The composition of the committees is key to the quality of the evaluation. Each committee must therefore guarantee that it is balanced and independent. At the same time, it must be sufficiently close to the employee under evaluation in order to be able to assess their work adequately. To achieve this, the committees typically have three members and meet the following conditions:  

• At least two members must be from the given field. 

The “fields” in this context are defined in the same way as in the evaluation of research (linguistics, literature, etc.). In justified cases, however, the Dean may decide to define a “field” differently (e.g., according to a geographic area), if it better corresponds to the scientific profile of the employee under evaluation. In practice, “fields” are not defined mechanically, but the specific profile of the given evaluator is also taken into account (for example, an expert in literature can have insight to film studies, etc.)

• No more than one member can come from the employee’s department. However, for the zero round of the evaluation, the Dean’s Board has decided that, if possible, internal members should not participate in committees for the sake of independence.
• At least one member is from the Panel of Evaluators and has the task of ensuring comparability of the evaluations across the faculty. 
• At least one member is from one of the Cooperatio programme boards or from the faculty’s Research Board. 
• If the above conditions cannot be met by the employees of the Faculty of Arts, one of the members will be external.

In the non-evaluation part of the committee meeting, the head of the department or other relevant persons nominated by them (e.g. the former head if there has been a change recently, etc.) is also present. The role of the head of department is essential, because much of the information about employees can only be provided by them. However, the head of department cannot participate in the evaluation part of the session so that the committee could decide independently based on the information provided.

The aim is to have as few different committees as possible for one department, so that the evaluation of all employees of the department is comparable. If, in view of the conditions outlined above, it is not possible to have one committee for the whole department (typically because there are researchers from different fields), there should be various committees and have at least as many common members as possible and a single chairperson.