Primerjalni študij idej in kultur

Following the NAKVIS List of study programs in the sample evaluation for 2023, the Postgraduate School of ZRC SAZU was also selected for evaluation, namely its third-level program, Comparative Studies of Ideas and Cultures. The evaluators prepared the following report based on the material provided by the institution and a two-day videoconference conversation with the participants. The self-evaluation process is carried out annually in the doctoral program PŠ ZRC SAZU Comparative study of ideas and cultures. Data collection, editing, and analysis ends with the annual report in February, which is accepted and approved by all relevant authorities in March. The following advantages were identified during the evaluation process: 1. The holders of the SP Comparative Study of Ideas and Cultures teaching units are researchers with excellent research and project references, which enables the rapid transfer of research achievements to the implementation of modules. 2. The SP is flexible and can adapt very quickly to the study needs of doctoral candidates. 3. High visibility of specific modules, e.g. The Transformation of Modern Thought and Cultural History. 4. Modernization of the SP has ideal opportunities to follow current social sciences and humanities trends, as it takes place in a creative dialogue between researchers, university teachers and doctoral students. 5. The educational process takes place in a research and development environment, which is a good starting point for integrating research work, postgraduate education, and doctoral students into the research environment. 6. The work of lecturers and mentors is very well evaluated. 7. Students express high satisfaction with the program and study module. 8. Lecturers and mentors mostly come from ZRC SAZU institutes, so they have extensive research experience. 9. Great flexibility in the implementation of exam obligations and the needs of doctoral students, most of whom are already employed. We propose the following improvements to the management of PŠ ZRC SAZU: 1. Carrying out self-evaluation for individual modules of the study program. 2. Survey all stakeholders, including support services, lecturers/supporters, mentors, and potential mentors. It makes sense to include other forms of monitoring, e.g. focus groups by modules. 3. The length of the annual reports can also be rationalized by indicating the references of the study unit holders, which are directly related to the content of the study unit. Instead of listing the entire two-year bibliography, key achievements should be highlighted, and more time should be devoted to judging/evaluating the scientific work. 4. Formalize and upgrade the meeting of module coordinators and regularly monitor deficiencies, thereby identifying study needs. 5. Evaluate the interdisciplinarity at the institute, including in SEP. 6. Determine knowledge and employment needs in the environment outside the ZRC SAZU research institutes. 7. It would make sense to develop a strategic plan with long-term and short-term goals, especially since it expires in 2025, and a new one will have to be prepared. 8. When the institution makes changes to the SP modules, it should also inform all stakeholders about them at formal meetings and consider their recommendations when making changes. 9. Even greater addition of modules with contents that are compatible and connected with the contents of other modules will further increase horizontal connection and 21 interdisciplinarity (e.g., philosophical, literary, anthropological and linguistic topics can be included in the Human Geography module). 10. The process of creating individual study programs for doctoral students should be standardized, and the same should be done for students with the status of a young researcher as for those without it. 11. The results of the surveys express some of the students' expectations, which university teachers should be familiar with and, together with the management, examine how they can contribute to the improvement of SP through their implementation. 12. To equalize the research opportunities of doctoral candidates who are MR and those who are not MR. It is necessary to include all postgraduate students in project work more systematically and to keep records of their results (number, type of publications). 13. Facilitate as many such trainings as possible, which employees recognize as useful for work at PŠ. 14. The institute should establish a system for asking and considering university teachers' opinions about any perceived weaknesses or good practices of work at the SP and take their suggestions for improvements and good practices into account when implementing the study program. 15. Based on the data from the student surveys, it would make sense to renovate and update the website of the PŠ ZRC SAZU institute. We also suggest to the management of PŠ ZRC SAZU the elimination of the observed only partially fulfilled quality standards: 1. Changes to the SP must be based on the findings of the evaluation, in which, in particular, external stakeholders must be involved. That is why we propose the establishment of program councils by modules. 2. It is necessary to ensure that external stakeholders are adequately informed about the implementation of the planned tasks or the findings and conclusions of the self-evaluation of the study program. They must be actively included in the preparation of the SEP, the operation of the institution and the development of the SP. 3. Competences and learning outcomes must be rewritten in some UNs and aligned with suitability for third-level study. On the whole, however, we propose to eliminate the following observed significant deficiencies, i.e. inconsistencies: 1. There is no concluded quality circle - not all stakeholders are involved in preparing the SEP or informed about the results. At the end of each evaluation cycle, we propose presenting the essential results for all stakeholders. 2. Repetition of the same state assessments from self-evaluation reports without an action plan to eliminate them is observed. An action plan of measures must be drawn up, the responsible person or authority must be appointed, and the measure's implementation deadline must be determined. In the following evaluation report, check the realization of the set measures.