Stage 1: Academic Assessment

Criterion 1: Quality and Potential of the Proposed Sabbatical

The sabbatical will be assessed on the extent to which the proposed sabbatical activities are likely to result in high-quality research, impact, innovation, capacity building, or other scholarly contributions.

The Criterion will be assessed by University Heads of Departments (HoDs) and Deans.

Assessors should consider:

• originality and significance of the proposed work
• their contribution to the proposed work
• academic rigour and integrity of the proposed work -proposed impact, visibility, and reach of the work such as academic, policy, practice, society, culture or economic
• potential to strengthen future research activity, collaborations or impact

Examples of evidence:

• research plans
• proposed publications, monographs or creative outputs
• proposed development of major funding applications
• proposed impact case study
• policy, industry or public engagement activities
• new collaborations and partnerships

Criterion 2: Feasibility and Delivery

The sabbatical will be assessed on the extent to which the proposed objectives are realistic, well-planned and achievable within the sabbatical period.

The Criterion will be assessed by University Heads of Departments and Deans.

Assessors should consider:

• clarity of objectives
• appropriateness of the timetable
• management of risks and dependencies
• adequacy of resources and support arrangements

Examples of evidence:

• SMART objectives
• workplan appropriately mapped to sabbatical duration
• risk assessment and mitigations
• confirmation of key collaborations, visits, or resource requirements

Criterion 3: Strategic Contribution

The sabbatical will be assessed on the extent to which the sabbatical will contribute to the strategic development of the applicant, Department, Faculty or School, and University.

The Criterion will be assessed by University Heads of Departments and Deans.

Assessors should consider:

• potential to strengthen research capability or capacity of individual
• potential to strengthen research profile of Department, or Unit of Assessment for Research Excellence Framework (REF)
• alignment with Institutional and Faculty or School research priorities
  

Examples of evidence:

A description of how the sabbatical will strengthen you as a researcher, over and above what could be carried out in your currently allocated research time. This could include:

• a step change to your research capability
• improved research leadership or research profile
• major contribution to future career development
  
• capacity to embark on a major change in research direction
  

Alignment with and suggested contributions to:

• departmental research priorities
• Faculty or School priorities
• delivering the University strategy
• research culture, where applicable
• REF-related ambitions, where applicable

Stage 2: Institutional Moderation and Prioritisation

The sabbatical will be assessed on the:

• consistency in the application of the assessment criteria
• relative strength of the applications across the institution in relation to the assessment criteria
• balance of the portfolio of sabbatical awards maximising institutional benefit
• alignment to the strategic research objectives of the University

The Criterion will be assessed by the Sabbatical Committee.

Assessors should consider:

• consistency of assessment
• relative strength of the applications across the institution in relation to the assessment criteria
• balance of awards across the University and Strategic need
  

Examples of evidence:

• consistency of scoring and written assessment across the Faculties or School
• written assessment aligning with scoring and criteria
• clear ranking by Deans with rationale
  

Responsible research assessment statement

The University is committed to ensuring its research assessment practices are fair, transparent, and inclusive.  

The assessment process of this scheme aligns with our principles of research assessment.  

Members of the Sabbatical Committee and individuals providing formal assessment recommendations should have completed relevant unconscious bias and responsible research assessment training.