A bimonthly publication of AQU Catalunya

42

May 2009

Over 90% of the responses to the survey were either positive or highly positive regarding the services of the Academic Staff and Research section. On the other hand, the aspect given the lowest rating was the arguments justifying an unfavourable report (58%, in the case of tenure-track lecturers and 55% in the case of assistant and full professors).

A formal survey of the applicants' satisfaction with the assessment process has been carried out for the first time since the academic staff assessment programme was set up in 2003. A questionnaire was sent to all those applying for pre-selection tenure-track lecturer reports and the accreditation of research (assistant professors) and advanced research (full professors), in the first call for applications made in 2008. The figures are given below.

The initiative is a result of the programme to enhance the assessment processes and the satisfaction of users of the services provided by AQU Catalunya.

Specifications

Results

Satisfaction with the services of AQU
First, information was gathered on whether applicants had got in contact with AQU Catalunya to request information on the call for applications and on the level of satisfaction with the way they were treated. Throughout 2007, over 1,200 inquiries in person were dealt with, together with 3,800 telephone calls and more than 680 e-mail inquiries. The figures show that the majority of applicants (64% in the case of tenure-track lecturers and 54.5% in the case of assistant and full professors) did contact the Academic Staff and Research section. Their level of satisfaction with the assistance they received was very positive.

Satisfaction with the accessibility of documentation
In the case of both tenure-track lecturers and assistant and full professors, the accessibility of information on the website (on a scale from 1 to 5) was overall rated above 3.5.

The aspects most highly rated by tenure-track lecturers were the standard application form and the CV form. The lowest rated aspect (3 out of 5) was the clarity of the information on the assessment criteria. In the case of assistant and full professors, the highest rated aspects were the standard application form and the minimum eligibility requirements. The lowest rated aspect, as in the case of the tenure-track lecturers, was the clarity of the information on the assessment criteria (2.83).

Regarding the assessment process
Another series of questions showed the satisfaction of tenure-track lecturers with the time taken to deal with applications (3.4), and with the adequacy of the dates for the calls for applications (3,2). A good rating was also given to the evidence to be submitted (projects, publications, patents, etc.) and the identifying data and figures for the assessment of merits (3.13). The lowest rated aspect (3.01) was the composition of the review panels.

In the case of assistant and full professors, the highest rated aspects were the adequacy of the CV structure for setting out merits (3.14) and the adequacy of the dates for the calls for applications (3.2). The lowest rated aspects (2.8) were the time taken to deal with applications and the composition of the review panels. The following table gives fuller details of the above results:

A mere pass level for satisfaction with the assessment criteria
One key question in the questionnaire concerned the adequacy and the level of exigency of the assessment criteria with the merits associated with each criterion. In this respect, the responses show that overall the applicants considered the criteria to be adequate, regardless of their level of exigency. On a scale from 1 to 5, the mean rating was 3.01 in the case of tenure-track lecturers and 2.95 in the case of assistant and full professors. Considering the fairly high percentage level of unfavourable assessments among the respondents (over 30%), this section was given a pass level of satisfaction.

Opportunities for improvement
The aspect that was rated the lowest was the applicants' assessment of the argumentation given for a negative assessment. The majority of respondents were inclined to consider the reasons to be unclear. In this respect, actions have been set in motion to improve the reports.

Lastly, with regard to the section with open comments, in the case of tenure-track lecturers, what most stands out is that excessive importance was given to the fact that research publications had to appear in indexed journals with an impact factor. It was also pointed out that the assessment criteria should be clearer. In the case of assistant and full professors, it was considered that teaching should also be taken into account (accreditation is solely for research). Another aspect pointed out, especially in the Social Sciences and Humanities, was the need for there to be clear benchmarks in order for research publications to be assessed.