Criteria and Working Methods
SECTION 4: TEMPLATE FOR DEVELOPING CRITERIA AND WORKING METHODS
4.1 In preparing its statement of criteria and working methods, each panel should work through the following questions. The statements should follow the headings and structure of this template.
4.2 This template identifies the generic issues which need to be addressed by all panels. Panels may also wish to supplement this information with discipline specific issues.
4.3 The panel should comment on the detailed boundaries of its unit(s) of assessment within the broad framework indicated by the descriptions of UoAs.
4.4 What arrangements will the panel use to assess submissions which span the boundary between two or more UoAs?
4.5 Will sub-panels be required to advise on particular areas? Please give details.
4.6 Will specialist advice be required on specific areas? Please give details.
4.7 How is the panel going to approach the assessment of interdisciplinary research?
4.8 What arrangements will the panel use to assess joint submissions?
Treatment of evidence
4.9 Panels are required to consider the quality of research presented in each submission in the round. Within this framework, how will the panel consider the various items of evidence presented?
4.10 What are the types of research output which the panel expects to receive? ( Papers, books, materials, images, devices, patents etc.)
4.11 What proportion of research outputs cited in submissions is to be reviewed in detail?
4.12 How is the panel going to select which cited outputs to review in detail?
4.13 How will the quality of each of these types of output be assessed? Please list the criteria to be used to judge each type of output. Types of output may not be ranked against each other. Outputs not already subject to a review or refereeing process may not automatically be regarded as of lesser quality.
Research Students and Research Studentships
4.14 How will the data on research students and research studentships be used in judging quality?
4.15 How will the panel regard different sources of studentships?
External Research Income
4.16 How will the data on external research income be used in judging quality?
4.17 How will the panel regard different types of funding?
4.18 The following list of sub-headings provides guidance on issues which panels may wish HEIs to address in the textual parts of submissions RA5 and RA6.
4.19 Define research groups, who belongs to them (referring to RA1), their prime activities, how they operate and their main achievements.
4.20 List other UoAs to which related work has been submitted and detail any difficulties of fit between departmental structure and the UoA framework.
4.21 Explain the mechanisms and practices for promoting research and sustaining and developing an active and vital research culture.
4.22 Describe the nature and quality of the research infrastructure, including facilities for research students.
4.23 Describe any arrangements which are in place for supporting interdisciplinary or collaborative research.
4.24 Provide information on relationships with industry and commerce or other research users and where appropriate on the account taken of Government policy initiatives and objectives.
4.25 Describe the arrangements for the development and support of the research work of staff.
4.26 Describe any arrangements which are in place for developing the research of younger and /or new researchers and for integrating them into a wider, supportive research culture.
4.27 Where appropriate explain the role and contribution of staff who have been recruited in the run up to the census date.
4.28 Where appropriate, comment on how the departure of staff in categories A* B and D has affected the strength, coherence and research culture of the department at the census date.
4.29 The panel may wish to indicate other issues on which comment would be helpful.
4.30 Provide a statement about the main objectives and activities in research over the next five years. The panelís attention should be drawn to ongoing research work that is not producing immediate visible outcomes.
4.31 Where relevant evaluate the research plans put forward in the 1996 RAE.
4.32 Provide a self-assessment of performance in relation to the issues detailed above the textual commentary. Credit will be given for honest, self-critical and constructive self-assessments.
Evidence of esteem
4.33 List indicators of per esteem which relate to the staff submitted (the panel may wish to give examples of indicators which it will regard highly).
Individual Staff Circumstances
4.34 Note any individual staff circumstances which have significantly affected their contribution to the submission (e.g. periods of sick leave, career breaks, engagement on long term projects etc).
4.35 Do the panel wish to request any additional information? Please specify.
4.36 Why is this information required?
4.37 How will this information add value to the process of assessing research quality?
4.38 Does the panel envisage using a quantitative approach to assessing parts of the evidence presented? If so how?
4.39 How will the panel ensure consistent and equitable treatment of all submissions made?
4.40 How will the panel divide the work of assessment between its members?
4.41 How is the panel going to make decisions?
4.42 How is the panel going to approach the interpretation of the rating points for its discipline? In particular how does the panel define international excellence in its field?
4.43 How is the panel going to use the corresponding group of non-UK based experts to verify its identification of international excellence?
Last updated 4 June 1999