Scale. 1 Absent · 2 Emerging · 3 Established (the practice exists and works for most people most of the time) · 4 Embedded · 5 Exemplary.
| Dimension | 1 Absent | 2 Emerging | 3 Established | 4 Embedded | 5 Exemplary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Leadership vision and research agenda | No stated research priorities; research direction is whatever individuals choose | Priorities exist in a document but do not shape decisions on hiring, seed funds or time | Three to five research themes are published and used in seed-fund and hiring decisions | Themes are reviewed annually with faculty, and resources visibly follow them | The agenda is known outside the institution and attracts partners, students and funders because of it |
| B. Mentoring and researcher development | New faculty are left to find their own way; no structured mentoring | Mentoring is informal and depends on personal goodwill | Every early-career faculty member has a named mentor and a development plan reviewed annually | Mentors are trained, mentoring is recognised in appraisal, and mentees become mentors | Mentoring extends to postgraduate students and partner institutions; outcomes are tracked and published |
| C. Collaboration, internal and external | Departments work in isolation; no active external research partnership | Occasional co-authorship within the institution; partnerships exist on paper | At least one functioning cross-department research group and one external partnership with joint outputs | Interdisciplinary problem groups are the normal unit of research; partnerships have shared governance | The institution is a recognised node in national or international networks (for example an ANRF PAIR network, an industry consortium or a clinical trials network) |
| D. Infrastructure and research support | Equipment is personal or absent; no research office, statistical or writing support | Some shared equipment; support exists but access depends on personal contacts | A research office manages shared facilities, ethics submissions and grant paperwork with published procedures | Central facilities have booking systems and technicians; methodological and statistical support is available on request | Facilities are shared with other institutions, and support staff are themselves research-trained |
| E. Funding and resource mobilisation | No internal seed funding; external grants are rare and individual | Small, irregular seed grants; no support for external proposals | An annual seed-grant scheme with peer review, and administrative support for external applications | Seed grants are linked to a pipeline that expects an external proposal within two years; success rates are tracked | Diversified funding from government, industry, philanthropy and consultancy; the institution co-funds strategically |
| F. Quality assurance | Quality is judged only by journal acceptance | Plagiarism checks exist; no review of research design | Protocols are reviewed before data collection and manuscripts receive internal peer review before submission | Design review, internal review and post-publication monitoring (including retractions) are routine and recorded | The institution's quality processes are audited externally and used by partner institutions |
| G. Recognition and incentives | Appraisal counts publications only, or ignores research | Publication counts and impact factors dominate; quality, mentoring and collaboration are not scored | Appraisal and promotion give explicit weight to quality of outputs, mentoring and collaboration | Recognition schemes (awards, sabbaticals, protected time) are tied to the research agenda and to team contributions | Assessment follows a published responsible-metrics policy consistent with DORA or the Leiden Manifesto, and is reviewed for unintended effects |
| H. Research ethics and integrity | No functioning ethics committee; no authorship or data policy | Ethics committee exists but is slow or perfunctory; policies are undocumented | Ethics committee meets on schedule with published timelines; authorship, data and misconduct policies are approved and circulated | Integrity training is mandatory for faculty and research students; cases are handled by a standing procedure with records | The institution contributes to national integrity standards and publishes an annual integrity report |
| Dimension | Current score (1 to 5) | Evidence for the score | Desired score in three years | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Leadership vision and research agenda | ||||
| B. Mentoring and researcher development | ||||
| C. Collaboration, internal and external | ||||
| D. Infrastructure and research support | ||||
| E. Funding and resource mobilisation | ||||
| F. Quality assurance | ||||
| G. Recognition and incentives | ||||
| H. Research ethics and integrity | ||||
| Total (maximum 40) |
Two largest gaps: ______ and ______
| Total | Reading | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| 8 to 15 | Research depends on individuals | Vision and mentoring |
| 16 to 25 | Practices exist but are uneven | Embed them in appraisal and quality assurance |
| 26 to 34 | A working culture | External collaboration and diversified funding |
| 35 to 40 | A mature culture | Relevance and impact (Session FN 2) |
Compare profiles at your table.
| Which two dimensions are weakest across the table? | |
|---|---|
| Is the low score a matter of policy, resources or habit? | |
| For one dimension: a single action a Dean or Head could take within one term | |
| The person who would own it | |
| What would be observably different in six months |
Owner
Observable result in six months
Owner
Observable result in six months