8.2.3An illustration of our framework – The Prism Model

Figure 1 illustrates our framework, represented metaphorically as an optical prism: The Prism of Research Evaluation. Just as a physical prism refracts white light into a spectrum of colours, the prism in this figure refracts the “light” of research performance through a structured and multi-dimensional evaluative lens. This visual metaphor underscores a fundamental principle of responsible assessment: research quality is not a single colour or metric, but a multifaceted, context-sensitive construct.

The three foundational dimensions of our framework - the base of the prism in Figure 1 – correspond to the essential questions of whom we are assessing (the unit of evaluation), what we are assessing (the research process including its boundaries), and why we are assessing (the purpose of the assessment). Two further dimensions specify where, when, and most importantly, how the assessment is carried out: the level of aggregation and the evaluation context. These form the two lateral sides of the prism structure.

Finally, the framework is completed by a sixth dimension: the inclusion of all stakeholders affected by or involved in the evaluation process and its broader consequences. This dimension captures the relational and societal aspects of evaluation, highlighting its impact beyond academia.

Our framework seeks to apply a kind of spectral decomposition to the complex task of assessment – symbolised by the incoming light beam. If functioning effectively, the prism yields a comprehensive evaluation spectrum that is appropriate to the unit under assessment.

The refracted spectrum, symbolised by the rainbow emerging from the prism, reflects the diverse outcomes that can result from a responsible evaluation process. No single metric or ranking can capture this plurality. Instead, we must strive to view research through multiple lenses, recognising that different purposes and contexts will yield different “colours” of insight across the evaluative spectrum.

Finally, our model embodies several key principles of responsible evaluation, including:

• Participatory governance – involving the stakeholders in the definition of meaningful metrics and methods
• Transparency – reducing the opacity or black-boxing of the evaluative process and decision-making
• Indicator pluralism – supporting multidimensional approaches to research assessment and finally
• Critical reflection – encouraging evaluators to think through the boundaries and assumptions that shape evaluation frameworks