Research Review Theology & Religious Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RESEARCH REVIEW THEOLOGY & RELIGIOUS STUDIES Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box 8035 3503 RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) 30 230 3100 Telefax: +31 (0) 30 230 3129 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.qanu.nl © 2013 QANU Q 354 Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned. 2 QANU / Research Review Theology and Religious Studies 2012 Contents 1. The review Committee and the review procedures........................................................................5 2. General remarks ..................................................................................................................................7 3. Theological Universities Apeldoorn and Kampen.......................................................................13 3A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................13 3B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................21 4. Protestant Theological University...................................................................................................27 4A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................27 4B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................33 5. VU University Amsterdam ..............................................................................................................39 5A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................39 5B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................45 6. Utrecht University.............................................................................................................................59 6A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................59 6B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................67 7. Tilburg School of Catholic Theology.............................................................................................71 7A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................71 7B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................79 8. University of Groningen..................................................................................................................85 8A. Institute level.............................................................................................................................85 8B. Programme level.......................................................................................................................93 Appendices..................................................................................................................................................99 Appendix A: Profiles of the Committee members..............................................................................101 Appendix B: Explanation of the SEP-scale..........................................................................................103 Appendix C: Programme of the site visit..............................................................................................105 Appendix D: Productivity graphs ..........................................................................................................107 QANU / Research Review Theology and Religious Studies 2012 3 4 QANU / Research Review Theology and Religious Studies 2012 1. The review Committee and the review procedures Scope of the assessment The Review Committee was asked to perform an assessment of the research in Theology and Religious Studies at six universities. This assessment covers the research in the period 2005-2011. In accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015 for Research Assessment in the Netherlands (SEP), the Committee’s tasks were to assess the quality of the institute and the research programmes on the basis of the information provided by the institutes and through interviews with the management and the research leaders, and to advise how this quality might be improved. Composition of the Committee The composition of the Committee was as follows: • Prof. Willem Frijhoff (chair), Erasmus University Rotterdam; • Prof. Rainer Albertz, Universität Münster; • Prof. David Chidester, University of Cape Town; • Prof. Hans-Günter Heimbrock, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt; • Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford University. A short profile of the Committee members is included in Appendix A. Roel Bennink of the Bureau of QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities) was appointed secretary to the Committee. Independence All members of the Committee signed a statement of independence to safeguard that they would assess the quality of the institutes and research programmes in an unbiased and independent way. Any existing personal or professional relationships between Committee members and programmes under review were reported and discussed in the Committee meeting. The Committee concluded that there were no unacceptable relations or dependencies and that there was no specific risk in terms of bias or undue influence. Data provided to the Committee The Committee has received detailed documentation consisting of the following parts: 1. Self-evaluation reports of the units under review, including all the information required by the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP), with appendices. 2. Copies of the key publications per research programme. Procedures followed by the Committee The Committee proceeded according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015 (SEP). Prior to the Committee meeting, each programme was assigned to two reviewers, who independently formulated a preliminary assessment. The final assessments are based on the documentation provided by the institutes, the key publications and the interviews with the management and with the leaders of the programmes. The interviews took place on 4 to 8 June 2012 (see the schedule in Appendix C) in Utrecht. QANU / Research Review Theology and Religious Studies 2012 5 Preceding the interviews, the Committee was briefed by QANU about research assessment according to SEP, and the Committee discussed the preliminary assessments. The Committee also agreed upon procedural matters and aspects of the assessment. After the interviews the Committee discussed the scores and comments. The texts for the Committee report were finalised through email exchanges. The final version was presented to the faculties for factual corrections and comments. The comments were discussed in the Committee. The final report was printed after formal acceptance by the Boards of the participating universities. The Committee used the rating system of the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015 (SEP). The meaning of the scores is described in Appendix B. Delay The Committee regrets the unfortunate delay of more than eight months in the production of the report. This delay was caused when the faculties demanded to stop the review process because it was found that the quantitative data they had provided to the Committee showed considerable differences in the interpretation of the definitions and tables specified by the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). The Committee would have preferred to continue the review and to deliver a draft report to the faculties in October, since it was convinced that the differences in the quantitative data could be eliminated in the process of the faculty comments on the draft report and in the final acceptance by the boards of the universities. The Committee did not have the intention to base its assessments solely on quantitative formulas or rankings nor to disregard differences in mission or context of the institutes under review. For that reason, the Committee believed that strict harmonisation of the data could have been given lower priority than preserving the impetus and topicality of the findings based on the self-assessment reports, the key publications and the interviews during the visit. The assessments and conclusions were practically finished and the Committee did not look forward to having to reread the material in the light of adjusted numerical data. After serious discussions, however, the faculties decided in a special meeting in December that it was necessary to harmonise the numerics in order to create a "level playing field" for the assessments and they agreed on a set of rules for that purpose. New numerical data based on these rules were provided to the Committee in February/March. The new data gave an overall reduction of 11% in the number of academic publications per full time equivalent of research staff. This reduction was not evenly distributed over the programmes and institutes, also not within each institute. The total number of academic staff per programme stayed the same in only 2 programmes, went slightly up in 2 programmes