Internal candidates for the post of Research Support Manager had been considered but no appointment recommended. The possibility of advertising the post externally was still under discussion but interim arrangements would be needed.
The Chair of Council, expressed his frustration at the lack of progress. Proposals for the operation of the Team were needed in addition to its constitution and it was agreed that the Team should meet on a weekly basis with a specific Agenda. Clear methods of monitoring research performance were also needed.
The Committee agreed that the AD(R)s and PVC(R) should form the core of the Team. The processes supporting the work of the Team such as the research student and finance databases needed urgent review. The links between the Teams and Faculties/Senate also needed strengthening.
The possibility of using a temporary accommodation in Manzoni would be explored so that the Team could immediately start its work.
Progress in relation to the 1997/8 Operational Plan was noted. Targets for increasing research student numbers and improving research degree submission rates had not been reached and an urgent review of the targets and necessary action was needed. The drive to increase research student numbers could have an adverse effect on submission rates. Improving the assessment of students at the end of Year 1 could help.
Final figures in relation to research income were not yet known but performance was expected to vary between Faculties. All other actions had been completed satisfactorily.
The Research Section of the Operational Plan was considered and the following action agreed:
All Faculties were undertaking a review of a progress in relation to the next RAE. The PVC(R) would emphasise the importance of this review during his visits to departments. The latest guidance showed no major changes for the next RAE; assessment panels were being established and would publish specific criteria for the next RAE. The importance of communicating any vagaries in the assessment process at panel level to the PVC(R) was emphasised.
Priorities for the investment of residual development funds were likely to emerge from the strategic planning conference. A deadline for allocating these funds should be established.
Improvements in the Science Faculty were noted. The importance of maintaining momentum once targets had been reached was noted.
Research Student recruitment was considered to be the most difficult task to address. The University should position itself to exploit opportunities to increase recruitment if they arose. Possible ways of improving recruitment could be to adopt other models such as the American model where students obtained a research and teaching qualification in 4 years. The AD(R) SSH agreed to provide a paper on this for the next meeting.
Comments from the Faculty Boards on the future role of Director of Research were considered. There was a consensus view from all Boards that co-supervision of students could not be made mandatory. The Committee therefore agreed that the regulations should remain unchanged.
In relation to the role and title of Director of Research, varying views were expressed. The Faculty of Science felt that the key role of Director of Research was in monitoring the progress of the student and in intervening when difficulties arose between student and supervisor. The Faculty of Engineering emphasised the role of the Director of Research in co-ordinating and monitoring the process of research student "management". This role could, it was felt, be streamlined and the duties could then be exercised by a small specialist group of staff, thus improving uniformity of practice. The Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities felt that the title reflected the role since the Director of Research was responsible for ensuring that the research was completed and be submitted on time.
In view of the disparate views of the Faculties, the Committee agreed that the regulations should remain unchanged at this stage. There appeared to be sufficient flexibility in the existing guidance notes to fulfil the needs of the Faculties and this issue could be reviewed if the situation changed.
Proposals from the SSH Deanery regarding the routine release of Examiners' Reports were considered. The Committee strongly supported this proposal but it felt that the Examiners' Report Form should be restructured to assist Examiners in providing relevant information. Examples of best practice from other Universities should be obtained.
The Committee agreed that the proposals from the SSH Deanery should be circulated to Directorates for comment.
A draft code of practice produced by the Quality Assurance Agency was noted. The University's policies and procedures were largely in line with this but certain issues might require review.
The comments of TLC Steering Group on the current bought in teaching policy were considered. The Science Faculty, in particular, was opposed to this ruling and felt that some flexibility should be maintained. It was agreed that some guidelines on this, including a threshold for the involvement of first-year research students in teaching, should be drafted. The Committee foresaw no problems with the adoption of tighter guidelines by the Faculty of Engineering.
Agenda
Author – Fidelma Hannah
Date - November 1998
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.