2. Research assessment 2010 Motivation Terms of reference Results Recommendations

3. Read the report

4. Purpose of evaluation The success of JY requires that its research is carried at top international level and the research quality is internationally acknowledged. For that we need Information on the quality of our research SWOT analysis Recommendations and suggestions

5. Principles of assessment Equality – all fields treated similarly Independence – no influence on results by JY Participation – units are involved Transparency – open processes

6. Assessment criteria 1. Scientific quality of research 2. Quality of scientific impact 3. Quality of research collaborations 4. Quality and quantity of research funding 5. Quality of research environment Not evaluated: PhD programmes and societal impact

7. Panel 1 – Sport and Health Sciences Biology of Physical Activity Health Sciences Sport Sciences Panel 2 – Social Sciences Psychology Social Sciences and Philosophy Panel 3 – Mathematics and Science Biological and Environmental Sciences Physics Chemistry Mathematics and Statistics Panel 4 – Information Technology Mathematical Information Technology Computer Science and Information Systems Panel 5 - Humanities Arts and Culture Studies History and Ethnology Languages Communication Music Centre for Applied Language Studies Panel 6 - Education Education Teacher Education Institute of Educational Research Panel 7– Business and Economics Business Economics Evaluated units Altogether 22 units were evaluated Not evaluated as separate units: Agora Center Nanoscience Center Institute for Environmental Research

8. Panels consisted of 40 Experts

9. Marks used in assessment 5 = Outstanding international level 4 = Very good international level 3 = Good international level 2 = Fair international level 1 = No international level (The panels also used half-integers 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5)

10. Quality of research 20 units: very good or outstanding international level 2 units: good international level

11. Scientific quality of research Outstanding 5.0 Outstanding-Very good 4.5 Very good 4.0 Very good –Good 3.5 Good 3.0 Good-Fair 2.5 Fair 2.0 Fair-No 1.5 No 1.0 Number of units

12. Quality scientific impact Outstanding 5.0 Outstanding-Very good 4.5 Very good 4.0 Very good –Good 3.5 Good 3.0 Good-Fair 2.5 Fair 2.0 Fair-No 1.5 No 1.0 Number of units

13. Quality of research collaboration Outstanding 5.0 Outstanding-Very good 4.5 Very good 4.0 Very good –Good 3.5 Good 3.0 Good-Fair 2.5 Fair 2.0 Fair-No 1.5 No 1.0 Number of units

14. Quality and quantity of research funding Outstanding 5.0 Outstanding-Very good 4.5 Very good 4.0 Very good –Good 3.5 Good 3.0 Good-Fair 2.5 Fair 2.0 Fair-No 1.5 No 1.0 Number of units

15. Research environment Outstanding 5.0 Outstanding-Very good 4.5 Very good 4.0 Very good –Good 3.5 Good 3.0 Good-Fair 2.5 Fair 2.0 Fair-No 1.5 No 1.0 Number of units

16. Biology of Physical Activity Psychology Mathematical Information Technology CONGRATULATIONS Three departments got top grade 5 both in scientific quality and in scientific impact

17. Excellent departments in scientific quality and scientific impact (average 4.5 or 5) Faculty:Department: Sport and Health Sciences:Biology of Physical Activity Health Sciences Social Sciences:Psychology Mathematics and Science:Biological and Environmental Sciences Physics Chemistry Mathematics and Statistics Information Technology:Mathematical Information Technology Humanities:History and Ethnology Languages Music

18. But... Read the report

19. How is excellence recognized Internationally known scientists, CoE, FiDiPro Publications in high impact forums (international) International collaborations Foreign researchers

20. Recommendations Improve research strategy (9 units) More EU funding (9 units) Improve PhD – education, now too long (7 units) Increase high impact publication forums (7 units) Improve research leadership (6 units) Increase international recruiting (3 units) Increase the size of the unit (3 units) Improve premises and infrastructure Make sabbatical program

21. Department heads, professors, researchers, administrators … Read the report and take action

22. Conclusions Reaching excellence takes time – five years is short Excellence needs good infrastructure Top research is international Excellence needs good research training Research strategy and leadership are important This assessment was on research only – strengths and weaknesses in education and societal impact were not evaluated

23. Thank you Contact persons of departments Taija Finni Harri Suominen Jarmo Liukkonen Markku Penttonen Olli-Pekka Moisio Roger Jones Rauno Julin, Soili Leskinen Jan Lundell Jouni Parkkonen Raino Mäkinen Pasi Tyrväinen Thank you Jennifer Nelson for arranging the language check Heikki Hanka Jari Ojala Hannele Dufva Anne Pitkänen-Huhta Pertti Hurme Petri Toiviainen Tarja Nikula Anja-Riitta Lehtinen Anna-Maija Poikkeus Helena Aitola Mika Haapanen

24. Thank you Researchers, technical and administrative personnel, heads of departments, and deans of faculties for writing the self-evaluation reports and taking part of the site visits