Reading, judgment, and collective opinion formation through comparison of cases are the core components of the procedure. The process is essentially dialogical and comparative, involving perspectives from the multiple disciplines represented on the Board. There are no quotas for either disciplines or other categories of candidacy. The process does not award points for individual areas of evaluation (project proposal, CV, publications); the judgment is deliberately holistic.
Confidential external evaluations are also solicited from experts in order to assess candidates’ disciplinary standing and form part of the dossiers submitted for the Board’s deliberations.
All persons involved in the selection of candidates are asked to reveal if they are in position of bias.