ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Part 2 – Conclusions of the review
G. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE REVIEW PROCESSES
100. The current intention of the University is that a review process
analogous to that undertaken in 2008 should become a regular
event. Its purpose would be to subject Lund’s development as a
research-intensive university to rigorous testing against international
standards and to inform its strategic planning at all levels.
Moreover, it is anticipated that a form of regular review will be
instituted at national level at some time in the near future. We
therefore offer the following comments about how future reviews
might be carried out, in view of the reviewers’ experiences in 2008,
and also add comments that might be helpful to those who could be
tasked to plan a national review scheme.
101. Although we are aware of three major reviews that have been
undertaken at Scandinavian universities in recent years, at the
Universities of Helsinki, Oulu and Uppsala, the panels have
avoided scrutinising these reviews as models for their approach, to
ensure that the review fits the circumstances in Lund. We understand
however that the internal planning group for the review took
the experiences of those other reviews into account in planning the
structure of the Lund exercise.
G1. The utility of the review to the University
102. The utility of the review to the central management of the University
will depend upon the way in which they use it to inform future
planning and decisions. We have asked, and they have agreed, that
they will report back within a year to the review group about ways
in which the outcome of the review has been used in future planning.
Any group planning a national review might wish to discuss
with the University management how review outcomes have been
useful to the university in strategic planning.
103. In meetings with faculties, departments and other research groupings,
and their deans, heads and leaders, reviewers asked about the
degree to which the review process had been a net burden or net
benefit to them. A common response was that although the review
had been initially unwelcome as an additional imposition, the
43