IRIU
report
Institutional Review of the
National University
of Ireland Galway
~ APRIL 2011 ~
IRIU
Institutional Review
of Irish Universities
THE IRIU OF NUI GALWAY
FOREWORD BY THE IUQB
3
THE REVIEW TEAM
4
THE REVIEW REPORT
SECTION 1
6
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
SECTION 2
15
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT (ISAR)
SECTION 3
17
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SECTION 4
25
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
SECTION 5
29
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE ESG PART 1
SECTION 6
31
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
34
MAIN REVIEW VISIT TIMETABLE
APPENDIX 2
40
OVERVIEW OF THE IRIU PROCESS
APPENDIX 3
UNIVERSITY’S RESPONSE TO THE IRIU
44
2
FOREWORD BY THE IUQB
The Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) was
established in 2002 to support and promote a
culture of quality in Irish Higher Education and
independently evaluate the effectiveness of quality
processes in Irish Universities, as required by the
Universities Act, 1997.
In 2004, the IUQB and the Higher Education Authority
(HEA) jointly commissioned the European Universities
Association (EUA) to undertake a customised version
of its institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) as
the first cycle of institutional quality reviews of
the seven Irish Universities.
IRIU
In 2009, following consultation with a range of key
stakeholders, the IUQB finalised the process for
IRIU
the second cycle of institutional quality reviews.
This process, which operates in line with national
legislation and agreed European Standards, is
termed the Institutional Review of Irish
Universities
Institutional
Review
of Irish Universities
Institutional Review
of Irish Universities
(IRIU).
Reports arising from institutional quality assurance
reviews of and by Irish Universities, in accordance
IRIU
with the Universities Act, 1997, are published at:
http://reviews.iuqb.net/.
Institutional Review
of Irish Universities
3
THE REVIEW TEAM
The NUI Galway review was conducted by the following Team of six reviewers selected by the IUQB Board
from the IRIU Register of Reviewers in September 2009. The Review Team was trained by the IUQB on the
requirements of the IRIU process on Friday 3 December 2010. The Coordinating Reviewer undertook a
Planning Visit to NUI Galway on Friday 19 November 2010. The Main Review Visit was conducted by the full
Team between 6 and 9 December 2010. The IUQB Board approved the release of the NUI Galway reports for
publication on Monday 4 April 2011.
Dr Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice-President & Provost, Pennsylvania State University, US (Chair)
»»
Executive Vice-President & Provost of Penn State University, 1999-present, with responsibility for all institutional and programme
accreditation
»»
Engages with all programme review teams of specialised accreditors’ on-site visits to the University, reviews all accreditation
findings, and directs responses to accreditation recommendations
»»
Worked with the Council of Higher Education Association (CHEA) on issues of accreditor recognition policies and strengthening
positive interactions between colleges/universities and institutional and specialised accrediting organisations.
Prof Stephen Shute, Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (Law), Head of the School of
Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex, UK
»»
Served 15 years at the University of Birmingham as Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Arts and Social Sciences. Was part of
the Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Management Team and a member of the University’s Strategic Management Committee
»»
Chaired several senior University of Birmingham committees, including the Academic Policy and Regulations Committee and the
Programme Approval and Review Committee
»»
Former Fellow and Tutor in Law at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and Non-Executive Board Member of the HM Crown Prosecution
Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI).
Prof Áine Hyland, Former Vice-President, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland
»»
Recently retired as Professor of Education and Vice-President at UCC
»»
Chair of the International Advisory Board of the (Irish) National Academy for the Integration of Research and Teaching and Learning
and Vice-Chair of the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences
»»
Published widely in the area of educational history and policy and in recent years has presented papers, nationally and
internationally, on aspects of the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.
Ms Rossella Iraci Capuccinello, PhD Student, Catholic University of Piacenza, Italy
»»
Research field - Economics of Education - An econometric analysis of drop-outs from further education in England (including 6
months studying at the University of Lancaster, UK)
»»
Undertaken tutoring posts in the University of Pavia
»»
Member of the national Bologna Experts group, ESU Quality Expert and student reviewer in three European University Association
(EUA) IEP Evaluations.
Prof Mairéad Browne, Emeritus Professor, independent consultant in Quality Assurance and
Organisational Change (since 2001), Australia
»»
Former Dean of the University of Technology, Sydney, Graduate School
»»
Undertaken projects with INQAAHE (International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education) – including editing an
online programme for a university award in quality assurance
»»
Chaired quality reviews in Australia, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and served on a number of trial audit and audit panels for
AUQA – the Australian Universities Quality Agency.
Mr Tony Platt, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), UK (P/T)
and Assistant Registrar, University of Essex, (P/T) UK
4
»»
Responsible for the development of the new QAA Institutional Review process for Wales
»»
Audit Secretary for over 12 QAA UK-based reviews (including the reviews of the University of Wales in 2003/04 and 2009/10), and
two QAA Overseas Audits
»»
At the University of Essex, was responsible for the management of administrative service reviews, validations and until 1999,
responsible for the whole of ‘Registry’ and faculty management functions.
IRIU
REVIEW REPORT
5
SECTION
1
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
THE UNIVERSITY
The University was founded in 1845 as Queen’s College Galway, being one of three non-denominational
colleges founded under the Queen’s Colleges (Ireland) Act to provide a higher education system for Catholic,
Presbyterian and Dissenter students similar to that offered by Trinity College Dublin for Established Church
students. Queen’s College Galway became a Constituent College of the new federal National University of
Ireland (established in 1908), and was renamed University College Galway (UCG). In 1929, the College was
given a special statutory responsibility for the provision of higher education through the medium of the Irish
language. UCG was reconstituted in 1997 as National University of Ireland, Galway/Ollscoil na Éireann,
Gaillimh. Together with University College Dublin, University College Cork and NUI Maynooth, NUI Galway
is also a Constituent University of the National University of Ireland. NUI Galway currently enrols just over
16,000 students, of whom 14% are international students from over 90 countries.
NUI Galway has three linked colleges: St Angela’s College, Sligo; the Shannon College of Hotel Management;
and the Burren College of Art. Relationships with the three linked colleges have been
strengthened
significantly in recent years, Sligo already being a College of the University since 2006 and Shannon about
to acquire similar status. A strategic alliance is being developed with the University of Limerick (see below).
Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta Gaeilge (The Academy of Irish-language university education) is a constituent
part of the University and its mission is to promote and exhibit innovation among the Irish language
community, both within and beyond the Gaeltacht (Irish-speaking) areas. The Acadamh seeks to do this
by promoting the sustainable development of university courses, research, services and university activities
through the medium of Irish language.
MISSION
The general mission (or “objects”) of Irish universities is laid out in the Universities Act 1997 and includes: “to
advance knowledge through teaching, scholarly research and scientific investigation, to promote learning in
its student body and in society generally” and “to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching
and research”. NUI Galway has declared a specific mission for its current Strategic Plan (2009-2014). This is
declared as Learning and Leadership for Life and Work, aiming to provide a holistic educational and cultural
experience and international leadership in selected areas, while reflecting both national priorities and the
needs of the region.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
NUI Galway has continued to serve an increasing number of students over the past decade, both
undergraduate and postgraduate, with considerable emphasis on expanding the number of Ph.D. students.
6
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Academic staff also increased in number until recent cuts occurred, and the substantial increase in research
income and professional awards reflects the strong scholarly profile of the staff. The improvements in the
students-to-academic staff ratio achieved over the past decade will be increasingly difficult to sustain as
NUI Galway searches for additional means to create greater efficiencies of operation while maintaining or
enhancing students’ learning outcomes.
Significant physical developments of the NUI Galway campus have also taken place, principally a €320m
capital building project still under way, financed to a significant extent from the University’s own funds, which
will provide much-needed accommodation for both teaching and research, as well as a new Sports Centre.
The development will also enable a more logical allocation of the vacated space.
During the past few years, the national milieu for higher education has changed dramatically in the context
of international and national economic instability and retrenchment. Ireland has re-positioned itself and
staked its future as a Knowledge Society player; the economic downturn has increased an emphasis on
more value for (taxpayers’) money; increasing unemployment has created a demand for more up-skilling,
life-long learning opportunities and continuing education. NUI Galway is seeking to increase its research
profile and reputation internationally and faces strong competition for research funding. The University has
an important regional role, with both local and international scientific and industrial companies based in the
area, and in community development. This includes a unique role in respect of the development of the Irish
Government’s 20-year Strategy for the Irish Language.
NUI Galway has also gone through a period of significant internal administrative change since the European
Universities Association (EUA) review in 2004 and particularly during the last three years, coincident with the
appointment of a new president, Dr. James Browne, in 2008. Browne had previously served as Registrar
and Deputy-President at NUI Galway.
A new Údarás na hOllscoile/Governing Authority was appointed in 2009 with a slightly reduced membership
and a revised committee structure. The University’s previous academic structure of 55 departments and
seven faculties has been rationalised into a group of 16 schools comprising five colleges; heads of discipline
have been appointed with responsibility for specific subject areas within the schools. A corresponding
restructuring of support service arrangements is envisaged as part of an Integrated Support Services
strategy. A Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy and a Research Strategy have been designed and
delivered and the legal requirement, as part of the Universities Act 1997, to put in place a new Strategic Plan,
has been met.
Following a Quality Review in 2007, completed in March 2008, the University Management Team (UMT)
has been restructured, a new post of Vice-President for Innovation and Performance was created, and a
second vice-presidential post was re-focused on Capital Projects development; together with the other
permanent members of the UMT, all University functions are represented. The revised brief for the UMT was
to operate as a leadership team for NUI Galway with a principal focus on strategic rather than operational
matters; a further recommendation of the 2007-08 review was that an in-depth implementation review be
commissioned and a consultancy consortium, Athrú, was appointed to carry out this review of the UMT, and
the UMT’s relationship with Údarás.
7
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
The role of the Quality Office has been continuously developed and enhanced over the past four years.
An Institutional Research Office has been established and an Institutional Research Officer was appointed
in January 2007; both offices are responsible to the Vice-President for Innovation and Performance. The
Quality Committee, which has since its inception been directly responsible to Údarás, was reconstituted as
the Quality and Innovation Committee earlier in 2010, reflecting the increasing emphasis on measurement
and performance in the University’s assurance and enhancement of quality.
A review of the Acadamh was carried out earlier in 2010. This review recognised the Acadamh’s role in
community-based developments, especially in the Gaeltacht, as well as its academic activities, and has
made recommendations for staff development and for future leadership of the Acadamh. The Review Team
met representatives from both Acadamh and the Linked Colleges.
A strategic alliance has been developed with the University of Limerick and work is currently underway to
develop linkages across key areas of activity including teaching, research, technology transfer, life-long
learning and the provision of services. The project is encouraging joint programme development and offers
the opportunity for resources and delivery of programmes to be shared, particularly in subject areas where
such programmes might not be viable in one institution alone; given the relative proximity of Limerick to
Galway, and improved transport connections between the two cities, programmes can be offered across
the two campuses, supplemented by electronic delivery.
All Colleges of NUI Galway are involved in
developments for undergraduate programmes, some of which are already operating, and in structured PhD
programmes. Priority areas for research development include biosciences/biomedical engineering, energy/
sustainable environments, software, social inclusion, development and civic engagement. Collaboration is
being developed in technology transfer, joint procurement and the possible use of the Acadamh’s translation
services, and joint work on enhancement in teaching and graduate studies is envisaged. The Review Team
understands from the Institutional Self-Assessment Report (ISAR) and from meetings with staff involved
in the project that both Universities expect that the alliance will provide better support for the social and
economic development of the wider region of the West of Ireland.
ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP
The Review Team was impressed by the visibility of strong leadership and the track record of President
Browne in driving forward the quality vision for NUI Galway, together with the strategic thinking and effective
restructuring necessary to achieve this vision. The creation of the post of Vice-President for Innovation and
Performance in particular and the vice-presidential posts for realising capital projects, for student experience
and for research have sent strong messages throughout the University about priorities and direction of
travel. The Review Team noted that a commitment to quality, led by the President, extends through the
senior leadership, and is increasingly being driven throughout the organisation.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
NUI Galway’s governance structures are laid out in general terms in the Universities Act 1997. Overall
governance and responsibility rests with the Údarás. Údarás’s four committees assist in the development
of policy. The President is responsible to the Údarás and he is supported by the University Management
8
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Team (UMT), which is responsible for the execution of policy as well as day-to-day management. The UMT
is comprised of the President, Registrar and Deputy-President, the Secretary, the Bursar, Vice-Presidents
for Innovation and Performance and for Capital Projects, an Executive Director of Operations (responsible
for all support services). The Registrar and Deputy-President represents the Colleges and their Deans, the
Acadamh, Adult and Continuing Education, the Library, the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
(CELT), along with research and the student experience. In the current transitional period, Vice-Presidents
for Student Experience and for Research also attend the UMT and report directly on their respective areas
of responsibility. The UMT meets bi-weekly.
Policies and procedures regarding the academic affairs of the University are the responsibility of the Academic
Council, supported by its Standing Committee, and reporting to the Údarás.
The University’s Quality and Innovation Committee (QIC) reports to Údarás na hOllscoile through two of the
Údarás’s standing committees, the Academic Planning and Resources Committee (APRC) and the Support
Services Committee (SSC). The QIC’s minutes are also reported at Academic Council. The Director of
Quality, reporting to the Vice-President for Innovation and Performance, is responsible for carrying out the
Údarás policy for Quality Assurance and, in particular, the execution of quality reviews and the external
examiner process.
NUI Galway delivers its programmes of study and much of its support for learning and teaching through five
Colleges that oversee the work and the budgets of 16 Schools: the College of Arts, Social Sciences and
Celtic Studies (with six Schools and the Acadamh); the College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences
(with three Schools), the College of Business, Public Policy and Law (with two Schools), the (single School)
College of Engineering and Informatics, and the College of Science (with four Schools).
The Dean of each College is a member of the Council of Deans, which also includes the Dean of Graduate
Studies, and reports to the Registrar and Deputy-President. Deans are also members of Academic Council
and serve on the committees of the Údarás. The University hosts a number of research centres and institutes
which report to specific Colleges but in some cases may have links with more than one College; some of
these centres and institutes also provide opportunities for postgraduate research and employment for postdoctoral researchers.
The University has devolved non-pay budgets to the Deans and to the Heads of support units (for example,
Student Support and Development; the Library) which are required to operate balanced budgets.
ÚDARÁS NA HOLLSCOILE/GOVERNING AUTHORITY (ÚDARÁS)
The Review Team met a small group drawn from the University’s Údarás including the Chair and other
external members. Under the provisions of the Universities Act, the size of a governing body can range
between 25 and 40 members. As noted above, the present Údarás was set up in 2009. The outgoing Údarás
had proposed the composition of the current body and that, whilst this had been reduced slightly in size from
42 to 38 members, it was regarded as necessary to retain this number. However, the number of committees
9
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
has been reduced from 12 to four, and much of the detailed work is carried out by these committees. Not
all members of the Údaras are members of the committees, but the Deans of the Colleges are included as
members.
Based upon discussions with Údarás members and from documents made available to the Review Team,
it was clear that the Údarás deals effectively with the business put before it. As already noted, the Údarás
receives the results of deliberations of its committees on the work of the QIC and reports on all reviews
and follow-up action plans. However, members saw themselves more like a representative parliament and
ratifying body than an executive board. Members felt that they were provided with very detailed information
but some, particularly external members, felt frustrated that they were unable to make more of a contribution
and would welcome a greater involvement in the strategic development of NUI Galway.
The Athrú report made a number of recommendations relating to the structure of the Údarás and the
relationship between it and the UMT, and the need for Údarás to move towards a focus on “strategy
formulation and subsequent assurance of compliance and delivery” and to do so within the increasingly
’hostile’ operating environment.
The current membership of Údarás is heavily dominated in number by internal academic staff, and the
Review Team believes that it would be helpful for NUI Galway to have stronger external representation
and student representation on the Údarás, as well as an overall reduction in size, thereby enabling it to
strengthen its focus on strategic issues, external relations and risk management.
ACADEMIC COUNCIL (AC)
The Review Team also met members of the Academic Council. It noted that AC has a membership of
around 150, including two student representatives who were said to play an active role in bringing forward
issues. Students are not, however, members of its Standing Committee, which plays an important role in
steering the business of such a large body. The AC has been involved with the development of the strategic
plan, receiving proposals from Colleges and Schools and receiving progress reports and briefings on the
development of the plan.
Members of the Academic Council confirmed that University policies were generally developed centrally
and approved by Council, and that policies and procedures are now brought together in the newly created
Academic Manual. Colleges and Schools have responsibility, with considerable autonomy, for local quality
assurance policies and all teaching and research activities. The Academic Council maintains an overview
through reports from QIC and from College boards. Individual members are able to bring forward issues for
discussion at the AC and these have included matters such as overcrowding in lectures and issues relating
to student attendance.
The Review Team suggests that NUI Galway might wish to consider whether a reduction in the size of the
Academic Council, together with student representation on its Standing Committee, would help to strengthen
the AC’s focus on overseeing the implementation of central policies throughout the Colleges and Schools
and the consideration of initiatives from the Colleges.
10
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS
In meeting with Deans of the academic Colleges and with members of staff, the Review Team was conscious
of the variations in the composition and committee structures across Colleges and Schools. These are a
consequence partly of historical reasons and the need to assimilate different approaches and systems, and
partly of the nature and number of disciplines involved. All Colleges have a College executive and boards
and some Schools additionally have executive and School meetings. All Deans have appointed Vice-Deans
for various portfolios within their College, but these portfolios vary from College to College.
The Review Team formed the view that Colleges and Schools were at different stages of development with
a strong degree of collegiate integration in some cases but with vestiges of the previous departmental
structures remaining in others. The variability of governance arrangements between Colleges and Schools
creates a situation where there is little transparency of the governance structure within each College and
School. This makes it difficult, even for staff within the institution, to understand and articulate with these
structures. It was evident that the degree of variation in governance at College and School is a significant
barrier to consistency in implementation of academic policy across the institution. In addition, the lack
of clear lines of accountability and communication between, for example, College boards through to the
University-level QIC means that there is no reliable means for QIC to monitor policy implementation and
reliably assess performance against KPIs in NUI Galway as a whole.
Clear lines of reporting and clarity
in relationships between academic governance bodies at different levels are essential mechanisms for
ensuring effective quality assurance processes at the grass-roots and for making well-founded judgements
about institutional performance.
Taking into account the rate of change which has taken place in the restructuring of both academic and
University management, as well as the changing external influences bearing on NUI Galway, the Review
Team suggests that the University considers articulating more clearly the governance structures and their
relationships to the emergent management structure across the five Colleges that comprise NUI Galway.
Noting the positive impact of the Athrú consultancy on University management, the Team hopes that NUI
Galway will take further steps to achieve greater consistency of deliberative mechanisms and structures
across the various Colleges wherever this is desirable and possible, whilst recognising the need for some
variation in local arrangements as necessary.
Overall, the Review Team:
commends the strong leadership of the President and the University Management Team and the overall
institutional structure and processes for quality assurance across the University, including the Linked
Colleges.
commends the restructuring of University management and academic organisation to enhance both
academic and administrative performance, and,
recommends that NUI Galway takes steps to ensure that the governance structure of the decision-making
and deliberative bodies adopts a more strategic focus and includes a wider spectrum of external stakeholders.
11
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
COUNCIL OF DEANS
The Review Team noted the establishment of the Council of Deans; the Council is chaired by the Registrar
and Deputy-President (RDP) to whom the Deans themselves report. Thus, at the UMT, the Registrar and
Deputy-President represents the Deans, although the Review Team learned that the Deans play an active
role in the work of the UMT through its various sub-committees. The Athrú report recommended that the
Deans should also play a significant role in the membership of committees of the Údarás. The Deans and the
Registrar and Deputy-President are full members of the Academic Council.
The Review Team noted the value of the Council of Deans in providing the Deans with a forum in which
to interact, exchange information and feed their ideas into senior management; the Review Team learned
from members of the UMT that they regard the Deans as key leaders for driving new initiatives across the
University. The Team formed the view, however, that without the Deans as members of the UMT—or its
major committees—the Deans’ value and standing in the University’s administrative structure may not be
fully capitalised. Furthermore, without the Deans’ comments on proposals as they are developed initially,
and in the light of the high level of variation in committee structures and practices across Colleges, Schools
and even individual disciplines, there is the possibility that the implementation of policies and procedures
might be compromised. This is a particular danger where innovations are not necessarily seen as relevant or
practicable in a particular College or School. At the same time, a closer awareness of collective thinking at
the UMT and the Údarás could facilitate the wider exposure of initiatives coming forward from Schools and
disciplines through their respective Colleges.
The new academic structure with its emphasis on larger corporate groupings such as the Colleges, and
the manner in which individual members of staff report to Heads of Schools, who in turn reported to their
Dean, placed considerable significance on the Deans’ leadership roles and their responsibilities both to
their Colleges and to the University as a whole. It is important that the Deans are able to play an important
academic leadership role at University level and, in addition, act effectively as the communication channel
between senior management and the University academic community more generally, while maintaining
individual variation in implementation of policies and procedures where this is appropriate.
Members of the Review Team felt that there is currently some ambiguity in the relationships between the
Council of Deans, the Academic Council, the UMT and, to some extent, the Údarás with particular respect
to the ways in which the Deans’ collective voice can be clearly expressed throughout the management
structure.
The Review Team recommends that NUI Galway consider carefully the working relationship and
communication arrangements between the academic Deans and the University Management Team to ensure
effective connectivity between academic management and institutional management and the embodiment
of a strong leadership culture across the institution which will reinforce the crucial leadership role that Deans
must play in the reorganised academic structure of the University.
12
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
OVERALL CONTEXT
The Review Team was made aware of the severe financial constraints under which NUI Galway is operating.
Staff have suffered a (net) 15% pay cut and the devolved budget to Colleges and disciplines has been cut by
up to 50%, requiring a drastic reduction in part-time assistance available for teaching and laboratory work
and for the customary non-salary operating expenditures that are essential for the support of the academic
enterprise. At the same time, productivity is claimed to have improved by 25%, student numbers are
increasing and are expected to rise by 25% by 2025. The Review Team was impressed by the University’s
record in maintaining a balanced budget over many years. Under Ireland’s Employment Control Framework,
the University has been required to reduce its staffing levels and there is currently a moratorium on new
appointments other than in exceptional circumstances. The possibility of providing financial incentives for
taking on extra responsibilities, for example, has been removed and this together with a lack of flexibility
in offering other incentives, such as assistance for teaching and/or research, is severely restricting the
University’s ability to attract staff to take on new leadership roles or to develop new areas of activity or
sources of revenue.
It was clear from the Review Team’s discussions with both the senior management and with members of staff
across the institution that, whilst obviously not welcoming the current constraints, members of the University
community appreciated and accepted the need for financial restraint and, overall, for the measures being
taken.
Whilst NUI Galway has demonstrated competence in managing its financial affairs over many years, it now
finds itself increasingly challenged to reward those staff who are in a position to drive the momentum of
development of the University towards a world-class institution in both teaching and research. In addition,
the University is seeking to change and develop its research agenda and must continue to attract academic
and support staff of the appropriate calibre. As existing research and teaching staff reach retirement age, the
need to replace them at an appropriate level is critical.
Given the importance of these financial and flexibility issues for the future of the University, the Review Team
encourages the Údarás and the UMT to continue to influence, through appropriate channels, the ongoing
debates within Ireland in relation to higher education and its funding. Policy-makers need to be alerted to
the significant impacts on teaching and research quality that are a consequence of current and projected
funding constraints, as well as the serious long-term negative implications of under-investment in higher
education as the foundation of the Knowledge Society.
COMMENDATIONS
The Review Team commends...
1.1
the strong leadership of the President and the University Management Team and the overall institutional
structure and processes for quality assurance across the University, including the Linked Colleges.
1.2
the restructuring of University management and academic organisation to enhance both academic
and administrative performance.
13
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Review Team recommends that the University...
1.3
ensures that the governance structures of the decision-making and deliberative bodies promote a
more strategic focus and include a wider spectrum of external stakeholders.
1.4
considers carefully the relationship and communication arrangements between the academic Deans
and the University Management Team to ensure effective connectivity between academic management
and institutional management and the embodiment of a strong leadership culture across the institution
and to reinforce the crucial leadership role that Deans must play in the reorganised academic structure
of the University.
14
SECTION
2
SECTION 2
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT
REPORT (ISAR)
ENGAGEMENT WITH IRIU
NUI Galway participated in the development of the IRIU process through its President’s membership in the
Irish Universities Association (IUA) and the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB), through which the IRIU
process is managed. The Director of Quality at NUI Galway is a member of the Irish Universities Association
Quality Network.
The Review Team saw evidence (including publications) demonstrating that NUI Galway staff participated
in the IUQB and other quality improvement activities. The Team was also told by NUI Galway staff that the
University was using national guidelines in the development of its procedures. The Review Team is satisfied
that the University and its staff are fully engaged with the IRIU process and are playing a full part in the work
of the IUQB and other quality networks in Ireland and further afield.
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT (ISAR)
The University established a Self-Assessment Steering Group (SATeam) in March 2010 to co-ordinate the
preparation of the ISAR. In doing so, it followed the recommendations in the IRIU Handbook. This group of
15 members was led by the Vice-President for Innovation and Performance and included representatives
from CELT, research centres and institutes, support offices, staff training and development and the Students’
Union as well as from the Quality and Institutional Research offices. The ISAR describes the activities that
the SATeam initiated, including some staff and student surveys, benchmarking with other universities,
submissions requested from various units of the University and the identification of some key benefits and
challenges from the application of quality assurance.
Members of the Steering Group met the Co-ordinating Reviewer during the planning visit and met all
members of the Review Team during the Main Review Visit. It was clear from discussions with members
of the SATeam that there has been wide consultation across the University, with opportunities for feedback
on the ISAR. The Students’ Union had organised meetings with other students and had compiled a list of
concerns that contributed to the agenda of the SATeam; a staff online survey focused on changes to the
review process (see section 3); the Director of Quality and the Vice-President for Innovation and Performance
had conducted separate interviews with senior managers and many middle managers, and five focus group
meetings had been conducted by an independent consultant.
The University has demonstrated its commitment to quality assurance and quality improvement through
the steps taken to prepare the ISAR during which the opportunity was taken to develop a number of quality
assurance and enhancement initiatives that were then detailed in the ISAR. The Team was aware of the
relatively short time available to the SATeam to prepare the ISAR and felt that there had perhaps inevitably
15
SECTION
2
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT (ISAR)
been a focus on compiling documents and on requesting texts referring to quality. Whilst the Review Team
found the ISAR to be a useful document in helping its own assessment, it nonetheless suggests that the
University might on a future occasion consider taking the ISAR beyond a largely descriptive statement and
review of activity to be more focused, integrated and analytical.
16
SECTION
3
SECTION 3
QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
STRATEGIC PLANNING, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH
The Review Team was made aware from the ISAR and from site visit meetings that the current 2009-14
strategic plan, unlike the previous two plans, had been developed through a combined “top-down bottomup” planning process, with overall leadership provided by the President; Colleges and Schools were
encouraged to develop local plans.
Five priorities have been identified within the Plan: Teaching, Learning & Research; Infrastructure &
Environment; Organisation & Staff; An Ghaeilge & Regional Development; and Communications & Resources.
Specific targets include growing international students to 15% of enrolment, increasing the population of
non-traditional students to 7.5%, graduating 200 Ph.D. students per year and increasing the number of
mature students to 27% of all entrants. Within the overall Strategic Plan, strategies for Learning, Teaching
and Assessment and for Research have been developed, initially for the period 2009-2011, and annual
operational plans have been introduced to support these strategies.
The Review Team understood that the priority is to implement the operational plans based upon the overall
strategic plan. A seven-member operational plan steering group has been established and the 16 Schools, as
well as the Colleges and support units, have been asked to prepare simple plans, which would be reviewed
annually, with progress measured against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Whilst the linked Colleges and
the Acadamh had not been asked to prepare such plans, it was noted that in matters of quality assurance
and enhancement, such matters would be dealt with through the relevant College plans. It was understood
that the intention was to identify areas for improvement and that once these had been achieved, they would
be deleted from the operational plans. The Review Team, on the other hand, felt that these plans should
include routine activities on a continuing basis. Some members of staff questioned whether the operational
plans would always be aligned with or take account of the recommendations of internal reviews and it is
important that this would be the case. It was noted that the first set of plans is expected to be completed
by June 2011.
A TRIPARTITE FRAMEWORK
Quality assurance had first been explicit as a strategic priority in the 1997 strategic plan. The President and
other members of the senior leadership team stressed that quality is at the centre of the current plan and
is a top strategic objective. Moreover, it was integrated with strategic planning and institutional research
as a tripartite framework that informed the University’s future development. Strategic planning, supported
by operational planning, is informed both by the work of the Quality Office in developing and co-ordinating
quality assurance and initiatives for quality enhancement. In addition, support is provided through the work
of the Institutional Research Office in developing systems for accessing policies and assessing progress
17
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
through data analysis, surveys and national and international benchmarking. The Director of Quality is
responsible for the Quality Office. Both the Quality Office and the Institutional Research Office report directly
to the Vice-President for Performance and Innovation. The role of the Director of Quality is seen as a driver
of quality and an “innovation manager.”
The Review Team heard that the aim of the new framework is to develop a system of management that
assures quality whilst maintaining a culture of collegiality and avoiding an inflexible application of line
management. The intention is to achieve a balance between the individual autonomy of academic and
support staff and central accountability.
The Review Team commends the development and introduction of the tripartite unifying framework for
strategic planning, institutional research and quality assurance.
LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
The Council of Deans established a working group, convened by the Director of CELT and chaired by
one of the Deans, to draft a formal Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy, the principles of which
underpin course delivery at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Drivers for this strategy include
the University’s commitment to provide “…a high quality learning experience for all students, striving
for excellence in Teaching and Learning” and the “…importance of developing high quality graduates of
international standard.”
The strategy is mapped against the requirements of the Bologna Process, the National Qualifications
Framework (NQF) and the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and also takes into
account developments in research and postgraduate study, the changes in Irish society and the economy,
and the international agenda, thus reflecting the University’s Strategic Plan. The strategy lists a range of
actions, which are monitored by a Vice-Dean Group on Teaching, Learning and Assessment that reports to
the Council of Deans.
In discussions with staff, the Review Team formed the view that the strategy indeed was being absorbed into
College and School plans, although it might be helpful to make such references more explicit.
OUTCOMES OF THE PREVIOUS EXTERNAL REVIEW
The Review Team was reassured to note that most of the recommendations of the previous external review
of NUI Galway in 2004, when the IUQB and the Higher Education Authority (HEA) had jointly commissioned
the EUA to undertake the first cycle of institutional quality reviews, had been implemented. These
recommendations included the creation of larger academic units, reviewing the roles of Academic Council
and Údarás, establishing a Council of Deans, establishing an Institutional Research Office, better provision
of space and computers and extending the internal review period from five to seven years. Progress has also
been made on the remaining recommendations and, overall, the Review Team felt that the University had
made an appropriate response to the previous external review.
18
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
DELIVERY AND ASSURANCE OF QUALITY
From its reading of the ISAR and discussions in meetings, the Review Team learned that the University
strives to deliver and assure quality through a number of mechanisms. These include the work of the Quality
and Innovation Committee, the Quality Reviews (now of the new larger units at a more aggregated level
with more emphasis on the evidence base), annual programme reviews, external reference points and the
external examiner system, student assessment of teaching, and the work of CELT.
The Linked Colleges, and Acadamh, participate in quality assurance arrangements within the structure of
the NUI Galway Colleges through which their programmes are delivered. The Linked Colleges engage in the
same regular reviews of programmes as academic units within the University, and the final approval of new
programmes and awards is subject to approval by the University. NUI Galway has extended its QA/QE practices
to the associated institutions, i.e., St. Angela’s College Sligo and Shannon College of Hotel Management and
the Review Team understands that Burren College of Art will also be included in due course.
The Review Team is confident that the quality and other formal arrangements that NUI Galway has made with
the Linked Colleges enables them to participate fully in, and benefit from, the University’s quality assurance
and quality enhancement work.
QUALITY AND INNOVATION COMMITTEE
The Review Team learned from members of the Quality and Innovation Committee and from minutes of the
Committee that it was taking steps to streamline the quality assurance process, taking account of issues
raised during the preparation of the ISAR, and acting upon key items of concern or interest. The QIC was also
considering the criteria for the implementation of major initiatives. One example is the Innovation Fund, which
is meant to encourage the implementation of original and innovative ideas, taking account of the reach and
depth of the innovation proposed, how attainable and efficient it might be and how long its impact might last.
QUALITY REVIEWS
The Quality Office is responsible for managing quality reviews of all academic and service units, which
take place every 5-7 years. The purpose of the reviews is to evaluate and assess the units and to promote
quality enhancement. The Review Team was provided with details of all reviews carried out since 1997,
together with examples of recommendations made to the units and to the University. From the ISAR and
from discussions with staff whose units had been subject to review, the Review Team learned that the
primary component of the review is a self-assessment, and that these assessments are becoming more
evidence-based. All reviewers are external to the unit concerned and many are external to the University.
Action plans resulting from each review are followed up for two years after the review. In earlier years, there
had been an expectation that reviews would be a means to acquire additional resources and inevitably there
had been some disappointment when this had not been the case; in the current fiscal environment, it had
been made clear that in reviewing a unit, it can no longer be assumed that additional resources will be made
available. The Review Team met a number of staff whose units had been subject to review and found that,
19
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
notwithstanding these constraints, they had found the reviews helpful, though at times rather onerous under
the arrangements then in operation.
In addition to these reviews of academic and service units, the Review Team learned that individual modules
are reviewed annually and that programmes themselves are normally reviewed on an annual basis; the
internal review process was currently being simplified as noted above; the Review Team endorsed this
move and also encourages the University to review the relationship of internal quality review procedures to
other internal review procedures and to the emerging operational plans in order to minimise the burden of
preparing multiple reviews on staff.
EXTERNAL REFERENCE POINTS
The Review Team was satisfied that appropriate use of external reference points was being made in internal
reviews as well as in the development of postgraduate research procedures and the work of CELT (see section
4); whilst programme leaders and members of programme boards often had informal links with industry, the
Review Team noted that there is no formal requirement for external input when new programmes are being
planned. The University might wish to consider a process for securing external commentary with respect
to prospective markets for graduates and curricular imperatives that could provide additional perspectives
prior to launching new courses or significantly revising existing ones. The University might also wish to
encourage the wider use of external advisory boards or similar structures for Colleges, Schools and research
units where appropriate and where these do not already exist.
EXTERNAL EXAMINERS
The Review Team noted the emphasis on the external examination system as a means of providing quality
assurance and enhancement through international peer review. Formal responsibility for external examination
arrangements had been transferred from the federal National University of Ireland to NUI Galway in 2009-10
and the process had been reviewed and re-designed.
External examiners are required to pay particular attention to the adequacy of the learning process,
the comprehensiveness of student assessment of teaching throughout a programme, and to provide
recommendations on how processes can be improved within programmes. The Review Team saw copies of
the external examiners’ detailed pro forma, and details of the new policy, which include the requirement that,
following an external examiner report, subject leaders must forward action plans, together with the reports
themselves, by the Head of School before they are forwarded to the external examiner. In parallel, the Quality
Office receives copies of the reports and action plans, from which summaries are prepared; there is also
provision for the Registrar and Deputy-President to review reports requiring urgent attention.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT OF TEACHING
The Review Team noted the variety of arrangements currently in place for student assessment of teaching.
The Team observed a number of examples of best practice, particularly processes developed by CELT,
including independent group evaluations with an independent reviewer, and feedback in some cases to
20
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
subject leaders as well as to the member of staff concerned. Other teachers made use of online surveys
including the use of Blackboard.
Student assessment of teaching is conducted by module, with the expectation that it would be carried
out by the individual instructors. It was clear, however, that not all members of staff carry out systematic
assessments of their teaching. An optional set of common questions has been available that had been
used, all or in part, by some staff; there was no requirement for members of staff to provide feedback to
students following assessment, although some staff did so. Neither is there a requirement for staff to share
the findings of the student evaluations with their discipline heads or with colleagues, although some do so.
Students who met with the Review Team expressed dissatisfaction with the variability of arrangements and
this variety of practice was reflected in discussions with members of staff. The questionnaire used by staff
was felt in some cases to be too long and complicated and did not encourage students to respond.
University policy requires student feedback arrangements to be in place, and deficiencies in the operation
of the policy were recognised. Proposals were submitted to the Academic Council in December 2010 that
were essentially guidelines to encourage staff to make use of the opportunities for obtaining feedback,
leading to action plans that should be copied to the persons responsible for the oversight of modules and
programmes in each School. The proposals place the prime responsibility for conducting feedback in the
hands of individual members of staff, and some sample mechanisms were suggested including reference to
methods developed by CELT.
The Review Team felt, however, that teaching in all modules should always be independently assessed with
feedback to teachers, students, and also to those responsible for programmes and academic leaders. The
feedback to instructors should be linked to both individual and generic staff development. To the extent
possible, these arrangements should be applied consistently across all courses.
The provision of a comprehensive template could enable consistent and effective student feedback on
module content and teaching, and it is important to ensure consistent arrangements for effective monitoring
of these arrangements.
The Review Team recommends the current policy on student feedback be reviewed to ensure that all
modules are regularly evaluated, using tools that collect comparable data, for independent analysis and the
transmission of summaries to programme, School and College leadership, as well as to students.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
During discussions with staff, the Review Team was reminded that NUI Galway, like most universities, had
a legacy of management information systems developed at different times in various units of the University;
this applied both to student and staff records and financial systems and to the electronic storage of policy
and procedure documents, minutes and reports.
During the course of the site visit, the Review Team had access to the online Academic Manual and was able
to see progress being made by the University in bringing together into a single database all relevant University
21
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
policies, many of which are operational policies coming from the relevant units. The emphasis in creating
the Academic Manual has been on access to and the sharing of this knowledge across the institution with a
focus on simplification, consistency, and clarity. KPIs have also been established to measure performance
in the operation of policies. Within this approach, information and policies are seen as a means to create a
process for improved decision-making.
The Academic Manual is currently being rolled out and contains much valuable information, not only on
University policies but also on measurement and performance. The Review Team acknowledged the effort
involved in systematising the presentation of policies and in the breadth of analysis work already undertaken.
It was felt, however, that the current title “Academic Manual” did not fully reflect its scope. Despite numerous
University communications asking staff to review the Academic Manual following its launch, the response of
staff who met the Review Team to the Manual was varied, with some aware of its content but others either
unaware or uncertain about its nature and purpose.
The University might wish to consider a means of guiding users around the content of the Manual so that it
would achieve the aim of becoming a common point of reference for all staff. This might, for example, take
the form of a more structured electronic repository, supported by an accessible, user-friendly portal to guide
users and provide convenient linkages to the NUI Galway website. Given the need to ensure implementation
of its policies across the institution, the University might wish to consider having a more open access policy
in relation to all parts of the Academic Manual.
With regard to record systems, the Review Team was made aware of the problems of legacy systems with
complex interfaces, which do not necessarily communicate well. These different systems mitigate against
effective coordination between units, academic collaborations and cross-functional operations and against
the breaking down of silos within units of a College or of various support services. The Team was made
aware of initiatives towards developing an integrated system and the concept of a data warehouse where all
management information can be brought together.
The Review Team:
commends progress to date in simplifying and publicising the University’s systems and procedures,
including the launch of the Academic Manual; and
recommends the development of an integrated institutional information system that will allow more shared
information and transparency of key university policies and processes and strive to ensure that University
policies are implemented and monitored fully and consistently, thereby ensuring greater accountability
across units of the organisation.
DELIVERY OF POLICY
Throughout the review, the Review Team was aware of the significant efforts being made by senior
management, led by the President, to drive forward strategy, quality assurance and enhancement, and doing
so with an increasing emphasis on measurement and performance as described above. It was clear that
senior management was seeking to do this in a spirit of collegiality, and with a considerable devolution of
22
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
responsibility inherent in this approach, recognising that some traditions of autonomy of individual professors
as leaders of their academic disciplines remain.
Policies and decisions are being established centrally and need to be carried through at College and School
levels. Much has already been achieved in creating greater consistency across units, but more remains to
be done, with an onus on Deans of Colleges and Heads of Schools to carry through the implementation of
policy and continually raise awareness among staff. It was not always clear to the Review Team that this
message was being heard consistently across the whole institution. Given the variation in structures and
procedures within Colleges and Schools for implementation of central policies and given what appeared
to be some lack of clarity about, for example, how quality assurance and enhancement initiatives might be
delivered, it would not always be obvious to senior staff where these initiatives are not being implemented
as prescribed.
The Review Team felt that greater clarity might be helpful about where responsibility lay for quality and
enhancement at College and School level through parallel mechanisms across Colleges and Schools, for
example, investing responsibility for quality with a Vice-Dean and/or quality committees or groups within
schools.
The Athrú report had highlighted the possibility whereby staff in an institution may well recognise the need
for change, and for changes in individual responsibilities, but do not see themselves as necessarily affected
or believe that they are empowered or even able to react to calls for change.
The Review Team believes that senior staff need to be more aware of the effectiveness of agreed policies
and recommends that the University strives to close the gap between policy requirements and their
implementation and monitoring, thereby ensuring greater accountability.
MANAGING PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT QUALITY, INCLUDING THE LINKAGE
WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL REVIEW ACTIVITIES
In line with their statutory obligations under the Universities Act (1997) and as part of the underpinnings
for the IRIU and other quality processes supported by IUQB and the HEA, Universities in Ireland publish
reports of the internal reviews that they conduct, often posted on their institutional web sites. The purpose
of this procedure is to inform the public and stakeholders of how quality is being assured in higher education
in Ireland and to show that they are complying with the 1997 Act. From the evidence presented to it, the
Review Team was confident that NUI Galway is effectively managing public information about the quality of
its provision.
COMMENDATIONS
The Review Team commends...
3.1
the development and introduction of the tripartite unifying framework for strategic planning, institutional
research and quality assurance.
3.2
progress to date in simplifying and publicising the University’s systems and procedures, including the
launch of the Academic Manual.
23
SECTION
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Review Team recommends that the University...
3.3
reviews the current policy on student feedback to require that all modules are regularly evaluated
using tools that collect comparable data for independent analysis and the transmission of summaries
to programme, School and College leadership as well as to students.
3.4
develops an integrated institutional information system that will allow more shared information and
transparency of key University processes and strive to ensure that University policies are implemented
and monitored fully and consistently, thereby ensuring greater accountability across units of the
organisation.
3.5
strives to close the gap between policy requirements and their implementation and monitoring,
thereby ensuring greater consistency and accountability.
24
SECTION
4
SECTION 4
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
The University regards quality enhancement as on-going, driven by the Strategic Plan and the supporting
operational plans. The Review Team was given access to the portfolio of plans, key performance indicators
and action plans, primarily through examination of the Academic Manual. A variety of central initiatives
by Quality, Institutional Research, Innovation and Excellence and Staff Development offices are listed in
the ISAR, together with Teaching and Research enhancements and Support Service enhancements. The
implementation of many of these was discussed with the staff concerned, and the Review Team highlighted
a number of areas for comment:
CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE OF LEARNING AND TEACHING (CELT)
The Review Team met members of CELT and members of staff who had used CELT’s services. It learned from
discussions and from the ISAR of many initiatives that have been carried out, including the implementation
of formal professional training for academic staff in teaching, learning and assessment, and the opportunity
to qualify for PGCert, Diploma or MA level, for which there was a high demand. In some Colleges, such
training is compulsory whilst in others it is voluntary; specific training is available on the use of Blackboard
VLE and in state-of-the-art audio-visual systems.
CELT, which was established in 2002, hosts an annual Symposium on Higher Education with international
speakers on themes in high quality learning and teaching. It coordinates a student volunteering programme,
and offers ALIVE (A Learning Initiative and the Volunteering Experience) certificates to students and involves
students in many of its pilot projects. As noted above, CELT has also led in innovative methods of gathering
student feedback. The Review Team met staff who expressed great enthusiasm for the work of CELT and
who had participated in pilot projects on automated lecture recording, the successful use of “clickers” in
promoting student participation in class and in creative ways of eliciting student feedback. The Review
Team formed the view that CELT is well-received generally in the academic community, but in as much as
participation is not compulsory and there is no formal, consistent mechanism for disseminating the good
practices that have been developed, there is the risk of “preaching to the converted” and that some staff
may remain unaware of the considerable teaching and learning resources that are available through CELT.
STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
Reference has already been made to the Irish Government’s requirement for staffing reductions and
restrictions on funding, appointments, promotions and support, whilst the University has increased
productivity. A number of staff, whilst appreciating the need for savings, not unnaturally expressed concerns
about issues of morale and status. In particular, staff appointed to the grade of “university teacher” claimed
to be unsure of their status and the opportunities available to them relative to university lecturers and even
of their salary scales, although these are available on the website (the Review Team was told that only a few
staff have been appointed as university teachers.). Post-doctoral staff felt that they fell between academic
and administrative staff with regard to publication opportunities and in representation within the University.
25
SECTION
4
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
The role of CELT in promoting training and development opportunities has been noted. There was a perception
amongst some younger staff that, notwithstanding the University’s stated policy, research carried a stronger
weighting than teaching (or administration) when considering promotion, and some who were particularly
enthusiastic about developing their teaching skills felt a tension as a result. Given NUI Galway’s equal priority
to the development of high quality teaching and research, the University might wish to take steps to make
all staff more aware of its policy and strategy in this respect.
GRADUATE STUDIES
The establishment of a Graduate Studies Office (GSO) in 2007-08 and the appointment of a Dean of Graduate
Studies have created a significant enhancement of the arrangements for postgraduate research students.
The Graduate School has brought about the opportunity to bring the graduate enterprise together where it
was previously fragmented, and to regularise practices under strong leadership; consistent practices have
been established across the University in the form of research degree guidelines covering entry requirements,
induction, supervision, the research environment, student representation, progress requirements from
Masters to Ph.D., completion rates and examination arrangements.
The GSO has promoted new structured PhD programmes. Research students now have individual supervisory
committees to monitor their progress and these committees report annually to the Graduate Studies Board.
The GSO has developed workshops for researchers and arrangements to disseminate good practices;
research awards are celebrated and work is in progress on improvements to the graduate research website;
work is also underway on a publications database.
The Review Team noted that the Dean of Graduate Studies is a member of the Council of Deans, but that
the GSO is not always seen as a first port-of-call for graduate students, nor might they be referred there by
all members of staff; some staff appeared to be less than fully aware of the responsibilities of the Dean and
the GSO. Whilst induction is now offered annually, it is not always available for students arriving at times
other than the beginning of an academic year and training for graduate supervisors is offered, but is not
compulsory; the University might wish to address these issues.
Overall, the Review Team commends the adoption of international best practices in learning and teaching
improvement through CELT and the establishment of the Graduate Studies Office with associated quality
improvements to postgraduate education and student support structures.
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
The Review Team met with staff involved in the promotion of research. All welcomed the establishment of
the Graduate Studies Office (see above) and welcomed also the progress being made in developing an
infrastructure to support research. Staff indicated that more explicit training in making grant applications
would be welcomed as well as measures that would incentivise and reward research initiative, such as
release from some teaching, although the difficulties of achieving this at the present time were appreciated.
The Review Team also met with the Directors of research institutes and centres and came to understand
the considerable variation in nature, size and composition of the institutes and centres. The Directors cited
26
SECTION
4
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
the biggest challenges as being the operational management of their centres and the fragmentation of
support services; governance arrangements were not altogether clear as, for example, each unit reported
to the Dean of a College, rather than to the Vice-President for Research, but might be carrying out research
activity relevant to more than one College. Directors of institutes or centres have little to incentivise tenured
staff from Colleges to join their units and currently there are no institutional procedures for the head of an
institute or centre to request a change of teaching workload for a researcher. Funding issues were also
raised, highlighting the need for clarity and transparency about the allocation of funds, little flexibility in the
allocation of funds released from central overheads, and the short-term funding of appointments where
institute or centre staff did not hold tenured appointments in the University.
The Review Team questioned whether the plan for the Vice-President for Research and the Vice-President
for Student Experience to no longer have membership on the UMT sent appropriate signals to the University
community regarding the importance of these key leadership positions. The University might also wish
to consider the governance arrangements of research institutes to better meet the needs of those units
with research interests in more than one College and to reflect the desired linkage to the Vice-President
for Research in promoting interdisciplinary research across the institution. The Deans of Colleges whose
faculties are involved could play a significant role as an oversight or executive steering group to the centres
and institutes, and the addition of external members on centre and institute advisory groups may provide
opportunities to acquire new ideas and useful contacts from outside the University.
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
The Review Team met a number of staff responsible for student support services and was impressed by
their dedication. Staff meet on a monthly basis with the Vice-President for Student Experience and more
frequently as necessary, and regularly with the Director of Student Services to discuss common issues but
are not responsible to either of these administrators. Support services fall into three broad groups: career
and professional development, welfare and recreation. Many of the service units have operated for many
years and provide good access to students with long opening hours. Students also need to access a number
of administrative offices. The number of units and their location in different parts of the campus often make
it difficult for students who are in need of support to know whom to approach. There is no integrated student
information and referral system and relatively little web support. Cross-referral nevertheless occurs, but
depends on the goodwill of the staff involved rather than an overall structure, and staff felt that the current
structure itself does not contribute effectively.
Every student ostensibly has a personal tutor, but these are not necessarily trained and students often do
not know who their tutors are. One College has an adviser system. Support staff have met with academic
staff to develop an integrated approach, and work has started on an Integrated Support Services Plan. A
framework has been published identifying 18 critical process areas; some of the proposed initiatives are listed
in the ISAR. The Review Team encourages the University to develop and implement this strategy, bringing
administrative and support services into an integrated structure that parallels those already achieved within
many academic units.
27
SECTION
4
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
INTERNATIONALISATION
The Review Team noted the development of an international strategy as part of NUI Galway’s Strategic Plan,
and various individual College international strategies are co-ordinated by Vice-Deans within the Colleges.
The overall strategy has a five-point focus: an undergraduate stream, outward mobility, international
partnerships, the international curriculum and international scholarship. The challenge facing the University
is to bring together the individual agendas and take the strategy forward aggressively and make it operational,
so as not to lose momentum in an increasingly competitive arena and to bring benefits to the University from
increasing international exchange and further exposure to international scholarship.
The Review Team recommends that NUI Galway pursues an assertive internationalisation agenda to achieve
a more open, outward-looking approach by the University.
RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION
The Review Team saw evidence of increased transparency in resource allocation mechanisms, but noted
that many staff still felt that resource allocations are not wholly clear. As a consequence, staff did not feel it
was appropriate to hold units accountable for performance based on what is perceived as a rather opaque
allocation process. The current constraints on resources offer an opportunity to re-examine resource
allocation mechanisms. The Review Team considered that the articulation of clearer funding models and
allocation mechanisms that take at least some of the mystery out of how funds are allocated, together with
greater built-in means to recognise innovation and meritorious performance in both research and teaching,
are worthy goals. In addition, holding some funds centrally in reserve to pursue particular strategic directions
would enable the University both to incentivise innovation and to hold line officers more accountable, for
developing a higher performance awareness amongst staff.
The Review Team recommends that the University reconsiders its resource allocation arrangements to
ensure that they are more transparent and, to the extent possible, incentivise academic and administrative
innovation and development.
COMMENDATIONS
The Review Team commends
4.1
the adoption of international best practices in learning and teaching improvement through CELT
and the establishment of the Graduate Studies Office with associated quality improvements to
postgraduate education and student support structures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Review Team recommends that the University...
4.2
pursues an assertive internationalisation agenda to achieve a more open, outward-looking approach
by the University.
4.3
reconsiders resource distribution arrangements to ensure that they are more transparent and, to the
extent possible, incentivise academic and administrative innovation and development.
28
SECTION
5
SECTION 5
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 35 OF
THE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1997 AND
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PART 1 ESG
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
The statutory requirements for quality assurance processes of Irish universities are presented in The
Universities Act 1997 and they can be summarised as follows:
• Regular evaluation (not less than once every ten years) of each department and,
where appropriate, faculty and any service provided by the University by persons
competent to make national and international comparisons;
• Regular assessment—including by students—of the teaching, research and other
services provided by the University;
• Publication of findings of reviews;
• Implementation of findings arising from reviews, providing the resources are
available and the findings are reasonable and practical.
From the evidence provided by the University and its discussions with members of staff and students, the
Review Team is confident that the University is complying with each of the above statutory requirements.
University policy is to review all major units: academic Schools, Colleges, research centres and institutes,
support services and of the major cross-functional processes and strategic themes every five to seven years;
the University provided the Review Team with comprehensive documentation confirming that this policy is
being carried out and the Review Team met staff from a range of units that had been reviewed recently.
Summaries of reports from reviews are made available to the Údarás na hOllscoile and full reports are
published by the University on its web pages and separately through the IUQB Reviews Catalogue. These
reports include action plans, and the Review Team saw evidence of the monitoring of these plans by the
relevant committees and administrators.
The University seeks student assessments of their experiences of teaching and learning through a variety
of means including questionnaires, focus groups and student representation on the Programme Boards
that oversee programmes of study. The University’s internal review processes provide for peer groups
undertaking reviews to meet undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research students and alumni (the
latter where possible) in order to gather evidence from them about the teaching and support provided by the
University. A Student Feedback policy is in place and is being further developed.
The Review Team considers that there is abundant evidence that the University pays attention to the findings
and recommendations of internal and external reviews of its teaching, research, and support systems and
that, where it is reasonable, affordable and practicable to implement the recommendations, it does so.
29
SECTION
5
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 35 AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE PART 1 ESG
CONSISTENCY WITH PART ONE ESG
The Review Team is satisfied that the University has carefully reviewed its quality and standards and quality
enhancement arrangements against the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (European Standards and Guidelines, Part 1) and that it has appropriate procedures
in place. The Review Team noted in particular the work of the Institutional Research Office in the provision
and review of data against performance indicators and the use of national and international comparisons.
The University acknowledges the desirability of further work to enhance arrangements for student feedback,
peer review and performance appraisal.
The Review Team finds that the University’s quality arrangements are fully consistent with Part 1 of the
European Standards and Guidelines.
ENGAGEMENT WITH NATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL GOOD PRACTICE
The Review Team found evidence that the University was gathering information on national, European,
and international best practices, particularly through the work of the Institutional Research Office and
the attendance of its staff at national and international teaching and research conferences, seminars and
workshops.
30
SECTION
6
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Review Team’s evaluation of the Institutional Self-Assessment Report, supporting documentation
and meetings conducted during the Main Review Visit, the Team found sufficient evidence to confirm:
CATEGORY:
KEY REVIEWER FINDINGS
Statutory Requirements
The Review Team found that the University’s activities comply with
statutory requirements.
European Standards
The Review Team found the University’s quality assurance
arrangements to be satisfactorily consistent with Part 1 of the
European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (ESG).
National, European and
International best practice
The University is taking account of national, European and
international best practice.
The Team found sufficient evidence to commend the following examples of good practice for further
promotion internally, nationally and internationally:
6.1
the strong leadership of the President and the University Management Team and the overall
institutional structure and processes for quality assessment across the University, including the
Linked Colleges;
6.2
the restructuring of the management and academic organisation to enhance both academic and
administrative performance;
6.3
the development and introduction of the tripartite, unifying framework for strategic planning,
institutional research and quality assurance;
6.4
the progress-to-date in simplifying the University’s systems and procedures, including the
Academic Manual;
6.5
the adoption of international best practices in learning and teaching improvement through CELT
and the establishment of the Graduate Studies Office with associated quality improvements to
postgraduate education and student support structures.
The Team found sufficient evidence to recommend the following activities to the University for attention and
development:
6.6
ensure that the governance structures of the decision-making and deliberative bodies promote a
more strategic focus and include a wider spectrum of external stakeholders;
6.7
consider carefully the relationship and communication arrangements between the academic
Deans and the University Management Team to ensure effective connectivity between academic
management and institutional management and the embodiment of a strong leadership culture
across the institution and to reinforce the crucial leadership role that Deans must play in the
reorganised academic structure of the University;
31
SECTION
6
CONCLUSIONS
32
6.8
review the current policy on student feedback to require that all courses and modules are
regularly evaluated using tools that collect comparable data for independent analysis and the
transmission of summaries to programme, School and College leadership as well as to students;
6.9
develop an integrated institutional information system that will allow more shared information
and transparency of key University processes, and strive to ensure that University policies are
implemented and monitored fully and consistently, thereby ensuring greater accountability
across units of the organisation;
6.10
strive to close the gap between policy requirements and their implementation and monitoring,
thereby ensuring greater consistency and accountability;
6.11
pursue an assertive internationalisation agenda to achieve a more open, outward-looking
approach by the University;
6.12
reconsider resource distribution arrangements to ensure that they are more transparent and, to
the extent possible, incentivise academic and administrative innovation and development.
IRIU
APPENDICES
33
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
APPENDIX 1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
SUNDAY 5 DECEMBER 2010
TIME
18:00 - 19:00
Review Team Alone
19:30 - 22:00
Pre-review Discussion
Dr. David O’Sullivan, Director of Quality
Prof. Chris Curtin, Vice-President Innovation and Performance
Dr. James Browne, President
Dr. Kieran Loftus, Executive Director of Operations
Ms. Aoife Flanagan, Institutional Research
DAY 1: MONDAY 6 DECEMBER 2010
TIME
MEETING (All meetings held in A113 Alexandra Anderson Boardroom)
09:00 – 09:30
Review Coordination - Dr. David O’Sullivan
09:30 – 10:00
Meeting with President
10:00 – 11:00
Senior Management Team - Teaching & Learning
Prof. Jim Ward, Registrar and Deputy President
Dr. Seamus MacMathuna, Academic Affairs & Oifig an Rúnaí
Prof. Chris Curtin, Vice-President Innovation and Performance
Mr. Keith Warnock, Vice-President for Capital Projects
Ms. Mary Dooley, Bursar’s Office
11:00 – 11:30
Review Team Alone
11:30 – 12:30
Self-Assessment Committee
Ms. Marie McGonagle, School of Law
Prof. Nicholas Allen, Moore Institute
Dr. Sharon Flynn, Centre for Excellence in Learning & Teaching
Mr. Peter Mannion, President of Students’ Union
Dr. Kieran Loftus, Executive Director of Operations
Ms. Aoife Flanagan, Institutional Research
34
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
12:30 – 13:30
Review Team Alone (Lunch)
13:30 – 14:15
Údarás Members
Prof. Kathy Murphy, School of Nursing & Midwifery
Dr. Anthony Grehan, Earth & Ocean Sciences
Dr. Donagh O’Donoghue, (Nominee of External Organisation)
Dr. Jane O’Leary, (Artistic/Cultural Category - External)
Dr Noel Dorr, Chair of Údarás Na hOllscoile
Councillor Dominick Connolly, Roscommon County Council
14:15 – 14:45
Review Team Alone
14:45 – 15:30
Academic Council & Quality Committee
Prof. Tom Glynn, School of Physics – Academic Council
Dr. Ann Marie Groarke, School of Psychology – Academic Council
Ms. Anne Marie Forde, Buildings Office – Quality Committee
Prof. Gearóid O’ Laigain, Electrical & Electronic Engineering – Quality Committee
Mr. John Cox, JH Library – Quality Committee
15:30 – 16:00
Review Team Alone
16:00 – 17:00
Academic Reviewees (Heads)
Academic Reviewees (Staff)
Dr. Mark Lang, School of Physics
Ms. Josephine Igoe, M.Sc. Corp.
Strategy
Prof. Liam O’Malley, School of Law
Prof. William Schabas, Irish Centre for
Human Rights
Prof. Nicholas Canny, Moore Institute
Prof. Steven Ellis, History
Dr. Martina Kelly, B.Sc. Occupational
Health & Safety
Dr. Martin Feely, B.Sc. Earth & Ocean
Science
Dr. Thomas Kropmans, Master of
Medical Science
Dr. Aoife Boyd, BSc. Biotechnology
17:00 – 17:30
Review Team, David O’Sullivan & Prof. Chris Curtin
20:00 – 22:00
Review Team Alone (Dinner)
35
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
DAY 2: TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 2010
TIME
MEETING (All meetings held in A113 Alexandra Anderson Boardroom)
09:00 – 09:15
Review Coordination – Dr. David O’Sullivan
09:15 – 10:15
Human Resources, Staffing & Deans
Mr. Chris McNairney, Director of Human Resources
Ms. Carmel Browne, Staff Development
Dr. Edward Herring, Dean of Arts
Prof. William Golden, Dean of Business and Law
Prof. Gerry Lyons, Dean of Engineering & Informatics
Prof. Tom Sherry, Dean of Science
10:15 – 10:30
Review Team Alone
10:30 – 11:15
Teaching Development - Staff
Teaching Development - Users
Dr. Iain Mac Labhrainn, Director of
CELT
Dr. Frances McCormack, Lecturer in
English
Dr. Kelly Coate, Lecturer in Higher
Education
Dr. Aisling McCluskey, Lecturer in
Mathematics
Ms. Lorraine McIlrath, Community
Knowledge Initiative
Dr. Andrew Flaus, Lecturer in
Biochemistry
Dr. Gary Gillanders, Lecturer in Physics
Dr. Peter Cantillion, Clinical Teaching
11:15 – 11:45
Review Team Alone
11:45 – 12:45
Student Support Staff
Mr. Matt Doran, Student Services
Ms. Liz Walsh, Disability Support Services
Ms. Bea Gavin, Student Counselling
Fr. Diarmuid Hogan, Chaplaincy Services
Ms. Annette Dolan, Placement Office
Dr. John Hannon, Career Development Centre
12:45 – 13:30
36
Review Team Alone (Lunch)
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
13:30 – 14:30
Support Services Reviewees - Heads
Support Services Reviewees - Staff
Mr, Sean O’Farrell, Information
Solutions & Services
Ms. Anne Marie Forde, Buildings Office
Mr. John Gibney, Buildings Office
Mr. John Gaffney, Management
Accounting
Ms. Mary Ryan, Examinations Office
An tUasal Gearóid Ó Broin, Financial
Accounting
Dr. Jacinta Thornton, Technology
Transfer Office
Ms. Fiona Burns, Research
Mr. John Sweeney, President’s Office
Ms. Sinéad Ní Fhaoláin, Information
Solutions & Services
14:30 – 15:00
Review Team Alone
15:00 – 16:00
Students’ Union Officers & Class Representatives
Mr. Peter Mannion, Students’ Union President
Mr. Emmet Connolly, Educational Officer, Students’ Union
Ms. Aine McNamara, Health Science
Ms. Saoirse Nic A Bhaird, Science
Mr. Daniel Maher, Arts
Ms. Ciara Staunton, Law
16:00 – 16:45
Institutional Performance and Enhancement
Ms. Aoife Flanagan, Institutional Research
Prof. Chris Curtin, Vice-President Innovation and Performance
Ms. Caroline Loughnane, Marketing & Communications Office
16:45 – 17:15
Review Team, David O’Sullivan & Prof. Chris Curtin
20:00 – 22:00
Review Team Alone (Dinner)
DAY 3: WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2010
TIME
MEETING (All meetings held in A113 Alexandra Anderson Boardroom)
09:00 – 09:30
Review Coordination – Dr. David O’Sullivan
09:30 – 10:15
Senior Management Team: Research & Innovation
Prof. Terry Smith, Vice-President of Research
Dr. Pat Morgan, Dean of Graduate Studies
Ms. Orla Baxter, Research Office
Prof. Jim Ward, Registrar & Deputy Vice-President
10:15 – 10:30
Review Team Alone
37
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
10:30 – 11:15
Research Centre Directors
Prof. Frank Barry, National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science &
Regenerative Medicine Institute
Dr. Colin Brown, Martin Ryan Institute
Dr. James Cunningham, Centre for Innovation & Structural Change
Prof. Stefan Decker, Digital Enterprise Research Institute
11:15 – 11:45
Review Team Alone
11:45 – 12:30
Research Teaching Staff
Teaching Staff
Dr. James Duggan, Information
Technology
Dr. Claire Connolly, Health Promotion
Ms. Aideen Gallagher, Occupational
Therapy
Prof. Martin Cormican, Bacteriology
& ECI
Ms. Áine Ryan, German
Ms. Evelyn Byrne, School of Nursing &
Midwifery
Dr. Peter Creighton, Biochemistry
Prof. Gerard Quinn, Centre for
Disability Law & Policy
12:30 – 13:15
Review Team Alone
13:15 – 14:15
Postgraduate Researchers
Post Doc Researchers
Ms. Fiona Masterson, Mechanical &
Biomedical Engineering
Mr. Jared Gerlach, Biotechnology
Mr.Tobias Rossmann, Mathematics
Ms. Connie Healy, Law
Mr. Maciej Dabrowski, Economics
Dr. Majella Giblin, CISC
Mr. Christophe Helary Network
Excellence Functional Biomaterials
(NFB)
Dr. Allyn Fives, School of Political
Science & Sociology
14:15 – 15:00
Review Team Alone
15:00 – 15:45
Linked & Recognised Colleges
Ms. Nora Murphy, University of Limerick Alliance
Dr. Maria Gallo, St. Angela’s College, Sligo
Dr. Emer Mulligan, School of Business & Economics, Shannon School of Hotel
Management
38
APPENDIX
1
MAIN REVIEW VISIT - TIMETABLE
15:45 – 16.45
Adult Education/Access/International Office
Mr. Seamus O’Grady, Adult & Continuing Education
Ms. Anna Cunningham, International Affairs
Ms. Imelda Byrne, Access Office
Ms. Nuala McGuinn, Adult & Continuing Education
An tUasal Peadar Mac an Iomaire, Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta Gaeilge
Mr. Michael Kavanagh, Registrar & Deputy-President’s Office
16:45 – 17:30
Review Team Alone
20:00 – 22:00
Review Team Alone (Dinner)
DAY 4: THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER 2010
TIME
MEETING (All meetings held in A113 Alexandra Anderson Boardroom)
08:30 – 09:00
Chair of Review Panel, President & Dr. David O’Sullivan
09:00 – 11:30
Review Team Alone
10:00 – 11:00
Feedback to IUQB
IUQB Reviews Manager & Dr. David O’Sullivan
11:00 – 11:30
Review Team Alone with IUQB Reviews Manager
11.30 – 12.30
Exit Meeting
Dr. David O’Sullivan, Director of Quality
Prof. Chris Curtin, Vice-President Innovation and Performance
Dr. James Browne, President
Prof. Jim Ward, Registrar and Deputy-President
Ms. Aoife Flanagan, Institutional Research
Dr. Séamus MacMathúna, Academic Affairs & Oifig an Rúnaí
Mr. Keith Warnock, Vice-President for Capital Projects
Ms. Mary Dooley, Bursar’s Office
39
APPENDIX
2
APPENDIX 2
OVERVIEW OF THE IRIU PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
Universities have requirements under Section 35 of The Universities Act 1997 to establish and implement
procedures for quality assurance and, more relevantly to the IRIU, to arrange for a review of the effectiveness
of internal procedures “from time to time and in any case at least every 15 years”. These reviews of
effectiveness are designated in The Act as the responsibility of the individual governing authorities. In this
way, the autonomy permitted in the organisation of internal reviews is complemented by accountability. In
2002, the governing authorities of all seven universities authorised the establishment of the Irish Universities
Quality Board (IUQB) and delegated to the IUQB the function of arranging regular reviews of the effectiveness
of quality assurance procedures, which are institutional in their scope.
In 2004-05, the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) and the Higher Education Authority (HEA) jointly
commissioned the European University Association (EUA) through its Institutional Evaluation Programme
(IEP) to undertake the first cycle of external reviews of the seven Irish universities. The resulting sectoral
report, published in April 2005, found “the systematic organisation and promotion of quality assurance at the
initiative of the universities themselves” as being “unparalleled in any other country in Europe, or indeed in
the United States or Canada”. The reviewers deemed the system “to strike the right tone and combination
of public interest, accountability, and university autonomy. It encourages a greater focus on quality and
improvement than some systems worldwide, while at the same time being less intrusive than some other
systems in Europe”. The report concluded that it was, however: “time to move to a new phase” that “should
build on the existing system, linking it more closely to strategic management and feeding its outputs into the
ongoing development of the universities, individually and collectively”.
In October 2006, after consultation with the universities, it was agreed that a second cycle of institutional
reviews would be initiated in 2009/10. The Institutional Review of Irish Universities (IRIU) process was approved
for publication by the IUQB Board in March 2009. By the end of this rolling cycle of reviews, independent
reviewers will have confirmed whether Irish universities are operating in line with the requirements of (i)
Section 35 of the Universities Act, 1997, and are (ii) consistent with the Part 1 requirements of the Standards
and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2005 (the ESG).
IRIU METHOD
The aims and objectives of the IRIU method are:
• to operate an external review process consistent with The Act, and the Part 2
Standards outlined in the ESG
• to support each university in meeting its responsibility for the operation of internal
quality assurance procedures and reviews that are clear and transparent to all their
stakeholders, and which provide for the continuing evaluation of all academic,
40
APPENDIX
2
OVERVIEW OF THE IRIU PROCESS
research and service departments and their activities, as outlined in The Act,
incorporating the Part 1 ESG Standards
• to provide evidence that each university continues to engage with national,
European and international guidelines and standards, particularly in accordance
with the Bologna process
• to support institutional strategic planning and ownership of quality assurance and
enhancement to operate as part of the Framework for Quality in Irish Universities
• to support the availability of consistent, robust, and timely information on the
effectiveness of quality assurance and enhancement processes operating within
Irish universities
• to provide accountability to external stakeholders in relation to the overall quality of
the system and thereby instil confidence in the robustness of the IRIU process
There are four elements to the IRIU method:
• Element 1: Institutional Self-Assessment Report (ISAR)
• Element 2: The Review Visit(s) – Planning Visit and Main Review Visit
• Element 3: Review Report
• Element 4: Institutional and Sector Level Follow-up
Institutions can expect to undergo IRIU normally every six years. The schedule for the second cycle of
institutional reviews (2009/10 – 12/13) is published on the IUQB web site and was developed in consultation
with each Irish university and approved by the IUQB Board in June 2009.
THE REVIEW TEAM
The recruitment of national and international experts to the IRIU Register of Reviewers is conducted biannually. Each Team of reviewers is selected by the IUQB Board from the Register of Reviewers based
on the reviewer’s ability to demonstrate current or recent experience in at least three of the seven criteria
categories published in the IRIU Handbook. Reviewers are trained, deployed and paid on a per review basis.
IRIU Reviewers are not IUQB employees. As part of the nomination and selection process, reviewers sign to
confirm any conflicts of interest. Additionally, universities have an opportunity to comment on the proposed
composition of their Review Team in advance of deployment, to ensure there are no conflicts of interest in the
proposed Review Team, and thus the IUQB Board will ensure that an appropriate and entirely independent
Team of reviewers is selected for the institution being reviewed. The IUQB Board has final approval over the
composition of each IRIU Review Team.
The IRIU Review Teams will normally consist of:
• two international reviewers (one of which will also act as Review Chair)
• an Irish reviewer
• a student representative
• a representative of external stakeholders
• a co-ordinating reviewer
41
APPENDIX
2
OVERVIEW OF THE IRIU PROCESS
REVIEWER TRAINING AND DEPLOYMENT
Each Review Team will receive institutionally-specific training in advance of deployment. The purpose of
reviewer training/briefing is to ensure that all reviewers:
• understand the social, cultural, economic and legal environment within which Irish
universities are operating
• become familiar with the Framework for Quality in Irish Universities
• understand the aims and objectives of the IRIU process as well as the key elements
of the method
• understand the statutory requirements placed on Irish universities in relation to
quality, as outlined in The Act and the ESG
• understand their own roles and tasks and the importance of Team coherence and
delivering a robust, evidence-based report in a timely manner
REPORTING
In the interests of equity and reliability, the Review Team’s findings and recommendations presented in the
review reports will be based on recorded evidence. In line with ESG guidelines, the Team will be asked by the
IUQB Reviews Manager on the final day of the Main Review Visit to confirm that the review procedures used
have provided adequate evidence to support the Team’s findings and recommendations on the University’s
procedures and practices in relation to:
• its fulfilment of its statutory requirements, which includes the:
• regular evaluation of each department, and, where appropriate, faculty and any
service provided by the University by persons competent to make national and
international comparisons on the quality of teaching and research and the provision
of other services at university level
• assessment by those, including students, availing of the teaching, research and
other services provided by the University
• publication of findings arising out of the application of those procedures
• implementation of any findings arising out of the evaluation, having regard to the
resources available to the university
• its consistency with the Part 1 Standards of the ESG
• operating in line with national, European and international best practice
• identifying and enhancing good practice in the management of quality assurance
and enhancement
• identifying issues for further development in relation to the management of quality
assurance and enhancement
Two review reports arise from the IRIU - a brief non-technical summary report and a full review report for
specialist audiences. Both reports are prepared by the Co-ordinating Reviewer and are signed off by the
Chair following consultation with all Review Team members. The University will be given an opportunity to
comment on factual accuracy and if they so wish, to provide a 1-2 page institutional response to the report
that will be published as an appendix to the review report. Each IRIU report will be formally signed off and
approved by the IUQB Board once satisfied that the review process was completed in accordance with
42
APPENDIX
2
OVERVIEW OF THE IRIU PROCESS
published criteria. Reports will be published by the IUQB thereafter. In accordance with Section 41 of the
Universities Act, 1997, the IUQB will submit review reports to the Minister.
FOLLOW-UP
One year after the Main Review Visit, the University will be asked to produce a follow-up report (incorporating
the institutional action plan), normally submitted alongside the Annual Institutional Report (AIR) and discussed
as part of the Annual Dialogue (AD) meeting with the IUQB. Within the report, the University should provide
a commentary on how the review findings and recommendations have been discussed and disseminated
throughout the University’s committee structure and academic units, and comment on how effectively the
University is addressing the review outcomes. The report should identify the range of strategic and logistical
developments and decisions that have occurred within the institution since the review reports’ publication.
Institutions will continue to have flexibility in the length and style of the follow-up report but should address
each of the key findings and recommendations that the reviewers presented. The follow-up report will be
published by the IUQB.
If an IRIU Review Team identifies in its review report what it considers to be significant causes of concern,
particularly in relation to the institution’s fulfilment of its statutory requirements, (in accordance with the
IUQB’s Memorandum of Association, 2006), the IUQB will consult with the University in question to agree
an immediate action plan to address the issue(s) of Review Team concern, including the time-frame in which
the issue(s) will be addressed. The University will report to the IUQB every six months on progress against
the action plan for the duration of the plan. Where the IUQB considers that progress in implementing the
action plan is inadequate, the IUQB may, in consultation with the University and the HEA, intervene to secure
a revision or acceleration of the plan, or to arrange a further review visit, ideally involving most or all of the
original Review Team.
The IUQB will regularly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the IRIU process, as part of an organisational
commitment to actively contribute to the broader enhancement of a culture of quality across the Irish higher
education sector and as required by Part 3 of the ESG.
43
APPENDIX
3
APPENDIX 3
UNIVERSITY RESPONSE TO THE IRIU
The University welcomes the recommendations from this independent assessment of quality assurance at
NUI Galway. High quality in the delivery of teaching, research and support services is a primary goal of the
university and the responsibility of all staff at NUI Galway. All staff are also responsible for the monitoring,
assessment and improvement of quality. Quality assurance and improvement is a continuous activity and
has been enhanced in recent years by new organisational structures, a stronger focus on institutional
performance and other key quality and innovation initiatives. Each of the recommendations expressed by the
reviewers in their report strengthens the resolve of the University to complete initiatives already underway or
they introduce a new perspective and urgency for initiatives that will be prioritised for implementation in the
future. The University is reassured by the findings of the reviewers that it is in full compliance with the Irish
Universities Act 1997 and European international standards and guidelines. The reviewers’ findings build
on the resolve of staff to find new ways to improve quality and performance, that creates more value for
the University’s various stakeholders and in particular students. The University will respond to each of the
recommendations made by the reviewers by creating an action plan for implementation over the coming two
years. The University and its staff are grateful for the recommendations of the reviewers and we are confident
that the results of actions arising, will significantly enhance the university’s performance.
44
Designed by Brian Dempsey: dempsey200@gmail.com
IUQB 10 Lower Mount St. Dublin 2.
TEL 353-1-644 9774
EMAIL info@iuqb.ie
FAX 353-1-661 2449
WEBSITE www.iuqb.ie
©Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB), 2011.