An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 - 2006
REVIEW OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
FINAL REPORT
21st March 2006
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
2
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a Review Group (henceforth ‘Group’) to the Archaeology Department on 26th–
27th January, 2006. The Department had already prepared and submitted a Self-Assessment Report that, with
other documentation, was made available to the Group in advance of the visit.
The Group comprised: Dr Alison Sheridan, National Museums of Scotland (Chair); Professor Terry Barry,
Trinity College Dublin; Mr. Conleth Manning, Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government,
Dublin; An tOllamh Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Department of History and CSHSHC, NUI Galway (as representative
from a cognate Unit); and Dr Piaras Ó hEachteirn, Department of Civil Engineering, NUI Galway acting as
Rapporteur.
The Group wishes to acknowledge the hard work undertaken by the Archaeology Department in preparing the
Self-Assessment Report and other submissions, and in meeting the Group’s requests for access to information,
staff and students. Other members of the University are also thanked for their input. The Quality Office staff are
thanked for arranging and facilitating the Review, for their hospitality, and for contributing to the success of the
exercise.
The Group wishes to emphasise at the outset that the impression gained of the Department is an overwhelmingly
positive one; spectacular progress has been made since the last Review. Particular tribute is paid to the work of
Professor John Waddell in having effected the Department’s transformation into a ‘heavy hitter’ in NUI Galway
in terms of its research, teaching and outreach achievements. The Group also wishes to emphasise that the sole
purpose of the recommendations included in this Report is to assist an excellent Department on its way to
becoming even better: in other words, to build on its achievements within a changing University environment
where the accent is increasingly on transparency in planning and management.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Aims and Objectives
2. Organisation and Management
3. Programmes and Instruction
4. Scholarship and Research
5. Community Service
6. The Wider Context
7. Summary and Concluding Remarks
8. Methodology of the Review Process
Under these headings, the content has been drafted according to the criteria as set out on page 13 of the NUI,
Galway Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005–6 Guidelines. The recommendations have also been
framed with the following four basic questions in mind (from A Framework for Quality in Irish Universities):
What are you trying to do? How are you trying to do it? How do you know it works? and How do you change
in order to improve?
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
1.
3
Aims, Objectives and Planning
The Department’s primary aims and objectives, as set out in its Self-Assessment Report and its Strategic Plan
2001–6, include the provision of up-to-date and innovative undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes, a
good standard of service to undergraduate and postgraduate students, and engagement in research of national and
international importance. The Group believes that the stated aims and objectives are appropriate and in line with
the University's strategic plan, and commends the Department on its commitment to, and success in, meeting
these objectives.
However, the Group saw no evidence of an Operational Plan (despite the reference to one on p 3 of the SelfAssessment Report), or of the triennial review and revision of the Strategic Plan 2001–6, as had been
recommended in the 2000 Review; and the Group also noted that the 2006–11 Strategic Plan appears to be at an
early stage. The Group felt that there was much to be gained from developing a more systematic approach to
planning. It should be emphasised that the change that is needed relates more to style (ie presentation) than to
substance: the main aspirations of the Department seem sound. Accordingly, the Group recommends:
1. that the Head of Department, in consultation with staff, formulates a Departmental ‘mission statement’
that aligns itself more explicitly with the Strategic Priorities and objectives of the University (as
articulated in the NUI Galway Strategic Plan 2003-8) and of the Arts Faculty (as articulated in its
Academic Plan);
2. that in developing the 2006-11 Strategic Plan, a set of specific objectives be defined, along with measures
(i.e. ‘performance indicators’) that can be used to track the Department’s progress in achieving those
objectives. There should be regular review (at least on an annual basis) of the Department’s progress
against those objectives;
3. that a Departmental Operational Plan be formulated that sets out how the Department’s current and future
activities support its aims and objectives. This document should also identify what resources are needed
to achieve the aims and objectives. This, and the Strategic Plan, should be communicated clearly to all
staff; and the staff's activities should be geared towards, and assessed formally according to, this Plan.
The Review Group also felt that, given the current pressing need for competent practitioners of, and committed
advocates for, archaeology in Ireland, there was scope for giving greater emphasis to the practical, vocational
aspects of the discipline in its teaching. The Group therefore recommends that greater provision of vocational
training be given in both its undergraduate and its postgraduate programmes, and that serious consideration be
given to offering a single-subject BA degree geared to vocational training. This will be returned to below (Section
3.2).
2.
Organisation and Management
2.1 Does the Department have a management system that facilitates the successful accomplishment of its aims?
With periodic evaluation and improvement of this system?
The impression gained by the Group of the current managerial regime was one characterised by a profound
commitment to the fulfilment of Departmental responsibilities, operating within a caring, 'open door' style of
management. The Head of Department – whose management style has clearly succeeded in transforming the
Department since the last Review – is a stout defender of academic freedom, who attempts to minimise the
bureaucratic burden of his individual staff members. While this approach has evidently succeeded in the past,
there is now a need to review its appropriateness and effectiveness in the light of: i) NUI Galway's changing
management culture; ii) the Department's current size; and iii) some of the Department's self-confessed
weaknesses (as set out in Section 6.1 of the Self-Assessment Report). The Group's view is that a Department that
has grown to this size now needs firmer management structures (including formal policies and procedures) if it is
to make best use of the resources available to it, both inside the University and beyond. To maximise
Departmental efficiency and effectiveness, there are some things the Department would be well advised to do, and
some things that the University should address. Accordingly, the Group recommends the following:
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
4
1. There needs to be a clearer line management structure, particularly as regards the allocation of tasks to
technical staff, so as to avoid overloading and confusion. Some formal mechanism for assessing staff performance
also needs to be introduced.
2. As emphasized in the Self-Assessment Report, there is currently an imbalance between senior and junior staff
numbers. To rectify this, the Group encourages members of the Department who have requisite qualifications to
apply for promotion, in line with NUI Galway's Strategic Priority 3 (to recruit and retain high-quality staff). The
Department should not underestimate the chances of success for more than one applicant in the next two tranches
of promotions to Senior Lecturer grade.
3. In appraising its achievements against objectives, we believe the Department would benefit from the use of
benchmarking, notwithstanding the organisational differences between it and other Archaeology Departments in
Ireland.
4. Review – of both courses and staff – should be systematic and done on an annual basis, with clear follow-up
actions identified and carried out. The management training for staff that was identified in the 2000 Review
needs to be undertaken.
5. Regarding the Department's outreach activities (e.g. Diploma courses in Ennis and Sligo): the Group highly
commends the Department for delivering valuable courses, which are at the vanguard of the University's attempt
to position itself as 'the powerhouse for dynamising the region' (Strategic Priority 4). There is clearly scope for
these initiatives to be expanded to other locations and to incorporate inter-disciplinary teaching. It is noted with
regret, however, that the current provisions are grossly under-resourced by the University and offer no scope for
career development. The Group therefore recommends that the University give serious consideration to the
provision, to the Archaeology Department, of at least one supernumerary full-time permanent post in this
area. The creation of a motivational career structure and a more favourable pay structure for those involved
in providing the courses should also be addressed urgently.
6. The Department should take every opportunity to avail itself of the facilities, expertise and resources on
offer elsewhere in the University. In line with NUI Galway's Strategic Priority 6 ('Focus on Organisational
structures [to maximise efficiency and effectiveness]'), the Group believes that there is much to be gained through
developing additional inter-Departmental synergies, and it therefore recommends:
•
that greater use be made of CELT to supplement its teaching resources (eg through
Blackboard), to improve student feedback mechanisms (e.g. in questionnaire design), and for
training staff and students in the use of Q-drive;
•
that, in order to address the very serious current and predicted problems regarding
accommodation, greater use be made of the teaching space available in the Environmental
Change Institute (ECI) and the National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science (NCBES),
and of the facilities available for postgraduate use in the Centre for the Study of Human
Settlement and Historical Change (CSHSHC). If, having explored and exploited these
possibilities, the Department still feels its needs are not being met, it should draw up a business
case for presentation to the Registrar;
•
that, with regard to curriculum development, the Department builds on its existing successes in
working alongside other Units in the University (e.g. ECI and CSHSHC). Indeed, such
interdisciplinary initiatives may enhance the Department’s chances of tapping significant funding
sources (e.g. the new round of PRTLI; the ‘Friends of NUI, Galway’ scheme);
•
that maximum use be made of the discretionary funds available in the Hardiman Library,
the Arts Faculty and the Quality Office (with priority being given, in the first instance, to
acquisition by the Library of the maximum permissible numbers of all key course publications.
(See below regarding what NUI Galway can do to solve the problem of acquiring digital UK OS
maps.)
In turn, the Group notes that there are crucial actions that can be carried out, and decisions that can be made, by
other parts of the University that would significantly enhance Departmental efficiency and effectiveness. These
include:
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
5
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
•
revisiting of its current quota policy for promotions to senior grade, which is regarded by the
Department as being unfair and counter to its Strategic Priority 3.
•
a proper AV and IT maintenance regime, so that technological failures during teaching and
learning can be minimised;
•
provision of sufficient resources to allow for the regular replacement and upgrading (as
appropriate) of IT equipment; this to include provision of at least one high-end work station
within the Departmental premises to facilitate GIS-based work; it has also been suggested that
extending the University’s wi-fi capabilities to the whole of the campus would be helpful
•
provision of a realistic budget for fieldwork equipment and fieldwork expenses, as befits a
practical-orientated Department;
•
more efficient management of the disbursement of Arts Faculty discretionary travel grants;
•
improvement of the Research Office’s web pages to facilitate access to information on grants: at
present, students are reporting difficulty in navigating the website;
•
greater facilitation of access, by the Hardiman Library, to journals stored in its basement; and
also the acquisition of hard copy and digital Ordnance Survey maps of Northern Ireland (and
indeed of Great Britain as well, if these are not already in the Library). The Group appreciates
that the Department has made strenuous efforts in the past to get the digital maps acquired, but
without success. Acquisition would benefit not just the Department but the University as a whole.
The Group therefore recommends that NUI Galway continue the search for a solution to this
problem, perhaps through liaison with other Irish universities which may also lack such a
resource;
•
development by CELT of the National Digital Learning Depository; CELT to campaign for the
scanning of back-copies of major Irish archaeological journals (including JIA) to make them
web-accessible;
•
serious attempts to be made by the Faculty and/or Registrar’s office to address the
aforementioned accommodation issues, to ensure that the Department has sufficient teaching
space and sufficient project space for current ongoing Departmental projects. Resolution of the
current Departmental accommodation problems should be made a priority of the Buildings
Office.
The Group also notes that there may be scope for fundraising in America on the back of the popularity and
success of the Junior Year Abroad (henceforth ‘JYA’) scheme.
Finally, the Group notes with satisfaction that a second part-time Departmental Secretary post is shortly to be
filled (in response to the previous Quality Review’s finding that secretarial and administrative services were
inadequate), but also notes that it has taken the University a full five years to achieve this.
2.2 Are the duties & responsibilities of staff clearly understood and equitably distributed?
The duties of the academic staff appear to be understood clearly but are unevenly distributed, while the duties of
the Technical Staff appear to be demarcated inadequately and are also unevenly distributed. The group found it
hard to assess, given the material provided by the Department, the precise distribution of the workload by staff
member. However, the issue of overloading of some members of staff is clearly a problem and the Group
recommends that this be addressed urgently. It also recommends the use of a system of recording individual
staff workloads in terms of the integrated, time-based recording of teaching, administrative and research
activities. This would facilitate inter-staff comparison.
2.3 Does the management system involve participation of all sections of staff, ensuring efficient
communication with all staff?
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
6
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
Even though it is clear that much informal intra-Departmental communication takes place, and that the physical
co-location of staff has enhanced the flow of information and achieved greater participation by technical staff,
there is nevertheless scope for improvement in the formal exchange of information (e.g. at staff meetings) –
particularly as it relates to the communication of management decisions on the allocation of tasks and
responsibilities to the relevant staff members. The Group gained the impression that not all of the staff members
not currently on sabbatical appear to be in regular attendance at staff meetings.
2.4 Are mechanisms in place to facilitate the expression of students’ views and to provide feedback?
The Group understands that the Department carries out annual course evaluations, and it was shown the results of
the 2005 programme evaluations in the Self-Assessment Report. The latter appeared to be somewhat selective,
however: not all of the staff had had their courses individually tested in this manner, and the breakdown by
student type could usefully have included feedback specifically from visiting students (American and
Socrates/ERASMUS) and from 'non-traditional' students. The Group recommends that steps be taken to
regularise the format and content of these questionnaires, and to act upon the feedback provided in them.
The Group also noted the existence of a Postgraduate Committee, but learned from the student representative that
it had not met for some time “because the staff are too busy”.
However, the Group also noted, and commends, the Department's stated intention (page 15, Self-Assessment
Report) to arrange regular meetings between student class representatives and its Teaching Schedule Committee.
Given the current situation as regards provision of formal mechanisms for student feedback, the Group
particularly valued the verbal and written submissions presented by a wide range of under- and postgraduate
students during the Review process. While these were consistently positive in tone, they also raised pertinent
points and made useful suggestions. The Group therefore recommends that:
3.
•
more formal student feedback systems be instituted; and
•
the written comments submitted to the Group by third year undergraduates and by postgraduates be
discussed with the staff in the near future.
Programmes and Instruction
3.1 The Group highly commends the Department’s achievement of its primary function. There is evidence for
optimal learning and self-development by students in the programmes it provides. The excellence of the teaching
is clearly reflected in the achievements of its students, for example in winning one of the first Lady Gregory
Fellowships, a Mansion House Scholarship, several Government of Ireland Scholarships and – on a regular basis
– Arts Faculty Fellowships. The Department should take every opportunity to highlight these achievements.
3.2 The Department has developed broad, innovative programmes that are based on the interests and proven
strengths of the staff. Each programme actively engages students and prepares them for lifelong learning by
promoting generic competencies such as reasoning, communications skills, information retrieval and teamwork.
Each has an admirably broad curriculum, a coherent rationale, and clearly defined learning outcomes. Each is
designed and operated to accommodate traditional and non-traditional students, and each involves a
commendable variety of teaching methods, appropriate to acquisition of learning and skills. The Department is
especially to be complimented on: i) the introduction of regular peer review for postgraduate student research;
and ii) the success of the new MA programme in Landscape Archaeology, which has attracted the warmest praise
from students, University authorities, and External Examiner alike.
The overall success of the Department's teaching strategy and commitment to excellence is shown in its ability to
attract students who had not initially chosen Archaeology as their preferred subject, and its ability to attract
postgraduates who sought out the Department, and individual staff members, for the pursuit of their research
interests.
In the Review Group's opinion there is, however, still room for improvement:
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
7
•
the continuing absence of tutorials for 2nd and 3rd years – as recommended in the 2000 review and
emphasised by the Department – is a matter for concern, particularly as this would offer valuable
teaching experience to postgraduate students. The Group recommends that the barriers to this
(principally those of accommodation) be reviewed at both Departmental and Faculty level, and action be
taken to facilitate its introduction.
•
the Group understands that the Department has sought resources to develop an Irish language
archaeology course through Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta, but notes with regret that this initiative
appears to have fallen on deaf ears, and recommends that this matter be revisited as a matter of urgency;
•
in the context of Humanities, the BA course is successful in preparing its graduates to be productive
members of the community. The Group understands that this course is not explicitly intended to be
vocational. Nevertheless, in view of the skills gap between what is required in today's (and tomorrow's)
world of commercial archaeology in Ireland, and what is provided (in terms of vocational skills) to
University graduates, the Group recommends that serious consideration be given to: i) enhancing the
vocational aspects of the BA course as presently taught (e.g. in presentational, artefact, ecofactual and
fieldworking skills) – something that would be easier to achieve if the present course were to become a
single-subject BA Archaeology degree; and perhaps ii) the possibility of offering a second, singlesubject, vocational BA in Archaeology. This increased emphasis on vocational teaching (in both of the
options outlined above) would enable the expertise of the staff to be used to its fullest (e.g. in including
tuition in traditional techniques of artefact illustration, as well as in IT-based illustration, from one of
Ireland’s few professional artefact illustrators); it may also offer scope for arranging student work
experience placements among professional archaeologists – an important step in developing professional
competencies. It is acknowledged, however, that the development of a second, wholly vocational BA
course would inevitably have significant resource and accommodation implications.
•
The Group found no evidence for regular reviews of programmes (other than the quinquennial
Departmental Quality Review), and so recommends the institution of systematic, regular programme
reviews.
3.3 Regarding student assessment procedures, the Group notes with grave concern the near-absence of External
Examiners’ reports, due apparently to a loophole in University procedures: the Group saw only two such reports
and understands that External Examiners’ reports are not automatically sent to the Department, either by the
Extern or by the University. The Group has therefore found it difficult to judge whether the assessment
procedures are fair and impartial, although it wishes to emphasise that it has found no evidence to the contrary. It
therefore recommends that External Examiners be required by the University to provide a copy of each report to
the Department as well as to the Registrar's Office. Other recommendations:
•
the Group concurs with one of the External Examiners that anonymous marking should be introduced as
soon as possible, even though it acknowledges that in a Department of this size true anonymity may be
hard to guarantee*;
•
those who teach a course should automatically be involved in marking the student outputs;
•
the Group supports the students’ request that they be are appraised of their percentage mark, rather than
being given a general letter-grade. (The Group is aware that such marks can only be provisional until the
External Examiner has approved them.) Percentage marks should be specified on examination papers,
with the caveat that they could be adjusted at the examination meeting.
* From initial Departmental feedback to the Pre-Final version of this Report, the Group now understands that the
Department now undertakes anonymous marking of essays and that the question of introducing anonymous
examination script marking is a matter for the Examinations Office. It recommends that the Examinations Officer
introduce this practice.
4.
Scholarship and Research
This Department has an excellent record in terms of scholarship and research, and most of its academic staff are
very research-active. The excellence of its research activity is recognised internationally, as shown for example
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
8
by invitations to speak at conferences at home and abroad. The regular attendance at the annual gathering of US
medievalists in Kalamazoo (Indiana) is commended.
In the context of the Faculty of Arts, the Department's research income generation is outstanding. The Group
believes there may be scope to enhance this income, particularly by examining potential sources in America
(particularly on the back of the JYA scheme) and the European Union, via the Research and Foundation Offices.
To this end the Group recommends that the Department produce appropriate promotional material that
highlights the achievements of its staff and students, and distribute this to the Foundation Office as well as to the
Faculty, Research Office and Registrar's Office for their use.
The Group also notes that there has been a dramatic and welcome increase in the number of research students
since the 2000 Review. However, this will inevitably place increasing stress on the physical resources of the
Department, and therefore recommends once more that other existing facilities that are available, such as
CSHSHC, ECI and NCBES, be utilized as far as is practicable. The Group understands that collaborative
interdisciplinary courses are already provided using ECI and NCBES facilities, and notes that there may be scope
for extending these. Furthermore, while the Department has been very successful in securing grants for its
postgraduate students – with the success in securing one of the first Lady Gregory Scholarships being a particular
source of pride for the Department and candidate alike – nevertheless the limited number of such grants available
in the Humanities is a serious cause for concern, and the Group recommends that the University explore the
possibilities for addressing this resource need.
The publication output of the Department has reached a very impressive level, both in its quality and quantity and
also in the range of the subjects covered; the Group looks forward to even greater diversification in the future.
The Group notes that the previous Review's recommendation to revive Galway University Press as an outlet has
been successfully implemented, with routine external literary review offering a measure of its quality. The
concentration in many of these publications on landscape archaeology also places the Department in an
advantageous position with the Heritage Council, one of the main funders of archaeological research in Ireland,
which has identified Irish landscape studies as one of its new funding priorities.
5.
Community Service
By this the Group means the outreach activities which mainly involve adult education and lifelong learning, such
as the Sligo and Ennis Diploma courses, the Achill Archaeological Field School, and talks to local societies – all
of which directly address the University's Strategic Priority 4. The Department is in the vanguard of such
initiatives within the University, and the Group was very impressed with the range of courses, the quality of the
course content and the dedication of the staff. High user satisfaction is clear with some students coming back to
undertake daytime degrees. There is scope for expanding this service, especially in other centres such as Athlone
and Castlebar.
However, as already stated (Section 2.1.5), the two temporary part-time staff members who currently undertake
much of this activity are stretched to the limit. Their positions offer poor career development potential with no
permanency and no promotion prospects. These staff members are also very poorly paid, relying on mileage
expenses to make ends meet. This is clearly a very unsatisfactory situation, and should be rectified as a matter of
urgency. The Group therefore recommends that the University matches its public statements of strategic
commitment to this outreach service with the provision of adequate resources to fund and develop it.
6. The Wider Context
The Group refers here to the Visiting Student initiative (comprising an annual intake of American students in the
JYA scheme, along with ERASMUS and unaffiliated visiting students), and to the current ‘Socrates’ student and
staff exchange programme with the University of Glasgow. These are clearly an important element of Department
activity, relating to the University's Strategic Priority 1, and they are useful in establishing and maintaining a wide
network of contacts, to the benefit of staff & students alike. The Group did not have enough time to investigate all
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
9
of these initiatives in sufficient detail to make an informed judgement; it would have preferred to have had more
information in the Self-Assessment Report, and to have interviewed a cohort from each student group. It therefore
recommends that more information on this kind of initiative be provided in any future Review.
However, with regard to the JYA scheme, it is clear that the Department is attracting students from a variety of
US institutions, which is an indication of success. All the JYA students that were interviewed by the Group
reported general satisfaction with the course and remarked on the approachability of the staff; they also said,
when asked, that they enjoyed learning along with other students and did not particularly wish to have a special
‘JYA’ course. However, there was a mixed reaction to the service provided, and specific suggestions for
improvement included: i) the need for more extensive basic level information (e.g. on Irish geography) in the
Visiting Student Handbook and during the induction session; ii) acknowledgement by staff that not all students
will have attended the previous semester’s lectures in a particular course; iii) the need for lecturers to ensure that
the information on course availability in the University and Departmental Handbooks is accurate and consistent;
and iv) introduction of a ‘student buddy’ system to facilitate acclimatisation. The Group recommends that the
Department addresses these suggestions (as an adjunct to obtaining more feedback from JYA students, and from
other visiting students).
7. Report Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Group reiterates that the Department is in the enviable position of starting from a position of excellence. The
achievements, since the last Review, of Professor Waddell and his staff cannot be overstated. The Department has
received praise from its students, from the University authorities, and by many archaeologists in the outside
world, for (variously) the quality of its teaching, research and publication; for its outreach activities; for the
dynamism and dedication of its staff; and for Professor Waddell’s skill and diplomacy in having made excellent
use of the limited resources available to him.
In the Group’s opinion, the Department has reached a turning point in its development, whereby it has achieved a
critical mass of staff and students, and is ambitious to develop its activities further. It is clearly a significant
contributor to the success of the University as a whole, and it is in the interests not only of the Department but
also of the University that it be given every help and encouragement to achieve these ambitions. Accordingly, the
Group offers the following key recommendations for actions by the Department and by the University:
Recommendations to the Department:
1.
Introduction of a more formal system of management, featuring in particular:
a. Strategic planning that more closely aligns Departmental aims and objectives, and those of
individual staff members, with those of the Faculty and University
b. Management structures, policies and procedures that are clearly communicated to, and
understood by, staff. Procedures are to include the regular, systematic review of Departmental
and individual staff performance against objectives, using unambiguous measures of achievement
and of activity; regular, systematic review of the distribution of staff workload (using a
transparent, quantitative measure to aid this assessment); and the drafting and implementation
of action plans to effect improvements. Such plans should specify what resources are needed
from the University in order to effect these improvements
c. Better mechanisms for obtaining student feedback (including the use of improved questionnaires
to assess the success of each course). This can also be addressed at the University-wide level
2.
Build on the practice of making best use of the resources and opportunities available within the
University and beyond, to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. This should include:
a. Making more use of facilities and expertise elsewhere in the University (e.g. CELT, CSHSC
etc), to address accommodation issues; to continue developing inter-departmental initiatives; and
to improve teaching technique, and possibly to relieve teaching workload
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
10
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
b. Producing publicity material (ie a glossy brochure, regularly updated) about the achievements
and activities of the staff and students, to ‘sell itself’ in the University and beyond as a centre of
excellence and to enhance its (and the University’s) chances of securing increased funding from
various sources
c. Maximising use of the discretionary funds available elsewhere in the University (notably the
Library and Faculty), and maximising opportunities for staff promotion.
3.
Increase the vocational element in its under- and postgraduate teaching programmes (something that
could be facilitated, at BA level, by a switch to a single-subject Archaeology BA degree), and give
serious consideration to the introduction of a single-subject, explicitly vocational BA in Irish
Archaeology.
Recommendations to the University:
1.
Ensure that the provision of External Examiners’ reports to Departments is mandatory, and that the
inclusion of such reports covering the past 5 years’ activity in the Self-Assessment Report is mandatory
2.
As a matter of urgency, take steps to provide additional funding for outreach activity, with a view
specifically to making at least one permanent full-time outreach appointment
3.
Revisit its current quota policy for promotions to senior grade in order to fulfil the aspirations of
Strategic Priority 3
4.
Ensure that the level and type of resourcing to the Department is appropriate to a Unit with a strong
practical IT and fieldwork-associated element in its teaching. This relates particularly to:
a. Regular renewal and (where appropriate) upgrading of IT and fieldwork equipment, and efficient
maintenance of AV equipment. In particular, provision of a larger and consistent laboratory grant
(for fieldwork costs and equipment), more closely in line with the current 1.7 funding weighting
as provided for laboratory-based subjects. This is regarded as essential to facilitate proper
strategic planning
b. Provision of accommodation – with the University to work closely with the Department to
identify solutions to current accommodation problems. Any scope for generating external funds
for accommodation-related capital projects should be exploited
c. Provision of sufficient funding to allow postgraduates to provide 2nd and 3rd year tutorials
d. Maximising of opportunities for grant-aiding postgraduate study
e. Revisiting of possibility of the Department’s provision of Irish-language archaeology teaching
through Acadamh na hOllscolaíochta
f.
Ensuring that the Hardiman Library has the necessary resources to support Departmental research
– and in particular, that it acquires digital UK OS maps
g. Provision of funding to produce the publicity material alluded to in point 2b of the Departmental
recommendations, above.
5.
8
Develop improved mechanisms for obtaining and acting upon student feedback.
Methodology of the Review process
The Group commends the Quality Office for having developed its Review Guidelines; these have helped greatly
in structuring activities and in making the best use of the Group’s and Department’s time. The Review process
has been very intensive, and the period of reflection between the presentation of the Exit Interview and the
submission of the Final Report has proved to be essential in ensuring that a balanced, considered opinion can be
presented. The Group has identified specific areas where improvement could be made, namely:
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
11
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
By the Quality Office:
•
Ensure that all relevant documentation and information on the process is provided in good time; timely
provision of the final timetable is particularly important
•
Avoid providing information in the form of a recommendation to view a specific website (as here, with
the Arts Faculty’s Academic Plan): it may not always be easy for reviewers to consult that source in time
•
For reviews of Arts Departments, an interview with a representative of the Library should be mandatory
•
On p.13 of the Guidelines, include criteria relating to ‘Wider context’ and ‘Methodology of the review
process’
•
Develop templates for use by Departments in providing consistently-presented data on activities and
achievements in their Self-Assessment Reports (e.g. for statistics on examination scores over time; for the
breakdown of workload by staff member)
•
Stipulate that the inclusion, in the Self-Assessment Report, of specimen examination papers and of a
detailed breakdown of examination results for the period under review is mandatory
•
Develop guidelines whereby progress against previous Reviews (as well as progress against
strategic/operational plans) can be logged in Self-Assessment Reports
•
Revisit the format of the University Service Reports. The Group found these to be perfunctory, utterly
inadequate, and in some cases unintelligible.
By the Department:
•
Ensure that the recommendations of the Quality Office Guidelines are carried out to the letter in terms of
preparing and presenting information in the Self-Assessment Report and in presenting other
documentation for the Review. Provision of information (e.g. on detailed, year-by-year examination
marks and workload distributions) in a concise and easily-understandable format is essential
•
Improve the mechanisms for student feedback (and indeed feedback from other parts of the University);
in particular, redesign questionnaires so as to avoid any scope for confusion in filling them in
•
Appraise all involved in the Review of what is to be expected of them, what the Review sets out to do,
and how it is carried out. Ensure that all staff have read the Self-Assessment Report, the Strategic Plan
and any other managerial documents; communicate key points from the Self-Assessment Report to the
students
•
Arrange for representatives from all the cohorts of students to be included in the interview process. This
time around, there was no representation by an ERASMUS student, for example
•
Arrange for the Group to meet more staff on an individual or small group basis during the Review, as this
is very helpful in clarifying the day-to-day aspects of the Department’s activities.
•
Encourage a full attendance at the Exit Interview by staff, except those absent on sabbatical.
Dr Alison Sheridan (Chair)
Professor Terry Barry
Mr. Conleth Manning
An tOllamh Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (Representative of cognate NUI Galway Unit)
Dr Piaras Ó hEachteirn (Rapporteur)
21st March 2006
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
05/07/2007
Department of Archaeology: Review Report 2005–06
File name, Print date
Archaeology FINAL Report
12
05/07/2007