1Principles Governing Reviews
Guidelines for the Review of Research Institutes and Research Centres
1Principles Governing Reviews
1.1Reviews shall be conducted on a regular and systematic basis.
1.2The review process will emphasise self-evaluation by the Research Institute/Centre and should be a time of critical self-reflection for the Institute/Centre. The review methodology is that of self-review which may be followed by peer evaluation.
1.3During the process of preparing for a review, all of members of the Research Institute/Centre should have input to the review documentation.
1.4All major external participants in the Research Institute/Centre must be consulted on the timing and aims of the review, and consulted during the review process.
1.5The review process must not impose an undue burden on members of staff.
1.6The University Research and Development Committee (URDC) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) have oversight of the review process, administer the Procedures and determine the timing of reviews for Research Institutes/Centres.
2Timing of Reviews
2.1A Research Institute/Centre may be reviewed at any time on the request of the ProVice-Chancellor Research and Development, University Research & Development Committee, Academic Board, Vice Chancellor or Council.
2.2”Research Institutes, Centres and Clusters Procedures”specify the timing and requirements for review.
3The Review Process
3.1The Director/Convenor of the Research Institute/Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Board where applicable, is responsible for conducting the self-review and preparing the review documentation.
3.2One month prior to the expected review date, the self-assessment report shall be submitted to ORD.
3.3ORD shall recommend one of four levels of evaluation of the report:
3.3.1a desk review by ORD;
3.3.2peer evaluation undertaken by URDC;
3.3.3the appointment, after consultation with the Director (and Advisory Board where applicable), of an Expert Visitor to undertake the peer evaluation;
3.3.4the appointment of a review committee by the DVCR&D, after consultation with the Director, Advisory Board and the URDC, comprising three people who are independent of the management and activities of the Research Institute/Centre. In most cases the Chair of the review committee shall be an external person who has knowledge of the fields in which the Institute/Centre has operated.
3.4The review process shall be managed by ORD.
3.5Copies of the review documentation shall be forwarded to the Expert Visitor/panel at least two weeks prior to the date of the commencement of the review. The documentation shall be accompanied by an invitation to the visitor/panel members to request additional information or to modify the proposed schedule of activities in any way and at any time, including the scheduling of additional meetings with persons not previously scheduled to meet with the panel. The invitation should inform the panel that it may, as it thinks appropriate, handle some aspects of the review on a sub-committee basis.
3.6The Expert Visitor or Chair of the review panel shall be responsible for preparing the peer evaluation report.
3.7The Expert Visitor or the review panel shall seek the views of the Director/Convenor on its preliminary report.
3.8The Director/Convenor of the Institute/Centre will be required to write a reply to the review report, responding to its recommendations.
3.9A meeting between the DVCR&D, PVC and the Director shall be convened to review the peer evaluation report and Directors response to the review
3.10The review report, Directors reply and DVCR recommendations shall be forwarded to the URDC.
3.11The URDC shall report the outcome of the review to the Academic Board.
3.12In the first Annual Report following the review, the Institute/Centre will report on the implementation of any recommendations made in the review report.
4The Self-Assessment Report
4.1The self-review report should contain:
4.1.1An executive summary;
4.1.2An assessment of the Research Institute’s/Centre’s performance against the KPI and operation targets;
4.1.3A financial statement that includes performance against budget targets, for a minimum of two years;
4.1.4Title, value, funding body and description of major projects undertaken;
4.1.5A discussion of future plans and prospects of the Research Institute/Centre, with particular reference to any issues arising during the operation of the Research Institute/Centre and the strategic interests of the University;
4.1.6In the event of the Research Institute/Centre involving external partners, an indication of the return to each partner of participation in the Research Institute/Centre;
4.1.7The opportunities and constraints to growing the Research Institute/Centre;
4.1.8A clear statement of plans to enhance performance in the future.
4.1.9Where the self-review contains a proposal for continuation of the Research Institute/Centre, the requirements of the Research Institutes, Centres and Clusters Procedures must be met.
4.2All documentation should be kept concise and to the point. The self-review report should be limited to a total of no more than 20 pages (including any appendices, but excluding relevant university documents such as strategic plans).
4.3In the event of an expert visitor or review panel being appointed to undertake the peer evaluation, the Director will also be responsible for preparing a schedule of review activities that shall include, but not be limited to:
4.3.1a meeting with the DVCR&D and PVC or delegate at the commencement of the review to explain the context of the review and any strategic issues, problem areas or parameters which warrant special attention;
4.3.2meetings with staff affiliated with the Research Institute/Centre;
4.3.3input from stakeholders, particularly external stakeholders;
4.3.4a meeting with the DVCR&D, PVC (or delegate) and the Faculty DeanResearch with the Expert Visitor/review panel on the last day of the evaluation, to discuss the draft recommendations and the major points of the review report;
4.3.5updating, if required, of the self-assessment report; and
4.3.6provision of existing documentation to the Expert Visitor/review panel upon request.
5Office of Research and Development Desk Review
5.1ORD shall be responsible for coordinating the preparation of a report on the conduct of the review, its findings and its conclusions.
5.2Those responsible for undertaking the desk review will assess and evaluation the self-review report, and recommend on the continuation or disestablishment of the Institute/Centre, and, if the former, make additional recommendations as appropriate. The desk reviewer is responsible for producing a report with no more than a two page executive summary.
6The Peer Evaluation Report
6.1A review undertaken by an Expert Visitor can be expected to take ½ - 1 day, and 2-3days by a review panel, which includes sites visits, interviews, discussions and deliberations.
6.2The Expert Visitor or the Chair of the review panel shall be responsible for coordinating the preparation of a report on the conduct of the review, its findings and its conclusions.
6.3Those responsible for undertaking the peer evaluation shall assess and evaluate the self-assessment report, and recommend on the continuation or disestablishment of the Institute/Centre, and, if the former, make additional recommendations as appropriate. The Expert Visitor or the Chair of the review panel is responsible for producing a report with no more than a two page executive summary.
6.4The Expert Visitor or Chair of the review panel shall complete the draft report before leaving the University. This shall include an overall assessment of the Institute/Centre and a list of recommendations. The draft report shall be focussed around the recommendations, which shall be numbered consecutively. In drafting the report, the Expert Visitor/Chair shall take into account the formal process that flows from the lodging of the report. With this in mind, the Expert Visitor/Chair shall ensure that any action which the review panel believes should be considered is crystallised in a specific recommendations. The draft report will also consider the merits of any recommendations or action plans contained in the self-review documents from the Institute/Centre.
6.5The report shall include an executive summary, which includes a full list of the numbered recommendations. The report should be written on the basis that it will become a public document; it is not a confidential report, though in rare cases the panel may attach a confidential appendix or mention additional matters in a meeting with the DVCR&D.
6.6Reports shall be submitted to the DVCR&D or delegate, in both electronic and paper form. Within two weeks of receipt of the draft report the PVCR&D or delegate, relevant Faculty Dean Research and the Director/Convenor shall meet to review the draft report. The draft report will be marked as "CONFIDENTIAL" at this stage. If errors of fact are discovered or they believe that the report needs reconsideration, clarification or to address additional matters, the DVCR&D or delegate will advise the Expert Visitor/Chair. The Expert Visitor or Chair of the review panel (after consultation with the other panel members) will submit the final report within two months of the review. The "CONFIDENTIAL" marking will be removed from the document at this stage.
7Support for Reviews
7.1Research Institutes/Centres will normally be expected to contribute to the costs of their reviews; however, a case may be made for support from ORD.
7.2The support would normally be up to $4,000 for a full review or up to $2,000 for an Expert Visitor, depending on the costs associated with the review (e.g. honoraria, travel etc).
7.3Support for minute taking for review panels will be provided by ORD.