H/02/26/02 REC: 27.5.10. Meeting of the Senatus Researcher Experience Committee to be held on Thursday, 27 May 2010 at 2.15 p.m. in the Lord Provost Elder Room, Old College A G E N D A 1. The University of Edinburgh Scholarships Statistics Oral report by Robert Lawrie 2. Minutes of the previous meeting Enclosed 3. Convener s Communications 4. Review of the Committee s first year of operation action from Conveners Forum report to 16 June 2010 Senate For discussion 5. Institute for Academic Development: (i) Establishment of the Institute for Academic Development REC 09/10 5 A (ii) Future funding for researcher development/roberts REC 09/10 5 B (iii) IAD Support for the Principal s PhD Career Development Scholarships Scheme REC 09/10 5 C 6. Reports from the Research Experience Task Groups: (i) Interim Report from Defining Edinburgh PhD Task Group Oral report by Wyn Williams (ii) Interim Report from Implementing the Concordat Task Group Oral report by Sheila Thompson 7. PRES Results REC 09/10 5 D (closed paper) 8. Feedback from workshops of meeting the needs of Doctoral Examiners 9. Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of postgraduate Research Provision Oral report by Richard Williams REC 09/10 5 E RESERVED BUSINESS: 10. Award of a Higher Degree REC 09/10 5 F Dates of meetings for 2010 2011 to be confirmed as soon as possible. Gail Honeyman Registry Academic Services 20 May 2010
DRAFT Notes of the Meeting of the Researcher Experience Committee held on Thursday 25 th March at 2.15p.m. in the Hodgson Room, Weir Building, Kings Building Present: Apologies: In Attendance: Dr J Turner (Convener) Professor D Argyle Ms S Gupta Professor L Hurtado Professor J Oberlander Ms S Thompson Mrs R Watt Professor W Williams Professor M Bownes Ms G Honeyman Dr R Williams Ms V McFarlane 1 Annual report from Careers Service Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education 2007/08. Dr Sharon Macguire (SM) of the Careers Service was welcomed to the Committee and gave a brief presentation on the Careers Service annual report with particular reference to graduates from Doctoral programmes. It was noted that the data set was based on responses from students domiciled in the UK and the EU, therefore, information was not available on international students. REC felt that the report could be the basis of a strong marketing tool for PhD recruitment and the lack of international data led to a severe gap in its usefulness. The difficulty of accessing up to date contact information for graduates was identified as the main problem prohibiting their contribution. RW reported that Registry was updating its method of communication with final year students and recommended that SM contact Craig Shearer, Head of Student Administration Services, to see if the system could be adapted for use with international doctoral students. It was further noted that there was no comparison data with other Russell Group institutions. SM reported that HESA were running pilot survey, Igraduate, and the Careers Service would be monitoring it closely. SG, as a member of the HESA user group forum, offered to feedback comments to HESA. Decision: REC would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of future surveys. Action: REC requested that Career Services look at the feasibility of including international postgraduates in future surveys. JT to feedback to REC. 2 Previous minutes Amendments had been received from ST and incorporated into the Notes. The Note of the previous meeting was approved. 3 Convener s Communications (i) Feedback from meetings (ii) Update on Principal s career scholarships The University of Edinburgh PhD Scholarship statistics and the Scottish Overseas Research Student Awards Scheme (SORSAS) and accompanying report from Robert Lawrie, Head of the Scholarships and Student Finance Office, REC 09/10 4 A Previously circulated REC09/10 04M Tabled papers (closed) JT Action 1
were tabled. The papers outlined the number and source of applications to the two scholarship schemes. The popularity of the scheme and number of applications were extremely impressive, particularly given the short timescale available to advertise and prepare for the new scheme. Discussion took place on deadlines and announcements for applications, the confusion surrounding different criteria for different schemes and the need to compete with overseas universities. The REC had a number of recommendations on how the process could be managed, including earlier deadlines, clearer website information and resource implications for Colleges. Action: REC to invite Robert Lawrie to the 27th May meeting to discuss the management of Scholarships. (iii) The University of Edinburgh s new sustainability and social responsibility strategy JT reported that he had contacted VITAE and obtained a positive response re: a booklet on sustainability aimed at postgraduate and early career researchers. Action: To contact colleagues within Colleges to contribute to booklet. (iv) Memorandum of Understanding and Memorandum of Agreement discussed at the meeting of 14 th January 2010. Action: A reminder that feedback was requested by the Convener on the memoranda. 4 Possible Plagiarism in Journal articles feedback and recommendations of REC The REC was requested to send recommendations to the Secretary for onward transmission to the College Academic Misconduct Officers. 5 PGR Examination Changes in College of Science & Engineering for comment and recommendations Wyn Williams: The circulated papers outlined the original proposal for the structure of College of Science & Engineering s PGR Board of Examiners and the discussion of proposals regarding examination boards for PGR degrees. WW gave REC background information on the proposed structure with the establishment of a Board of Examiners (BoE) sub committee of the Researcher Training Committee. The sub committee consisting of 4 members of whom WW is the convener. LH asked if the proposal met the requirements of Senate including the requirement that a review of the BoE decisions should show them to be robust enough to withstand appeal. WW confirmed that methods existed for scrutiny of thesis, including detailed analysis of failed submissions and sample analysis of mid range submissions. Decision: REC agreed to the proposal and recommended that the name of the Board of Examiners should be in line with those existing in the other Colleges. 6 Procedures for the application and award of Higher Degrees (DD,DLitt, DSc,LLD,DMus) Jon Turner The procedures were examined and considered to be fit for purpose. Decision: The procedures were endorsed by the Researcher REC 09/10 4 B REC 09/10 4 C REC 09/10 4 D REC Secretary JT Colleges REC 2
Experience Committee. Action: College of Humanities and Social Sciences to be informed of decision. REC Secretary 7 Reports from Researcher Experience Committee Task Groups: (i) Verbal Interim Report from Defining Edinburgh PhD Task Group Wyn Williams WW highlighted areas which had been considered by the task group: International students Training courses available to PGR, for example, COMPASS a series of coordinated orientation modules for postgraduates about study in Scotland was seen as good practice and should be more widely advertised. Open Days visits and the development of virtual open days. The need for social and interaction space RW reported that a proposed Graduate Centre was now unlikely to receive funding. LH noted that with multiple sites, School level provision may be considered more important than University wide provision. Library facilities and JMCB space and the scope for increasing provision. Surveys from Alumni Office have been analyzed, they reinforced University of Edinburgh s high reputation for academic research, however, areas for further development had been noted, including careers advice and development. These are issues nationally, not particular to Edinburgh, and discussion considered possible approaches to innovation in this area (e.g. building more on career planning into 2 nd year review, more support for supervisors in this role). Tabled Paper (ii) Initial Report from Implementing the Concordat Task Group Sheila Thompson ST tabled a report paper to REC which outlined the remit of the task group and the recommendations and actions from the first meeting held on 16 March 2010. In addition, ST noted that there was now a section of the Researcher Development website describing how the University of Edinburgh is implementing the Concordat and requested any feedback from REC members. A brief discussion took place concerning the importance of the appraisal process to the development of new researchers. It was felt that a culture change was required which highlighted the positive impact that a performance and career development review would make on research. ST reported that the information we have provided on the Concordat on our publicly viewable website is part of the process we have to go through in seeking alignment with the European Charter and Code. Website for Concordat information: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools departments/researcherdevelopment/staff/concordat 3
8 Verbal Progress Report on the Institute for Academic Development Jon Turner JT provided a short verbal update on the establishment of the IAD. Key points were that: arrangements have been made for the Researcher Development Programme (for research staff) to move into the IAD from HR current skills training support for PhD students and early career researchers will be maintained and offered through the current structures (transkills and researcher development) for the coming academic year. 9 Report to Senate items identified by REC for further development Considered under item 11. 10 Report from REC members regarding relevant external meetings 11 Feedback on the operation of the new committee and suggestions for future working Overall it was agreed that the new committee structure has been positive. REC has provided an opportunity to take a more strategic view of PhD education and researcher experience. The committee has been able to talk freely and take time to identify likely future pressures and priorities. There are some practical concerns around whether there may be gaps in communication (particularly around governance issues) that need to be addressed. This may reflect the lack of a direct mapping between Senate and College structures (in some cases) and bedding down in identifying how best to take forward some cross College issues and issues that need to be escalated beyond Colleges (i.e. the boundaries in responsibilities between REC and CSPC, as well as the Postgraduate Administration Forum). Next Meeting: Thursday 27 th May 2010, Lord Provost Elder Room, Old College 4
H/02/26/02 REC: 27.5.10. REC 09/10 5 A The University of Edinburgh Researcher Experience Committee 27 May 2010 Establishment of the Institute for Academic Development Brief description of the paper The paper provides an update on the progress made to date in establishing the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) along with an outline plan for the year ahead. Setting up the IAD is a key element of the University s strategy for the future sustainability of the Roberts agenda at Edinburgh. Action requested For information. Resource implications None. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No. Freedom of Information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes. Originator of the paper Dr. Jon Turner Director, Institute for Academic Development May 2010 1
Establishment of the Institute for Academic Development May 2010 Dr Jon Turner, Director Institute for Academic Development This paper provides an update on the progress made to date in establishing the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) along with an outline plan for the year ahead. Setting up the IAD is a key element of the University s strategy for the future sustainability of the Roberts agenda at Edinburgh. Background The establishment of a new Institute for Academic Development was the main recommendation of the Review of Teaching and Learning Support for Staff and Students at the University of Edinburgh 1. The review recommended that the remit of the Institute should include orientation, continuing professional development and dissemination of best practice in teaching and supervision, promotion of student study skills, transferable and career development skills for postgraduate researchers, and the development of innovative strategies in teaching and assessment. Key requirements for the Institute are a direct focus on the strategic priorities of the University and three Colleges, and the provision of a service that is highly visible to potential users and that offers a coherent continuum of academic development and study skills support for newer and more experienced staff and students. The establishment of the Institute and the internal appointment of a Director were formally approved at the meeting of Senate on 14 October 2009. Jon Turner was appointed as Director of the Institute from the 1 January 2010. The Institute was initially intended to comprise the Centre for Teaching, Learning & Assessment, the Postgraduate Transferable Skills Unit and the study skills activities of the Office for Lifelong Learning. The brief for the Institute Director was to use 2010 to integrate these groups into the Institute, relocate them to a single site and develop a more detailed remit, structure and programme of activities. Priorities for 2010 Four key priority areas were identified for the period January 2010 to July 2011: Maintain key areas of current provision; Complete Institute re organisation; Take a project based approach to priority development areas; Pilot and establish a secondment programme. It is anticipated that the development of the Institute will move through three key phases during 2010/11: Phase 1 Foundations (January to March 2010) The key aims for this phase were to clarify and confirm the groups and individuals moving into the Institute, to agree the initial Institute budget, reporting and governance arrangements, and to develop a provisional timetable for the establishment of the Institute during 2010. COMPLETED. Phase 2 Strategic Planning (March to August 2010) Through Institute meetings, consultations with Colleges and other key stakeholders the remainder of this academic year will concentrate on the development of an IAD Strategic Plan. This will be used to inform the medium 1 http://www.iad.ed.ac.uk/documents/reviewofteachingandlearningsupportforstaffandstudentsatt heuniversityofedinburgh.pdf 2
term staffing and organisational structure of the Institute and to develop a programme of activities for the next three years. Phase 3 Establishment (academic year 2010/11) New Institute structures and initiatives will be piloted and established during academic year 2010/11. The profile of the Institute with staff and students will increase during this period with new Institute structures and programmes fully established in time for the start of academic year 2011/12. Progress to Date (Phase 1) Phase 1 is complete. The initial staffing and financial arrangements for the Institute are close to finalised; meetings have taken place with the chairs of Senate committees and others to identify key University priority areas (e.g. ELIR, Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarships); a timetable has been confirmed for the production of an Institute Strategic Plan; initial discussions have taken place concerning co location; and proposals for short term projects and secondments are under discussion. Key achievements to date include: The HR Researcher Development Programme and IS support for e learning and study skills were originally scheduled for the second stage of Institute development. This has been brought forward and both groups will now be involved in the initial establishment of the Institute. Transitional arrangements for moving TLA staff from the School of Education and transkills staff from the College of Science & Engineering have been agreed. During 2010, and probably into the new academic year, support for students and staff will continue to be offered and advertised through existing structures (e.g. TLA, transkills and OLL). Carolin Kreber will continue as Director of TLA for at least the remainder of the current academic year, Louisa Lawes has been appointed Acting Director of transkills, whilst Sheila Thompson will continue as Director of the Researcher Development Programme, Caroline Bamford remains the key contact for OLL study skills provision. Short term staffing and other arrangements have been made to allow the confirmation of training courses, events and other support for the remainder of this academic year. A temporary IAD website has been created (http://www.iad.ed.ac.uk/) along with a wiki 2. Both will be developed further and used for internal and external communication and consultation during phase 2 of Institute development. A draft communications strategy has been prepared. Work is underway to develop short term projects and secondments. Next Steps and looking to the future (Phases 2 and 3) A series of Institute Strategy meetings have been planned between March and June 2010. These, together with meetings with Colleges and other key stakeholders, will be at the centre of phase 2 (strategic planning). A key outcome of the strategic planning process will be to identify the optimum future staffing arrangements and structures for the Institute. Discussions are underway concerning the physical co location of the Institute. A preliminary assessment of space requirements has been made and potential sites are being considered. The other practical consequences of co location (e.g. IT infrastructure) are being investigated and the identification of opportunities to streamline current approaches (e.g. managing and promoting events) will be an important element of Institute meetings over the coming months. We will ask the Roberts Management Group to support a significant additional investment in the MyEd events bookings channel on 2 https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/insacdev/home 3
the basis this project would be developed and managed in partnership with the Institute. IAD staff have been asked to prepare budgets and identify areas where additional support is needed for them to deliver existing core programmes during academic year 2010/11. This is a core priority for the Institute. Our current intention is for existing brands (and websites) like TLA, Researcher Development and transkills to continue operating in 2010/11, at least for the early part of the academic year. This will be re assessed as part of the strategic planning process but we will ensure that students and staff do not see any reduction in provision or deterioration in support in the meantime. Subject to discussions with Colleges and other key stakeholders long term priority areas for new Institute activities are likely to include a review and expansion of CPD support for those involved in teaching, skills training and support for Taught Masters students, and a review and enhancement of the study skills support available for undergraduates. Details of how the Institute will respond to and prioritise activities around these and other areas of current support (e.g. Postgraduate Certificate in University teaching, links to educational research, and skills training for PhD students and research staff) will emerge as part of the strategic planning process. Until then the Institute will also look for opportunities to initiate short term projects (e.g. linked to secondments) and other actions linked to University and College priorities where they will not detract from existing core services and the strategic planning process. Current areas under consideration include: University strategic priorities: Potential support and compilation of case study material for ELIR Support for the Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarships (Appendix) Understanding and using the results of student experience surveys Undergraduate study skills: We will begin a review of the IAD role in study skills provision and pilot new approaches during academic year 2010/11. Taught Masters support: Discussions are underway to prepare a 2 to 3 year development project that would pilot and evaluate a range of options for providing support from the IAD for taught masters programmes. This project would begin in academic year 2010/11. Review of CPD and other support for University teachers: The first new IAD appointment will be in this area. They will be asked to lead a major review of current and potential support for teaching staff, including CPD programmes and courses, on line support, networking and practice sharing. This review will take place during academic year 2010/11. Ongoing IAD Support for PhD students and Research Staff transkills www.transkills.ed.ac.uk Researcher Development Programme www.ed.ac.uk/schools departments/researcher development Tutoring and demonstrating (TLA) http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/services/tutdems/index.htm 4
Appendix IAD Support for the University of Edinburgh Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarships Scheme The IAD is working with College Postgraduate Deans to prepare a guide for Schools, supervisors and students on how best the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) and other central services and groups might support the Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarships scheme. This includes consideration of possible options for accreditation of the career development strands and suggestions for how this guidance could be disseminated and supported through the Institute for Academic Development and Colleges. World class research facilities and supervision, specialist technical and high level personal, professional and career development skills training are key elements of all Edinburgh PhDs. In addition to the support available to all PhD students, holders of Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarships will be provided with further training and development opportunities designed to address a specific career area (or strand) such as teaching, public engagement, entrepreneurship or research support. Each award holder will agree a programme of training and development tailored to their individual requirements and interests. The IAD guide will describe the general academic, career and transferable skills support available to PhD students at the University of Edinburgh. It goes on to propose a framework for additional training, support and development opportunities linked to each of the Principal s Career Development PhD Scholarship strands. This comprises a combination of support offered centrally (e.g. through the Institute for Academic Development and other groups) with training and activities that will need to be managed locally (i.e. at a School/Centre level). 5
H/02/26/02 REC: 27.5.10. REC 09/10 5 B The University of Edinburgh Researcher Experience Committee 27 May 2010 Future Funding for Researcher Development/Roberts Brief description of the paper On 30 March, RCUK issued a statement Sustainability of the Researcher Development Agenda with an update on the future of Robers funding from the Research Councils. This paper sets out the key points from the RCUK statement and provides an update on Roberts finances and spending plans in Edinburgh. Action requested For information. Resources implications Does the paper have resource implications? Yes. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No. Freedom of Information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes. Originator of the paper Dr. Jon Turner, Director, Institute for Academic Development 4 May 2010 1
Future funding for Researcher Development/Roberts Jon Turner (Director, Institute for Academic Development) 4 May 2010 On 30 March RCUK issued a statement Sustainability of the Researcher Development Agenda 1 with an update on the future of Roberts funding from the Research Councils. This provided the University (and Roberts Management Group) with an opportunity to confirm spending plans for 2010/11 and begin discussions on the future funding of researcher development (for PhD students and research staff) in the post Roberts environment. This paper sets out the key points from the RCUK statement and provides an update on Roberts finances and spending plans in Edinburgh. Update from RCUK The key points from the statement issued by RCUK on 30 March are that: The final ring fenced payment from the Research Councils will be issued in October 2010 for the period up to the end of March 2011. The Research Councils expect institutions to embed researcher development (Roberts) into the normal processes in the research and training environment, and embed funding within normal training and research grant mechanisms. RCUK recognise that the transition from ring fencing to embedding in grants will take time. The framework and timetable for the transitional arrangements will be finalised by summer 2010. The Research Councils expect Roberts payments to normally be used within the academic year in which they are paid. If an organisation s strategy is best met by some carry forward of funds to the 2011/12 academic year, that strategy should be included as a separate heading within the annual report due in November 2010 along with the amounts the organisation proposes to carry forward. Edinburgh Response The University s approach to the implementation of Roberts has included an element of contingency planning for the transition from Research Council ring fenced funding to an alternative funding mechanism. This means that sufficient funding is available to maintain current levels of funding for central and devolved activities for the whole of academic year 2010/11. An update for Schools confirming this and asking for feedback on the impact of devolved Roberts funding is included as an appendix to this paper. It will not be possible to make further detailed spending decisions (for 2011/12 and beyond) until we have a further update from the Research Councils (promised for summer 2010). This update should include information on their plans for embedding funding within grants and fees, and on the availability of transitional funding. The establishment of the Institute for Academic Development (IAD), and its role in supporting the sustainability of the researcher development agenda at Edinburgh, will be a key element of future funding decisions within Edinburgh. There are several different approaches that could legitimately be taken to support this transition. Jon Turner will initiate discussions at a University level on potential long term funding structures and mechanisms. These discussions will focus on the practicalities of building researcher development costs into fees and grant FEC, as well as making transitional arrangements to minimise the impact on either School or central provision for PhD students and research staff. 1 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/international/statementofexpectations.pdf 2
Appendix E mail to Schools Subject: Devolved Roberts funding for Researcher Development Dear colleagues We are writing to follow up a recent statement from the Research Councils regarding the future of Roberts funding and particularly what this might mean for the future of Roberts funding currently devolved to Schools. A copy of the Research Councils statement can be viewed on the web at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/international/statementofexpectations.pdf The key points from this statement are that ring fenced Roberts funding from the Research Councils for researcher development will cease during academic year 2010/11, that the Research Councils want to see researcher development built into normal processes and funding arrangements for PhDs and research grants, and that further information on future funding and transitional arrangements will be provided over the summer. The University s approach to Roberts and the establishment of the Institute for Academic Development means that we expect to be able to manage this transition with the minimum of disruption either to Schools or to central provision for PhD students and research staff. While there will be some variations based on numbers of Research Council funded PhD students and research staff, Schools in HSS and SE and the College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine should plan on the basis that their devolved Roberts funding allocations for 2010/11 will be similar to previous years. Consultations will begin now on the future of this dedicated researcher development funding line for Schools for academic year 2011/12 and beyond. We would welcome comments from individuals and Schools on the following questions: 1) Is it important for Schools to have a dedicated funding stream for researcher development (skills training)? 2) Changes in external funding arrangements mean that it might be possible to introduce greater flexibility in the use of this devolved funding (e.g. extension to research as well as transferable skills, support for supervisors and PIs). Would this be welcomed? 3) Future researcher development funding allocations to Schools are likely to be made on the basis of ALL PhD students and research staff (rather than just those funded by the Research Councils). Will that cause any difficulties for your School, particularly during a transitional period? 4) Some Schools, particularly those with very large allocations, have carried forward some unspent Roberts funding. Should we reduce the level of funding allocated to researcher development for Schools or would an increase in flexibility justify the continuation of current funding levels? 3
5) If devolved Roberts funding for Schools were to cease at the end of 2010/11 and not be replaced what would be the impact on Schools? Are there any particular contractual problems (e.g. fixed term posts due to end beyond 2010/11)? Please send your comments/responses to Jon Turner (Director, Institute for Academic Development, j.d.turner@ed.ac.uk). It would be useful to have responses by 20 th May 2010. We will provide an update on funding options (including a summary of these responses) later this summer. Sent on behalf of the Roberts Management Group: Vice Principal Mary Bownes Head of HR Sheila Gupta Vice Principal Lorraine Waterhouse 4
H/02/26/02 REC: 27.5.10. REC 09/10 5 E The University of Edinburgh Researcher Experience Committee 27 May 2010 Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision: Implementation of Recommendations Brief description of the paper The paper proposes means by which the recommendations of the Task Group on the Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision may be implemented. Action requested For information. Resource implications Does the paper have resource implications? No. Risk Assessment Does the paper include a risk analysis? No. Equality and Diversity Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No. Freedom of information Can this paper be included in open business? Yes. Originators of the paper Will Hossack, Richard Williams & Tina Harrison May 2010 1
Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision Implementation of Recommendations At its meeting of 20 April 2010 Senatus Quality Assurance Committee agreed the overall areas for attention as set out in the recommendations of the Task Group on Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision. It was further agreed that the meeting of 25 May 2010 would consider how to progress the recommendations. Further work by a small group has produced the specific recommendations below, which are presented to the Committee for approval. The Committee is also invited to discuss and if appropriate agree piloting the recommendations in a number of subject areas. The recommendations will be transmitted to Researcher Experience Committee for information. 1. Monitoring of quality of supervision & reporting of progression/assessment a) Schools will be asked to outline in their annual Quality Assurance report to the relevant College committee their model for assuring themselves of the quality of supervision of postgraduate research provision, to include: Initial and ongoing training of supervisors in line with the University s Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students Mentoring of new and inexperienced supervisors Processes for collecting and acting on feedback from students on their experience of being supervised The School s expectations with regard to student progress, and how these are communicated to the student b) Implementation of a student led approach to recording of meetings between supervisor and student, with the primary focus being on recording the purpose of the meeting and the actions arising from it. The record will include: Date of the meeting Purpose of the meeting Any specific problems identified Action points c) The student will produce a record of the meeting and forward it to their supervisor for agreement. d) The nature of the meeting may assist with career development, and the student may wish to record these. e) Schools should hold a training record for each postgraduate research student, thus allowing the capture of a range of courses taken by students (e.g. Transkills, TLA, credit bearing courses taken on a not for credit basis). The possibility will be explored 2
of holding this on the student s WISARD record. Apart from the primary benefit to the student, this feature would provide management information for Transkills. 2. Examination Boards and Feedback to Schools Colleges will consult on the recommendation that Schools review Part I and II Forms as part of the annual consideration by the School Postgraduate Studies Committee of best practice and potential areas for quality enhancement in supervision, and that issues identified are reported to subject areas. This review would not be part of the formal examining process, but would instead provide an opportunity for reflection on the content of reports and their structure. The aim would be to provide higher level learning points with the purpose of raising standards in general. Any general points for action can be noted in the School s Annual QA report. 3. Statistical Reporting for Postgraduate Research Annual School Quality reports on postgraduate research students should include the following statistical information: Number of current active PhD students Number of students who have completed since the last annual report Number of students progressing to the next year of study Average length of time to completion within the School The resulting trend data will allow Schools and subject areas to identify issues requiring action. Will Hossack, Richard Williams & Tina Harrison May 2010 3