HEFCE Summary Periodic Review Report Form
Department reviewed
Department of Philosophy
Courses reviewed
Undergraduate courses
BA Philosophy
BA Philosophy with Classical Civilisation
BA Philosophy with Computer Science
BA Philosophy & Politics
BA Philosophy & Psychology
BA Philosophy & Literature
Postgraduate courses
MA Mind & Metaphysics
MA Philosophy & Literature
MA Continental Philosophy
MA Philosophy & Social
Theory
MA Philosophy &
Phenomenological Studies
MA/MSc Philosophy & Ethics
of Mental Health
Date of Review
12 March 2004
Objectives of Review
To review the Department’s courses of study on a five year cycle in order to assess
whether the quality of the educational provision is satisfactory and to h ighlight areas
of good practice and aspects for improvement.
Conduct of Review
(A list of panel members and methods used e.g. scrutiny of formal written submission; faceto-face meetings etc.)
Professor R Fine, Sociology (Chair)
Dr M Luddy, History
Dr E McLeod, School of Health and Social Studies
The Review Group held a meeting on 12 March 2004 with Undergraduate and
Postgraduate student representatives and with the members of the academic
teaching staff, including the Chair of the Department, Professor M Luntley.
Evidence base
(A list of evidence used and a note on the use of External Examiners’ reports; reports from
accrediting bodies (where appropriate); staff and student feedback; feedback from former
students and their employers)
The Review Group considered material submitted by the Department of
Philosophy, including:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Self-Evaluation Document
Previous periodic review papers
External Examiner reports
SSLC Annual Reports
(e)
(f)
(g)
Course Specifications
Subject Benchmark Statement
Undergraduate course handbooks
Feedback from employers was not sought, however a number of former
undergraduate students (now studying on postgraduate courses within the
department) were seen by the Review Group.
Contribution from external peers
(Their selection; role and involvement)
External input was provided by Professor D Bell from the Department of Philosophy,
University of Sheffield, who attended the review and commented on a draft report.
Professor Bell had been the department’s external examiner; he was selected by the
Department and approved by the Chair of the Review Group.
Main characteristics of the courses covered by the Review
(The Review panel’s view of the content and approach of the courses under review including
notable strengths)
The Review commented favourably upon the Department’s courses, noting that
external examiners’ reports were generally very positive, citing in particular the
excellence of the teaching and the Department’s responsiveness to suggestions.
On the Undergraduate side, the Review observed that the introduction of the new BA
Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) would require careful monitoring,
particularly in the joint supervisory arrangements between departments. The
Review noted critically that the Department needed to monitor careers advice
provision more closely and track more effectively the destinations of its graduates.
On postgraduate provision, the Review focused critically upon the Department’s
responsiveness to the new funding arrangements for postgraduate study and
strategic plans for recruitment. The Review was particularly impressed by the
Department’s excellent monitoring regime for doctoral student progress.
Conclusions on innovation and good practice
(Identification of aspects of the courses which are particularly innovative or represent good
practice)
The Review commended the Department for its innovative arrangements for the subclassification of first-class degrees into three grades.
The Review noted that the Department’s Staff-Student Liaison Committees appear to
be particularly effective, though the Review questioned whether the number of
SSLCs could be rationalised and reduced.
The Annual Joint Review of joint majors was regarded by the Review as an
especially effective mechanism and an example of good practice.
Conclusions on quality and practice
(Whether the course specification is being delivered; students are achieving the intended
learning outcomes and whether quality and standards are being achieved)
Uniformly the Review concluded that the Department’s courses are achieving the
intended outcomes and maintaining a very high standard of teaching quality.
The Review did register some UG student concerns about the number of
required/core modules.
Conclusions on the courses
(Their continuing currency and validity in the light of developing knowledge, practice in its
application and developments in teaching and learning)
The Review congratulated the department’s development of the MA/MSc Philosophy
& Ethics of Mental Health as a particularly innovative response to developing
knowledge. The new BA PPE was also welcomed as a timely innovation.
The Review noted the Department’s admission that it had not recently conducted a
systematic review of teaching practices to buttress the informal sharing of practices
that already take place, and the Review endorsed the need for such a review given
recent developments in pedagogy.
Recommendations for action
(Recommendations to remedy any identified shortcomings and to enhance quality and
standards; areas for commendation and improvement and an indication of the significance
and urgency of recommendations)
The Department may wish to consider the advisability/desirability of the following:
General


Adopting anonymous marking procedures for assessed written work, in line with
University recommendation.
Conducting a systematic review of teaching practices to buttress the informal
sharing of practices that already take place, as the Department suggested in its
self-evaluation document.
Undergraduate Provision



Keeping the recent curriculum changes under review, with special attention to
student satisfaction with core modules’ requirements, given the desire
demonstrated by students and the external reviewer for greater optionality.
Providing an orientation session for second-year students, or at least improving
the sign-posting for student options, especially for joint-degree course students.
Reconsidering the general essay paper option and consider requiring a
dissertation (long) essay from all undergraduate students.
Postgraduate Provision



Developing as a matter of priority its strategic review at Departmental level of
postgraduate course provision to provide the coverage expected by the new
AHRB (AHRC) requirements.
Enhancing the subject specific training for postgraduate teaching assistants to
supplement the training provided by the Centre for Academic Practice.
Expanding the travel budget available for postgraduate students and reviewing
the Department’s IT provision.
University of Warwick
Department of Philosophy - Periodic Review, 12 March 2004
Departmental Response
1. The Department of Philosophy has received and considered the Report of the Periodic
Review Panel of the Board of the Faculty of Social Studies. We are grateful for the care and
precision with which the review was conducted.
2. There is just one issue in the report which we think is contestable. It is reported at §7 (a) (v) that
computers dedicated for p/g students are too old and unreliable. It is unclear to us which computers
are at issue here. There is a computer room within the Department well equipped with recent
computers. These machines are not the responsibility of the Department. We have recently replaced
old PCs within the rooms used by teaching assistants within the Department. The replacements are
not latest machines, but none are more that 3 or 4 years old. The remark, attributed to a student, that
they had assumed 'all of the student computers were broken' is not supported.
3. With regard to the Review Panel's conclusions and recommendations we note:
(i)
We will pursue this matter with our SSLCs. We note however, that our u/g
representative at staff meetings is already appointed at the annual composite u/g
SSLC.
(ii)
We will adopt this recommendation w.e.f. the next academic year.
(iii)
Accepted.
(iv)
We intend to devote a staff meeting in the new session to beginning the process of a
systematic review of teaching practices.
(v)
Accepted.
(vi)
Accepted. We intend to organise orientation sessions with course convenors starting
next academic session.
(vii)
The consideration of the general essay paper option and current optional status of the
dissertation for single honours students will be returned to next session. We
postponed resolution of these matters in the current session in order to complete our
review of other u/g curriculum issues.
(viii) Accepted. We are currently preparing draft outline plans with a view to submission
of any changes to Faculty Board in autumn term 2004.
(ix)
Agreed.
(x)
Agreed. This is something we used to provide before relying on the provision of
centralised training from CAP.
(xi)
Travel budget recommendation - agreed. IT provision for p/g - see point at 2 above.
Michael Luntley
5 May 2004