Report of Review of Department of Botany.
An Coiste FeabhaisAcadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme, 2006–2007
Review of
Department of Botany
Final Report
28 May 2007
Botany Final Review Report 07
1
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the Department of Botany, at the
National University of Ireland, Galway 30th and 31st of January 2007. The Department had
conducted and finalised a self assessment report which along with other documentation was
made available to the Review Team in advance of the scheduled visit, (Appendix 1).
The Review Team members were Professor Mike Jones, Department of Botany, Trinity
College Dublin (Chairman), Professor Jeffrey Duckett, School of Biological and Chemical
Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Professor Mike Williams, Department of
Earth & Ocean Sciences, NUI Galway, Ms. Sinéad Hahessy, Lecturer, Department of
Nursing & Midwifery Studies, NUI Galway acting as rapporteur.
The report is structured to address the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Aims, Objectives and Planning.
Organization and Management.
Programmes and Instruction.
Scholarship and Research.
Community Service.
Summary and Concluding Remarks.
Recommendations.
Comments on Review Process.
The Review Team would like to thank all those involved in the Self Assessment Group for
preparation of the department report.
Overall, we wish to commend the enthusiasm that staff conveyed for their subject and their
positive relationship with the students. In the two days that we met key staff we are pleased
to report that they were open, frank and very helpful in provision of information. We hope
that the Report presented here will assist the Department of Botany and NUI Galway in
strategic planning of the biological sciences in the future. The overall conclusion from this
review is that teaching and research in Botany will continue to make significant and vital
contributions to biological sciences at the National University of Ireland, Galway.
1. Aims, Objectives & Planning:
The following is an overview of improvements since the last review (2001),
1. Recent appointment of staff has brought an element of enthusiasm and expertise in
the areas identified in the Department, and has potential to enhance the international
reputation of the University.
2. The infrastructure has been considerably improved since the last review report
especially the laboratory space.
3. Ability to access adequate research funding is relatively good.
4. Undergraduate teaching has been restructured in 1st and 2nd yr.
5. The Department is making a positive contribution to adjunct sciences.
6. The website provides sufficient information.
Botany Final Review Report 07
2
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
7. Double marking has been implemented since the last review.
8. Relationships between staff and students are excellent. The students have an
extremely positive view of the Department. They appear to be happy and well
supported by the academic staff.
9. The Department produces good graduates.
10. The students have developed a ‘Botany Society’ which is excellent and reflects
their enthusiasm and interest for their chosen discipline.
However, overall it is evident that since the last review a number of issues addressed in that
report are still deficient or have not been rectified:
1. The Professor of Botany who is currently the Director of the MRI (Martin Ryan
Institute) is not resident in the Department and there is not a person schooled in the
discipline residing as head. The Director of the MRI does not teach Botany.
However the Department have identified a member of staff who has a specialism in
Marine and that Marine expertise is not missing from Botany. Based on analysis of
contact hours (viz. lectures, laboratory classes and field courses) and taking full
account of likely preparation times the review team concluded that workloads are
uneven, according to the provided lecture schedule. This situation is potentially
detrimental for the development of new and innovative programmes. The review
team suggest that a Botanist at the level of Established Chair should be recruited to
address several deficiencies that are mentioned later in this report. The relationship
with research institutes has not developed since the last review and needs urgent
clarification at University level. In the MRI there is considerable uncertainty about
the ownership of research space and equipment.
2. Although new appointments have been made the staffing complement has gone
down and is lower than it was at the time of the last review. This contributes to lack
of continuity with regard to taught courses and maintenance of research
programmes. This may have also contributed to an absence of well defined
responsibilities. The University does not have a policy on “staff appraisal”
currently. Although there are regular staff meetings there was no evidence of a
Teaching and Learning Group that undertakes strategic planning and reviews
teaching.
3. The aims and objectives are set out in the Department’s Self Assessment Report in
general terms and are broadly consistent with those of the University’s Strategic
Plan. Overall the aims and objectives have good intent however the aims are in the
main aspirations rather than concrete achievable objectives. Moreover, they
consider Botany too much in isolation without cognisance of its relevant potential
contributions to other disciplines within the biological and environmental sciences.
Botany Final Review Report 07
3
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
2. Organisation and Management:
An overwhelming conclusion from the review of management was the lack of a definite
figurehead/leader that is schooled in the discipline. Significant organisational and
management issues due to a perceived lack of management were communicated to the
review team. The absence of a designated internal leader (currently the Dean of Science is
Acting Head), has contributed to a distinct lack of Departmental cohesion in terms of
management, communication and social procedures. The Review Team regard this as
unacceptable, particularly with the advent of restructuring. Absence of leadership and
management has the potential to be detrimental in the climate of future amalgamations.
There is no technical support available to staff in the MRI and there is no full day
administrative support available. There is a perception amongst some staff and students that
the level of technical support is variable.
Overall health and safety procedures while evident seem to be the responsibility of
individuals without consideration of the terms and reference of overall University health
and safety policy. Health and Safety needs to be addressed with the appointment of a
designated safety representative/contact person. Health & Safety regulations seem to be
adhered to on field trips however there is a concern about safety with regards to lab fridges
(there was evidence of consumables). There is the possible issue that the taking of cores in
the field for paleobotanic analysis may pose a risk to back health. An overall risk
assessment needs urgent attention.
The Review Team is very disturbed to discover that the staffing levels have decreased since
the last review and that the former head and current chair holder is not directly involved in
the Department. This has contributed to a considerable lack of certainty amongst all staff.
The team was very surprised to learn that the directorships of the ECI (Environmental
Change Institute) and MRI (Martin Ryan Institute) did not seem to involve the normal
mode of public appointment for academic positions. The directorships of the ECI and MRI
are currently fixed term and the appointments have been renewed. The roles and
contributions of the directors within their original disciplines need to be explicit. It came to
the attention of the Review Team that the interaction between the MRI and the Department
of Botany is less than satisfactory. We feel that the relationship between any institute and
department requires explicit and formal contracts regarding space, equipment and
personnel. While attempts have been made to collaborate with these institutes by some of
the staff from the Department of Botany it seems that this has been ineffectual and
unfruitful. Management committees of research institutes should be representative of all
potential stakeholders, those being teaching and research staff alike.
3. Programme and Instruction:
Currently the Department offers a 4 year BSc. (Hons.) in Botany. Staff also contribute to
two denominated BSc. (Hons) degree programmes in Marine Science and Environmental
Science. Departmental expertise is in the areas of palaeobotany, ecology, algal
ecophysiology and plant physiology/biochemistry. Currently there are 4 post doctoral
researchers and 11 post graduate students. The team recognise that the level and quality of
instruction provided to the student body engaged in the study of botany is of a high
standard. The undergraduate students were positive in their opinion of interaction and
Botany Final Review Report 07
4
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
support and clearly enjoy the attention they receive from staff. Allocation of space to 4th
year students is favourable. IT and library support seem favourable although there is a
request for multiple copies of relevant text books. The review team noted that there is a
lack of teaching of generic skills such as essay writing, presentation skills and referencing.
Teaching approaches seem to be didactic in nature and subject matter seems to be
traditionally orientated. There seems to be a lack of tutorials, which may be due to the lack
of staff.
Despite these positive aspects, it is evident that the 4th yr undergraduates’ exposure to
lectures is still insufficient, as it was at the time of the last review. Four lectures per week
would appear to be less than half the normal student load. The credit for a single project in
4th year is very high, (40%) and the existence of one single project in 4th year is
unfavourable. In general the 4th year needs reappraisal along with an overall modernisation
of teaching and learning strategy. The review team believe the field work component to be
under-utilised given the geographical location of NUI Galway. The students mentioned that
the field work component is light. The review team believe this area to be inadequate and
that pooling of resources is required as is a timetable of utilisation of available transport for
teaching and research purposes. The potential to offer foreign field trips may attract more
students and this needs be investigated.
While consultation with students was favourable and students are generally satisfied with
the level of interaction, there is a lack of formal structures with regards to staff/student
committees to consider the views of the student body. Pastoral care, while evident, seems to
be conducted on an ad hoc basis with students identifying staff to contact if needs be in a
random manner. The outlined responsibilities’ of year-leaders are unclear. The monitoring
of researcher’s (PhD’s, Post Doc) progress is unclear and there is no evidence of an internal
policy or guidelines. There seems to be little or no improvement in the overall guidance of
research students since the last review in 2001. Information specific to Botany is not
provided in enough detail to students. Faculty booklets are not sufficient and there is a need
to develop a handbook specific to Botany programmes which contain module outlines,
learning outcomes, assessment procedures, marks and standards, etc. There is no evidence
of a teaching and learning policy. Despite having been introduced since the last review in
2001, double marking procedures are unclear. There is no essay preparation or tutorials in
3rd yr.
The proposed new appointments specified in the Departmental strategic plan fail to take
cognisance of the possibility of developing new programmes in conjunction with other
departments. It appears highly likely that in the current climate of restructuring in the
University the Department of Botany will be joining a larger school. The review team feel
that this will be an extremely positive move. It is vital to note that teaching of plant biology
is integral to biological and environmental sciences. Experience from other universities
shows that it is unlikely that the discipline of Botany will be lost, indeed it means the
development of new programmes and Botany should capitalise on this change. The review
team therefore encourage the staff in the Department to engage most vigorously in planning
and consider options for the future immediately. There may be several options for
amalgamation with other departments which may be supported by the University and these
need to be addressed openly.
Botany Final Review Report 07
5
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
A clear aim in restructuring is to rationalise resources, therefore all staff should ideally be
housed in the same accommodation. This has been a major disadvantage for the current
status for the Department of Botany. Fragmented and disjointed staff accommodation does
not mitigate well for running the Department and adversely effects collaborative efforts,
especially in terms of research and teaching. While the University has financed the
development of good new teaching laboratories, there has been under-investment in relation
to new appointments and research facilities particularly start up grants for new staff.
The teaching loads are heavy in some cases and they are unequally distributed between
junior and senior staff. The Review Team highlight the advantage of the school structure as
it could enable efficient use of technical and laboratory support.
There is little evidence that the postgraduate students, who seem to be largely responsible
for running first year undergraduate practical classes, receive any formal training for
instruction. Postgraduate students and post doctoral students occasionally contribute to
formal lectures on specialist topics. It is noted by the Review Team that some members of
staff have volunteered to attend staff development programmes offered by the university,
such as programmes run by the Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning (CELT).
This move is welcomed and staff should be encouraged to avail of the services offered in
relation to professional development.
Although module information is provided in a handout sheet, the Review Team advise the
development of extensive module outlines detailing learning outcomes for a student
handbook, and this should include student marking criteria.
4. Scholarship and Research:
All members of staff have active research profiles and have attracted adequate research
funding given the specialities involved. Some staff have secured an impressive amount of
external funding. Given the high teaching and administrative activities of the staff they
should be highly commended on their research efforts. The major restraint on research
activity is the teaching and administrative load and the review team believe that moving to
a school should reduce the administrative activities in particular, thus freeing up more time
for research endeavours. The potential for collaboration within the new school system
needs a focus where staff can capitalise on the potential of critical mass and can exploit
potential funding opportunities that may arise. A prioritisation of viable research areas is
needed. The Review Team foresees the strength of new school structure to be beneficial
for improving collaboration within the university for the foreseeable future. It is
recommended that the Department continue to explore opportunities outside of NUI
Galway, particularly under FP7. There is some scope to increase the portfolios of
publications in major international journals.
Algal culture facilities are not considered to be good and are in need of upgrading. The
herbarium and greenhouse provisions are extremely poor. The future of the herbarium
needs a review and significant investment. At present it is not suitable for research but as a
teaching tool it could be preserved. Its demise should not be encouraged. The lichens have
been sent to the National Botanic Gardens in Dublin.
Botany Final Review Report 07
6
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
Descriptors of new proposed posts outlined in the Self Assessment Report are too closely focused on
maintaining the status quo and indicate inadequate vision of future developments. The job
descriptions should be designed in consultation with the new stakeholders of the school to maximise
potential and to consider future trends. When aligned with the University human resources policy,
these descriptions should be developed in the context of a school that attracts a vibrant population of
researchers and considers cross disciplinary teaching.
The Departmental research strategy is unclear, with no evidence of an overall policy pertaining to
this matter. While staff are involved in individual projects and proactive engagement in research
activity is encouraged, it is the opinion of the review team that a cohesive strategy be developed that
is inclusive in its philosophy.
5. Community Service:
It is noted that some members of staff have good outreach roles and are involved in local
conservation issues. It is recommended that a schools liaison role be allocated to one of the staff.
There is potential to liaise with the Community Knowledge Initiative (CKI), to assess potential
collaboration and to build the Department profile in this area. There is a general feeling that display
units in Árus deBrún are under-utilised. The aesthetics of the building could be improved.
There is a capacity to liaise with the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) in
relation to service learning. It is suggested that in collaboration with the grounds department the
undergraduate students could develop a vegetation map of the flora on campus and design a booklet
for public use. This could become a teaching strategy and incorporate assessment such as contract
learning.6. Summary, Concluding Remarks and Recommendations:
The Department of Botany at NUI Galway seems to have had little opportunity to develop in the past
few years given its small size, the significant lack of University funding to modernise and the current
distinct lack of a department leader. Given these key factors, it is not surprising that there has been
little recruitment in terms of staff and students alike. This has contributed to a questioning of the
viability of the Department and, given the proposed new restructuring, has led to a perceived fear
amongst staff as to the future of Botany as a discipline. Communication processes between key
stakeholders and adjunct disciplines (MRI & ECI) has been unfavourable despite active attempts
from the Department of Botany staff. This has in some cases contributed to low morale among staff.
The review team advises that an academic leader in the subject area be established as a matter of
urgency. This would provide much needed representation of staff in the upcoming restructuring
plans. Strong leadership is required to enhance the Department’s position in the future.
Amalgamation with other departments is probably essential for the future of Botany and the team
foresees no disadvantage to this. There needs to be a focus on forming suitable alliances to benefit
the teaching of Botany and it should be noted that this is a suitable and timely endeavour given the
University’s plans to restructure. This will require a certain amount of flexibility and proactive
planning. Cognisance of the potential for collaboration in teaching programmes needs to be
encouraged. The Department may consider a denominated degree in Botany in the future.
Botany Final Review Report 07
7
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
Recommendations:
1. The Review Team recommend that a department head be assigned as a matter of urgency. The
designation of a leader is required to ensure that the discipline of Botany remains a functioning
component in the teaching of Biological Sciences. The significant challenges anticipated in the
process of amalgamation, requires the representation of a discipline leader. Leadership is also
required to address the organisational, managerial, teaching and learning issues raised by this review
process and to clarify the Department of Botany’s relationship with the affiliated research institutes.
2. It appears highly likely that in the current climate of restructuring in the National University of
Ireland, Galway that the Department of Botany will be joining a large school. It is the opinion of the
review team that this will be a very positive move. The team encourage the staff to engage most
vigorously in planning and consider options for the future immediately. A new strategic plan for the
Department of Botany requires the development of an approach specific to the discipline while
remaining attentive to the environment of collaboration. This should be developed in realistic terms.
3. With rationalisation of resources being a central premise in restructuring, the key stakeholders
should be housed in the same location. The current fragmentation has adversely affected the
Department in terms of access to facilities. More resources need to be available to upgrade current
facilities and also to prevent the demise of the Herbarium.
4. The final year course should be re-structured to allow for significantly more contact hours between
staff and students. An overall review of the fourth year component is warranted in terms of curricular
design, teaching and learning strategies and assessment procedures. Field-work sessions should be
increased in length or frequency or both. The possibility of including foreign field trips should be
investigated. The roles of the course leaders should be articulated in an overall teaching and learning
policy, which should be underpinned by a departmental philosophy. There is a need to revise the
programme information handbooks for students to detail all teaching and learning strategies,
assessment procedures, marking criteria and marks and standards. It is also recommended that an
internal policy be developed to address the monitoring of post graduate students.
8. Comments on Review Process:
1. In the 2-day review the team found the staff to be open and honest in discussing issues pertinent
to the discipline of Botany at the National University of Ireland, Galway. The visits to outlying
facilities were helpful.
2. A comprehensive list of all staff including technical and administrative staff, detailing subsequent
roles and responsibilities were presented in so far as they exisit.
3. Documentation with regards to module outlines, marks and standards and curricula specific to
Botany were available to the review team in Self Assessment Report Appendices and the Faculty
Handbook.
Professor Mike Jones (Chairman)
Professor Jeffrey Duckett
Professor Mike Williams
Ms. Sinead Hahessy (Rapporteur)
(28th May 2007)
Botany Final Review Report 07
8
Report of Review of Department of Botany.
APPENDIX 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIWED.
1. Self Assessment Report, Department of Botany National University of Ireland, Galway.
2. Integrated Report on Department of Botany, National University of Ireland, Galway.
3. Student Handbook, Faculty of Science National University of Ireland, Galway
Botany Final Review Report 07
9