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

Part 2 – Conclusions of the review
c) Particularly in areas where electronic access to published work
is difficult (particularly the arts and humanities), a lay-out of
published work in relevant departments during the site visit
would have been helpful
d) It would have been helpful to have more in-depth meetings with
researchers and departmental and faculty leaders, which could
be more effectively done by a visit to Lund by all panel members
(rather than panel meetings being held away from Lund).
e) Teaching and research are intimately related in their demands
on staff time, on the vitality of particular areas, which is often
conditioned by the contributions from different income sources,
in the role of research in education, and in the fact that the most
powerful vector whereby research understanding passes into society
is through university graduates. Departmental self-reviews
should therefore also analyse the teaching-research relationship.
107. We therefore suggest the following process for future reviews:
Step 1: Initial documentation to individual panels should comprise:
the terms of reference for the review, self-evaluations
at departmental and faculty levels (including the approach
to teaching as well as research), listing of all faculty
members, the university strategic plan, the report of the
preceding review, bibliometric analyses, details of grants
and publication, and collaboration.
Step 2: Collation of interim reports from panels that also identify
issues for the site visit.
Step 3: 3-day site visit including all panel members for discussions
with staff in the units of assessment (including
lay-out of published material in fields where materials are
not electronically available).
Step 4: 2-day continuation of the site visit involving only chairs
and vice chairs of panels to integrate their conclusions,
address cross-cutting issues, give preliminary verbal
feedback, and plan collation of the final report.
45