An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme, 2007–2008
Review of
BA Public and Social Policy
Final Report
4th April 2008
2
This report arises from a visit by the Review Group to the BA Public and Social Policy
programme on 1st February, 2008. The programme had already prepared and submitted a
'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the Review
Group in advance of the visit. Additional information was provided on the day of the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Professor Tim Blackman, Director, Wolfson Research
Institute, Durham University (Chair); Dr Brid Quinn, Department of Politics and Public
Administration, University of Limerick; Dr Rachel Cave, Department of Earth and Ocean
Sciences, NUI Galway; and Dr Andrew Flaus, Department of Biochemistry, NUI Galway
acting as rapporteur.
The report is structured under the following topics:
1. Introduction
2. Aims and Objectives
3. Organisation and Management
4. Programmes and Instruction
5. Scholarship and Research
6. The Wider Context
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
8. Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
1. Introduction
The BA in Public and Social Policy is a three-year multi-disciplinary degree operated as an
equal cooperation between the Departments of Political Science and Sociology and
Economics in the Faculty of Arts, and the Department of Law in the Faculty of Law. The
programme has been offered for some 10 years and currently has some 140 enrolled
students. As detailed in section A2.1 of the Self Assessment Report, Dr Michelle Millar of
the Department of Political Science and Sociology currently acts as Programme Coordinator
and this department sponsors the programme. Ms. Lucy Ann Buckley of the Department of
Law and Dr. Mary Silles of the Department of Economics act as departmental coordinators
for their respective departments.
2. Aims and Objectives
2.1 Stated Aims
The BA in Public and Social Policy (BA PSP) has the aim of providing students with a
detailed understanding of the basis and implications of policy through a multidisciplinary
programme of education. This entails groundings in political science and sociology,
economics and law.
2.2 Positioning and Perception
The BA PSP provides a novel undergraduate route into the area of public policy that the
Review Group understands to be distinct from related courses in other Irish universities, and
from diploma courses offered by the Institute of Public Administration. As explained to the
Review Group, the original intention was that the BA PSP would be a flagship course
attracting high calibre students and providing them with a substantive programme of
education from all three contributing departments.
3
In practice there is a widespread perception that the BA PSP now acts substantially as an
entry into 1st year Arts for those with insufficient Leaving Certificate points for the Arts
omnibus programme. Of the 495 preferences for the programme in 2007, 40 were first
preferences, although this was a 60% increase on 2006. The programme also acts as an
entry point for several mature students each year.
The most common single destination of those graduating from the BA PSP programme is
further study. This was the case for case for 60% of graduates in 2006, half of whom were
admitted to the LLB at NUI Galway. Few graduates appear to proceed into careers related
obviously to the public and social policy arena. The Head of the Careers Office commented
in a communication to the review group that election or success in first job entry was ‘very
poor’.
The mismatch between declared aim and actual positioning of the BA PSP was mirrored in
the lack of shared aims, common vision and clearly articulated rationale for the programme
among those who teach and take responsibility for it. However, the Review Group also
noted evidence of some impressive individual commitment to the programme.
The students that the Review Group met nevertheless made sense of the programme and
had a steadfastly positive view of it:
“If it was better marketed, I’d have put it down first [on my CAO form]. I’d have said
‘That’s what I want to do’” (1st year student)
“Economics, Law and Politics, and how everything comes together” (3rd year student)
“You have an opportunity to go in so many different directions” (past graduate)
Consistent with this, a focus group study commissioned by the Quality Office in which
approximately half of BA PSP students participated found that 60% declared themselves
satisfied and only 5% dissatisfied with the programme despite advancing a raft of criticisms
of its organization, content and management. The BA PSP programme appears to be valued
by a sizeable cohort of its students.
2.3 Programme Objectives
The divergence in staff perspectives on the programme is almost certainly linked to a lack
of clear objectives. This is the result of the absence of the normal structures expected for a
multi-disciplinary programme including a Programme Director, Teaching Committee,
curriculum inventory and explicit learning outcomes.
Additionally, a lack of uniqueness in the modules making up the programme is evident:
Some 80% of modules (as listed in the Self Assessment Report) appear to be shared with
other programmes, including the entirety of the 2nd year course.
The lack of common vision, explicit objectives and unique content militate against a clear
identity for the programme. Almost without exception, the staff that the Review Group met
identified themselves with their home departments instead of as leaders or contributors in a
degree ‘team’. Some staff complained that a high proportion of students were poorly
motivated as judged by attendance and assessment levels but this is no doubt exacerbated, if
not caused, by the lack of an academic community engaged in the programme, its concept
and its rationale. As remarked to the Review Group by a student:
“If you choose a course, you’d sort of expect the teaching to have something to do with it.”
4
This absence of a motivating identity on top of the relatively low entry level was seen by
the Review Group as likely to be responsible for the obvious negative spiral of poor student
attainment and limited staff engagement.
3. Organisation and Management
The BA PSP does not appear to have a Programme Board with a meeting schedule, or a
formal agreement about roles and responsibilities for organisation of the degree. There is no
obvious history of a Programme Director function to provide leadership and manage
decision making for those contributing to the programme. An informal understanding exists
for the three contributing heads of department to act as ‘sponsor’ in a coordinating role on a
three year basis, although the long term chronology is unclear from the Self Assessment
Report. There is a clear problem of coordination between the three departments that the
Review Group felt was exacerbated by the rotating responsibility for the programme.
The Departmental coordinator from the Department of Political Science and Sociology
currently acts as a Programme Coordinator within the frame of the rotating departmental
sponsorship. She takes most of the responsibility for organisation of the programme. The
tasks of Programme Coordinator appear to be largely administrative, but the role and
responsibilities of this position are not explicitly specified. Each of the three contributing
departments independently assigns an internal departmental coordinator for the programme.
Each department uses its own organisational structures and practices for those programme
components which it provides.
There have been significant changes in the modules offered over the years, and changes of
emphasis or content within modules. However, it was not clear to the Review Group that
any of these changes have been assessed by a formally constituted Programme Board or
Curriculum Committee, or checked for compliance with formal university procedures and
regulations. This may leave the programme open to challenge by students on procedural
grounds.
In addition, the programme does not appear to receive any scrutiny from an External
Examiner beyond students’ work being randomly included in samples sent to disciplinespecific Externals. None of those Examiners appears to have specific expertise in public or
social policy.
3.1 Student Perspectives
The Review Group met both past graduates and students from all three years of the
programme. They displayed great enthusiasm for the programme’s multi-disciplinary
approach, felt intellectually stimulated by it, and recognised the potential contribution of its
graduates to the betterment of Irish society.
Students seem to have a good relationship with the present Programme Coordinator.
Although she took over this role in the current academic year, she has previous experience
in it and students find her a fund of information and very helpful with all their queries.
An introductory lecture is held at the start of 1st year. However, there is no course handbook
available outlining all the modules and describing what they can expect in future years, so
students are largely unaware of what lies ahead.
5
Because modules are run independently by each contributing department, even the most
basic details for individual modules such as timetables have to be acquired independently
by the students from the respective departments. Furthermore, individual outlines are only
given out at the start of each module. It is not clear to students where to find information if
they do not receive it when first handed out.
Useful tutorials and other relevant information about non-compulsory teaching sessions are
available for students taking modules in the various departments, but BA PSP students
appear often not to be given this information and find it out by accident, if at all.
3.2 Staff Perspectives
Both heads of department and academic teaching staff appear to feel the programme has
merit, and clearly care about the students on it. However, none of the heads of department
appear to feel ownership of this programme despite their periodic sponsor roles. All staff
met by the Review Group felt that a Quality Review of this programme was overdue.
The heads of department and departmental coordinators seem to have generally good
relationships with each other and there is no obvious reason why they could not come
together more effectively within a Programme Board.
Minutes of two meetings in 2002 entitled ‘Faculty Board’ and ‘Course Board’ concerning
the BA PSP management were provided to the Review Group. These feature many of the
issues identified in this review but no obvious action appears to have resulted from those
meetings. The Quality Review of the Department of Political Science and Sociology in
2005, whilst accepting that the problems did not emanate from that department alone, also
recommended problems in the BA PSP should be addressed. There does not appear to have
been any concerted action to address the issues which were apprised in these different fora.
Some staff feel there is inadequate administrative support at the departmental coordination
level. However, the Review Group saw no special need for additional measures outside the
normal level of administrative support to be expected from within participating departments
for any programme in the University that they are involved with or responsible for. The
current Programme Coordinator has had her teaching workload reduced accordingly within
the Department of Political Science and Sociology, and her head of department has
authorised support as necessary by departmental administrative staff.
3.3 Communication between Students and Staff
It appears that no programme handbook has ever been produced at any level in the BA PSP
since its inception. Handbooks of this type have been created by coordinators of similar
programmes throughout the University and are clearly an investment worth making. Once
produced the effort of updating a handbook annually is minimal in time and cost but repaid
many-fold by the reduction in time spent answering student queries. Such a handbook needs
to contain information on modules such as contact hours, practical components, and
assessment and marking schemes. It needs to spell out the options available in each year,
the availability of tutorials and other learning supports. The contact details of all relevant
staff members and their responsibilities must be included. It should contain an overview of
the course from 1st -3rd year, and should explain to students where to go if they experience
problems.
6
There appears to be no designated notice board where students can find information
relevant to them. Web pages for the course reportedly came online this year although the
link was not supplied to the Review Group. Use has been made of Blackboard in some
modules and this assists communication.
It was claimed by some staff that significant time is spent in chasing students who have
failed to hand in pieces of work. Normal practice is to make it the responsibility of the
student to comply with deadlines, although in the absence of effective channels of
communication students may not know of deadlines or the consequences of missing them.
3.4 Recommendations
1. The Head of the Department of Political Science and Sociology should take
permanent leadership of the BA PSP. This is an Arts degree programme with
ultimate responsibility held by the Dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies.
2. The heads of the three contributing departments should each nominate a
Departmental Coordinator from within their department. Except in extreme
circumstances, changes in nomination should only occur immediately after the
summer exams to facilitate preparation for the start of the next academic year.
3. The Head of Political Science and Sociology, in a position of permanent leadership
of the BA PSP, should appoint one of the departmental coordinators as Programme
Director, responsible for a smooth and consistent experience for all students and
staff involved with the programme on a day-to-day basis. There is no a priori need
for this assignment to be rotated. The role definition of this position should also
specify the limits of involvement where they interface with responsibilities specific
to departmental coordinators and module teachers.
4. The Programme Director should take on specific responsibility for 1st year students
because this is the crucial year for many students. The other two departmental
coordinators should take on visible and effective overall coordination roles for 2nd
and 3rd year respectively.
5. The Head of Political Science and Sociology should chair a Programme Board to
take direct responsibility for the success of the BA PSP. The Programme Board
should include the heads of the contributing departments, the departmental
coordinators, and other contributors where pertinent. It should oversee curriculum
and statutory requirements, monitor standards, ensure teaching quality, and oversee
coordination of the programme. The Programme Director should ensure that the
Programme Board meets at least twice a year, with minutes reported to the Dean of
Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies.
6. The Programme Director should convene a Teaching Committee of relevant staff
across all disciplines that contribute to the programme. The Programme Director
should ensure that the Teaching Committee meets at the start of each semester and
also specifically to review exam results of all BA PSP students in advance of the
Faculty exam board meetings. The minutes of these meetings should be reported to
the Programme Board.
7. A single comprehensive handbook covering all three years of the programme should
be created before the end of the current academic year (07/08) and provided to all
students in orientation sessions at the start of the next academic year (08/09). This
handbook should be created together by the three year group coordinators under the
7
leadership of the Programme Director, with input from the class reps.
8. A dedicated notice board for programme-specific information should be set up in an
appropriate location accessible to students, and maintained by the departmental
coordinators. All timetables and other relevant programme-wide information should
be displayed there. Blackboard should be used for module-specific information.
9. The content and design of the BA PSP presentation in the Faculty of Arts brochure
could be readily adapted to a small programme-specific brochure, with the small
costs involved being shared between the two Faculties benefiting from the degree.
10. The appointment of an External Examiner would provide useful overview of the
programme’s content, efficacy and student achievement. University management
told the Review Group that they were unaware of any formal request for an external
examiner but saw no reason why funds would not be available for this.
4. Programmes and Instruction
The BA Public and Social Policy is an ambitious multi-disciplinary programme which aims
to provide students with a detailed understanding of various dimensions of policy-making
through the study of economics, law, and sociology and politics. However, in its current
form, the programme lacks the curricular and pedagogical coherence to achieve its laudable
aims. This is reflected in the current poor student achievement and high failure rate, a fact
illustrated in the recent semester 1 examinations for first year students where 60% failed at
least one and 40% failed two or more of the four modules examined.
Over the three years of the programme, students are exposed to a range of module formats
and approaches to delivery. While such eclecticism benefits learners, a number of issues
arise. Some faculty have selected specific learning outcomes and use both formative and
summative assessment techniques but a significant number of modules do not identify
learning outcomes and many are assessed purely on a final examination. Some faculty
included marking standards for particular modules but there is little evidence of consistency
across the programme and few modules specify mechanisms for student feedback.
Although many of the elements for a coherent programme exist, the overall curriculum
presents itself as a medley of available modules from contributing departments rather than a
carefully constructed programme focussed on building student understanding of public and
social policy. For example, the 2nd year curriculum is strongly weighted towards
economics with little emphasis on the policy dimension. Students currently seem to be left
alone to make sense of the programme, an issue compounded by the fact that so many
modules are taken with large groups of students from other programmes. It is only in 3rd
year that the policy seminar endeavours to link the different strands.
The rotating responsibility for the programme with the consequent lack of clear programme
management makes it difficult to achieve continuity and consistency with regard to student
focus, educational outcomes and pedagogical priorities. The lack of programme material
with clearly stated programme objectives adds to these difficulties.
It was apparent talking with the students that many starting out on this programme have
little idea that there is a large economics component, requiring significant mathematical
ability. This appears to be the single biggest academic problem encountered by students and
a major source of difficulties since those who enrol for the BA PSP cannot readily transfer
to another programme.
8
Nevertheless, the Review Group were impressed by the dedication and commitment of
many of the faculty contributing to the programme and their efforts to ensure a positive
learning experience for students.
4.1 Recommendations
1. The Programme Board and Teaching Committee must act decisively to achieve
programme coherence, greater balance between the subject streams, continuity
within the curriculum, and connectivity between modules.
2. Immediate priority must be given to monitoring the failure rate among first years
and the ongoing increase in repeat students in second year. Attention should also be
given the low proportion of 2.1 and first class awards in 3rd year. These are causes
for serious concern.
3. Monitoring of the career paths of graduates is also recommended, as there seems to
be a disconnection between the programme’s stated aims and employment patterns.
4. The Programme Board should also consider radical restructuring of the programme
to facilitate a stronger policy focus. Consideration should also be given to
reorganising the programme content in a manner that retains core elements but
allows for discipline-oriented routes through the BA PSP. This is the model in place
for comparable programmes at the University of Michigan, the University of
Limerick and University College Cork.
5. In reviewing the programme content, the Programme Board should consider
including:
a. More training in applied research and evaluation.
b. Greater focus on preparation for evidence-based decision-making.
c. The opportunity to engage in self-directed learning/research in the form of a
final year project/dissertation.
d. The inclusion of an experiential learning component to enhance the policyoriented programme.
e. Articulation and development of the generic skills.
f. The appropriate level of microeconomics for this programme.
g. The provision of extra tutorials. The Review Group noted worthy attempts to
address subject specific difficulties in Economics, and such measures may
also be necessary for other modules.
6. The Teaching Committee should bring all programme contributors together to:
a. Agree learning outcomes, assessment and feedback strategies. The expertise
of CELT could be drawn upon in this respect.
b. Encourage regular revision and updating of the contents of all modules to
reflect policy developments and new publications.
c. Address the attendance problems referred to by some of those interviewed.
This needs to be tackled at both programme and module levels and a culture
of responsibility for their learning fostered among students.
9
5. Scholarship and Research
There was no information in the Self Assessment Report about how the programme links
with research, and the absence of staff CVs meant that the Review Group could not assess
from the documentation how individual staff research informs teaching and learning.
Although the programme was set up to produce graduates with high-level policy skills, it
was not embedded in a policy research centre or institute. This might have enhanced the
status of the programme, would have created a framework for research-led teaching, and
would have linked the programme to a group of research students engaged in policy
research. In addition, the programme has little research methods content, which might be
regarded as an issue at a time when policy-making is expected to be evidence-informed if
not evidence-based.
There is potential for this situation to change. The Review Group was made aware that the
University wants to strengthen its profile in Irish public policy. The programme, if linked to
a research framework, could help to achieve this focus. Across the University there are
research groups undertaking policy research, such as in the Social Sciences Research
Centre, the Irish Centre for Human Rights and the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology.
There is also a Graduate School of Business and Public Policy. A number of staff met by
the Review Group were able to demonstrate links between aspects of their research and
their teaching. While the issue of strengthening the University’s policy research reputation
is beyond the scope of this review, the fact that it appears to be a current issue means that
any strategic initiative in this field could be important to the BA PSP and cultivation of a
supportive academic community.
5.1 Recommendations
1. Stronger links should be developed between this programme and research being
carried out by contributing faculty. The opportunity for linkages with local research
centres and institutes should be actively explored and exploited, including potential
contributions to the University’s ambition for expansion of postgraduate
programmes. Leadership for this should be taken by the Programme Board.
6. The Wider Context
In a context of growing social and economic complexity, there is little doubt that graduatelevel skills are needed in many organisations that make, evaluate or implement public and
social policies in Ireland and other countries. However, beyond professional vocational
courses it is by no means evident that employers are seeking specific policy knowledge or
whether what is needed are good generic graduate skills. The BA PSP programme tends to
span both, with the elements of a policy curriculum having been combined with disciplinary
knowledge in economics, politics, sociology and law. The Review Group did not find,
though, that this approach reflected market research with employers about the kind of
programme from which they would want to recruit graduates. In fact, the employment
destination survey data that the Review Group saw indicated that the programme’s
graduates are not finding work in the policy sector but are instead either progressing to
further study (principally the LLB at NUI Galway) or entering quite low skilled
employment.
Although the students that the Group saw were universally positive about how the
programme was preparing them to be informed citizens, there is clearly a need to position it
10
as either a high quality education in policy studies or a high quality multidisciplinary social
sciences degree.
Realising the BA PSP as a high quality education in policy studies is likely to pose
particular challenges without a close working relationship with employers such as the Irish
civil service or local government. Although the Review Group had no Irish data available to
it, Professor Blackman was able to advise the Group that undergraduate programmes in
social and public policy in the UK have found it difficult to attract well-qualified candidates
and many single honours programmes in these subjects have been withdrawn.
Repositioning the BA PSP as a high quality multidisciplinary social sciences degree might
be realistically achieved by assimilating the programme into the BA Connect initiative,
given its focus on employability and multidisciplinarity. This could resolve the
programme’s organisational problems, raise its profile and admission requirements, and still
offer flexibility. Reorganisation as a four year programme would also relieve some of the
current problems of module and assessment load on students and create the possibility of
incorporating an off-campus placement.
6.1 Recommendations
1. Careful consideration should be given by the Programme Board to how the
programme is positioned and branded in its market. Consultation with employers
would be useful and a change in the name of the programme may be advisable.
2. The Programme Board, in consultation with the Faculties of Arts and Law, should
undertake a formal analysis of options for re-orienting the curriculum. The Review
Group considered three possible scenarios in the time available to it:
a. Retention of the BA PSP as a tripartite interdisciplinary programme
combining substantive components of politics and sociology, economics, and
law within the current format. The programme itself would nevertheless be
subject to significant improvements in curriculum and organisation. This
retains the original vision of the programme but does not directly address the
problem of low entry standards to a challenging academic programme.
b. Redesign of BA PSP to retain the broad tripartite thematic core, but with
specialisation on one or two components beginning in 2nd year and
emphasised in the 3rd year. This maintains disciplinary depth in the
specialisations and assures overall academic standards, whilst respecting the
realistic ability and career prospects of the students entering the programme.
c. Assimilation into the 4 year BA Connect initiative, with necessary adaptation
of components. This simplifies the Arts Faculty offerings and provides the
necessary organisational framework for the programme. The experience of
those involved with BA PSP may benefit BA Connect. This option requires
extensive adaptation of the curriculum and may reduce access to the course
for mature students and those with poorer Leaving Certificate scores.
11
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The BA PSP was launched with the aim of providing trained graduates in public and social
policy for a rapidly evolving Ireland. This continues to fit well with current strategic
priorities 1 and 4 of NUI Galway to provide attractive courses for high quality students, and
to maximize contribution at national and regional levels.
A clear opportunity exists for the BA in Public and Social Policy. Despite continuing
difficulties with achievement, coherence, and organisational structures, the original vision
of the programme’s founders remains both alive and appealing for many students. The
fundamental challenge to be faced by those responsible is whether the will exists to
implement its multi-disciplinary nature effectively, perhaps in a radically revised format.
It is crucial that the lack of a formal and effective coordination structure across contributing
disciplines is redressed. It will then be possible to implement standard practices for which
there is ample expertise from other multi-disciplinary programmes within the university.
Within a solid organisational foundation, a coherent programme of study can finally be
assembled to target the aims and objectives of the degree. These must nevertheless be based
on a realistic assessment of the needs of both students and employers.
The need for immediate and fundamental reform of the BA in Public and Social Policy is
without question. The programme cannot continue to trade on laudable intent, goodwill of
students, and the enthusiasm of a handful of motivated staff.
8. Comments on Methodology of the Review Process
The Review Group is grateful for the engagement of the many staff and students it met
during its visit. It particularly appreciated the active participation and frankness of
contributions from students and individual teaching staff about their experience of the
programme, and from management about their personal perspectives on the position of the
programme.
Unfortunately, the Review Group is obliged to comment on the quality of the Self
Assessment Report (SAR). A stated purpose of the SAR is “to be a source of basic
information for the Review Group.” In this regard the SAR provided was inadequate and
many crucial components as set out in section 4.5 of the Guidelines for Academic Quality
Reviews were missing. The Review Group accepts that the Quality Office cannot directly
manage the detailed content of the SAR, and indeed that the process of compilation is a
reflection of the unit under review. However, we suggest that the Quality Office police the
inclusion of a formal checklist within every SAR that itemises core items of obligatory
content.
The Guidelines for Academic Quality Reviews also state that the SAR should “represent the
Unit’s own views of its organisation and management”. It remains unclear to the Review
Group who contributed to, oversaw, and agreed to the SAR it was presented with. This was
a serious weakness because issues of organisation and collectivity are central to the multidisciplinary unit under review. We suggest that to ensure appropriate engagement and
awareness of every future SARs, the signature of each member in the organisational
hierarchy up to faculty level should be required on the cover page (ie all coordinators, heads
of departments and deans involved).
12
The Review Group regrets being unable to discuss the BA PSP with a senior representative
of the Department of Law during the visit because of that Department’s concurrent
involvement in an appointment process.
The review group believes that the review process has provided a valuable opportunity for
reflection on the structure, content and delivery of the BA PSP and advocates that
modifications should be agreed and implemented as soon as possible.
Professor Tim Blackman (Chair)
Dr Brid Quinn
Dr Rachel Cave
Dr Andrew Flaus (Rapporteur)
4th April 2008.