Senate

Subject: Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes

Origin: Unconfirmed minutes of SSH Faculty Board on 4 February 2003

The Board RECEIVED and CONSIDERED the AD(R)'s tabled briefing paper that outlined the University stance with respect to the proposed core standards as defined in table 1.

A number of points were raised in discussion:

· It was felt that the HEFCE proposals could in practice, if not in intention, concentrate research students into large Departments to the detriment of smaller groups of researchers.

· The Board was concerned that there might be confusion as to whether some Departments should meet ESRC and/or HEFCE guidelines.

· The idea of dual supervision of students could be countered by Directors of Research, and was felt to impose an intimidating and unnecessary process on students.

· The supervisory arrangements could also be seen to cause conflict with respect to authorship and dual supervision.

The Board CONFIRMED that the Faculty had good procedures for their research students and that they should be vigorously defended even if they did not exactly conform to the rather prescriptive minimum standards suggested by HEFCE. The Board AGREED that the Faculty's comments be reported to Dr Brigette Vale, Research Support Office.

Author – Sally McKinley

Date – February 2003
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved

Senate

Subject: Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes

Origin: Unconfirmed minutes of Engineering Faculty Board on

5 February 2003

The Board received and considered a consultation paper from HEFCE, proposing core standards for Institutions. The Board generally welcomed the proposals, much of which already reflected current practice in the University, and made a number of comments: -

· The proposed 70% submission rate within four years was not currently being achieved

· Mandatory training for supervisors, and the concept of supervisory teams, were welcomed, but would need qualifying to ensure the continued use of external supervisor in areas such as CASE awards, and to allow probationary staff who were principal investigators to be main supervisor; similarly external examiners from industry should not be excluded under the new protocol.
The AD(R) undertook to refer the Board’s comments to the Research Team.

Author – David Wolfe

Date – February 2003
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved

Senate

Subject: Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes

Origin: Unconfirmed minutes of Science Faculty Board on 6 February 2003

The Faculty Board considered the HEFCE policy document "Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes" and made the following comments:

i. Research Environment

· It might be difficult to increase research groups of 5 or more staff and 10 or more students. However, in response to the Government's White Paper, the University was likely to be driving for fewer, larger research groups and more collaboration which might address this point.

· Increasing the submission rate in 4 years to 70% was not thought to be a great challenge or the Faculty, most departments already achieved a similar rate of submission. It may be necessary to move the deadline for the first report back to 6-8 months after the start of the research degree and an adequate appeals procedure would need to be implemented.

· The suggested minimum RAE rating of 3a would not affect the Faculty at this stage.

ii. Supervisory Arrangements

· Loughborough University already had in place a training programme for new supervisors.

· The concept of supervisory teams was greeted with reluctance from some members. Experience had shown that whilst joint supervision could work, it could also result in the quality of supervision falling between two stalls. It was suggested that the Loughborough model of having a supervisor and a Director of Research could meet the proposed supervisory team standard, so long as the role of Director of Research was consistent across the University (current practice differed between departments).

· It was felt that the proposed standard that supervisors had to have experience of at least one successful supervision before acting as a main supervisor was already LU practice to a large extent. However it was noted that this could be potentially discouraging for probationers in terms of promotion etc.

· Setting the limit for main supervisors as having responsibility for a maximum of eight students would not create major problems in most areas. The number of research students per member of staff varied according to department and historical practice. This issue may require further exploration in Chemistry.

iii. Admission Criteria

· Members were not generally concerned with the proposed standard although current arrangements did allow people with extensive work experience to undertake a research degree in some instances. It might not be desirable to lose this flexibility and discretion.

iv. Training

· The Faculty had been providing training to research students for a number of years. The programme had recently been reviewed. It may require further revisions in light of the proposed core standards.

v. Progression Assessment and Appeals

· Members felt that some departments would be hard pushed to meet the requirement of panels of three academic staff or more. Some departments had tried panels of three in the past and, in these areas, experience had shown that the process was more effective with panels of two. The AD(R), together with the Engineering AD(R), was working on a scheme for the introduction of PhD progression boards which would meet, perhaps twice a year, to review a students' progress. The Directorate would consider proposals later in the year.

· Members were slightly concerned at the implicit suggestion that staff in 3a-rated departments were to be judged at performing only at 3a level. There were some very good staff housed in 3a-rated departments and, conversely, not all staff in 4 or 5 rated departments were necessarily performing at those levels individually.

· Members supported the formalisation of complaints and appeals processes.

vi. Other Comments

· It was suggested that student feedback mechanisms, and how departments responded to them, should be included somewhere in the table of core standards.

The AD(R) would report the comments of the Faculty Board to the appropriate bodies.

Author – Miranda Whyte