3 Review board opinion
\label{review-board-opinion}
3.1 Did the self-evaluation committee represent all the
various stakeholders (students and staff) associated with the
program?
\label{did-the-self-evaluation-committee-represent-all-the-various-stakeholders-students-and-staff-associated-with-the-program}
The self-report is a comprehensive paper comprising more than 90 pages.
It has been compiled by four main authors (Dr. Marta Bellone & Dr.
Ulrike Toepel: UNIL, Prof. Anthony Holtmaat: UNIGE and Prof. Jean-Pierre
Hornung:UNIL) and the self-evaluation committee comprising scientist,
students, and managing people. As stated on page 6 of the
self-evaluation, the self-evaluation committee has operated much effort
to put together the self-evaluation information about the PH.D. program.
On this page all stakeholders of the program are listed. For example,
the committee has conducted a survey among 77 students graduated from
and 85 currently attending the Ph.D. program (in total 162 people). In
addition, they contacted 56 alumni who graduated between 2013 and 2016,
of whom all answered the survey. Current Ph.D. candidates who
participated are beyond the third semester of Ph.D. program (52
responders). Thus, a pretty large group of alumni, PhD candidates and
members of the self-evaluation committee have contributed to this
self-evaluation report.
3.2 Was the self-evaluation report
comprehensive?
\label{was-the-self-evaluation-report-comprehensive}
The self-evaluation report is definitively comprehensive. It is based on
a survey and internal discussion among the above-mentioned stakeholders
(see above).
3.3 Did the critical analysis draw on relevant sources of
data?
\label{did-the-critical-analysis-draw-on-relevant-sources-of-data}
The survey data comprises information about the following aspects of the
PH.D. program:
-
Information on the training program
-
Objectives and outcomes of the training program
-
Program structure and content
-
Pedagogical considerations
-
Evaluation and feedback provided to PhD candidates
-
Support and supervision
-
Program resources
-
Program management
-
Satisfaction with the training program
It is worth to mention that the survey participants were explicitly
instructed to respond to these dimensions in the context of their
doctoral training by the LNDS, and not with reference to their Ph.D.
projects and host labs. As mentioned in the self-evaluation report it
was not always be possible to make a clear distinction between these
issues.
3.4 Were the data made available and were they able to be
verified?
\label{were-the-data-made-available-and-were-they-able-to-be-verified}
Yes, the data of this analysis is fully available and are listed in the
annexes of the self-evaluation report.