An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 ­ 2006 REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY FINAL REPORT 16 th June 2006
This report arises from a visit by a Review Team to the Physiology Department of National University of Ireland, Galway on 14 th ­ 16 th March 2006. The Department had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the Review Team in advance of the visit. The Review Team consisted of: Professor Tom Fleming, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton (Chair) Professor J. Vincent McLoughlin, Department of Physiology, Trinity College Dublin Professor Wallace Arthur, Department of Zoology, National University of Ireland, Galway Ms Josephine Boland, Education Department, National University of Ireland, Galway, (acting as Rapporteur).
1 Executive Summary of Main Findings
· The staff of the Department of Physiology, at all levels, are to be commended for their dedication and enthusiasm which underpins the provision of a high quality education programme. The leadership and commitment of the Head of Department, retiring shortly, is recognised and has instilled exceptional loyalty and teamwork within Physiology.
· The Department of Physiology has grossly inadequate accommodation. It is the unanimous view of the review team that the university has failed in its fundamental responsibility to provide the Department with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its full range of activities.
· The inadequate accommodation imposes unfair restrictions on space, generates unacceptable conditions of health and safety, and inflicts an unreasonable working environment on staff.
· The university management has made an unambiguous assurance to the review team of a funding commitment for a new building for the Department, shared with others, to be constructed within 3 ­ 3.5 years.
· The Department is clearly understaffed to fulfil its mission and to provide a fair opportunity for career development. In addition to a new Chair, the Department should be provided immediately with additional positions.
· The student experience at all levels is one of a high quality education provided by enthusiastic and able staff operating under difficult circumstances. Some means of enhancing the education programme should be considered, including wider use of continuous assessment and non­ lecture teaching formats.
· A Graduate School should be established at Faculty or inter­Faculty level to enhance the research training, experience and community of postgraduate students.
· A vision for the future should be generated by the Department over the medium term in consultation with all staff and with the new Chair when appointed The vision should take into account how departmental and academic structure should be organised in the new Preclinical Sciences building and the extent of integration across departments; how Physiology can best contribute to the major research themes of the university and how to prepare and execute new curricular designs in education.
· The university should make a clear commitment to the Department that further expansion in staffing and facilities will be coordinated with progress in attaining a coherent strategy for future academic, research and education directions.
2 Introduction and Overview of Department of Physiology The Department of Physiology of National University of Ireland, Galway is affiliated primarily with the Faculty of Medicine. It provides a range of courses to programmes in three different faculties in areas including Basic Medical Physiology; Basic Science and Biomedical Science Physiology; Neurophysiology; Third Science Physiology; Fourth Science and Biomedical Science; Physiology for Nursing Studies; and Human Body Function for students on Industrial and Biomedical Engineering, Speech and Language and Occupational Therapy, and Health and Safety courses. Collectively, the Department teaches some 850 students on these courses and completes nearly 600 lectures and 700 hours of practicals per annum (2004­05 data, Self Assessment Report). The Department has 5.5 academic staff; thus, average teaching load per academic is a remarkable 107 lectures and 127 practical hours per annum. This Department was reviewed in 2000 and that review report provided a valuable benchmark with which to evaluate progress made in respect of priority recommendations made at that time. The AIMS of the Department are to: (a) teach students how the mammalian body, in particular the human body, works (b) continue to improve the quality of teaching (c) provide a high quality B.Sc. degree in Physiology (d) provide innovative new courses to meet the needs of the university and wider community (e) advance physiological knowledge by high quality research The current staffing complement is as follows: 1 3.5 1 0.5 2 1 Professor (and Head of Department) Lecturers above the bar/college lecturers Lecturer below the bar Contract lecturer (currently on maternity leave) Senior technicians Administrative assistant The Department is currently located in the Quadrangle Building, over three floors, with approx. 460 sq. m. of space comprising mainly teaching laboratories, research laboratories, academic staff offices, administrative office, storage and animal facilities. The most significant (mostly external) factors influencing current and future planning for the Department of Physiology are as follows: (i) current changes to the integrated pre­clinical science curriculum for medical students
3 (ii) proposal to associate the three departments of Physiology, Anatomy and Pharmacology (iii) plans for a new building (variously referred to as the Pre­clinical Science building and the Human Biology building) (iv) the process of appointing a new Chair to replace the current Head of Department, due to retire at end of this academic year. The Structure of the Review Report The primary constraints under which the Department works relate to: (a) Accommodation (b) Staffing These constraints account for many of the challenges which the Department faces, in areas such as teaching, research, health and safety and relationship with the wider community. Accordingly the report is structured as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Staff collegiality and teamwork Accommodation a. Current arrangements b. Future plans c. Health and safety Staffing a. Appointment of new chair b. Academic staff c. Technical and administrative staff d. Career development The student experience a. Teaching and learning b. Support for learning c. Attendance and engagement Research and scholarship a. Promoting staff research b. Post­graduate research Organisation a. Internal b. External – interface with wider university community Summary of recommendations Response to the quality review process
4 1 Staff collegiality and teamwork The review team was highly impressed by the level of enthusiasm and commitment shown by the academic, technical and administrative staff within the Department of Physiology. In their teaching, research and administrative duties, the staff work very effectively as a team, supporting each other to ensure a high quality education for students, an open­door policy to meet their concerns and a resolve to maintain a productive research output. Given the significant disadvantages this group of staff experience in their accommodation, teaching burden and staffing levels (see below), the team regard the level of collegiality and support shown to be quite heroic. The team commends Prof. Kane for his leadership and the many significant improvements that have been made to conditions and resources in recent years. The cohesion of the staff and their willingness to co­operate and collaborate despite the disadvantages experienced is a tribute to his personal style of leadership. The young and vibrant staff represents a real resource for the future development of the Department. Our discussions with students at all levels of education consistently echoed our findings of staff enthusiasm, dedication and willingness to help. The imminent appointment of a new Chair, together with the university’s commitment to the new building (discussed below) represents a unique opportunity for the future development of the Department and all its members. 2 Accommodation Current arrangements: The Department of Physiology has grossly inadequate accommodation for all aspects of its activities in teaching, research and administration. This was pointed out by the Review Team in 2000. It is the unanimous view of the current review team that the university has failed in its fundamental responsibility to provide the Department with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its full range of activities. Deficiencies in accommodation and facilities seriously undermine the potential of the Department to attract and retain quality students, researchers and academic staff. The lack of progress on critical issues which were identified by the 2000 review report is a matter of serious concern and raises questions about the value of the review process. The current accommodation is neither fit for purpose in terms of its design and fabric nor sufficient in size for the activities of the Department. It is only through the commitment and determination of the Head of Department and his staff that the Physiology mission has been able to continue effectively in recent years. The recent conversion of a staff toilet to provide cold storage space is symptomatic of the problem and the lengths to which the staff have gone, often compromising their own comforts, so as to
5 deal with the growing space requirements, especially as teaching commitments have expanded over the years. The Review Team wishes to draw particular attention to the following: Ø The teaching facilities are outdated and too small for the number of students they have to accommodate. The teaching laboratory is spread between two rooms, with one academic staff circulating between these two spaces, consequently restricted in engaging all students at all times. Ø Space for carrying out research is severely limited. Researchers, in some cases, need to share desk space, while others are dispersed in different sites. The recent need to locate research facilities for a new member of staff and his research team and students in the Pharmacology building is further evidence of the lack of appropriate facilities within the Department. Such developments threaten the cohesion within the Department. Ø The postgraduate study space is currently located on an open­plan balcony overlooking the teaching labs, with no division between the study space and the teaching labs, which are often occupied with classes. This arrangement is not conducive to a quiet and effective work environment. Ø Staff office space is grossly inadequate. Academic staff are located in cramped cubicles within a space which is effectively open plan with light partitions and no ceilings. Academic staff have no opportunity for private meetings with students. Ø Most importantly, the current accommodation represents a serious liability to the university in terms of health and safety (addressed in more detail below) Future plans The review team gained clear and unambiguous assurance from a member of university management team (the Bursar) that funding of €30m has been secured for the purpose of a new Pre­clinical Science (Human Biology) building. A representative of the Vice President of Physical Resources assured the review team that funds (€0.5 m) have already been released to finance the planning stage and that the building project should be complete by 3 ­ 3.5 years. This new building will provide teaching, research and administration accommodation for the departments of Physiology, Anatomy and Pharmacology. The co­location of these departments in one building will represent a significant opportunity for dynamic synergy and interdisciplinarity which should be a key feature not only of the new medical curriculum but also of new research programmes. The degree of certainty of the university’s
6 commitment to this project is most welcome. However, the Department will need to remain in its current dire accommodation until mid/late 2009. In the meantime, there are serious and urgent considerations of health and safety that need to be addressed. Health and safety A number of issues of health and safety arose throughout the visit, in terms of fire safety, hazards, and unsafe practices and issues of communication of policies and procedures. Ø The review team was horrified at the absence of adequate fire escapes from the upper floors (particularly the tertiary roof areas) of the Quadrangle Building in which the Department is located. The need to preserve the fabric of a listed building seems to supersede safety considerations. This hazard is compounded by the existence of rooms within rooms, the nature of the activities carried out within the Department and the design of narrow wooden staircases. The issue is a matter of grave concern, despite accounts of “means of escape” contained in the report provided to the review team by the Fire Prevention Office (dated 16 th March 2006). That report states clearly that the balance of fire safety/security/safety must be weighted in favour of fire safety. This balance has yet to be realised. Ø The safety statement is incomplete, a situation which should be remedied urgently. In addition, the health and safety procedures and policy should be communicated to all staff and students within the Department. Ø The provision of the stair­walker for the purpose of transporting heavy supplies up three floors has been an inadequate response to the serious health and safety risks involved. Under pressure of time and the demands of the job, the two technicians (both women) continue to carry heavy cylinders and bags of animal feed up three flights of stairs. The inherent risks to their health should be a matter of extreme concern to the university which needs to provide portering staff as required to the Department for this purpose. Ø A clean work environment is a matter of health and safety. While cleaning services were available immediately prior to the visit of the review team, this was the first provision for many years. Repeated requests by the Department for a regular cleaning service have failed to elicit an appropriate response.
7 3 Staffing Appointment of a new chair The team notes the commitment made by the university to the reappointment of a Chair with the imminent retirement of Professor Kane. In the interim, the Department needs, as a matter of urgency to seek approval for a contract appointment while the process of filling the Chair proceeds and the new incumbent has the opportunity to settle into the demands of the position. This appointment needs to be made for a minimum of two years as it is not reasonable that the new incumbent to the Chair would be expected to take on the current onerous lecture load of Prof. Kane of over 70 hours. It is our understanding that such a request would be favourably received, once the case is made. Relevant processes need to be activated by the Head of Department and the Dean of Medicine. Academic staff The Department currently has 1 professor and the equivalent of 4 permanent academic staff. It is a matter of some regret that, in spite of recommendations arising from the last review, the Department has not secured an increase in their staffing, other that the appointment made on the basis of additional teaching commitments in Nursing. The Department clearly has insufficient staff to enable it to meet its teaching commitments while fulfilling their role in research and scholarship. The review team believes that the teaching load (see Introduction) compares unfavourably both with cognate departments in NUI Galway and equivalent departments in other Irish universities. Current formulae for calculating staff: student ratios seem ill­designed to capture the actual load of members of a small department such as this, together with associated practical and assessment responsibilities. We have particular concerns about the impact of this persistent problem on the morale of the relatively young team of staff. The resolution of the issue of accommodation will not in itself address this staffing issue. In fact, the co­ location of three departments and the development of new integrated curricula may, in the short term at least, add to the challenges faced by the staff in Physiology. The current teaching load of academic staff seriously undermines their potential for engaging in significant research or even preparing successful research funding applications. The size of the collective teaching load means that members of staff are effectively disenfranchised in terms of their opportunity to exercise their entitlement to apply for sabbatical leave. The time spent preparing lectures and labs, teaching and examining, and providing student support has also effectively curtailed any opportunity to plan for curriculum reform and development of new teaching and learning strategies. Moreover, the prospect of greater student diversity (e.g. with more international students in medical
8 school) will add further to existing challenges. These serious concerns can only be remedied by immediate provision of more staff. Technical and administrative staffing In response to the onerous demands on the two technical staff, the review team of 2000 recommended that one additional post (or two part­time posts) at technician level be created. The problems arising from the failure to implement this recommendation have been aggravated by the growth in numbers of students and labs since 2000. Moreover, the two technical staff take turns coming in every day during weekends, bank holidays and holidays (including Christmas Day) to tend to and feed the laboratory animals. As a matter of university policy they cannot claim overtime but are entitled to time­in­lieu. The reality, however, is that they feel unable to take time­in­lieu because of the responsibilities of their job, loyalty to their colleagues and commitment to other staff and students. This problem was identified in the last review report and has not yet been remedied. The team recommends that the Department make the case for, at the very least, an additional part­time technical assistant who could undertake some of these duties and/or relieve the technical staff when they take the time in­lieu to which they are entitled. It is our understanding that such a request would be favourably received by university management. Relevant processes need to be activated by the Department. Career development The heavy teaching responsibilities for the Department inevitably have a negative impact on staff career development. With respect to induction and probation for new staff, there is an official policy in place within the university for confirmation of staff on completion of probation. Within the Department, whilst the induction process includes protection of new staff from being overburdened with teaching workload, improved guidance and mentoring should be provided on a more formal basis. The team notes the absence of a formal staff appraisal process. With respect to all staff, we appreciate that the prevailing supportive and collegial culture has contributed considerably to achievements to date. However, the Department should now take more proactive steps to respond to the criteria of academic career paths by introduction of a formal appraisal process. Academic staff need to attain an appropriate balance of teaching, research and contribution to the community for promotion and staff career development planning should reflect this need. We also see a responsibility here for the university in ensuring by adequate staffing that teaching loads do not cause imbalance in the academic portfolio.
9 It is noted that promotional opportunities for academic staff – from lecturer above the bar to senior lecturer – are severely limited by the availability of only 10 posts every two years within the university as a whole rather than a university policy based directly upon promotion on merit alone. Moreover, the prospects for promotions from lecturer below the bar to lecturer above the bar also pose challenges in small departments where members of staff have such a heavy teaching load. The prospects for career advancement for administration and technical staff are limited by the small size of the Department. Collectively such barriers – perceived or real – pose serious threats to staff morale. 4 The student experience The experience of students of Physiology is very positive – all students met by the review team commented on the quality of courses, the quality of the teaching, the open­door policy and the level of support, both on academic matters and in terms of pastoral care. In extended discussions with students from a range of years and programmes we could identify some areas requiring attention. Assessment The Department utilises a range of assessment techniques including written examination, assessment of practical laboratory work and, for some groups, continuous assessment in the form of quizzes. As a means of supporting learning and gaining feedback, the fortnightly quizzes were received very positively by 2 nd year students. They have the added benefit of optimising attendance. Students in other years regret the absence of such formative assessment, especially feedback on completed lab reports. While recognising the staff workload involved in marking and providing feedback, the review team encourages the Department to explore how continuous assessment could be put in place for other years. This issue is closely connected with the need to review the heavy reliance on lectures as the primary means of delivering core content. Past external examiner reports were complimentary of the standard and fairness of student assessment within the Department. Developing new approaches in teaching and learning The review team notes that the Department’s discretion over curriculum content, structure, organisation and scheduling is limited, given its role as a service department providing core courses for Science, Medicine, Therapies and other programmes. However, there is scope for development in light of imminent curricular developments. Some students indicated that whilst the education programme was excellent, scheduling of sessions so that lectures and lab practicals be better synchronised in terms of
10 content would be helpful. The amount of time spent lecturing also deserves review to try to conserve time for research without compromising the quality of the education experience. The Department should adopt a more proactive approach to seeking support from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). Discipline­specific academic staff development from CELT could support the development of innovative approaches to teaching, learning and assessment appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Department. The recent appointment of a senior lecturer in Medical Education within the Medical Faculty also represents a potentially significant resource which the Department will be able to draw upon, not just in relation to the new integrated pre­ clinical curriculum but also other aspects of teaching and learning. There are opportunities offered by new educational technologies and pedagogies. Within the Department there is limited use of Blackboard to support teaching and learning. The reluctance to use Blackboard, even as a repository for course notes and slides, seems to arise from a fear that such practices would adversely affect attendance. Students on the other hand would welcome such a move. The Department should consider experimenting with different approaches to using Blackboard to satisfy themselves as to the real impact of such a move. Support for learning In our discussions we encountered evidence of a certain patchiness in the provision of academic and pastoral mentoring and approaches to student welfare. While students of Physiology benefit greatly from the open­door policy of staff, they were less sure of where they might avail of advice and support outside the Department, if and when necessary. This represents an issue for faculty/university policy. Students expressed satisfaction with library facilities and resources, while noting the difficulty of securing study space at busy times of the year. Students are very satisfied with the availability of electronic library resources. The limited availability of multiple copies of core undergraduate texts poses considerable problems. The Department has an opportunity to address this, given that it has significant funds remaining in its library budget for this year. The limit placed by the library on numbers of multiple copies may mean either revising this policy where a clear need is identified or recommending more than one core text per course. The Department should monitor spending of their library budget to ensure that funds are not clawed back. The Library is keen to ensure that information literacy can be embedded in the undergraduate curriculum and looks forward to working with departments, generally, including Physiology, to realise this objective.
11 Demonstrators (4 th years) benefit greatly from the opportunity to tutor other undergraduates in laboratory sessions. Greater attention needs to be given to the training of demonstrators to optimise the benefits of this experience and to assure the quality of the tuition they offer to the other years. The low number of PhD students within the Department results in a considerable dependence on 4 th years (undergraduates) to tutor other undergraduates. Students report ongoing deficiencies in the availability of and access to computers on campus. The university should explore enhancing the provision of this essential resource for students.. Attendance and engagement The review team encountered quite different perceptions (from members of academic staff, Deans and students) about the nature and extent of the problem of student attendance and engagement. Notwithstanding, there is a need for students to be made more fully aware of the expectations the Faculty and Department have of them. This matter may need to be addressed in the first instance at Faculty level and reinforced by the relevant departments. The Department has its own regulations in place in relation to attendance. Some Department staff regret the absence of sufficient sanctions. On the other hand some sanctions are viewed as overly harsh by students e.g. failure to recognise medical certificates as a valid reason for non­attendance at quizzes. While this is not departmental policy, the issue should be clarified and negotiated at representative level with the students of Physiology. It would seem that the level of students’ engagement in representative structures of the Department and Faculty varies considerably between groups of students (e.g. between medical and science students). This may account for the fact that such issues are not resolved collectively. 5 Research and scholarship Promoting research The team recognises the need for the academic staff to achieve a balance between teaching, research and service to the wider community – effectively this is the range of activities upon which promotional opportunities are determined. The current teaching workloads of members of staff are a serious impediment to achieving this. Moreover, because the scheduling of lectures is often externally imposed their capacity to block times for teaching and to leave some protected time for research is severely limited. Given the current arrangements, the review team is impressed by the research productivity of the Department.
12 Research needs to be actively promoted. The review team notes the arrangements proposed (the recruitment of a half­time contract post) to undertake some of the teaching duties of Dr. Finn to enable him to engage in research linked to his recent success in securing funding for a major project. Whilst this is welcome and urgent, such temporary provisions have potential implications for the quality of teaching which students might receive. Moreover, there is the danger that discrepancies in teaching loads between different members of staff have the potential to be divisive – there is no evidence that is the case here as of yet. It is up to the Department to put in place a transparent process of negotiating portfolios of responsibilities. Achievement in research needs to be recognised, relative responsibilities recognised and provision for rotating of responsibilities put in place. Overall, the strains imposed on staff to make provision for the promotion of research provide further evidence of understaffing in Physiology which should be addressed by the university. Post­graduate research There is a clear and urgent need to institute arrangements for generic research training for post­ graduate students at Faculty or inter­Faculty level in the biological and biomedical sciences. These generic skills should include research design, making presentations, ethics in research, career opportunities, health and safety and related factors. A ‘Graduate School’ ethos would enhance the experience of and cohesion between post­graduate students across departments and should also include a formal seminar series of post­graduate presentations, run by post­graduates and where academic staff attendance is expected. Central funding should also be made available to provide training in appropriate technologies to fit the needs of the modern discipline (e.g. molecular, biochemical, physiological techniques, bioinformatics, and imaging). There is also a need to fund post­graduate participation in external conferences. A similar need for cohesion between postdoctoral researchers across departmental boundaries is also recognised. Efficient communication across the university including post­graduate and postdoctoral staff, covering research activities and seminars, should be established. Such arrangements would in particular help small departments such as Physiology where small numbers of post­graduate students may find themselves rather isolated and dependent on the support and guidance of their supervisor. A Graduate School within the university would help create a community of researchers, thus greatly enhancing the self­efficacy of post­graduate students, research output and completion rates. Most importantly, it would also enhance opportunities for new multidisciplinary research initiatives across departments.
13 6 Organisation Internal organisation The Department of Physiology, being of small size with an excellent teamwork ethos amongst staff, is characterised by a relatively ‘horizontal’ organisational structure with a high level of collegiality, collaboration and shared decision making. Minutes of departmental meetings included in the self­ assessment report suggest that responsibility for programme co­ordination is shared, collective decision­making prevails and there is a commendable degree of transparency in matters such as departmental budgets. They also confirm the impression gained that managing from day­to­day often takes precedence over strategic planning and again reflects the Department’s heavy education load and understaffing. External ­ interface with faculties and wider university community The Department of Physiology has a positive working relationship with the departments and faculties with which it interacts. There is clear appreciation of the quality of course offered by this Department to students of other programmes and faculties. In its relationship with university management, the Department needs to be more forthcoming in communicating its needs to those responsible for resourcing. As well as making a case based on current staff: student ratios and other quantifiable factors, arguments for additional resources need to be made on strategic grounds, with a clearly articulated vision for the Department in light of future developments. Generating such a vision for the Department will be timely in the next 1­3 years. Significant opportunities for new synergies arise with the proposed co­location of three departments (Physiology, Anatomy and Physiology) in the new Pre­clinical Sciences building in 2009. The prospect of co­ location will inevitably raise the issue of academic restructuring into a larger resource unit, in line with university policy. Members of the Department hold varied views on the issue of academic restructuring – some are positively disposed while others are more cautious – highlighting the need for an extended process of consultation with all staff in order to work towards consensus on this issue. In this process, the issues of co­location and academic re­structuring need to be decoupled and any discussions cannot detract from the need to address fundamental issues of resources and staffing. It is essential that the staff of Physiology, as with other relevant departments, have ‘ownership’ of their future strategy and, together with the new Chair, can contribute to the shaping of the vision. This vision will not only concern academic re­structuring but also research directions and educational
14 developments (e.g. new integrated curricula with non­traditional teaching methodologies). It is our view that by adopting this strategic route to the future that the university is more likely to be responsive to their needs in providing much needed resource for new appointments, facilities and infrastructure. 7 Summary of recommendations (i) That the university engage urgently with Department staff on appropriate action to: (a) remedy fire escape and health and safety issues in consultation with and independent external assessor , (b) improve working conditions of staff members and students as required, (c) provide portering staff for heavy lifting duties as required, (d) provide regular cleaning services for the Department. (ii) That the university give unequivocal assurance to the staff of the Department of the plans and timetable for construction of the new Preclinical Sciences building. (iii) That the Head of Department completes the Safety Statement and communicates safety policy to all staff and students working in the Department. (iv) That the university commits urgently to the following increase in staffing for the Department so that it can effectively undertake its activities: (a) a 2 year contract lectureship position to fill the interim period while the new Chair is appointed and becomes established, (b) a new permanent lectureship to alleviate the current excessive teaching burden faced by the Department, (c) a part­time technician post to support the current technical staff. (v) That the Department provides more formal guidance and mentoring of new staff during probation and initiates a formal appraisal process for all staff to enhance their career development. (vi) That the Department continues to explore ways to enhance the education programme of students with respect to assessment, feedback, course information, demonstrator training and new approaches in teaching and learning. (vii) That the university re­evaluates procedures for the provision of academic and pastoral mentoring provided to students. (viii) That the Department engages further with the Library services to ensure adequate provision of undergraduate textbooks. (ix) That the university extends its provision of computer access and service to students. (x) That the university/Faculty/Department develops a coherent policy regarding student attendance (including monitoring of and responding to issues of attendance) and engages with students and their representatives to improve attendance.
15 (xi) That the Department develops a policy to balance the relative contribution of research and teaching duties for individual academic staff which can be reviewed during annual appraisal. (xii) That a Graduate School be established at Faculty or inter­Faculty level to enhance the experience, training and community of postgraduate students in the biological and biomedical sciences. (xiii) That the Department should in the medium term develop a vision for the future in consultation with all staff and the new Chair once appointed. The vision should take into account the organisation of departmental and academic structure in the new Preclinical Sciences building, the research strategy for Physiology in relation to university research themes, and policy on new curricular designs in education. (xiv) That the university makes a clear commitment to the Department that further expansion in staffing and facilities will be coordinated with progress in attaining a coherent strategy for future academic, research and education directions. 8 Response to the quality review process The team would like to thank Prof. Jim Gosling and the staff of the Quality Office for all their assistance during the preparation of the review and the visit. The experience for the review team was intense in terms of work to cover during the visit and the number of important meetings to hold in a relatively short period. New information emerged during the visit with respect to the planning of the new building from university senior managers. The Integrated Report, with much valuable data on the Department, was only available on the eve of the visit. Whilst the Self Assessment Document provided detailed information on the Department’s activities and practices, our work schedule could have been reduced if we had similar insight into the university’s dealings with the Department. For example, gathering coherent information on the new building should not require our probing of university staff during our visit. If a short statement (1­2 paragraphs) by each non­Departmental administrator/manager we met covering the main issues of their dealings with the Department could be included with the other documentation received prior to the visit, then our workload would have been less. There is also a need to reflect on the detailed information received during the visit before the report can be drafted and finalised. The exit meeting with all staff is too early in our deliberations to give a fair and reasoned viewpoint on the Department’s activities, and should be discontinued other than as a social closing of the visit. END
16