Excellence for society International evaluation of research and doctoral TRAINING at the University of Helsinki 2005-2010 Vice-Rector Johanna Björkroth.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program

Advertisements

Aalto University Research Assessment Exercise January 2009.

1 Graduates’ Attributes : EMF, EUR-ACE and Federal Educational Standards Alexander I. Chuchalin, Chair of the RAEE Accreditation Board Graduates’ Attributes.

Research evaluation at CWTS Meaningful metrics, evaluation in context

The quality programme at Linköping University Håkan Hult Gdansk March 13, 2009.

Research funding Liikesivistysrahasto Foundation for Economic Education Johanna Vesterinen CEO, D.Sc. (Econ.) Aalto University School of Business, Helsinki.

Feinberg School of Medicine Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program June 2015.

Questionnaire on well-being at work 2011 University of Helsinki.

9/7/2015Division of Undergraduate Education Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) Program Bert Holmes

Preparing a Successful Graduate Student Award Application Karen Beattie, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Dept. of Medicine McMaster University

The Research Council of Norway AdministrationCommunication Division for Science Division for Innovation Division for Strategic Priorities Director General.

Progress Report for EuroCRIS: Identifying Principal Investigators for CRIS Aija Kaitera University of Helsinki, Rector’s Office.

Outcomes of a National Consortium ICOLC, Rome Oct 12 th -14 th, 2006 Arja Tuuliniemi, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen.

Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA) Program Erica Brown, PhD Director, NIH AREA Program National Institutes of Health 1.

Research Assessment Exercise 2005 (RAE2005) University of Helsinki Arto Mustajoki Based on the material of Vice-Rector Marja Makarow.

Helsinki University Libraries and Electronic Resources Maria Forsman & Terttu Turunen Social Science Library at the University of Helsinki Leonardo da.

Making Good Use of Research Evaluations Anneli Pauli, Vice President (Research)

Self-evaluations at the University of Helsinki Kauko Hämäläinen, professor University of Helsinki Varazdin,

Dr Ritva Dammert Director Brussels May 27, 2009 Evaluation of the Finnish Centres of Excellence Programmes

Predicting the Success rate of Engineering Students Anlia Pretorius, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Philippus P Pretorius, North West University,

12/11/2009 Writing a NIH Grant Application Ellen Puré, PhD, Professor and Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, Wistar Institute Mitchell Schnall.

Appendix 3: The Standard Report From the Church Vitality Survey This Standard Report is produced for each church or church group that completes the Church.

The David Sinclair Award American Association for Aerosol Research.

1 HBIGS Vision in 2007  Establish an internationally visible Graduate School of Molecular and Cellular Biology  Establish transparent.

NIFU STEP studies in Innovation, Research and Education Peer review of impact? Options and challenges Liv Langfeldt RCN 14 April 2008.

Queen’s Teaching Awards QUB Teaching Awards Aims of the Briefing Session To raise awareness of the Queen’s Teaching Awards Scheme To encourage colleagues.

Open access publishing and the question of quality

On Road to Research-Led University of Botswana

Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2016

The Philippine Quality Award Program

Jordan University of Science and Technology General Overview

Research Indicators for Open Science

Promotion & Tenure Program

Designing for the Next Generation of Engineers

Anne Cambon-Thomsen, MD,

Bibliometrics as a pathway to research strategies

NATA Foundation Student Grants Process

Queen’s Teaching Awards 2017

DOSSIER PREPARATION MENTORING PROGRAM

University governance in Europe

FAEIs Student Contest Jolene Hamm.

Feinberg School of Medicine Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program

Title of the Change Project

University of vaasa Rector Jari Kuusisto Tartu

What you need to know now to be promoted later!

Grant Writing Information Session

“What Should Middle Leaders Do?”

EDU 644 Innovative Education- -snaptutorial.com

Data Science University of California Davis

University of Jyväskylä

Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division

Chapter 2 Evolution of Community Health Nursing

Rick McGee, PhD and Bill Lowe, MD Faculty Affairs and NUCATS

American Association for Aerosol Research

Rector Thomas Wilhelmsson

Bioeconomy at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF)

Maximizing Your Chances for Promotion and Tenure

Airmic Conference Seminars : 14 June, 2017

One-Quarter of Women in the U. S

What do the 2014 REF results tell us about the relationship between excellent research and societal impact? Richard Woolley, Nicolás Robinson-García.

Academic promotions briefing – educational research pathway

evaluationslides_4QC_3c_IPSG

AF1 Thinking scientifically

Rector Thomas Wilhelmsson

Allison C. Reeve, Research Librarian, Littler Mendelson, P.C.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS EDUCATION TRACK IMPROVES SELF-RATED COMPETENCIES IN PHYSICAL THERAPY STUDENTS Bohling, C1, Williams, A1, Eustis, H1, Miller, J1, Meyer,

Lorem Ipsum lorem ipsum

Lorem Ipsum lorem ipsum

Swedish Research Council

Getting Your Faculty Promoted

Presentation transcript:

Excellence for society International evaluation of research and doctoral TRAINING at the University of Helsinki 2005-2010 Vice-Rector Johanna Björkroth 7 May 2012 21.9.2018

Outline Role of Steering group Risk taking endeavour Evaluation aspects Success of RCs in evaluation Rewards Osasto / Henkilön nimi / Esityksen nimi 21.9.2018

Steering group (2010-2012) and its role Vice-Rector Johanna Björkroth (pj) Professor Marja Airaksinen (vpj) Chief information specialist Maria Forsman Professor Arto Mustajoki Univ. lecturer Kirsi Pyhältö Director, Academic Affairs Ossi Tuomi Doctoral candidate Jussi Vauhkonen

Some critical questions discussed Participation categories Researcher Community – in evaluation – in future Voluntary participation Performance profiles related to success and rewarding Usefulness of data and reports Bibliometrics Societal impact

Evaluation aspects in Panels’ feedback Scientific quality Scientific significance Societal impact Processes of leadership and management Collaboration Innovativeness Future significance

Material given to the Panels E-forms List of publications (TUHAT) List of other scientific activities (TUHAT) CWTS/Leiden bibliometric analyses RCs Entire University HULib bibliometric analyses for the RCs Doctoral Survey Background information Statistics about the UH and the Finnish HE

Participating Researcher Communities (page161) 21.9.2018

Quality and focus of research Mean of scores (1-5) 3.96 Natural Sciences 4.16 Biological, Agr. and Vet. Scs 4.02 Humanities 4.02 Medicine, Biomed and Health Scs 4.00 Social Scs 3.72 (Page 168) 21.9.2018

Doctoral training Mean of scores (1-5) 4.02 Humanities 4.30 Medicine, biomed and Health Scs 4.09 Natural Scs 4.02 Biological, Agr. and Vet. Scs 3.88 Social Scs 3.86 (Page 168) 21.9.2018

Societal impact Mean of scores (1-5) 4.03 Humanities 4.18 Medicine, biomed and Health. Scs 4.17 Biological, Agr. and Vet Scs 4.02 Social Scs 3.94 Natural Scs 3.82 (Page 168) 21.9.2018

Collaboration Mean of scores (1-5) 4.08 Medicine, biomed and Health Scs 4.22 Natural Scs 4.09 Social Scs 4.08 Humanities 4.07 Biological, Agr. and Vet. Scs 3.93 (Page 168) 21.9.2018

Distributions of numeric evaluation – Panel: Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences (page 67) 21.9.2018

Distributions of numeric evaluation – Panel: Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences (page84) 21.9.2018

Distributions of numeric evaluation – Panel: Natural Sciences (page 105) 21.9.2018

Distributions of numeric evaluation – Panel: Humanities (page125) 21.9.2018

Distributions of numeric evaluation – Panel: Social Sciences (page146) 21.9.2018

Monetary rewards for the years 2013 - 2016 Total 10.47 million euro – division based on the performance of research and doctoral training Rewards will be addressed according to the numerical scores of RCs in participation categories The highest 30 percent in each category will be rewarded Score level of success is unique in each category Amount of reward will be determined according to the number of PIs in successful RCs The success criteria is determined by the first four evaluation questions 21.9.2018

Category 1: Cutting edge (page 345) 21.9.2018

Category 2: Close to Cutting Edge (page 346) 21.9.2018

Category 3: Exceptional (page 346) 21.9.2018

Category 4: Innovative opening (page 347) 21.9.2018

Category 5: Societal impact (page 347) 21.9.2018

Conclusion MORE – Helsinki Has been noted by other universities Produced a valuable set of data Initiated discussion about collaboration Produced first time bibliometric raports 21.9.2018

All reports are available in electronic form: Thank you All reports are available in electronic form: http://www.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/halvin_julkaisut.shtml University-level paperback report can be ordered: https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/35495/lomake.html