January 2003/01
|
| To: | Heads of all UK higher education institutions |
| Of interest to those responsible for: | Research degrees, Postgraduate training, Internal quality assurance |
| Reference: | 2003/01 |
| Publication date: | January 2003 |
| Enquiries to: | Will Naylor tel 0117 931 7471 e-mail w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk |
Consultation document (read on-line)
Download
Consultation document
[ MS Word 89K | Zipped Word 39K | Adobe PDF 29K | Zipped PDF 23K ]
Contents
Executive summary
Background
Proposed core standards
Issues for consultation
Research report
Executive summary
Purpose
1. This document invites higher education institutions (HEIs) to contribute to the development of threshold standards for research degree programmes (RDPs), prior to formal consultation on this issue in spring 2003.
Key points
2. This is the first stage of a three-stage programme led by the four UK higher education funding bodies. The aim is to enhance the quality of research training across the UK by developing a set of minimum standards to which all research funders and HEIs would subscribe.
3. The programme has its origins in concerns expressed to the funding bodies in their recent reviews of research policy and funding, including those from major sponsors of postgraduate education, about the quality and consistency of research training.
4. The proposed threshold standards are drawn from a research report, originally published on the HEFCE web-site in October.
Action required
5. We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs by responding to the conclusions in the report and the proposed core standards set out in Table 1 below. Responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for threshold standards for RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public consultation in April 2003.
6. Any responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at the HEFCE, w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk
Background
7. The UK higher education funding bodies commissioned a report on improving postgraduate research degree programmes, in response to concerns about the quality and consistency of research training that were raised in recent reviews of research policy and funding. These concerns were echoed this year in the review by Sir Gareth Roberts of the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematical skills ('SET for success', HM Treasury, April 2002).
8. The work was undertaken by a team of consultants led by Dr Janet Metcalfe, and overseen by the Joint Funding Councils' Steering Group on postgraduate education, chaired by Professor Roland Levinsky.
9. The report was originally published in October 2002 on the HEFCE web-site, www.hefce.ac.uk under 'Publications/R&D reports'. It presents a quality framework covering the breadth of research training, including the research environment; selection, induction, progress and examination of students; supervisory arrangements and skills development; and institutional arrangements for quality assurance, procedures and regulations. The framework encompasses all those with a role in research training, including institutions, supervisors and the students themselves.
Role of Research Councils
10. The report defines over 30 items as minimum standards. We recognise that assessing this number of standards would pose serious challenges for HEIs in terms of internal quality assurance. Therefore we have extracted, in concert with the Research Councils, a set of core standards which appear to us to represent an essential minimum for providing high quality RDP training. These core standards are outlined below. They represent the emerging views of the funding bodies and the Research Councils, and not necessarily those of the Steering Group on postgraduate education or the consultants. We envisage that all HEIs in receipt of funding for postgraduate training should comply in future with a list of core standards, although we hope that institutions would also aspire to the complete framework set out in the report.
11. The framework in the report and our proposed core standards have been discussed in detail with the Research Councils, who were represented on the project steering committee. The Research Councils endorse the principles behind this framework, and they all place similar requirements upon the departments in receipt of their own studentship funding.
12. Our interaction with the Research Councils reflects our aspiration to achieve better co-ordination and agreement around the different requirements that separate research funders have for research training. A key aim is to reduce the accountability burden currently faced by HEIs in complying with several sets of quality criteria, although the Research Councils do not as yet have a view on how the framework should be monitored and assessed. Furthermore, funding council strategy and future funding arrangements do not fall within the remit of the Research Councils. Therefore their support at this stage does not necessarily imply future endorsement by the Research Councils of any policies that might be developed by the funding bodies to implement the recommendations of this review.
13. It should also be stressed that our proposed list of core standards can be applied flexibly to accommodate the needs of different types of research students, including part-time and mature students. Equally, we would not seek to impose criteria that individual students feel are inappropriate. Under training, for example, HEIs would be expected to provide every student with the opportunity to complete a suitable programme in research and other skills; but we would certainly not envisage the participation of each student on such a programme as mandatory (although other funders may have different views).
Table 1 Proposed core standards
| Institution |
Evidence that the institution has paid attention to the quality of RDP training provision, as evidenced by the implementation of a Code of Practice. Minimum standard:
|
| Research environment |
All research training to be provided in an appropriate environment, as evidenced by: the presence of a critical mass of researchers in the appropriate subject area; adequate facilities; and minimum submission rates. A minimum RAE rating has also been suggested as a measure of the quality of the research environment. Minimum standards:
|
| Supervisory arrangements |
Appropriate supervisory arrangements to be in place as evidenced by: mandatory training for new supervisors; defined supervisory teams, including experienced main supervisor; and an upper limit on the number of students per main supervisor. Minimum standards:
|
| Admission criteria |
Students to be appropriately prepared for the RDP, as evidenced by fulfilment of minimum standard entry qualification. Minimum standard:
|
| Training |
Appropriate arrangements to be in place to develop research and other skills, as evidenced by existence of training programme. Minimum standard:
|
| Progression, assessment and appeals |
Arrangements to be in place to monitor student progress and ensure fair and appropriate examination as evidenced by: existence of institutional procedures for progress monitoring; examination by an appropriately constituted panel; and availability of appeals procedures. Minimum standards:
|
Issues for consultation
14. We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs by responding to the conclusions made in the research report and the proposed core standards in Table 1 above. These responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for threshold standards in RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public consultation in April 2003.
15. In particular, we would welcome views on the following key questions:
-
Do you agree that the framework set out in the research report broadly represents the best way to improve the quality and consistency of RDPs?
-
Do you agree that individual framework standards are appropriate (summarised at Annex D)? Are the minimum levels suggested here too high/too low?
-
What do you think of the core standards proposed in Table 1 above? Are there aspects of the framework summarised at Annex D that should be added to the core?
-
Do you agree that monitoring only a set of core standards, but requiring HEIs to adopt a code of practice covering the complete framework, is appropriate?
-
How would you measure your compliance with the framework?
16. Responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at the HEFCE, e-mail w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk