Evaluation of Faculties and Centres

Faculties and Centres are evaluated at least every seven years, according to the Quality Assurance part of the Statutes. The areas of research, teaching and administration are examined jointly. The goals of the evaluation are to:

  • identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
  • support the identification of objectives and strategies
  • generate measures for quality assurance and enhancement


The evaluations are performed in accordance with the informed peer review model and are carried out in four stages.

1. Preparation

2. Self-evaluation

3. Peer evaluation

4. Implementation

Decision on key evaluation topics, time schedule

Selection of peers

Discussion of key evaluation topics within the faculty

SWOT analysis

Quantitative data

Site visit by peers: talks with (vice-)deans, (tenure track) professors, postdocs, doctoral researchers, students

Implementation discussion

Evaluation concept

Self-evaluation report, students' report

Peer report, statement

Implementation agreement



1. Preparation

The Unit for Quality Assurance and the deans team specify details of the evaluation process and

  • key evaluation topics are agreed upon with the rectorate.
  • criteria for the selection of evaluators (peers) are agreed upon and suggestions of potential peers are made by the evaluated unit and quality assurance. The decision about the peers is made by the head of quality assurance in accordance with the statutes.
  • specific measures are agreed upon according to need and subject-related possibilities, e.g. a bibliometric analysis or focus groups.

The result of this phase is the evaluation concept.


2. Self-evaluation

The dean's team is responsible for the self-evaluation process and the preparation of the self-evaluation report, with the broadest possible and most transparent involvement of all members as well as the Scientific Advisory Board (to identify key evaluation topics and to discuss a draft version of the self-evaluation report).

In a kick-off event open to the faculty, Quality Assurance and dean's team jointly present the evaluation procedure as well as the content-related and organizational stipulations made in the evaluation concept.

Quality Assurance provides a guideline for the self-evaluation report and a data report and, if necessary, conducts specific surveys or publication analyses (in cooperation with the scientometrics working group).

The result of the self-evaluation is the self-evaluation report, which together with further appendices (data report, excerpt of the development plan, peer report of the previous evaluation) serves as the basis for the evaluation.

Involvement of students and student representatives: 

  • Quality assurance actively addresses the student representatives and informs them about the evaluation procedure.
  • Student representatives and students are explicitly invited to the kick-off event (see above).
  • Faculties and centers are required to involve students in the process of self-evaluation.
  • The student representatives are asked to write an independent student report. This report will be sent to the peers in preparation for the site visit. 


3. Peer evaluation

Peers (external, international experts in the field) inform themselves on the basis of the self-evaluation report and the student report and receive an online briefing from Quality Assurance about two weeks before the site visit. The agenda for the site visit is also set at this time.

During the three-day site visit, the peers hold discussions with the rectorate, dean's team, directors of study programmes, (tenure track) professors, postdocs, doctoral researchers and students, among others. At the end of the site visit, the peers provide initial verbal feedback on their impressions (debriefing).

After the site visit, the peers submit a written evaluation report.

The dean's team statement to the evaluation report should also prepare the implementation measures.

The peer report and statement will be published, accessible for university members, after the process is complete, i.e., after the implementation agreement is signed.


4. Implementation

  • Quality Assurance summarizes the results of the evaluation report and statement and presents the results to the rectorate.
  • The rectorate and the dean's team hold an implementation discussion accompanied by quality assurance.
  • Measures derived from the evaluation are recorded in an implementation agreement.
  • Monitoring is carried out via the target agreements between the rectorate and the dean's team.


Confidentiality and Data Protection

The Unit for Quality Assurance warrants that during the whole evaluation process all data and information provided by the evaluated unit is treated with confidentiality.


Mag. Dr. Michael Hofer

T: +43-1-4277-18010

Dipl.-Pol. Jürgen Roth

T: +43-1-4277-18005

Mag. Sara John

T: +43-1-4277-18009

Mag. Marcel Kalmar, MSc.

T: +43-1-4277-18004