PGSSL Meeting: Wednesday 19th February 2014
Present: Katie Smith (Chair), Thomasin Bailey (Secretary), Stephen Shapiro,
Teresa Grant, Christina Britzolakis, Michael Watkins, Kate Williams, Andrew
Thompson (Arts Faculty Rep), John Gilmore, Giacomo Belloli
Apologies: Catherine Bates, Ian Sansom
1. Minutes from the previous meeting
IS and MW have met several times to discuss MA in writing response to skills
modules. IS is feeding back to the department. IS and MW have not yet met
with Rochelle Sibley – but this is planned to take place soon.
Action: IS and MW to meet with Rochelle Sibley to discuss the Research
Methods module.
2. Funding
KS said that there had been rumours among the PG community concerning
lack of AHRC funding. Could the department give any more information on
this?
Secondly KS said that there was an opinion amongst MA students that the
funding process was unclear. Perhaps the process could be made more
transparent. KS suggested a meeting for all MAs applying for funding to explain
the process of shortlisting as well as applying. A session on proposals and
funding could be included in the Research skills Module.
CBr replied that it is true that there will be no AHRC funding. A doctoral
training centre will be put in place next year. This is a University Structure that
will do what would have been done through AHRC funding. It is not yet known
how many awards will be made available, but the University intends to fill this
gap. In effect, only 1 award is lost to the English department through the lack
of AHRC funding.
TG made the point that out of the 10 funded places only 1 of them last year
was AHRC, so in effect, the loss of AHRC funding is not a significant loss.
On the subject of making the funding process clearer, TG emphasised
everybody whose application was submitted by the advertised date was
considered for funding.
CBr explained that the application for funding and the application for PhD are
integrated. CBr added that they would think about ways about making this
information clearer. The website is being redesigned and this will be taken care
of as part of that in terms of the website.
TG added that this is not a mysterious process. The best academic records and
proposals get the awards. A brilliant proposal doesn’t make up for a 2.2. It is
transparent in that it is based on academic merit. However, this probably
needs to be stated.
CBr pointed out that these criteria are explained on the graduate school
website. Firsts, references, prizes, publishing, academic record will attract
funding.
TG will try to schedule in a session for MAs in November about applying for
funding.
GB said that to help with his application process he had taken part in a Funding
Mentoring scheme and scholarships funding workshops were useful to him.
These are cross-disciplinary sessions / schemes run by PG Hub and the Grad
school.
CBr added that the department has a nominated postgraduate funding officer
she is there to offer advice to students (Emma Francis).
Action: TG to attempt to schedule a session next November for new MAs
about applying for funding.
3. Staff absences
KS explained that the PGSSLC had received concerns about staff absences and
their effect on the learning and careers of pupils concerned. KS read a
summary of an email from an MA student and from a PhD student who both
felt that their learning and career had been (or would be) hindered by sudden
staff absence.
The MA student felt that the module he or she had signed up for was now not
a course on modernity. Since the student wanted to apply for a PhD in a topic
based on the area that had previously been the focus of the course, he / she
felt that the changes had a direct impact on his / her future career. The
student said that 2 weeks of teaching had been lost. The student argues that
had this course not been available he / she might have applied to another
University for the MA, therefore there had been loss of money spent on the
course. The student felt that students involved should be entitled to financial
compensation. The student also felt that because of the change in the course,
students on that module should be given special consideration in terms of
marks and results. Lastly, how and to whom should people complain?
The statement from the PhD student expressed distress that more about the
staff absence had been heard on the grapevine rather than through official
channels. The student felt that this change in supervisor would affect his / her
career and degree. This might result in having to alter the topic, or delay
submission. The student felt that the fees he / she was paying to Warwick
were therefore being wasted. The student felt that communication should
have happened sooner, and that the manner in which they were conveyed
signalled a lack of respect to students. To whom should students with
grievances complain?
TG said that she had great sympathy for the students in this situation. The
notification of the absence of this member of staff was sent to everyone who is
a full time member of staff to say that the member of staff would be absent for
an indeterminate period of time. This is all the information that the
department has. On the same day that the department was notified a new
tutor was engaged to teach the MA module. The only other option to changing
the course slightly would have been to cancel it. The module could not have
been cancelled because, for some students, this is a theory requirement so
people need it to pass the MA. Missed sessions will be made up. The option of
a special class on violence has been offered. Students keen on this should let
the replacement tutor know that they would like to take up this offer. A refund
would only be relevant in a situation that was avoidable. Staff absence, illness,
or death should not require a refund. In response to the PhDs’ concerns, there
is no “official story” so an official statement cannot be made. The grapevine
should not be listened to. We (the full-time staff) don’t even know why we
know nothing. There will be reasons for this. TG urges PhD students to keep
their counsel and stop spreading rumours. As for MA marks: The markers will
take into account that less time has been available, so that essays will be
sympathetically marked. This will be flagged to the external examiners.
KS queried: what is the role of the PGSSLC in this matter. TG replied, as MA
convenor, you have brought up issues. That is all your job is. Complaints from
individual students need to be made to central university administration
because the department has no power to comment further or consider any
such complaints or redress.
CBr seconded many of TG’s statements. CBr pointed out that no university can
guarantee the availability of any members of staff. The question of financial
compensation is irrelevant in your contract with the university, as there is no
guarantee of particular members of staff. Alternative arrangements were
quickly made, most PhD students were satisfied with arrangements. A few
students have been very vocal. But they are not necessarily representative of
the student opinion. The department has done everything it can to deal with
the situation.
SS reiterates this point and said that he supported all that had been said by TG
and CBr. Staff had only 1 official message in January. Nobody knows any more
than that. This person will be absent for an indeterminate period of time. We
have no idea as to the duration of this. The action that has been taken to
compensate for the absence is commendable. Often supervisors are hired
elsewhere – absences happen, for illness and other reasons. It is regrettable. If
people want to make complaints the Chair of The Graduate School, Jan
Palmowski, would be the appropriate person.
4. Module evaluation
GB reported that there had been a request for a clearer system in module
evaluation. With small classes these sheets aren’t anonymous. It should go
through Cheryl and should be electronic. This point was raised by a student
on the MA. CBr said that the university has considered electronic
submission, but problems to do with confidentiality have not been solved
with this yet. TG will send an email to tutors suggesting that the forms are
filled in and handed by a student to the PG Secretary (as is the appropriate
format). SS said that electronic submission will come soon because the
university is increasingly interested in having this information available to
them too.
Action: TG to email staff to remind them of the protocol for feedback
forms.
5. Library stock
GB reported that some students on the MA had reported that in various
instances only one copy of set reading for seminars (theory, poetry etc) had
been available to share amongst a large number of students. TG requested
a list of the texts needed.
KW explained that reading lists are sent to the library and are ordered. If
students are in this situation let KW know. If the library knows they can deal
with it quickly. The problem may be that if the library is not told there is a
change, books will not be ordered. The library is developing software to
assist this process. TG added that shorter sections can go on course
extracts. TG will remind staff to notify the library of changes to the reading
list.
Action: GB to supply KW with a list of texts that students have had
problems with. TG to remind staff to notify the library of changes to the
reading list.
6. Research Skills module
TB reported that some PhD students had been confused about whether or
not they had to attend this course. After being informed by the department
that it was compulsory, they were informed by Rochelle Sibley that they
didn’t have to be there. This caused some confusion: if they do need to go
they need to be given the dates and added to mailing lists. PhD students
reported that the sessions with KW were very useful, especially concerning
how to access journals from Warwick platforms. One PhD student
suggested that a one day English department training for PhD students
would be more effective to cover all the necessary skills topics and that it
would also foster more of a community amongst PhD students in the
department. GB said that it was good to hear how presentations and
essays should be done. GB reported that some students had requested that
more be lectures be delivered by podcast. A session on writing a PhD
proposal might be useful. MW added that, for the Research Skills modules,
the audience may be too wide. Numbers have increased in the MA in
writing group – now they need a more specific skills course. The general
approach has created hostility towards the course amongst some students.
Could the course be tailored to writers? KW said that she and Rochelle
Sibley want to tailor the sessions. KW requested that MW invite her as well
as RS and IS to a meeting in the subject. KW said that there should be an
academic element, but it should be more tailored. MW suggests a survey of
what research an MA in writing student has used. This will help students to
make the most of their skills. KW this is not in place yet. KW also suggested
using the pre sessional exercises in a diagnostic sense.
Action: MW to meet with IS, KW and Rochelle Sibley to discuss the
Research Methods Module.
7. PG Tutors
TB reported that some PG Tutors had said that it would be really useful to
have an office accessible to all PG Tutors with one PC that they could use to
print directly to the office printer for worksheets and handouts. They could
also use such a room to meet with students who were unable to make their
office hours. TB has also forwarded these comments to the PG Tutors
working group.
TG pointed out that there aren’t enough rooms for the members of staff.
They would get one if they could. It is a question of space. There is a new
building planned, but there isn’t space yet. SS said that there used to be a
PC and printer in the staff room for this purpose, but it was considered too
expensive by a previous head of department. There should be no technical
problem with this though.
Action: TG and CBr will revive a discussion about potentially having a PC in
the staff room.
8. Printing for research students
KS asked whether there was any free printing available to research students
and whether there had been any in the past. SS replied that all teaching
staff (including PG tutors) used to have a 500 page limit when there was a
machine with a pin code. Machines are now different. However, there was
never any free printing for PhD students for research. PGs still have free
Xeroxing for teaching materials.
9. Spaces for postgraduate students
TB reported requests from students to have an English department PG
common room or workroom. CBr replied that English is a huge department
– there are other departments who are smaller so they have more space
per capita. There isn’t room for an UG common room either. Some excommon rooms have been taken away from the English department by
central time-tabling. In the past the department controlled more spaces.
The university controls allocations of space and we need to work with what
we have.
SS added that the Research Exchange is available to research students.
Book rooms there. However the taught MAs don’t have access to the REx.
10. PG Symposium
KS gave an update on the PG Symposium. It will take place on 22 - 23 May.
The organisers have met with Catherine Bates and agreed a budget of
£1000. The CFP comes out this Friday. Tell your friends. As it is the 10th
anniversary there will be a special cake. This is an opportunity to celebrate
the MA and PhD vibrant community. CFP deadline 21st March. Committee is
Jenny Mack, Catherine Wills, and KS.
11. AOB
KS said that there had been positive feedback from PhDs who attended the
latest job interview presentations – they liked being invited by Ross Forman
and it was a very interesting process. It would be lovely to have this more.
The next meeting provisionally to take place following the next GSC
meeting.