National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 - 2010
REVIEW OF
SCHOOL OF LAW
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY
Final REPORT
14th April 2010
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the School of Law on February 23 rd and
24th 2010. The School of Law 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 Neil Hutton, Strathclyde Law School, (Chair)
Professor Blanaid Clarke, Law School, University College Dublin, Ms Jane Babb, Director of
Trainee Programme, Arthur Cox Law Firm, Dr James Cunningham, Director, Centre for
Innovation and Structural Change and Professor Agnes Shiel, School of Health Sciences
Chair); NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
Introduction
In the time since the last review the School has had some notable successes. Student
numbers have increased and students are positive about the programmes as evidenced by
the numbers who choose to remain to take postgraduate programmes. The School has a
public profile beyond it’s size and makes a commendable contribution to society both
through staff involvement and the Clinical programme undertaken by the students. There
was considerable evidence of enthusiasm, professionalism and energy amongst the staff
which the panel acknowledges. The Self Assessment document provides a helpful and often
frank evaluation of the challenges facing the school and describes a range of positive
responses which have either already been implemented or are proposed.
However the School currently faces major challenges similar to those being experienced by
schools across the HE sector not only in Ireland but in the UK. The School continues to face
leadership challenges despite the efforts of current staff to steer the school in a more
positive direction.
Given the pace of change both in the HE sector internationally and in NUI Galway, the
review panel feels that there was an urgent need to accelerate the pace of change in the
Law School. The Head of School is due to retire and there is no obvious succession plan in
place. The core businesses of the School are to provide high quality legal education at
undergraduate and postgraduate level, to lead and participate in high quality research and
to engage with the local community. It is imperative that staff continue to contribute to all
three but there is a particular need to take a more strategic approach to the integration of
teaching and research. The Centres and the former department have not yet been able to
work together as a single cohesive unit and the impression given is that the Centres
continue to operate as independent entities.
There are four main themes emerging from the Review which should receive priority
attention from the School.




The development of a distinctive international vision for the School.
The need to build on the emerging leadership within the staff of the School and to
plan for the successor to the current Head of School.
The need for a more focused research strategy.
The urgent need to integrate the research centres with the former Department of
Law into a single school with a cohesive management structure.
1. Aims and Objectives
The School has been formed recently and is at a relatively early stage of strategic
development. The key achievements identified have been the restructuring (which is
ongoing), the increases in programmes and in numbers of students, improved levels of
staffing and the contribution of the Research Centres. Other points noted are the
appointment of the Associate Heads of Teaching, Learning and Assessment and of Research
and the appointment of the Tutorial Co-ordinator.
In the Strategic Plan 2009-2014, the School has articulated aims and objectives clearly under
a variety of headings, however, the School is still struggling to define a clear vision of what
makes NUI Galway Law School distinctive and unique in national and international setting .
The School needs to focus on those areas of strength which it wishes to grow and develop
and those areas of activity in which the school ought to consider dis-investment. Such a
focus will allow for greater coherence in terms of allocation of time, resources and effort of
all the school.
Benchmarking
A national or international benchmarking exercise has not yet taken place. The School
should now prioritise this work. It will enable the School to get a more accurate picture of
the competitive environment and provide staff with a clear picture of how the NUI Galway
Law School sits in comparison to other Law Schools in terms of such issues as workload,
learning and teaching strategies and research quality.
Recommendations

An overarching distinctive and international vision for School needs to be clearly
articulated

Staff have made significant progress in the development of a more strategic
approach to managing the work of the School. As the school evolves, it is essential
that the Head of School receives the full support of all members of staff in
developing and implementing the changes proposed in the strategy.

The University should continue to review the relationship between Colleges and
Schools and clarify the distribution of responsibilities and lines of reporting.

An international benchmarking exercise must be completed as soon as possible.
2. Organization and management
The School has made a good start in terms of developing management structures but
despite this, there appear to be significant issues which have not been resolved despite the
best efforts of staff. The different components of the School (Law and Centres) operate
independently for the most part and staff are not clear about the implications of
restructuring. The appointment of Associate Heads and Programme Directors is a positive
one. However, as yet, Programme Directors have no real authority and do not have a
structure to work within – for example; they do not meet on a regular basis. However, this
role is new and will develop, given adequate support. The School is evolving and the
different components are learning to work together but function separately at present. It
was also noted that bureaucracy seems to have increased since the introduction of the
School structure but this is a perception and there was no evidence to support or refute it.
A number of staff are attempting to undertake PhD studies in addition to other duties and it
is not clear to them the extent to which this is being supported by the school, college and
university. Junior staff commented on the workload particularly in relation to teaching and
administration and expressed concern regarding future promotion if they were not
supported in completing PhD studies and developing a research agenda. There are three
School meetings per semester but it was mentioned that the agenda for these is crowded
leaving little time for longer term strategic discussions. There is clear evidence of collegiality
particularly in smaller groups and amongst junior staff.
Location
The activities of the school are widely dispersed across the campus. It was recognised in the
2000 review that this dispersal hindered more cohesive and efficient, collaborative working
and this continues to be the case. It is important to develop plans for co-location but these
will take time to implement and in the meantime it is vitally important that despite the
physical difficulties, the School develops immediate plans to work as a single unit.
Staffing
The ratio of junior to senior staff in the school creates leadership issues. There is also an
over-reliance on contract teaching staff on core programme offerings. While this makes a
vital contribution to the teaching of the School, it makes it more difficult to develop a more
strategic and cohesive approach to learning and teaching.
In discussion with staff, it appears that while some staff felt that the restructuring of the
University was positive, many did not seem to understand the rationale behind the changes.
There is a lack of clarity in the relationships between schools and college in particular.
Resources
The School is a net contributor to the University. Staff feel disappointed that the School has
not been able to invest this surplus to develop the School. This is recognised at senior levels
in the University. The challenge for the Law School is to demonstrate to senior management
that the School has a clear vision and a strategy for achieving this which will justify
investment.
Management and Administration
The three research centres seem to have very considerable independence from the former
department. While there may be good reasons for this particularly in terms of research, it is
not clear that this arrangement makes the best use of resources across the School’s
activities. The School and College should develop plans to integrate the Centres and the
former department within one month of the date of this report and these plans should be
implemented within three months of the date hereof.
The structure and role of the School Executive Committee needs to be clarified. Terms of
reference for this group need to be developed and communicated to all School members.
The function of the committee should be to develop a strategy (in alignment with the
Institutional plan), implement the necessary changes and monitor progress. Individual
members of the school executive committee will be required to take the lead on delegated
activities in order to drive implementation of the strategic plan.
Recommendations
The School needs to implement a plan to work with the School of Business to strengthen the
College. It is recommended that the School examine the potential of the clinical programme
as a vehicle to drive the public policy element of the new College
 The recommendations of the Administration Review 2005 should be revisited. The
informing principles underlying the review are endorsed and it is recommended
these principles be updated and implemented within two months of the date of this
report.

A workload model should be implemented for the beginning of the next academic
year and embedded into the culture of the School. This should include teaching,
administration, research, PhD supervision duties, community and outreach activities.

Staff Development. The School should introduce a structured induction and
mentoring programme which becomes embedded in the culture of the school.
Senior members of staff should undertake training as to how to assist their mentees
most effectively. This could be done in conjunction with the University’s mentoring
proposals. Furthermore, mentoring should be part of a more systematic approach to
the development of junior staff. In addition, the HOS position should be supported
by a mentor.

The School should introduce a five year plan to facilitate staff undertaking PhD
studies to plan their sabbatical leave.

Regular (monthly) School staff meetings should be scheduled to nurture teamwork
and collegiality across the School, share expertise and harness the energy and
enthusiasm of all staff members. The schedule of meetings should be circulated to all
staff in good time.
Location
The School in consultation with the College and the University should develop a plan to
locate the School’s activities on a single site. It is recognised that this will take several years
and that external funds are likely to be required. In the meantime, the University should
examine the possibility of making additional space available to the School.
Resources
The University should establish an approach to resource allocation which enables cross
subsidisation to be justified on more transparent strategic grounds.
3. Programmes and Instruction
The Panel noted that there has been positive progress since the last review. The strength of
the Clinical aspect of the programme is particularly commendable and it is acknowledged
that the School is a National Leader in this aspect of legal education. The appointment of
the Associate Head of Teaching, Learning and Assessment is seen as a very positive
development. However, a number of issues regarding programmes have been identified.
There are a variety of programmes and the rationale for the continuation of the three
undergraduate pathways is not clear. CAO points and first preference choices for the
programmes are declining and this is a source of concern in an increasing competitive
national environment. There is heavy reliance on contract teaching and a significant
commitment to service teaching. Teaching workloads are perceived as being high and
timetabling is an issue with lectures being timetabled up to 10pm in some instances.
Feedback from students is taken via a standard feedback form but it is up to individual
lecturers whether issues identified by students are addressed and whether feedback on this
is given to students. Some lecturers have undertaken the grouped student evaluations
offered by CELT but again, lecturers are not required to report on the results of these to
students.
From the perspectives of the students interviewed, feedback on teaching overall was very
positive with students commending staff on the standard of lectures offered and their
availability and approachability. However, the timetabling issues were identified as
problematic by students. The over reliance on examinations as a form of assessment was
also mentioned and undergraduate students pointed out that attendance at lectures was
not always seen by the students as essential. They suggested that other methods of
assessment e.g. presentations and continuous assessment might address this. Other
students questioned the progression from the undergraduate programmes to the LL.B
programme suggesting that clearer direction should be given to prospective students. In
particular, they enquired about the possibility of “core law subjects” being available at
undergraduate level. There is scope for a radical review of how the portfolio of
undergraduate education is comprised and delivered.
Recommendations
 A Teaching and Learning strategy for the School should be developed and
implemented. This should include the alignment of learning outcomes with
assessment techniques.
 There is currently an over reliance on end of term examinations. The School
should introduce a much wider range of assessment methods which measure the
full range of learning outcomes including both substantive knowledge and
transferable skills.
 The undergraduate portfolio should be reviewed to ensure that the most
efficient use of teaching resource is being achieved.
 The School should examine the contribution of the clinical elements of the
undergraduate programme and consider whether this element should be further
developed as a distinctive feature of legal education at NUI Galway.
 The Masters portfolio should be reviewed to ensure that the programmes are
sustainable and contribute to the overall strategic vision of the School
The school should focus on increasing the number of non-NUI Galway graduates
and of foreign students on the LLM programmes.
 Student feedback should be collected on each module / course. This should be
summarised in a brief annual evaluation report with action points identified and
made available to students in a more systematic way across all programmes.
 The University should consider the impact of the reduction in CAO points for the
reputation of the School and University and balance this against the increased
student numbers which bring additional pressures to the staff workload. Some
further analysis of this reduction should be undertaken by the School in
conjunction with the Director of Marketing. In addition, the School should
activity engage in developing a schools visiting programme.
 The School should consider renaming the BA in Legal Science “the BA in Law”.
This is likely to be more attractive to students and employers and easier to
market. That course and the Bachelor of Corporate Law should include all of the
core legal subjects
 The School should involve students more directly in marketing its programmes
using them as ambassadors.
 Formal meetings of Programme Directors should be set up to ensure coordination of activities and that sharing and collaborative opportunities are
exploited to their fullest.
 A formalised approach to Programme Development should be introduced.
Programme Boards should be established for all programmes to support the
Programme Directors and to provide both strategic and operational support in
sustaining and developing these programmes.
 At present, Programme Directors do a lot of programme administration in some
of the masters programmes. Clarification of roles and responsibilities is required
and the type of administrative support that the school can provide to the
Programme Directors.
 Transparency of teaching workloads across the school is required and front
loading and back loading of semester should be considered.







The School should review its policy on service teaching with a view to reducing
the considerable teaching burden imposed on staff. Alternative methods of
facilitating interdisciplinary research might be considered to ensure that the
existing benefits of such collaborative work are not lost.
Where possible modules should be shared across programmes to promote
economies of scale.
There should be greater clarity regarding career progression and further
advancement for graduates.
The School should consider increasing the BCL from 3 to 4 years. This would
allow students to pursue a greater degree of options and to participate more
fully in clinical modules.
The School should set up formal avenues for regular staff / student liaison
meetings.
The School should ensure clear differentiation between undergraduate and
postgraduate teaching.
The School should review the issue of attendance among students and consider
how best the problem of poor attendance may be addressed.
4. Scholarship and Research
Research in the School is presented in two distinct areas – from the Centres and from the
former Department of Law. The School has improved both the amount and quality of
research output over the last ten years and a considerable number of staff is research
active. There are some areas of distinctive excellence both in the Centres and in individual
contributions. However, there is an urgent need to develop a more strategic approach to
research in the School. There are no external standards applied and funding is dependent on
the efforts of a few people who are very successful in attracting funds. Recruitment of PhD
students should be a core responsibility for all staff and staff should be supported in
developing their skills in supervision. The School has had little engagement to date with the
Research Office and it was stated by some staff that their research focus did not sit easily
within the University Strategy. As the University prepares to review research priorities, it is
imperative that the School of Law contributes to the definition and development of the new
strategy to ensure their interests are represented. The School should move towards
developing clusters and building a critical mass around these. This does not mean that
individual interests should be abandoned - there need be no conflict between individual
scholarship and a move towards interdisciplinary research themes to which individual
scholars contribute, but this is not always clear to staff who often see interdisciplinary as a
threat to their personal area of research. There needs to be improved communication in this
area.
Recommendations
 The School needs to develop a more focused research identity.
 The School must act immediately to contribute to the shaping of the University plans
for research, performance, measurement and mentoring.










The School should initiate an audit of the research outputs of all School staff over a
five year period. This exercise should be supported by one or two external
international scholars who are qualified to make judgements about international
research quality.
The School must identify and agree standards of research output. This should set
quality benchmarks which are disseminated across the School and used for staff
development.
Each member of staff should develop an individual research plan setting out most
recent publications and detailed plans for research activity and output over the next
3-5 years. This should include short term and long term objectives. These plans
should be monitored annually by the Associate Head of Research.
Individual staff research outputs should be documented annually and published both
internally and on the School Research website.
Staff should be encouraged to identify research themes into which their work fits
both inside and outside the institution, and to develop closer collaborative research
networks.
Research mentoring should be available for all staff. If necessary, external mentors
should be approached.
Support must be provided for staff (including contract staff) undertaking PhD
studies. This should be factored into the workload model.
The School should engage more actively with the Vice President for Research and
utilise this resource as a means to support the School in the planning and
implementation of its research strategy.
The School should upload and maintain a specific page on the School Research
website highlighting recent achievements.
The School should encourage all qualified staff to attract PhD students.
5. Community Service
There is wide evidence of support for community engagement, service learning and
volunteering. The clinical placements are particularly commendable and were commented
on favourably by both staff and students. This is a distinctive element of the teaching in the
Law school in NUI Galway. However, this strength is not given the emphasis it deserves at
present. It can be used as a marketing tool and is an aspect of the undergraduate
programmes which will attract students from similar courses where such programmes are
not offered. The University has prioritised Service Learning and support for development in
this area is available through CELT and should be availed of to a greater degree. Individual
staff in the School also make major contributions to the community and again, more
emphasis can be placed on this too as an identifying feature of the School as a whole.
Recommendations
 Clinical placements should be extended and developed further. To achieve this,
more assistance in sourcing and supporting placements as well as administration
support will be required.



The School should emphasise the clinical aspect of the Programmes as a distinctive
‘selling point’ for students and employers.
The School should emphasis and give greater visibility to staff contributions.
The School should increase the involvement of CELT and the CKI in particular in
programme development in Service Learning
6. The Wider Context
In the context of resources constraints, it is critical that the School of Law develops further a
unique national and international identity. This requires strong leadership in all aspects of
its activities and different organisational approaches in supporting the development of a
distinct identity.
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The School of Law has made significant progress since the last review and now has a public
profile beyond its size. The strength of the Clinical programme is particularly commendable
and it is acknowledged that the School is a National Leader in this aspect of Legal education.
There is wide evidence of support for community engagement, service learning and
volunteering. In terms of research, the School has improved both the amount and quality of
research output over the last 10 years and there are areas of distinctive excellence in both
in the Centres and among individual staff. In light of the pace of change currently both in the
HE sector internationally and at NUI Galway, there is an urgent need to accelerate the pace
of change in the School of Law and a particular need to take a more strategic approach to
the integration of teaching and research. Consequently, the Review Panel have identified
four over-arching recommendations which should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
These are:




The development of a distinctive international vision for the School.
The need to build on the emerging leadership within the staff of the School and to
plan for the successor to the current Head of School.
The need for a more focused research strategy.
The urgent need to integrate the research centres with the former Department of
Law into a single school with a cohesive management structure.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The review process involved two distinct elements – the report produced by the School and
the process undertaken by the Review Board. The report from the School was produced by a
committee of School staff. The report was presented using the structure recommended by
the Quality office. Methodologies used to gather the data were not clearly described in all
cases but included a SWOT analysis and collation of data regarding student matters (CAO
points, numbers of undergraduate and postgraduate students, staff details in relation to
teaching and research activity, publications, grants awarded and detailed accounts of all
undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes. Less data were provided on the
activities of the various centres and the Irish centre for Human Rights provided a separate
self assessment as the Centre recently underwent an independent review.
The report produced by the School was detailed and addressed all aspects of performance
recommended by the Quality office. The self assessment undertaken by the School took a
descriptive approach as opposed to an evaluative approach. For example, publications were
listed under categories but research criterion were not set out or rated in any way. Similarly,
teaching commitments were summarised and did not provide a clear indication of individual
teaching workloads in some cases.
The review group met briefly on the evening of Monday 22nd February. Professor Neil
Hutton agreed to chair the Panel and the documentation was reviewed briefly and an initial
‘brainstorm’ of issues raised from the documentation was carried out. This served to focus
the attention of the Panel on issues which required clarification or further information and
which could be raised over the following two days.
The process undertaken by the review group on 23rd and 24th February used a range of
methodologies. These included –
Meeting with Head of School
Presentation on self assessment by Head of School
Interviews with Senior School staff
Group meetings with Programmes Directors and Associate Heads
Individual meetings with all staff wishing to meet the Panel
Meetings with groups of students – undergraduate, postgraduate and research
Meeting with the Administrative Officer
Meeting with Administrative staff
Meeting with the Vice Dean for Research
Meeting with the Director of CELT
Meeting with Head of College
All interviews and meetings, with the exception of those with staff who wished to meet the
review Panel, were recorded by the Rapporteur. A large number of individual staff wished to
meet the Panel and two parallel sessions were necessary. Notes on these sessions were
taken by Panel members where appropriate.
The approach taken by the Panel to analysing and summarising the information was
evaluative rather than descriptive and led directly to the recommendations made in the
body of this report. Copies of the notes taken during the meetings and interviews were
printed and provided to each member of the panel. An initial rough draft of the report
under the headings recommended by the Quality Office was provided by the Rapporteur.
Draft recommendations were made by the Panel on the basis of information and themes
identified from the interview and meeting data and from discussions among the Panel on
the basis of these data. Initially, each member of the Panel took one heading (e.g.
organisation and management) and drew up draft recommendations based upon the
themes, issues raised from the initial ‘brainstorm’ and the interviews and meetings over the
two days. These initial recommendations were then discussed by the Panel and the main
areas to be addressed were summarised into four main points and fed back to the School on
the last day of the review.
The initial draft of the report was prepared by the Rapporteur and sent to the Chair of the
Panel for review. Following this review, the draft report was circulated to all members of the
Panel for comment and feedback. The final draft incorporating these comments and
feedback was then circulated and agreed by all Panel members.
Professor Neil Hutton (Chair)
Professor Blanaid Clarke
Ms Jane Babb
Dr James Cunningham
Professor Agnes Shiel (Rapporteur)
(14th April 2010).