Outline•

Welcome and housekeeping rules•

The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment•

Overview of the CoARA Working Group on Reforming Academic Career
Assessment•

Case studies
• Q&A

•

Survey results
• Q&A

•

Discussion in break-out groups•

Final statements2

Housekeeping rules•

Use the chat to introduce yourself, communicate with other participants andask questions;•

The session will be recorded, including Q&A. Discussion in break-out groups will
not be recorded;•

Recording and slides will be shared with participants;•

You can ask questions via the chat, or during the Q&A sessions.

3

Coaliton for Advancing Research
Assessment – CoARA•

Building on progress made so far (DORA, Leiden Manifesto,
Hong Kong Principles), the Agreement establishes
a common direction for research assessment reform,
while respecting organisations’ autonomy. It is based onshared principles, 10 commitments, and a timeframe (1 & 5
years) for reforms.

•

Overarching goal to maximise the quality and impact of
research, basing assessment primarily on qualitative
judgement, supported by responsible use of quantitative
indicators.

•

The Agreement was published on 20 July 2022•

The Agreement full text - CoARA

4

CoARA Membershipby type of organisation
In descending order of total share:

5%

3%

Universities and their associations

7%
Research centres, research infrastructures,and their associations

8%

Academies, learned societies, and their

14%

63%

associations, and associations ofresearchers
Public or private research fundingorganisations and their associations

646 member
organisations
735 signatories[21 May2024]

Other relevant non-for-profit organisations
involved with research assessment, andtheir associations
National/regional authorities or agencies
that implement some form of researchassessment and their associations

5

SpainItaly
PolandFranceEuropeFinlandSwedenGermany
Netherlands
Romania
Portugal
United Kingdom
Global
NorwayUkraineIreland
Austria
Belgium
Switzerland
Hungary
Czechia
Slovenia
Denmark
Lithuania
Georgia
TurkiyeMoldova
Luxembourg
Chile
Slovakia
North Macedonia
Iceland
Estonia
AndorraCosta Rica
Zimbabwe
Tunisia
Timor-Leste
SerbiaPeru
PanamaNigeria
LatviaKosovoGreeceCyprusCroatia
CanadaBulgaria
BrazilBosnia and Herzegovina
Australia

Country
Number of members

CoARA MEMBERSHIP BY COUNTRY

76
62
52
46 43
32 30 29
24 22 2219 18 16
Membership
total:

14 13 13 12 12 11 11
8 8 7 53 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1*excl. pan-European and global organisations

646

# of
countries*:50(21 May 2024)

6

CoARA membership 21st May 2024

Countries strongest
presence:
Spain (76), Italy(62), Poland (52),France (46)>35 members
20-35 members
15-19 members
5-14 members<5 members
Total nb of Members: 646(21/05/2024)

3

CoARA Activities - WG•

13 Working Groups

8CoARA Activities – National Chapters•

15 National Chapters

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

CyprusFinlandFranceGermany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
NorwayPolandPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UkraineUnitedKingdom

10Working Group on Reforming Academic
Career Assessment•

The academic community should drive reforms in evaluating the quality and impact ofacademic activities and careers.

•

ACA systems should adequately reflect the different tasks, functions and roles academics
fulfil over the course of their career.

•

Aim is to broaden the reflection on research assessment to ACA, supporting models thattake into account the full range of work conducted by academics in research, teaching andlearning, innovation, management/leadership and service to society.

10Members of the Working Group
University associations/networks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alliance of Rhine-Main Universities
Berlin University Alliance
Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions(SUHF)
Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland(CRASP)
Crue Spanish Universities
EUA-CDEEUAFrance Universités
Hungarian Rectors’ Conference
Lithuanian Universities Rectors’ Conference
Romanian Council of Rectors
Swissuniversities
Universities Norway
Universities of the Netherlands
Flemish Interuniversities Council (VLIR)
Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN)

Research centres•

EU-LIFE

Learned societies and associations ofresearchers
All European Academies (ALLEA)
Eurodoc
Global Young Academy
Federation of Finnish Learned Societies
Young Academy of Europe

•
•
•
•
•

39 members(21 countries +Europe,Global)Other org. involved in RA••

CRAC-Vitae
UK Reproducibility Network

National authorities
Italian National Agency for the evaluationof universities and research institutes(ANVUR)•

Individual universities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Masaryk University (CZ)
Nicolaus Copernicus University (PL)NOVA University Lisbon (PT)South East Technological University (IE)
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in
Skopje (MK)Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
Université Clermont Auvergne (FR)University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
University of Ferrara (IT)
University of Graz (AT)
University of Rijeka (HR)University of Strathclyde (UK)
University of Padua (IT)
University of Messina (IT)11

General Objectives•

Defining the principles of reforming ACA, from the perspectives of institutions andacademic staff being assessed.
• Identification of the requirements, potential benefits and challenges• The lessons learned from institutions that have initiated reforms will be considered.

•

Developing an adaptable toolbox for ACA, considering all university missions and thebroad scope of activities, skills and competences of academic staff at different stagesof their career.
• The toolbox will be flexible, sustainable and cater for different institutional profiles and national
contexts. It will also provide room for a diversity of career focuses and trajectories.

12

Main activities
Phase 1• Development of a targeted mapping of initiatives at institutional and national levels,
considering their outcomes, benefits and challenges, and identifying elements that can beused in different contexts and upscaled to the supra-national level.
• Main outputs: synthesis of lessons learned (incl. potential upscaling elements of existing
initiatives), repository of case studies, survey database.
Phase 2• Development of the toolbox (several iterations). Feasibility studies will be conducted andimplementation scenarios for the toolbox will be developed.
• Main outputs: toolbox on ACA, including enabling conditions and application context, as wellas implementation guidelines.

13Case studies

14

Case-studies•

While the survey focuses on institutional/organizational level initiatives, the casestudies describe well-established international and national level initiatives forreforming research assessment.

•

Initiatives to be included in the case studies collection must haveo implementation plan targeted to all organisations conducting academic careerassessments (recruitment, performance evaluation and/or career progression)
within a country (national level) or irrespective of country (international)o public documentation of the initiatives, which can be in any language, however inthe case-study they need to be described in English•

A case-study template was used for describing the initiatives in a structured andcomparable way•

11 case-study drafts (7 selected by the team and 4 suggested by WG partners)

15

INITIATIVES
Initiative

Name

Year

GeographicalScope

Author(s)ANECA

Reforming research and academic careers assessment in
Spain

2023 Spain

Pilar Paneque

CLACSO-FOLEC

Declaration of principles: a new research assessment towards
a socially relevant science in Latin America and the Caribbean

2022 Latin America &Caribbean

Laura Rovelli

CoARA

Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA)

2022 Global

Rita Morais & Vinciane Gaillard

DORA

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment(DORA)

2013 Global

Haley Hazlett

Eu Charter

The European Charter for Researchers

2005 Europe

Sanja Terlević

Finland

Good practice in researcher evaluation

2020 Finland

Janne Pölönen & Mira
Söderman

Netherlands

Recognition & Rewards Programme

2020 The Netherlands Kim Huijpen

NorwayNOR-CAM – A toolbox for recognition and rewards inacademic careers

2021 Norway

OR4Open and Responsible Researcher Reward and Recognition(OR4)

2021 United Kingdom Grace Murkett & Robert Darby

UKRI

UKRI People and Teams Action Plan

2023 United Kingdom Grace Murkett & Sharon Coen

YUFE4Postdocs

YUFE4Postdocs evaluation & selection procedure

2023 Europe

Ragnar Lie

Anne Adams

16

TEMPLATECountryCountry/Region/International

Relevance

The key elements that are relevant for reforming career assessment

Name

Official name of the initiative

Qualitative

Recommendations regarding qualitative assessment

Institution

Name of the institution(s)responsible for the initiative

Quantitative

Recommendations regarding quantitative assessment

Stakeholders

Names of other organisations/communities involved

Diversity

How initiative recognizes and supports consideration of diversity
contributions, outputs and impacts

Year

When the initiative was launchedIntersectoral

How initiative recognizes and supports consideration ofintersectorality

Documentati
onLink to the main document
describing the initiative

Career-stage

How initiative recognizes and supports consideration of career-stage

WebsiteLink to the website of the initiative

Career-path

How initiative recognizes and supports consideration of career-paths

Summary

Brief description of the initiative

Toolbox

Related practical guides and toolkits

Targetaudience

The main target audience of theinitiative

Implementation Implementation process

Geographical The primary geographical scope
Scopeof application

UptakeImplementation uptake

International
potential

The international potential for
adaptation

Challenges

Identified implementation challenges/obstacles.

Goal

The intended change

Benefits

Identified implementation benefits.

17

EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR RESEARCHERS
Country

International

Relevance

Specifically targeted to improving career assessment

Name

The European Charter for Researchers

Qualitative

Prioritize qualitative and unbiased peer and expert assessment

Institution

European Union

Quantitative

Qualitative assessment can be supported with responsible use of quantitative
indicators

Stakeholders

Employers and funders of researchers

Diversity

Consider overall potential, creativity, output, activities, research behaviour andmobilityYear

2005, updated 2023

Intersectoral

Value geographical, intersectoral, transdisciplinary and virtual mobility

Documentati
onhttps://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/defa
ult/files/am509774cee_en_e4.pdf

Career-stage

Recognising PhD researchers as professionals, implementation of specificmeasures in support of early-career researchers

Websitehttps://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter

Career-path

Support a diversity of researcher profiles and career paths

Summary

Ensure the same policy standards forresearch careers across Europe

ToolboxBrochures, HRS4R guidelines, ResearchComp

Targetaudience

Researchers, employers and funders inpublic and private sectors

Implementation Human Resources (HR) Strategy for Researchers, and the 'HR Excellence in Research

Geographical Europe
ScopeAward' (HRS4R)

Uptake1500+ organisations have endorsed the Charter and Code principles

International
potential

Potential to be applied in othergeographical contexts

Challenges

Broad and vague nature, absence of benchmarks or standards, administrative
burdens lacked implementation strategies, fragmentation of responsibilities

Goal

Same policy standards across Europe,
tackling the fragmentation at local,
regional and sectoral level

Benefits

Successfully incentivised improvements, fostered a more inclusive and cohesive
research community and peer learning, foundation for improving research careers
across Europe

18

TOOLKITS
ANECA

Criteria table; FAQ; Narrative CV template; Participation platform; Code of ethics

CLACSO-FOLEC

ReportCoARA

Toolbox with practical tools to support the implementation of the 10 commitments

DORA

Databases of policies and case-studies; Guides on narrative CV, impact, debiasing andassessment design and implementation

EU Charter

Brochures; HRS4R guidelines; ResearchComp

Finland

Structured CV template; Policies, self-evaluation tools and monitoring for institutions;
Research information system

Netherlands

Dialogue tool kit; Interview and best practices on career-paths

NorwayNOR-CAM (career-assessment matrix)

OR4

Maturity framework and self-assessment tool; Searchable knowledgebase, OR4 survey

YUFE4Postdocs

Structured CV template

19

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE CASE STUDIES
1/3
Prioritize qualitative andunbiased peer and expert
assessment
Qualitative assessment can besupported with responsible useof quantitative indicators

●
●
●
●
●
●

Qualitative information
Researcher's self-evaluation
Assessment portfolios
Structured CV
Short narratives
Narrative CV

●
●
●
●
●
●

Narrative bibliometrics
Relevant and inclusive indicators
Indicators and metrics for open research
List of accepted indicators
Recommendations for responsible use of metrics
Abandon journal/publication-based metrics

20

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE CASESTUDIES 2/3•

Intersectorality (how initiative recognizes and supports the consideration of intersectorality)o e.g. from academia to industry, private sector, public institutions and vice versa•

Practically all initiatives recognized the value of intersectoralityo identified benefits included e.g. knowledge transfer, valorization, recognition of the oftenunacknowledged roles and contributions, influence on policy and practice, diversification ofcareer paths•

Ways to support intersectoral mobility:o collaborative research projects
o secondment in other sectors
o stakeholder engagement trainingso initiatives to promote better recognition of the often-unacknowledged roles andcontributions in research

21

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE CASE STUDIES
3/3•

Challenges:
o Culture change related to academic assessment (both senior and early-career researchers
have to adapt to the new system)o Variation in implementation policies
o Lack of established models and standards
o Documentation and resources (time, costs, availability of reviewers)•

Benefits:o Initiatives form the groundwork for RA reformo Wider recognition of contributions and roleso Movement between disciplines and sectors
o The improvement of academic culture (inclusiveness, diversity, transparency) and thequality of research

22Comments and Q&A

23

Survey results

24Background information•••

Survey draft developed between November 2023 -January 2024
Pilot phase in January 2024 – incl. 13 organisations (11 HEIs, 2 research organisations; 10
countries)
Final survey: data collection between February - April 2024

Aim of the survey: gather institutional/organisational level initiatives that aim to broaden the criteria
and methods for evaluating the outputs and impacts of academic activities for the purposes ofrecruitment, performance evaluation and career progression of academic staff.
Target group: Higher education institutions and research organisations worldwide
Scope: organisations that are planning, initiating or implementing a reform process on academic
career assessment - either at departmental/unit level or organisational level.

25

Structure and topics
Structureo General information about the organisationo Academic career assessment at organisational levelo General reflections on the reform process
o Final considerations
Examples of topics covered• Strengths of current academic career assessment system in the organisation

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Challenges of current academic career assessment system in the organisation
Motivations for the organisation to engage in the reform process
Drivers of the reform process
Role of academic staff in the reform process
Role of organisational leadership in the reform process
Importance of different academic activities in academic career assessment in the organisation
Internal communication on the reform process

26

Survey respondents•

236 valid responses, from 41 countries

Countries (number of respondents):• Portugal (6)• Spain (29)
• France (23)• Norway (6)• Georgia (23)
• Austria (5)• Germany (20)
• Switzerland (4)• Serbia (16)
• Ukraine (4)• Netherlands (14)• Romania (4)• Slovakia (8)• Czechia (4)• Finland (8)• United Kingdom (3)• Italy(8)• Croatia (3)• Sweden(8)• Turkey (3)• Poland (7)• Ireland (2)• Belgium (6)• North Macedonia (2)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Slovenia (2)• Costa Rica (1)Lithuania (2)• Azerbaijan (1)Other (2)• China (1)Iceland (1)• Malaysia (1)Republic of Moldova (1) • Malta (1)Andorra (1)Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)Cyprus (1)Uzbekistan (1)Tunisia (1)Albania (1)Denmark (1)27Respondent organisations
3,0%

1,3%
Comprehensive Higher
Education Institution (University)

6,0%Specialised University/HEI

6,4%

Research Organisation(research institute, research
centre)14,5%Technical University/Universityof Technology

62,8%
15,0%

University of Applied Sciences

80% public organisations (16%private)76% both research and teachingfocused (11% mostly researchfocused)
43% had ≥ 1000 research staff
(FTE)

Other

Open University
Number of respondents: 236/236

28

Respondent organisations
3,0%

1,3%

Comprehensive Higher
Education Institution (University)

6,0%Specialised University/HEI

6,4%

Research Organisation(research institute, research
centre)14,5%Technical University/Universityof Technology

62,8%
15,0%

University of Applied Sciences

62% of organisations are CoARA
members
28% of organisations havesigned DORA

OtherOpen University

Number of respondents: 236/236

29

Involvement in reforms
Has your organisation planned, initiated or implemented
a reform process on academic career assessment?

Reasons for not engaging in reform processes:•

National regulations (institutions have limited•

Unclear why the organisation does notengage (respondent not aware of the reasons18%

accounting for the lack of organisational engagementin ACA reforms)

No
Yes

82%

autonomy in the definition of ACA reforms)•

Resource and capacity constraints (e.g.

•Recent reforms implemented (organisations•

Current system is satisfactory•

Resistance to change•

Other (e.g. merger processes ongoing, following rules

limited time, staff, and resources and organisational
capacity to implement reforms)
prefer to evaluate the current system's effectivenessbefore considering further reforms)of parent organisation)

Number of respondents: 233/236

30

Stage in ACA reform processes
10,9%

18,2%

Reform is being
considered, but no decision
yet
Reform processes areforeseen and are being
planned (implementation
not started yet)

27,1%

Reform is being
implemented (pilot or full
implementation ongoing)
43,8%

Number of respondents: 192/192

Reform processes are wellestablished and have been
fully implemented31

At which level are the processes for ACA
developed / performed ?
ACA processes
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Developed

Implemented

At national level

At the level of the institution/organisation

At departmental/faculty level

Number of respondents: 178-188/192. Multiple-choice question.

Other

32

Challenges in current ACA systems
1. Assessment scope•••

Incomplete evaluation scope
Over-reliance on quantitative assessment/metrics
Teaching vs Research Recognition

2. Complexity of the assessment process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Transition to new assessment systems
Evaluation complexity
Balancing qualitative and quantitative assessment
Teaching evaluation
Unclear definitions of impact, excellence andquality
Discipline-specific indicators
Peer-review challenges
Interdisciplinary challenges
Transparency concerns“culture leaning on old school metrics”“highly quantitative-based system”“There is a need for better ways to assess soft skills
like pedagogy, good leadership and the ability tocontribute to a good work environment.”“knowing what you have, unsure what you will get in a
new system”“difficulty in having common rules to deal withdifferent individual paths and disciplines”“to get quality of performance back in the process
without creating a too heavy burden on theassessors”

33Challenges in current ACA systems
3. Resource and regulatory constraints••••

Centralised systems and other regulatory
constraints
Accreditation process
Resource and funding constraints
Technical constraints

4. Alignment of assessment procedures• Alignment of criteria and procedures in theorganisation and at national level
5. Career paths, recruitment and progression• Recruitment and career progression challenges• Diversification of career-paths and recognition ofcareer-stages• Internationalisation hurdles• Mobility constraints“Qualitative assessment of outputs is challenging, both interms of time commitment and expertise”“less flexibility in assessment due to regulatory restrictions”“we lack digital platform for self-evaluation reports”“Alignment of assessment methods with others(funders, RPO...)”“attract and retain international talent”“not enough career advance paths available”“how to improve assessment of mixed profiles eg
clinician/researcher; policy/research...”“how to keep our scientists' mobility to other countries”.

34

Reform drivers
All organisations

Reform drivers in organisations in which ACA processes
are developed at the national level
The reform was initiated within
the organisation

6,6%

5,7%
10,4%

11,3%

The reform was driven by
regulatory reforms at regional or
national level
42,5%

12,5%
49,0%

12,3%

The reform was inspired by bestpractices in other organisations
or countries

22,4%
27,4%

The reform was initiatedtogether with otherorganisations (e.g. with similar
profile, geographical proximity)
Other

Number of respondents: 192/192

Number of respondents: 106/192

35

Motivations for engaging in ACA reform
1. Offering a more diversified, fair set of evaluation
criteria, encompassing multifaceted academic work
• Assessment• Evaluation
2. Establishing transparent practices of assessment
and career progression• Career
3. Guaranteeing high research quality• Quality
4. Embedding open science principles• Open Science
5. Considering staff wellbeing• Well-being/development• Diversity

6. Making the organisation an attractive employer•

Recruitment

7. Alignment with National/International regulations• National/International standards, regulations,norms, rules, agreement"Considering a wider range of scientific contributions and activity types
when evaluating the performance of academic staff (…) Encouraging
more diversity amongst scientists to create a more inclusive andequitable environment.”“Recruitment procedures must be more transparent to avoid mistrust”“Different academic disciplines as well as different levels of career stages
require a more customized career assessment procedure”“be an attractive employer offering modern career opportunities”.

36Development of the reform process
Internal actors
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Early-career academics
Mid-career academics

Initiators ofchange/reforms

Senior academics
Organisational leadership
Human resources staff

Resistance toreforms

Research management andadministration staff
OthersThere was no resistance in ourorganisation
Number of respondents189-192/192. Multiple-choice question.
”Others” in initiators of reform refer to library and quality assurance.
“Others” in resistance to reform refer to more lack of interest than resistance itself. Also refers toacademics depending on disciplinary area.

37

Resistance to reforms
Senior academics•

Resistance to change and fear of the unknown•

Uncertainty about qualitative methods•‘Metrics tradition’ and preference forquantitative measures•

Lack of understanding of change•

Increased workload concerns“General resistance to change. Keeping bad habits is easier thanchanging to new ways of working you don’t know the benefits of."“Feeling that subjective assessment took over the objective
assessment and that research assessment would no longer
be based on quality but on whoever is more proficient intelling a good story.”“Belief that there are no problems with the current system.
Researchers (especially those coming from fields where it is easy
to publish many papers, publish in high impact factor journals or
getting a lot of citations purely because of the field) are notalways aware of how the system works against researchers
coming from smaller fields or different type of research with fewer
papers, which are no less impactfull. There is a sort of willful
tunnel vision.”38

Role of academic staff in the reform
process
8,4%

Academic staff (or their representatives) are actively
participating in discussions on reform and indeveloping new processes for academic careerassessment

3,7%

Academic staff (or their representatives) areconsulted on the reform principles and/or steps, but
are not actively involved in developing newprocesses for academic career assessment

22,6%

65,3%

Academic staff (or their representatives) are kept
informed of the reform process, but do not have an
active role in the reform discussions processes or in
the development of new processes for academic
career assessment
Other

Number of respondents190/192

39

Reform expectations
Focus of ACA after the reform

Expected positive results after reform
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1,6%

3,1%

Careers of academic staff
13,6%

11,5%

Quality and/or impact of research

Responsible use of
metrics

Attractiveness of the organisation
for prospective academic staff
Science communication andoutreach activities

Purely qualitative
assessment

Yes

Balanced use ofqualitative assessmentand metrics

No

Quality of teachingNot defined yet
Innovation/knowledge transfer
Quality and relevance of theeducation offer
Management and administration in
the organisation
Number of respondents179-184/192

70,2%

I do not know/difficult tosay

40

Activities considered in ACA
Research
54,54

Sciencecommunication andoutreach

3,5Innovation/knowledgetransfer

3
2,5
2
1,5
1

Societal impact

Education

Currently (before reform)
Leadership

Number of respondents174-185/192. Average importance (1= very low importance; 5= very high importance)

Supervision

After reform41

Indicators for assessing academic careers
Research publications (number)
4,5Open education materials
Acquisition of funding at national or international level
Participation in ethics committees

4

Research publication related metrics

3,5

OS and OA indicators measuring the open accessibility of
research outcomes and data

3

Mentorship/supervision of bachelor and master students,
doctoral candidates or post-docs

2,5Inter-sectoral mobility

2International mobility

1,5

Science communication and outreach activities for thegeneral public

Involvement in policy processes at local, regional, national orinternational levels
Work as peer-reviewer, participation in editorial committees
and other expert tasks
Outcomes of teaching assessments
Membership in expert / international organisations

1

Currently (before
reform)After reformAwardsCollaborations with other HEIs for the purposes of research,education, innovation/knowledge transfer, or engagement…

Student satisfaction and feedback
Collaborations with partners outside academia
Dissertation or thesis reviewer, participation indissertation/thesis defenses

42Indicators for assessing academic careers
Research publications (number)Open education materials
Participation in ethics committees

4,5
4

Acquisition of funding at national or international level
Research publication related metrics

Importance decrease
after reform

Largestimportanceincrease afterreform3,5

OS and OA indicators measuring the open accessibility of
research outcomes and data

3

Mentorship/supervision of bachelor and master students,
doctoral candidates or post-docs

2,5Inter-sectoral mobility

2International mobility

Currently (before
reform)1,5

Science communication and outreach activities for thegeneral public

Involvement in policy processes at local, regional, national orinternational levels
Work as peer-reviewer, participation in editorial committees
and other expert tasks
Outcomes of teaching assessments
Membership in expert / international organisations

1

AwardsAfter reform

Collaborations with other HEIs for the purposes of research,education, innovation/knowledge transfer, or engagement…

Student satisfaction and feedback
Collaborations with partners outside academia
Dissertation or thesis reviewer, participation indissertation/thesis defenses

43Main achievements
1. Awareness and initial engagement in reform• Early-stage planning and discussion• Stakeholder involvement and consensus-building• Awareness-raising and mindset shift
2. Alignment with reform initiatives• Alignment with reform initiatives at national andinternational level
3. Transparency and clarity• Transparency and fairness in criteria• Clear assessment guidelines
4. Career support and recognition of diverse career paths• Enhanced career support and career development
initiatives• Recognition of diverse academic careers andcontributions“The initiation of discussions and the spreading of awareness on
the subject within our institution have been significant
achievements. This early stage of engagement has laid avaluable foundation for implementation of reforms.”

5. Improving assessment practices•
Development of discipline-specific assessment criteria•
Shift towards more qualitative assessment•
Open Science adoption•
Standardization of processes•
Implementation of innovative assessment schemes andcareer models
6. Organisational advancement• Reflection on change process• Improvement in academic activities (e.g. research,education, attracting staff)“Introducing a pilot scheme for peer-review based researchassessment at unit level, in form of a learning agreementwith critical friends. Introducing a new and morecomprehensive career model for academic staff, better
combining education, R&I and practical field/experiences.”“Proceedings have been professionalized with visible
improvement in the qualifications of incomings, in particular
postdocs.”

44

Comments and Q&A

45

DISCUSSION – BREAK-OUT GROUPS•

Aim: to gather your views on survey results and case studies, and reflect on lessons
learned•Guiding questions for the discussion:
1. Do the survey results reflect your experiences and context?
2. What lessons have you learned from the survey results? Which findings do you findmost interesting or surprising?
3. In your opinion, which enabling factors are needed for a successful reform?
4. Which tools could facilitate moving forward with the next reform steps?

•

Each group has a pre-assigned moderator.

•

You will be automatically assigned to a break-out group and re-assigned to the plenary
at the end of discussions.

46

Final statements

47

Next steps•

Further comments can be shared in writing to coara.wg.aca@gmail.com•

Lessons learned, case studies and survey outcomes to be published after summer(Zenodo).

•

Stay tuned for updates!

48

Relevant information
CoARA

Links:CoARA website
https://coara.org
The Agreement full text
Sign the Agreement
CoARA News
FAQ

@CoARAssessment
Coalition for Advancing
Research Assessment

EUA•

Visit www.eua.eu•

Register to our newsletters
http://bit.ly/SubscribeEUANewsletters•

Interact with us online (Twitter, LinkedIn,
Facebook, YouTube)•

Attend our events (conferences, workshops
and focus groups)

CoARA WG ACA•

coara.wg.aca@gmail.com

49

THANK YOU!

50