National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 - 2010
REVIEW OF THE MOORE INSTITUTE
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY
Final REPORT
(24th March 2010)
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
Introduction and Summary Overview
This report arises from a visit by a review panel to the Moore Institute (MI) on
2nd March 2010. The panel had received in advance of the visit a self
assessment report completed by the Institute, along with other supporting
documentation.
The review panel consisted of: Professor Jane Ohlmeyer, Erasmus Smith’s
Professor of Modern History, School of History and Humanities, Trinity
College Dublin (Chair); Professor John McGowan, Director of the Institute of
Arts and Humanities, University of North Carolina; Ms Caitriona Crowe,
National Archives of Ireland; Dr Aoife Boyd, Department of Microbiology, NUI
Galway; and Dr Tony Dundon, J. E. Cairnes School of Business and
Economics, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
The review panel would like to thank the director and staff of the MI for
providing informative documentation and for facilitating such a constructive
site visit. We would also like to congratulate all those associated with the MI
on the quality and scale of research activity, and on their exceptional
achievements over the course of the past decade. It would be invidious to
single out any particular project for praise, but the panel felt that the
extraordinary career achievements of MI postdoctoral fellows should be
noted. The panel also found all staff to be fully engaged in the process and
highly committed to the scholarly and collegiate environment of the MI.
Importantly, across the Arts and Humanities (A&H), research paradigms are
changing as more collaborative frameworks become increasingly common
and as graduate education and instruction shifts to a structured platform of
delivery. The MI has a leading role to play in championing such a shifting
research paradigm for the A&H through its population of new academic
spaces, its advocacy function both within and outside the university, its
enabling approach to new research ideas, and by fostering a research culture
of scholars facilitating best practice graduate education. These reflect the
high standards of excellence of research in the A&H for NUI Galway and the
region, given the collaborative environment created by those associated with
the MI primarily (though not exclusively) through the College of Arts, Social
Sciences and Celtic Studies.
In this context of research excellence the reviewers explored a number of
sensitive issues with members of the university’s senior management team,
and would like to report the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
PRTLI 5: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Research Building
(AH & SS). The Registrar and Deputy President confirmed
unequivocally that this building would go ahead irrespective of the
outcome of PRTLI5.
Research funding: A new internal university-wide fund to support
research (the Research Support Fund Strategic Initiatives Scheme,
derived from research overheads) was to be advertised on the day
of the site visit; A&H researchers are encouraged to apply.
Research committee: Concern about the lack of activity of the
university’s research committee was explored. It was confirmed to
2
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
the panel that the membership of this committee had been
reviewed and the committee was in the process of being reconstituted with revised terms of reference. The composition of the
new research committee would include a representative of the
directors of the university’s four research institutes, including MI.
iv.
Sabbatical leave: Proposed changes to the university’s sabbatical
leave policy were explored by the panel. While precise details are
yet to be finalised, the panel felt that the university’s senior
management team are aware of a number of implications
concerning the impact of proposed changes on scholarship and
research. There was a ‘sense’ that provision for one semester of
leave every 3 to 4 years might be a likely outcome. The views and
representations of MI and A&H scholars were acknowledged in this
process by senior managers of NUI Galway.
The panel congratulate and welcome the senior university management
team’s recognition that A&H researchers are making to the university, in
particular the strenuous improvements made by A&H scholars in exercises
like the THES rankings. The panel welcomed the university’s commitment to
research scholarship, with the A&H as one of five key strategic research
priorities for the university, and the MI as the ‘flagship’ institute for research in
the A&H. The panel’s view is that by focussing on existing strengths and
building on real achievements, the MI and A&H research will help ‘raise the
game’ across the university as a whole.
The reviewers felt that the MI has suffered somewhat from an ambiguous
status in the university; located between a faculty-driven initiative and a fullyfledged institute which falls short of graduate school status. Notwithstanding
reference to the MI in the university’s recent strategic plan, it appears that the
MI has never been given a clear objective and signal from above. The review
panel felt this was reflected to some extent in an awkward and somewhat
vague mission for the MI as a whole. Recognising that MI staff continue to
make significant inroads and scholarly contributions, it was evident to the
panel that many of these emerged opportunistically rather than through a
coordinated and proactive plan. The reviewers therefore suggest that the MI
ought to be given a more specific objective of facilitating research and
graduate studies for the A&H at NUI Galway.
The MI is at a significant juncture in its development. Having emerged
organically from a highly respected academic community, the MI has grown
through strong academic leadership of international repute. Importantly, the
MI is faced with a number of immediate issues, and the decisions taken now
will shape the future research platform for the institution. In this context the
report makes seven specific areas of recommendations, as follows:
1. Leadership of the Moore Institute
2. Steering Group
3. Funding of the Institute
3
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
4. Moore Institute Governance
5. Communications
6. Graduate Studies Programme and Instruction
7. The Moore Institute Mission
1. Leadership of the Moore Institute
The MI has had an exceptional if not unrivalled quality of academic
leadership, and the significance of this to the achievements of the MI to date
cannot be overstated. It is imperative that a scholar of international repute
(i.e. with a significant number of peer-review publications, a track record in
grant writing and securing grants, significant experience of supervising
graduate students and mentoring postdocs), who is capable of providing
charismatic leadership, and with a proven track record of interacting
effectively with a wide range of stakeholders including key leaders in
institutions (academic and other) and potential donors, be appointed. Given
the retirement of Professor Canny, the role and function of academic
leadership for the MI should be an immediate priority and the reviewers
recommend the following:
1. The position of academic director is externally advertised as soon as
possible (and the appropriate budget line identified as a strategic
priority)
2. The appointment is made in a timely fashion with a view to having a
new director in place by January 2011
3. There is a ‘handover’ period with the existing and new director working
together for approximately six months
4. The first task of the new director should be to undertake, in conjunction
with the Dean of College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies, a
full strategic review of research in the A&H.
2. Steering Group
Given the unequivocal commitments reported to the review panel by the
university’s senior management team (see above), in particular that the
university will proceed with a new building for Arts, Humanities and Social
Sciences (AH & SS), the reviewers recommend the establishment of a
steering group. The steering group should include as a minimum the following
in its terms of reference:
1. To include all relevant stakeholders who will occupy the new AH & SS
building, with the MI as the ‘anchor’ tenant (as reported to the panel by
the Registrar and Deputy President)
2. To oversee and to allocate space in the new AH & SS building to
maximise collegiality and creativity
3. To outline the proposed activities of the MI in the new AH & SS space
4
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
3. Funding of the Institute
The funding arrangements for the MI have been based primarily on what can
be defined as ‘soft’ funding (e.g. PRTLI / IRCHSS etc). While the reviewers
note the support of the university in providing some additional funding in
terms of space and staff, the panel feels the Institute is severely under-funded
relative to its academic standing and achievements to date as the ‘flagship’
institute for A&H for NUI Galway. The reviewers therefore recommend, as a
matter of urgency, the establishment of a longer-term funding strategy that
would insure the sustainability of MI for the next decade. In considering such
a long-term strategy the reviewers recommend that the following three
elements be included as a minimum:
1. A ‘soft funding’ element (PRTLI, IRCHSS, Mellon, FP7 etc). In
particular existing funding achievements (such as IRCHSS and Mellon)
should continue. At the same time a more proactive element should be
included in the ‘soft fund’ plan by targeting new revenue-generating
streams for research income (e.g. European Union, FP7 etc).
2. A ‘core funding’ element to cover core staff salaries, space and other
essential costs. The reviewers recommend that the MI and College
Dean seek to re-direct income from the €4.3 million surplus generated
by the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies into core MI
activities.
3. A ‘philanthropic funding’ element. The reviewers recommend that an
officer of the Galway Foundation be exclusively dedicated to Arts and
Humanities research funding, embedded within the College of Arts,
Social Sciences, and Celtic Studies, and reporting to both the Director
of the MI and the Dean of the College.
4. Moore Institute Governance
The reviewers noted the high degree of engagement of all staff associated
with the MI, and the clear structures for the efficient operation and
management of the institute. The review panel also noted the small number
of female PIs and female academic leaders (Heads of School and Academic
Disciplines) associated with the MI. Given the MI’s development and current
stage of transition, the panel feels that a re-aligned governance arrangement
may help make improvements in this area, and recommends the following:
1. External Advisory Board: This should be reconstituted with a view to
comprising a range of stakeholders who may assist with academic
direction of the MI and in particular dedicated fundraising
opportunities. The Board should be active and proactive rather than
passive and reactive. It should meet regularly at a stage deemed
appropriate to the MI.
2. Internal Management Board: The membership of this Board needs to
be transparent and inclusive, comprising key internal stakeholders of
the MI (Dean, Heads of Schools, PIs, MI staff, post-graduate student
and Post-doctoral representatives etc).
5
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
5. Communications
The review panel were impressed with the level of engagement and dialogue
among all stakeholders, including staff, students and post-doctoral fellows.
The reviewers observed some fragmentation in relation to communications
among groups, with attendant perceptions of elitism between academic
disciplines and across the post-graduate student cohorts affiliated with the MI.
There is also an influential advocacy role for the MI in relation to the
dissemination and communication of its activities. The reviewers therefore
make the following recommendations:
1. Internal Communications within the MI:
a. To communicate more regularly, either via email or an
internal newsletter, with all graduate students informing them
of developments, progress on projects and general news
items relevant to the MI. Additionally to encourage and
facilitate regular communications between the MI graduate
students and students, researchers and academics in the
Schools of the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic
Studies.
b. To implement a graduate student seminar series to enable
students and staff to interact informally, share ideas and
report progress on research within the student cohort for the
MI. This need not be weekly but should be regular, perhaps
one or two per semester.
c. To include internal and external speakers as part of the MI
seminar series.
d. To establish periodic meetings between graduate students
and the MI Development Manager to discuss general issues
of interest, especially with regards to funding and career
development opportunities.
2. Advocacy and dissemination among stakeholders (internal and
external):
a. To promote actively MI activities internally within NUI
Galway, through official university publications and the MI
web site
b. To showcase leading outreach activities, both internally and
externally to the general public. There are many ‘great
stories’, and a proactive plan to articulate these effectively is
strongly encouraged.
c. To consider a MI publication imprint. This may include a
range of media including digitised images, working series
monographs and possible ISBN catalogued publications
bearing the MI imprint as publisher or co-publisher. The
university’s ‘grant-in-aid of publications’ fund may assist in
this regard.
6
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
6. Graduate Studies Programme and Instruction
The review panel was extremely impressed with the quality of graduate
students we met, reflecting a strong degree of engagement between staff and
students associated with the MI. It was also evident to the reviewers that
graduates who progress to post-doctoral positions have subsequently
achieved extraordinary career positions at world class institutions
internationally, reflecting the quality of graduate instruction and supervision.
To this end the reviewers felt that the MI has evolved into a central part of the
university's strategy going forward, in particular the university’s aspirations
toward becoming a research-led institution. However the MI’s central role in
that mission has never been officially announced and the reviewers
concluded that it would be advantageous to both the MI and the university to
publically endorse the MI as the key player in its efforts to maintain and
increase A&H research. The university (or the College of Arts, Social
Sciences and Celtic Studies) should officially designate the MI the leading
player in developing a coordinated approach to post-graduate studies in the
arts and humanities for NUI Galway. Given some of the methodological and
paradigm shifts in A&H research noted above, coupled with university-wide
developments for graduate training and a structured PhD platform, the
reviewers make the following recommendations:
1. Consideration be given by the Registrar and Deputy President, the
Dean of the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies, and
the Director of the MI to how closer co-ordination might be achieved
between the various programmes for the induction, mentoring and
formation of graduate students in A&H disciplines that have been
devised by the MI, by the Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and by the
Schools and Disciplines of the College. The review panel believes that
the MI should play the role of principal coordinator in consultation with
these other interests to develop a coherent Graduate School for the
Arts and Humanities at NUI Galway, particularly in anticipation of all
research students in A&H disciplines being housed in the projected AH
& SS building.
.
2. The reviewers recommend that even in advance of the completion of
such consultations in recommendation 6.1 above, an early review of
current graduate training and supervision is undertaken in order to
increase alignment in these practices. This has two subrecommendations:
a. The reviewers noted some variability in student supervisory
arrangements. We therefore recommend a consistent approach,
with team-based graduate supervision for all research students
in the A&H. Guidelines from the university’s Dean of Graduate
Studies should be considered in this regard. Recommendation
5.1(b) above referring to a graduate student seminar may also
accrue a credit value in a new structured PhD arrangement that
7
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
is under consideration (as could conference presentations and
fieldwork-based activities).
b. The reviewers also obtained the impression that few academic
supervisors had received supervisory training. We therefore
recommend the introduction of at least a mentoring system for
staff new to PhD supervision. Team-based supervisory boards
will facilitate mentoring arrangements between experienced and
less experienced staff. In addition, the university’s Centre for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CELT) could offer further
advice and support with regard to supervisory training.
7. The Moore Institute Mission
As noted above the MI has a compelling story to tell and needs to reflect on
how best it might do this in this period of change and transition. The panel
were particularly impressed with the general feeling that the MI is an enabling,
bottom-up facilitator of ideas and creativity and a hospitable space for
researchers in the A&H. This dynamic and vibrant environment is perhaps not
reflected clearly or consistently in the Institute’s mission, and reviewers
recommend the following:
1. Devise a clearer and more exciting vision/mission for the MI. This may
be considered in relation to some of the above recommendations for a
strategic review, a new steering group, or as part of the new director’s
role in the near future—and in the context of a clearer mandate from
the university for the MI to take the leading role in arts and humanities
research.
2. Communicate and publicise the new mission both internally and
externally to the general public.
8
The Moore Institute: Review Report, March 2010
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Moore Institute is at a critical juncture in its development. It is the
‘flagship’ Institute for research in the arts and humanities for NUI Galway. It
has achieved impressive results and outputs to date and its continued
success is dependent on a number of key decisions that need to be taken
now. There is considerable energy, enthusiasm and support within the MI that
can ‘raise the research game’ for the university as whole. Above all,
sustainability is dependent upon dedicated core funding, transparent
leadership and governance, and an engaged graduate student body. The
reviewers would like to emphasise very strongly that as NUI Galway is in
transition towards advancing its objectives of being a research-led institution,
more formal structures for A&H research and graduate studies can be better
embedded at an institutional level. The MI is an invaluable resource to such
an end, but it needs to be given official standing to make the most of its
potential. With a significant standing in the institution should come
sustainable core funding. The review panel’s conclusion is that reciprocal
commitment among senior university management and MI staff exists to
obtain and channel available resources to help maintain an Institute of
international scholarly repute.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The review panel would like to thank the Director of Quality, Dr David
O’Sullivan and the staff in the Quality Office in guiding and facilitating the
review panel. We would also like to thank in particular Martha Shaughnessy
and Marie Kennedy of the Moore Institute for accommodating our needs
during the visit.
The panel would like to make the following comments in relation to the quality
review process:
1. The panel found the process to be objective and independent and we
welcomed the freedom to explore issues with staff in an open and
collegiate manner.
2. Additional information and documentation was provided to us in an
efficient and timely manner.
3. The schedule of meetings was extremely tight, and additional time
might have been allocated to the session with post-graduate students.
4. The opportunity to review and reflect on the Institute’s own selfassessment report well in advance of the visit was essential.
Professor Jane Ohlmeyer (Chair)
Professor John McGowan
Ms Caitriona Crowe
Dr Aoife Boyd
Dr Tony Dundon (Rapporteur)
(24th March 2010).
9