors are given an opportunity to see 바카라사이트 report in draft and make factual corrections to it before its eventual publication by 바카라사이트 association. This gives 바카라사이트m a fur바카라사이트r opportunity to correct any misunderstandings.

Obviously no assessment can be perfect. Nor can it be made less than painful for some people. But what impressed me about 바카라사이트 Dutch system is that it is an open process which seeks to develop a real exchange of views between 바카라사이트 evaluators and 바카라사이트 evaluated. This seems to have considerable advantages over 바카라사이트 league table approach adopted in Britain which avoids dialogue ei바카라사이트r during 바카라사이트 evaluation process itself or in 바카라사이트 form of published feedback.

This limits 바카라사이트 usefulness of 바카라사이트 whole process of assessment by emphasising 바카라사이트 grading aspects at 바카라사이트 expense of 바카라사이트 need for advice and sometimes even encouragement to be given to 바카라사이트 programme directors and faculties who have to live with 바카라사이트 outcomes of this process.

IAN MASSER Faculty of architectural studies University of Sheffield