1. Rector Thomas Wilhelmsson
Excellence for society International evaluation of research and doctoral TRAINING at the University of Helsinki
Rector Thomas Wilhelmsson
Publication Seminar
7 May 2012

2. Aims and objectives of the evaluation
To improve the quality of research and doctoral training at the University of Helsinki and to raise their international profile in accordance with the University’s strategic policies
To offer the academic community the opportunity to receive topical and versatile international peer feedback
To promote the recognition of the University’s research potential
To increase the quantitative and qualitative transparency via exploitation of the TUHAT research information system
The previous evaluations of research were carried out in the years and 2005

3. Helsinki Model of Evaluation
Bottom-up approach based on the researcher’s activity and responsibility
Evaluation model was designed for the University’s purposes by the steering group
Model has already intrigued by other universities

4. Special character of the evaluation
Voluntary participation
Researcher Community (RC) – a new concept
Participation categories – five categories
Evaluation material included bibliometric analyses (Univ. of Leiden) and
Library analyses for humanities and social sciences

5. Panels in the evaluation
Five panels
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Natural Sciences
Humanities
Social Sciences
49 panellists and two special experts

6. Participants
136 RCs participated including 5,857 researchers (1,131PIs) with UH affiliation ( )
Participation activity was generally high, 68 percent of all Principal Investigators (1,550)

7. Participation activity of Principal Investigators (Faculties)

8. Evaluation reports
The main feedback of the performance is consisted of the feedback reports written by the Panels to the RCs (136) and to the University (Panel specific feedback)
RCs received descriptive feedback to nine evaluation questions and
Five questions were evaluated also numerical

9. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Research
The BIO sector at UH is in a healthy position, and includes several world class research groups as well as nationally significant training centres feeding into industry and the wider community. BIO compares favourably with other UH sectors in performance.
Doctoral training
The Panel was generally impressed with the training programs outlined in the RC documents. It also noted the Summary report on doctoral students’ and principal investigators’ doctoral training experiences, and some issues of concern in this report.
(61–62)

10. Medicine, biomedicine and health Sciences
The Panel was very impressed how well Helsinki University is doing.
Science is very well organized and very well executed.
The Panel was very impressed by the quality of individual researchers:
There are excellent publication track records and some very outstanding RCs.
Generally in bioscience, Helsinki University is doing very well.
The Panel was impressed by the doctoral training programmes, which seems running very well.
The Panel is definitely impressed by the PhD training at the University. The various doctoral training programmes run very well and result is very good students qualifying for a PhD, but the faculties invest a lot of money. (79)

11. Natural Sciences Research
As can be stated, many RCs were found to operate at an excellent scientific level; some were even outstanding on most criteria. A small number of the RCs was still estimated as very good.
Doctoral training
Practices and quality of the doctoral training were in general excellent, even though there was an extremely wide variation in the practices. The Panel was very pleased to see the frequent involvement in national graduate schools as well as in some international schools.
(97–101)

12. Humanities
Research
With regard to the research evaluation the general impression of the Panel is that research in the Humanities at the University of Helsinki is well established and of high quality.
Doctoral programmes
With regard to the doctoral training the Panel was impressed by some examples of national doctoral programmes. (The Panel is concerned that with the formation of well-structured doctoral programmes within the University of Helsinki the continued existence of these national doctoral programmes will be threatened.)
( )

13. Humanities Societal impact
Many within the Humanities faculty of the University of Helsinki are well aware of their role in society and are active in debates and other activities in society.
(123)

14. Social Sciences Doctoral training
There should be more structure for doctoral training at the University level . There is mentioned one RC which could be a model. The doctoral training varied greatly across the RCs that we reviewed.
Societal impact
We gave special attention to the variety of means of dissemination and participation in public debate (not only policy-making, not only media). We found some RCs are very much engaged in public dissemination of their research results and in public debate over media on sensitive social issues, but also in training professionals and practitioners, planning schools, participating in committees and boards either national or local.
(141–143)

15.  University level (WoS) Trend analysis, bibliometric performance indicators

16. University level collaboration (WoS)
Collaboration in publication practices at the University level. The data is based on the WoS’s publications only 15,000 ( )

17. Special gratitude to all who was involved in the evaluation
Researchers who compiled the RCs and were responsible persons of the RCs
Researchers who participated in the RCs and updated all their publications and activities in TUHAT system
Helsinki University Library – publication analyses
Helsinki University Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education – doctoral survey
CWTS/Leiden’s research Unit – bibliometric analyses
Steering Group – planning and implementation
TUHAT -office – role of service
Evaluation Office
Evaluation Panels – Peer review

18. What has been learnt
Feedback form will be sent to all the participants in the evaluation
Both positive and negative feedback is very welcome