National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 2010
REVIEW OF
Irish Centre for Human Rights
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND,
GALWAY
Final REPORT
29th March 2010
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Review Report 2009-2010
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the Irish Centre for Human Rights
on 14th January, 2010. The Irish Centre for Human Rights had already prepared and
submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made
available to the review team well in advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of: Professor Christopher Gane, Professor of Scots Law
and Vice-Principal and Head of the College of Arts and Social Sciences, University of
Aberdeen (Chair); Professor John Jackson, Dean and Professor of Criminal Law,
University College Dublin; Mr. Eamon MacAodha, Chief Executive, Irish Human
Rights Commission; and Dr Sinisa Malesevic, School of Political Science &
Sociology, NUI Galway; and Dr Maria Tuohy of the Discipline of Biochemistry,
School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Aims and Objectives
2. Organization and management
3. Programmes and Instruction
4. Scholarship and Research
5. Community Service and the Wider Context
6. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The reviewers wish to express their sincere thanks to all of the members of the centre
for their cooperation during the review and for the submission of the detailed and
informative self-assessment report. The review group would also like to thank the
students of the centre who met with the group, and the staff of the Quality Office for
all of the arrangements made on the review group’s behalf. All of the relevant
documentation was available and greatly assisted the review group in their task.
General Observations on the Current Position of the Irish Centre for Human
Rights:
The review group was broadly familiar with the Irish Centre for Human Rights
(ICHR), its significant reputation and standing as a centre for research and teaching in
Human Rights. The information in the Self-Assessment Report and supporting
documentation provided the review group with a very favourable impression of the
centre. During the meetings with centre members, students and representatives of the
University, the reviewers saw and heard a great deal that reinforced the group’s earlier
impression of the centre.
More specifically:
(i) The spirit of collegiality, to which reference is made in the Self Assessment
Report, was borne out in all of the review group’s contacts with staff of the centre.
What was particularly impressive was the manner in which this collegiality extended
beyond the staff of the centre to the student body. This was reflected not only in the
views expressed by the PhD and Masters students, but extended also to the
undergraduate students in the BA Connect programme.
(ii) As mentioned, the review group was impressed by the high level of satisfaction
expressed by all groups of students with their respective programmes and the
2
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Review Report 2009-2010
relationships that they were able to develop with members of the centre. This high
level of student satisfaction was confirmed by student feedback for the various
programmes and the minutes of the ICHR meetings. The opportunities for student
feedback and actions thereon were the subject of particular recommendations in the
previous Quality Review report for the centre. The review group was pleased to note
that the centre had put in place appropriate mechanisms for student feedback, which
has enabled student concerns to be expressed and addressed.
One of the features commented upon most favourably by students was the range of
activities that have been developed under and in association with the ICHR provides
opportunities for interaction with international experts. The wide range of research
activities in the form of lectures, talks and seminars is commendable. Students clearly
are provided with excellent opportunities in particular with respect to visits to
international Human Rights institutions and organizations.
(iii) The success of the ICHR’s PhD programme is clearly evident, being manifested
both in the high throughput of completed PhDs during the last 5 years and the
continuing success of the centre in attracting high calibre Masters and PhD students.
(iv) The range, number and quality of the research outputs are extremely impressive,
and have included, since 2004, 27 monographs in prestigious outlets (e.g. Oxford
University Press, Cambridge University Press etc) and almost 200 articles, many of
which are in peer-reviewed journals.
While it is important to emphasise these successes, it has to be recognised these
achievements have been attained in a generally positive and well-funded economic
environment which is undergoing significant change. Our recommendations are
intended to draw the attention of the centre and University to the challenges that lie
ahead.
1.
Aims and Objectives
The review group recognize that the centre has engaged with and addressed much of
what was recommended in the previous report. The centre has developed processes
and systems (both formal and informal) that are in line with the University Quality
process. However, the reviewers would like to make the following recommendation
to underpin the centre’s core aims and objectives.
1.1
The previous report recommended that the centre should continue to explore
its relationship with the School of Law. The review group feel that there is an added
impetus to pursue this objective in the light of the structural, planning and budgetary
changes currently being implemented by the University.
2.
Organization and management
The review group acknowledge that the centre has engaged with and addressed some
of the issues raised and recommendations made in the previous review report. While
strengths exist in the centre’s informal and collegial approach to organisation and
management, the reviewers equally recognise that where roles and responsibilities are
not clearly defined and acted upon there is a risk that this collegiality may result in too
3
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Review Report 2009-2010
much responsibility falling on the shoulders of particular individuals. This can have
an adverse impact on the management of research and research outputs. It is worthy to
note that that almost half of the PhD students currently registered in the centre are
supervised by one senior member of the centre, and of the 27 monographs published
by staff of the centre since 2004, a substantial number were authored by the same
senior member of staff. Similar issues arise in relation to the issue of successionplanning for the Centre. The Centre notes in its self-assessment report that the current
Director may reach retirement in five years’ time.
There appear to be continuing issues relating to the management of PhD workloads,
which were noted in the previous report and recommendations therein.
The reviewers would like to make the following recommendations to ensure the
continued development of the organization and management of the centre.
2.1
In order to ensure the effective long-term development of the centre and its
staff, a more effective arrangement for sharing of workloads and responsibilities needs
to be implemented. This would also have the added effect of supporting staff
development.
2.2
Although the reviewers acknowledge the undoubted benefits of teaching and
administrative duties for the training, professional development and curriculum vitae
of PhD students, a more effective monitoring of workloads is recommended.
2.3
The review group recommends that the centre seek clarity from the University
on the exact workload obligations for students in receipt of a University fellowship,
and mechanisms by which this is discharged.
2.4
The review group recommends that the Centre and the University begin to
address the issue of succession planning within the next two to three years at the latest
to ensure that the excellent reputation and current track-record of the Centre are
sustained.
3.
Programmes and Instruction
The centre has a number of excellent LLM programmes and contributes to the new
BA Connect undergraduate degree. In a number of important respects the centre has
chosen to depart from the recommendations of the previous review in that it has
expanded the range of teaching activities by engaging in teaching the BA Connect
programme. Furthermore, the centre has introduced Masters programmes in
International Criminal Law and in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However,
these new departures have allowed the centre to engage with other constituent groups
in the University in a beneficial manner. We do not view these as negative departures
provided that they can be achieved within the resources available to the centre. In this
regard, for example, concerns continue to be expressed by some students about
specific library resources (in particular the absence of relevant textbooks and
monographs) and space.
The reviewers would like to suggest the following recommendations to underpin the
continued success of the centre’s programmes and instruction.
4
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Review Report 2009-2010
3.1
The centre should continue to explore further initiatives with the School of
Law. The reviewers note that moves are afoot to move in this direction (for example,
the possibility of Centre students taking masters modules in the School of Law and
School of Law students taking Centre modules) and would actively encourage such
initiatives.
3.2
In order to maintain the high levels of student interest in its masters
programmes, the centre should continue to explore the most effective means of
bringing these to the attention of both national and international audiences.
4.
Scholarship and Research
The reviewers have already commented on the quality of the research outputs and
excellent environment provided by the centre for PhD training. The review group note
that the funding environment has changed quite substantially since the last report and
the centre seems to have responded to that change by developing a strategy that is
dependent on student and fee income. The risk to the centre is that this change
coupled with recent changes to the administration of budgets within the University
will mean that the centre will have less direct control over its budget than was the case
previously. Therefore, a case may now exist for the centre to realign some of its
research efforts towards generating external support for its activities. If the centre is
encouraged to move in this direction, it needs clarity from the University on how the
income that is generated will be distributed between the centre and the University.
The reviewers would like to offer the following recommendations:
4.1
We note that the recommendations under ‘Scholarship and Research’ in the
previous review do not appear to have been implemented and we recommend that
University and centre revisit the previous recommendations.
[Extract from Reviewers Report 2003-2004, 5th April 2004]
4.1 There should be clear guidelines regarding supervision routines and expectations for
Ph.D students.
4.2 PhD completion rate needs to be monitored
4.3 The University should develop measures to gauge research output"
4.2
The centre should consider exploring research benchmarking (e.g. a RAE-like
exercise or similar option) in consultation with external colleagues.
4.3
The centre should aim to closely align its research priorities with the
University’s Strategic plan.
5.
Community Service and the Wider Context
While the Centre has clearly engaged in civil society, in particular at local and
international levels, the review group make the following recommendation to improve
the Centre’s service to and visibility within the community and in the wider national
context:
5.1
The centre should draw on its expertise to inform the University on strategy
and policy in the area of Human Rights.
5
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Review Report 2009-2010
6.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The continued high profile of the Centre as an international ‘Centre of Excellence’ in
Human Rights is clearly evident from its significant international reputation and the
involvement of its staff in important international research and policy matters. Further
evidence is provided by the quality and number of its publications and the diversity
and quality of its students.
Since the previous review, the centre has continued to maintain a steady course of
development and performance. However, to sustain its considerable reputation in the
present climate and to ensure its long term development we recommend that the
centre pays particular attention to developing strategic links with allied disciplines and
develops a succession plan to sustain the growth and profile of the centre.
The importance of key support from the University, specifically in providing clarity
regarding the distribution of research funds, support for research activities and the
necessary infrastructure is essential to underpin the future of the ICHR as an excellent
flagship for the University.
In conclusion, the Review Group would like to express its gratitude to the all of the
staff and students of the Irish Centre for Human Rights for the manner in which they
engaged with and facilitated the Review Group and Quality review process. The
Review Group hopes that the recommendations will underpin and sustain the many
excellent achievements of the Centre into the future.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
1.
2.
3.
The quality of the Self-assessment report and the documentation provided by the
Centre and the Quality Office prior to, and during the review process are fully
acknowledged by the Review Group.
The meetings arranged during the review process with Centre and University
staff, as well as students were both informative and helpful.
The Review Group would like to acknowledge the excellent organization and
support provided by the Quality Office Director and staff during the review
process.
Professor Christopher Gane, University of Aberdeen (Chair);
Professor John Jackson, University College Dublin;
Mr. Eamon MacAodha, Irish Human Rights Commission;
Dr Sinisa Malesevic, NUI Galway;
Dr Maria Tuohy, NUI Galway (Rapporteur)
(11th March 2010).
6