The panels of experts

Who can be a panel member?

The evaluations performed by Hcéres cover a variety of areas. To take account of these different dimensions, Hcéres conducts peer evaluations that are extended to include the stakeholders of the evaluated institutions.

Zone de texteHcéres therefore includes researchers and professors in its panels, who may be accompanied by representatives of the socio-economic world, engineers, administrative staff and students.

.
Profile of the experts involved

Formation of expert panels

Each panel of experts is formed on an ad hoc basis. Its composition corresponds to the characteristics of the evaluated institution and the areas covered by the evaluation.

The panels are made up of a chair and one or more experts.  The panel chairs are mainly chosen from among the experts who have already conducted at least one evaluation for Hcéres. An effort is made to ensure gender equality in each panel.

Role and commitments of the experts

Among other things, the experts and chairs are expected to:

  • follow the training programmes proposed to them
  • familiarise themselves with the Hcéres methodology and standard and with the challenges and context of the institution to be evaluated in order to build their analysis
  • prepare and take part in the site visit and in all the meetings to prepare and compile the assessment,
  • draft an evidence-based contribution to the evaluation report.
  • make realistic recommendations that are adapted to the situation of the evaluated institution

Throughout the evaluation, the chair coordinates the work of the panel in compliance with Hcéres procedures and compiles the evaluation report. By signing it, he or she takes responsibility for the evaluation judgement.

Each member of an evaluation panel undertakes to:

  • comply with the Hcéres evaluation charter
  • comply with the regulations on the status of experts, and in particular with Hcéres professional ethics and confidentiality rules
  • Inform Hcéres of any ties or situations that are likely to raise doubts as to the impartiality of the evaluation