Leeuwen, T.N. van

Prins, A.

Spaapen, J.

Van den Broek-Honingh, N.

Leiden University Scholary Publications

Ad Prins Jack Spaapen Thed van Leeuwen Nelleke van den Broek-Honingh  Pathways to Impact of SSH research, Vienna, November 29, 2018 QRiH:  Towards a fitting system for Humanities research evaluation The quest for indicators for Humanities research 29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation Recommendations of several reports influenced the central Dutch evaluation protocol Standard Evaluation Protocol The Dutch evaluation context: SEP 29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation     Quality domains     Research quality Relevance to society Assessment dimensions Demonstrable products 1. Research products for peers 4. Research products for societal target groups Demonstrable use of products 2.    Use of research products by peers 5. Use of research products by societal target groups Demonstrable marks of recognition 3.    Marks of recognition from peers 6. Marks of recognition by societal target groups Developing indicators for Humanities research • Working group, under the auspices of the deans of Humanities faculties • Panels involving all 17 Humanities research schools and over 200 researchers • Analyzing research outcomes of two large Humanities faculties • Experiences and approaches in other countries (VABB-SHW and CRISTiN) • Include books, large variety of journals • Context differs: direct financial consequences  29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation Diversity in types and trajectories • Diversity in types: catalogues, documentaries, designs, software, databases, etc. • Orientation in languages: Dutch, other languages • Trajectories:  29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation The QRiH approach: Narratives Narrative as the basic structure for the self-evaluation of the research unit.  • Address both the scientific and the societal mission of the research and supported this by concrete evidence.  • Elaborate the six SEP cells in the table with indicators: • Indicators authorized by panels & supervised by a national panel. • Indicators as described in general terms in the QRiH website, to be elaborated by the unit itself: “reasoned” indicators • The unit is free in choosing to narrate the trajectory of quality and relevance… but evidence for each cell remains vital.   29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation Website: www.qrih.nl/en 29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation Content: • Format for self-assessments • Indicators  • Authorized through panels • Broadly defined for further elaboration  • Lists of journals and publishers • Examples • Profiles of research domains Using QRiH in assessments: first experiences Outcomes of questionaires for directors and policy makers involved in actual assessments: • QRiH is known and appreciated as a tool, particularly its narrative form • But the actual use is still hampered by: • Too many different groups of indicators • Profiles of research schools hardly used,  • Lists of journals hardly used: Ambivalence regarding the status of lists of journals and publishers • Distinction with the (dominant and prevailing) SEP protocol  QRiH a learning process…..  29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation 29 november 2018 QRiH a fitting system for humanities research evaluation Ad Prins, Support in ResearchManagement          info@adprins.nl   Jack Spaapen, KNAW    Thed van Leeuwen, CWTS    Nelleke van den Broek-Honingh, Rathenau 

QRiH: Towards a fitting system for humanities research evaluation .

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2909482/download

QRiH: Towards a fitting system for humanities research evaluation .

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Leiden University Scholary Publications