Quality Review Final Report: MA Programmes
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme, 2007–2008
Review of
MA programmes in the College of Arts, Social Sciences
and Celtic Studies
Final Report
(18th-20th February, 2008)
This report arises from a visit by a review group to the MA programmes in the College of
Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies on 18th-20th February, 2008. The Programmes and
Dean of the College had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that,
with other documentation, was made available to the Group in advance of the visit. This
report arises also from additional material provided to the team during the visit and the
meetings that were held with relevant academic and administrative staff and students. The
review also took note of the annual set of review themes for 2007-2008 in "The Guidelines
for Academic Quality Reviews 2007-2008".
The Review Group consisted of: Professor Stuart Turley, Manchester Business
School, University of Manchester (Chair); Dr Maeve Conrick, Department of French,
University College Cork; Mr Ronnie O'Gorman, Advertiser Group, Galway; Dr Vinodh
Jaichand, Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway; and Dr Aoife Boyd, Department of
Microbiology, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Aims, Objectives and Planning
2. Organisation and Management
3. Research and Scholarship
4. Programmes and Instruction
5. Facilities and Infrastructure
6. Community Service
7. Summary and Recommendations
The Review Group was provided with 5 programme reports to represent the MA
programmes within the College. This review reflects the group's impression of the College
programmes overall and outlines recommendations for the future development of MA level
education within the College. The Review Group was impressed with the quality of
educational provision within the individual programmes reviewed. There is a high degree of
commitment from members of staff to ensure the quality of the educational experience and
the students are extremely positive about their MA education experience.
1. Aims and Objectives
This review of the MA programmes in the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic
Studies has been undertaken during a time of change in NUI, Galway structures and shortly
after the creation of this new College and the new Schools within it. Following University
restructuring over the past 12 months, structures within the newly formed College of Arts,
Social Sciences and Celtic Studies are still being developed. The early stage of the new
structure has limited the extent to which strategic and operating plans have been developed,
implemented and communicated to units within the College so far. There is a pressing need
to establish an overall strategy for the College which makes clear the intended role for MA
level programmes within the full set of activities undertaken by the College and the Schools
within the College. The creation of the new College presents a significant opportunity to
establish clear direction for the future to ensure that the programmes work within and
towards a common strategy, rather than to continue historically different approaches.
2
Particular matters that should be reflected in the overall College approach include the
following:

The basis of the educational aims on which new programmes are developed and
approved - Several programmes exist because of the tremendous enthusiasm of
individual staff members. While acknowledging the excellence and creativity that
this brings to the portfolio of MA programmes, it is important that programmes
command collective commitment and are seen to be consistent with overall College
and School plans. Each programme should contribute to the common strategy and
individual programmes should not have to depend on the personal “ownership” by
individuals for their survival and high standards.

The impact of quotas and class sizes on teaching, research, resources and staff
development and staff morale - It is important that quotas operate in a manner that
follows a logical planning process and gives the appropriate incentives to staff in
relation to recruiting students. If quotas set in advance rather than actual recruitment
determine the distribution of resources, there is a danger that imbalances can
develop between the provision of, and need for, resources in practice.

How the current (and prospective) MA programmes feed into PhD recruitment - A
strategic objective should be to recruit high calibre students at MA level who are
able to carry on to further education as PhD students as encouraged by the Higher
Education Authority (HEA). This objective may not be relevant to all programmes
and other professional and vocational objectives should also be recognised.
2. Organisation and Management
The College has a well established culture of education at the MA level and is to be
commended on the quality and range of MA programmes on offer. The management of
individual programmes follows a varied pattern, and to some extent each programme
follows its own management and delivery structure. This is largely a product of the
historical development of the MA programmes within separate Departments. Individual
programmes appear to have operated as separate identifiable entities. This has had benefits
for flexibility and responsiveness, but carries the risk of diversity of practice, variation in
conventions and standards and potential duplication of activity. These factors can impact
differentially on the student experience. This situation can also make it difficult to judge
equity in student and staff workload allocations, the viability of programmes and the use of
academic resources. There is a need to establish a common framework for programme
structure and the management of programmes.
Particular areas of organisation and management which should be considered as part of
developing a common approach across the College include:
Structural framework for MA programmes
 Clear and transparent guidelines should be established for the requirements of
introducing and maintaining a MA programme. These could include, although not
3
be restricted to, consideration of the financial viability of programmes. It is clear
that some programmes are recruiting small numbers of students and there has to be a
concern about their ability to generate the resources necessary for maintenance of
delivery. A means of reviewing the economics of individual MA programmes,
alongside their academic benefits, should be considered.

The guidance should make clear the degree of standardisation and flexibility
regarding the components required for a MA level programme. The sample
programmes reviewed by the panel illustrated variations with respect to the credit
structure associated with course units, the weighting of the dissertation component,
and the overall level of credits required to complete the programme. The College
and University should evaluate the potential benefits of greater standardisation in
structure, possibly through common College-wide or University-wide degree
regulations, which could facilitate, for example, sharing of activity across
programmes (see Modularisation below in section 3).
Programme Management:
 Clarity is needed as to which level of the University is responsible for which aspects
of programme management, including the composition and responsibilities of
programme boards and expectations for frequency of meeting. To avoid unnecessary
proliferation of programme boards there is considerable scope for a single board to
take responsibility for several programmes within a broad field, rather than requiring
separate structures for every programme. Responsibility for the promotion and
communication associated with student recruitment is one area that may benefit
from identifying focal points within the new structures.

The authority structure and responsibility for academic oversight within the College
with respect to MA level education needs to be developed further. It is important
that this area is represented in one of the portfolios of the senior management of the
College (and is mirrored in the equivalent at School level), whether this be through
the creation of a separate post of Vice Dean or in combination with another area of
academic responsibility. Academic oversight of each new MA programme should be
undertaken at College level when the programme is being proposed and should draw
on academic staff with expertise in the area. The College should assess the academic
aspects of all programmes (e.g. appropriateness of content, assessment methods and
weightings, and learning outcomes), before they are approved and forwarded to
central University bodies.

Appropriate arrangements for cross-disciplinary programmes should be established.
One potential approach would be to ensure that all such programmes are, for
organisational and administrative purposes, assigned to a lead school, with related
cross school representation, with the educational contributions from all schools
reflected in the financial model. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure
rotation of responsibilities, such as the post of Programme Director.
Finances
 At present there seems to be a lack of clarity concerning differences in the financial
position for different programmes and a lack of transparency about the overall
financial position of academic groups. This situation can create uncertainties and
potential misconceptions among staff. The University (and College) should continue
4
to develop a model giving greater transparency on the financial flows associated
with academic activities, and indicating whether the budgetary and financial
structure is to give separate recognition for individual programmes or to expect
financial management to operate across a combination of activities.
Review Process
 Members of staff participated in the review in very helpful and constructive ways,
but it appeared that the review itself was seen as a one-off exercise. There would be
benefits from creating a culture of regular internal review and encouraging an
attitude of continuous development in response to review. It is important that review
and response are seen as natural components of the regular management and
development of programmes, rather than as an occasional exercise conducted for
external purposes.
Policies
 Currently it appears that there are some areas in which policy has been developed by
different bodies within the University, and some areas which have been left to local
practice, but the rationale for approaches to developing policy in different areas is
not clear. Opportunities exist within the new structures and through the appointment
of a Dean of Graduate Studies to establish a clear framework for the development of
policy and practice relating to MA programmes and for the communication of policy
throughout the College.
Staff Development and Management
 Aspects of staff development and the management of staff where there appear to be
potential inconsistencies in practice include the measurement and allocation of
workloads, the provision of mentoring support for staff and the expectations for
training and development of new staff. There is scope for developing a common
framework in each of these areas, which appear to be significant causes of
frustration for some members of staff. One concern regarding workloads is the lack
of clarity on how teaching on interdisciplinary courses is factored into the workload
of an individual academic. The Review group suggests that the College and the
University develop workload models which are transparent and which take into
account both the needs of individual disciplines and the need to foster
interdisciplinarity.
3. Programmes and Instruction
The staff contributing to the MA programmes are to be commended on sustaining a
consistently high level of teaching quality that provides an optimal learning experience for
students. Each programme actively engages students in the learning process and takes great
care to prepare them for the future and to match curricula to necessary competencies. Past
and present students responded extremely positively to the educational experience which
the programmes provide for them. The remarkable commitment of the staff is reflected in
their approach to the delivery of programmes. It was clear to the reviewers that many
programmes exist because of the tremendous enthusiasm shown by the staff involved in the
delivery of the programmes. Much of this valuable work is done at the individual
programme level.
5
Staffing
 More contact and cooperation between staff involved in different MA programmes
would encourage greater consistency in approach and delivery. The College should
consider facilitating greater interaction between staff teaching on different
programmes, which would lead to greater cohesion in the integration of the
programmes at College level, for example in the sharing of modules, sharing good
practice, sharing of expertise in developing new modules and programmes and
reviewing practices in existing programmes.

More involvement of academic staff at higher levels (e.g. professorial level) should
be encouraged, as this is appropriate for MA courses involving a large independent
research element. The delivery of teaching and dissertation supervision in MA
programmes should be by academics who are at an appropriate level of appointment,
research activity and seniority.
Student Feedback
 There was evidence of significant interaction between staff and students and
considerable informal feedback mechanisms for students. Programmes should
consider documenting discussion of student feedback in more formal ways, and
ensure that there are processes for reporting back to students informing them what
actions have been taken in response to their feedback. The College may wish to
consider a framework for handling student feedback at College level. Consideration
might be given to the establishment of staff-student structures across all
programmes, whether at the individual programme level or for clusters of related
programmes.
Modularisation
 The College should consider developing structures to facilitate modularisation of
programmes, such that students have a greater range and choice of modules, without
proliferating a large number of modules in separate disciplines. This approach
would also maximise the use of resources and minimise the burdens on staff
teaching loads. It may also help to recruit students to modules in programmes with
small enrolment numbers. Module weighting would need to be agreed across
college, and beyond, in order to encourage uptake by students.

The student workload for some programmes could be reviewed, with a view to
increasing flexibility of the programme (e.g. spreading a programme over 2 years,
rather than necessitating completion with 1 year), and to give students the
opportunity to enjoy, appreciate and derive greater intellectual benefit from the
course and to improve their work-life balance. This may be especially relevant to
those programmes with professional objectives, where study is often being pursued
alongside full-time employment.
Assessment
 Assessment is generally handled in a very professional manner, with many
opportunities for students to receive feedback from their teachers. Many students
referred positively to the approachability and availability of staff to discuss their
progress. A range of modes of assessment is in place across the programmes.

However, there are some differences and inconsistencies in the assessment within
6
programmes. Improvements could be made in agreeing assessment procedures,
particularly at programme development stage. A detailed breakdown of modes of
assessment for each module, how they link to the aims and objectives of the
programme and their relative weighting should be provided when a new programme
or module is being proposed.

The University may wish to consider implementing procedures to ensure anonymity
in assessment procedures, in so far as possible. The University should consider
drawing up a document of best practice for ensuring anonymity in the examination
and assessment procedures.

The College should consider the benefits of appointing one external examiner for
each programme or suite of programmes. Existing roles of subject external
examiners could be extended to include responsibility for commenting on the
coherence of a programme, as well as the modules within a subject area. The
expectations for attendance and involvement of external examiners in programme
boards needs to be evaluated and made clear. The roles of the external examiner and
selection of the examiner should be clearly outlined.
Physical Resources
 A feeling was expressed amongst many students that a dedicated space should be
available for their use for teaching and self-study, even on a shared basis with
students from other MA disciplines.

The library staff support was very much appreciated by the students. Improvements
in provision of library resources, especially electronic journals, and off-campus
access was recognised as important and appreciated especially by part-time students.
However the library has limitations in some of its physical collections and space.
There is a need for development of the collection in certain areas relevant to specific
MA programmes. The urgent need for additional library space was highlighted by
students and library staff alike.
4. Scholarship and Research
We note that preparation for further research degrees is aspired to by all the programmes,
although, as noted earlier, the objectives of some programmes are more focused on
professional development and others on research development. The role, importance and
form of research training for all programmes should be clarified and, since all postgraduate
programmes have a research component, all students should be encouraged to disseminate
their MA research in fora such as conferences and in the media.
5. Community Service
The Review Committee was impressed by the NUI, Galway Community Knowledge
Initiative supporting civic engagement evidenced by students working on a voluntary basis
with social needs groups in the city. Several MA programmes attract students who
contribute significantly to the community and will continue to contribute to the community
following their postgraduate education at NUI, Galway. Programmes in particular
7
disciplines are also concerned with relevant areas of social need and are making a
considerable contribution to developing professional capacity in these areas. The University
is thereby making a valuable practical and intellectual contribution to the development of
the community it serves.
6. The Wider Context
As outlined in section 1, this is a time of transition for the new College structure and an
opportunity for the College to develop its strategy for the future progress of MA
programmes in a College-wide and University-wide context to reflect the desires and needs
of students and their future employers while at the same time maintaining a high standard of
education, increasing flexibility and streamlining management policies. This is also an
opportunity for the College to highlight the contribution of the MA programmes to the
University portfolio in order to ensure the continued success of these programmes. The
significant impact of MA level education on University economics should be borne in mind,
both through national funding based on numbers of postgraduate students (MA and on to
PhD) and through attracting fee-paying international students to help with programme
viability. MA level education has an important role to play in producing graduates who will
help to promote a knowledge-based economy which will have social and economic benefits
for the Irish population. MA programmes are important as a means for progress to PhD
studies and thereby complying with current HEA policy to increase the numbers of PhD
students. Therefore MA programmes have a significant impact on the University portfolio
and its contribution to the Irish population.
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Review Group was impressed with the quality of educational provision within the
individual programmes reviewed. There is a high degree of commitment from members of
staff to ensuring the quality of the educational experience and the students the Review
Group met were extremely positive about the approach followed for their education.
While the educational quality of individual programmes is high, the Review Group did
conclude that there are several areas where the arrangements surrounding the general
strategy for MA education and processes for programme management and approval could
be improved. To a large extent these points reflect the still formative stage of development
of the new College and Schools structures, and are the product of historical differences
between units that now comprise the new College. It is extremely important that such
differences are not allowed to continue into the future without explicit consideration. Staff
should be encouraged to identify with the new Schools, rather than the original
Departments, as the relevant structures for organisation of academic activity. The
opportunity afforded by the creation of the new structures for a fresh approach to MA
programmes should be taken before the College becomes long established.
The individual points that the Review Group recommends be considered for action are
covered in the preceding sections of this Report. They are not reproduced in detail here but,
in summary, the Group recommends development in the following areas of strategy,
management and delivery of MA level programmes:
i.
Establishing a clear overall strategy for MA education, including the relationship to
8
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
xix.
doctoral studies and levels of desired recruitment.
Establishing guidelines for MA programmes that include consideration of their
financial viability.
Establishing regulations for programme structure and credit rating.
Identifying a common framework of committees having responsibility for
management of programmes.
Identifying oversight responsibility within the senior management team of the
College.
Ensuring appropriate arrangements for cross-disciplinary programmes.
Providing financial and budgetary transparency.
Encouraging a culture of continual review and development in programmes.
Establishing (at University level) the framework for setting policies and procedures
for MA education.
Ensuring a comprehensive and equitable approach to staff workloads and other
aspects of staff development.
Encouraging cooperation and sharing of good practice between staff in different
programmes.
Ensuring the experience and qualifications of staff are commensurate with the roles
they are undertaking at higher degree level.
Establishing a systematic approach to student feedback and mechanisms for
reporting back to students on actions taken.
Using modularisation to maximise choice and efficient use of resources.
Ensuring the organisation and workload for professional programmes takes into
account the time available from students in employment.
Ensuring that clear profiles of assessment are associated with each module and
programme and are communicated to students.
Reviewing the policy with respect to anonymity in assessment processes.
Consideration of the creation of a role of Programme External Examiner.
Consideration of dedicated physical space available to MA students.
8. Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The self-assessment process should be integral to the ongoing development of programmes,
rather than just for Quality Review purposes. The review committee would have welcomed
evidence of engagement in a benchmarking process as is highlighted in the Guidelines for
Academic Quality Review. "Insights and ideas gained from comparisons that have been
made with equivalent high quality units in other universities in Ireland and abroad
(benchmarking) may be invaluable". Such an exercise would have enhanced the
opportunities for self-reflection.
The benefits from any review process often derive as much from the process of reflection
and preparation undertaken by staff as from the comments of a review group. It is helpful to
reviewers if the documentation provided emphasises the evaluative views of staff in an open
and honest way, rather than just describing the current situation. The documentation
provided in this review was variable in this respect; some reports gave clear views of
strengths and areas for development, while others gave limited insight into what staff
actually thought about the quality of their programme. The University and College should
seek to emphasise the importance of genuine self-evaluation in preparations for reviews.
9
The purpose of the meeting with individual members of staff on the second day of the
review visit was not clear in the minds of some of the individuals themselves. The
committee met with some individuals 3 times in the 2 days. If the intention of this part of
the review is to allow members of staff to raise matters as individuals rather than through
their capacity in a representative or management role, perhaps a general invitation could be
issued to all staff, but only those who have specific comments not likely to arise in other
meetings need take up the invitation.
Professor Stuart Turley (Chair)
Dr Maeve Conrick
Mr Ronnie O'Gorman
Dr Vinodh Jaichand
Dr Aoife Boyd (Rapporteur)
13th May 2008
10