An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 - 2006
REVIEW OF
THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE
FINAL REPORT
4 April 2006
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
2
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a Review Team to the Faculty of Science over the
period 20th to 22nd February 2006. The Faculty had prepared and submitted a SelfAssessment Report that, with other documentation, was made available to the Review
Team in advance of the visit.
The Review Team consisted of:
Professor Bernie Hannigan, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation,
University of Ulster (Chair)
Professor Gerry Doyle, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, University College Dublin
Dr Peter Heffernan, Chief Executive, Marine Institute
Professor John Waddell, Department of Archaeology, NUI Galway
Dr Philip Dine, Department of French, NUI Galway (Rapporteur)
The Report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
Aims and Objectives
Organization and Management
Programmes and Instruction
Scholarship and Research
Community Service
The Wider Context
Concluding Remarks
Aims and Objectives
The Faculty of Science at NUI Galway, comprises a dozen academic departments and
four research institutes. Its Academic Strategic Plan, as developed in mid-2002,
presents a well-articulated vision of the role of quality education and research in a
knowledge-based society. The Faculty is clearly committed to the highest standards
and to achieving a balance between teaching and research. It provides both broad
(Undenominated) and focused (Denominated) BSc degree programmes as well as
Higher Diploma and MSc taught programmes. It is committed to supporting research
by all members of the academic staff. It is conscious of the importance of balancing
strategic, collaborative and individual research programmes and the importance of
research scholarship informing and enhancing the teaching regime. The Review Team
welcomes the prominence given to these objectives in the Self-Assessment Report.
It is clear that the Faculty is student-centred and endeavours, as far as present
structures and resources permit, to optimise the student experience. It is a laudable
fact that the Dean is readily accessible to a large number of students seeking advice
and assistance. There is, moreover, a student advisory system available to all students
of the Faculty in their First and Second Year. The Dean’s commitment to pastoral
matters and to personal engagement with students is truly impressive.
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
3
The Faculty continues to have a crucial role in linking research and teaching, in
curriculum development and in the maintenance of high academic standards. The
Faculty and its Committees deserve to be congratulated on the formulation of a
comprehensive Academic Strategic Plan achieved through a very thorough process of
consultation. The key developments that have occurred as a result of this initiative (as
presented in the summary in the Self-Assessment Report) are a tribute to the dynamic
leadership of the present Dean and of his predecessor. A significant number of the
Committees that now contribute to the work of the Faculty are the result of this
Strategic Plan. The particularly valuable role of the Faculty as a forum for collective
action in research is something of which it can be justly proud, and is discussed
further below (see Section 4).
The Faculty is aware that there is a clear need to revise and update its Strategic Plan
and to address the new challenges it faces in a changing University environment
including revised academic structures.
Recommendation:
1.1
The Faculty Strategic Plan should be revised and updated, identifying
priorities and their resource implications.
2.
Organisation and Management
The Faculty has a clear organisational structure and a well-articulated Strategic Plan.
That 5-year plan is about half way through its time course and many of the stated
objectives have been achieved, so review is appropriate. It is difficult, however, to see
how the organisational structure – 12 Departments (some with very low staff
numbers) + several Committees – is facilitative of the achievement of strategic
objectives. The achievement of University objectives appears to depend on actions at
Departmental levels. Neither the specific roles nor necessity for having a Faculty
structure are evident, although academic staff appreciate the Faculty having roles in
‘preserving the teaching-research linkage’, ‘setting and maintaining standards’ and
‘allowing integration across disciplines, e.g. for Undenominated degrees’.
Staff members appear to have a clear view of their responsibilities articulated in the
context of Departmental affiliation. Some also have specific roles within the Faculty
structure. An exception is the role of the Dean. Specific stated duties of the Dean, for
example to meet with each student who has needed additional advice, fall clearly
within a pastoral role. The current post-holder dedicates a great deal of time to this
function, and is perceived by colleagues to add real value to the student experience.
The Dean is not a member of the University’s Senior Management Team – the
Registrar’s presence on that Team is deemed to be representative of all Deans. The
Dean and Heads of Department see how a stronger representation for the Faculty in
that forum would be beneficial. The Dean does not Chair meetings of the Faculty – he
is present as Secretary while the Registrar is Chair. This arrangement has merit in
ensuring communication between the Registrar and members of the Faculty.
However, the value of having this arrangement instead of one where the Dean chairs
and represents the Faculty’s views directly at University level is unclear. The Faculty
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
4
should have a definite input to strategic institutional decision-making, thereby
increasing the transparency of decision-making by the University and decreasing the
complexity of an overly complex system.
The Dean is not the line manager for Heads of Department. The opportunity for the
Dean to provide support for staff eligible for promotion is limited.
The consensual approach to decision-making within NUI Galway is adhered to
strongly and is highly valued by staff. It does, however, appear to lead to paralysis in
the face of a need to respond rapidly to significant change, whether to avoid difficulty
or to take advantage of opportunities. This is particularly apparent in cases where
consensus is interpreted as a need for unanimity – a majority may be in favour of a
course of action, but a single dissenting voice is enough to prevent progress. This
point is developed below (see Section 6).
The organisation of administrative support for the work of the Faculty is,
appropriately, divided between the Faculty Office and a number of Central Offices.
The totality of the human resource, the organisation of reporting lines and the flow of
work do not seem to have evolved to keep pace with the increased complexity or
quantity of work. For example, the structures of courses of study are diverse and
complex, as are the Marks and Standards that are applied. These create significant
additional workloads for both administrative and academic staff. The Review Team
was impressed by the professional competence and dedication of every member of
staff. Indeed, the University has an extraordinarily valuable staff resource. There is,
however, a risk of demotivation, and a consequent loss of effectiveness, through the
persistent need to deal, often manually, with seemingly unnecessary complexity. It
was agreed that the University should consider the introduction of awards for
excellence among administrative and technical support staff, and that Faculty should
have representation from among the administrative and technical support staff.
Communication with staff at all levels undoubtedly occurs through both formal and
informal mechanisms. There is some evidence of inclusion of support staff in
decision-making. This is commendable. There is, however, an apparent slowness in
reaching conclusive decisions that are communicated definitively to staff. Proposals,
suggestions, and the like, appear to be made, but are hard to distinguish from concrete
decisions. Uncertainty then prevails, and the energy required to drive progress can be
dissipated through the passage of time and the cementing of positions amongst those
who favour alternative futures. One example of this is the extended period taken for
the review of eligibility for academic promotion and the formulation of benchmarks
for the evaluation of applications.
Interaction between undergraduate students and academic staff appears to be good,
operating primarily at informal levels. The Review Team noted the feeling among
postgraduate students, particularly those at PhD level, that support from academic
supervisors varied considerably across Departments and from one supervisor to
another. Several voiced concerns about the possibility of increasing the numbers of
PhD students. Some students were concerned about the use made by the University
(or possibly by individual Departments or Supervisors) of finances provided by
external sources to support their project work – a lack of transparency was noted and
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
5
a fear that ‘their’ money was being used for other students was expressed.
Inconsistent practices with regard to the time commitment required for practical
classes (demonstrating and marking) and payment for such work were additional
concerns. The Heads of Department voiced support for consistency in the financing of
PhD students. A forum in which postgraduates collectively feed back views is needed.
National (IUQB) discussions on the development of Research Graduate Schools are
looked to for a solution.
Recommendations:
2.1
That Deans be included in the most senior academic and strategic decisionmaking bodies, be the line managers for Heads of Department and have an
opportunity to support and prioritise applications for promotion.
2.2
That the post of Dean be established as a senior post and rewarded with a
significant stipend.
2.3
That the Dean be provided, at least on a quarterly basis, with the information
necessary to assist in decision-making, i.e. a full list of staff in the Faculty,
including their grades; accurate details of income and expenditure, including
research grants, the overhead earned on research grants and its allocation to
researchers, the Faculty and the University centrally.
The Faculty is invited to consider:
2.4
With regard to administrative support, that the totality of the human resource,
the organisation of reporting lines and the flow of work be considered with a
view to implementing a revised structure from the start of the 2006/07
academic session. In the Review Team’s opinion considerable benefit might
accrue from a series of structured-dialogue meetings / workshops among the
Central Administration staff (Records, Examinations, Admissions, Library)
and those in line functions (Faculty & Department).
2.5
By this same date, that a review also be initiated of the IT systems that
underpin student and management databases, including the ability of staff to
access or input data.
2.6
That a deadline be set for review and reorganization of the Departmental
composition of the Faculty. The resulting structure should remain in place for
no longer than 4 years but should not change during that period.
2.7
That a single structure for undergraduate degrees be in place for students
entering the Faculty in the 2006/07 academic session.
2.8
That the regulations governing student progression, deferral and award be
consistent across the Faculty for students entering NUI Galway in the 2006/07
academic session.
2.9
That from the start of the 2006/07 academic session all PhD students,
regardless of their source of funds, would have the same amount of disposable
income after subtraction of fees and / or payment for demonstrating.
2.10 That the lack of moderation of marks assigned by postgraduate students to
laboratory notebooks be reviewed.
The University is invited to consider:
2.11 That decisions on the eligibility of academic staff for promotion, with realistic
timelines and benchmarks for the evaluation of applications should be
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
2.12
3.
6
confirmed and information communicated to all staff by no later than the end
of April 2006.
The introduction of awards for excellence among administrative and technical
support staff, and that Faculty should have representation from among the
administrative and technical support staff. Support staff should also be
included in strategic planning and decision-making. The combination of a
merit-award scheme and appropriate representation would recognise more
effectively the contributions made by these staff grades to the achievement of
the University’s mission made by these staff grades to the achievement of the
University’s mission.
Programmes and Instruction
The Faculty is to be congratulated on its commitment to the provision of high-quality
undergraduate degree programmes in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Students
reported on the positive and friendly learning environment created by staff throughout
the Faculty and considered that this was a significant plus of their NUI Galway
experience.
Students are attracted to the Faculty of Science degree courses through (a) the
Undenominated route, and (b) by means of a number of Denominated streams. The
Faculty enrols a significant number of students (548) to the first year of its degree
programmes, and has been able to attract students with satisfactory CAO point levels
in most cases. There has been some concern that interest in some of the Denominated
programmes has declined in the last couple of years and that the minimum points at
entry have in some cases declined. This may present some difficulty for the students
with lower achievement records. In discussion it became obvious that there was no
systematic Faculty-based or University-based review of these Denominated
programmes and no effective agreed methodology for assessing the ongoing viability
of such programmes.
In discussions with students, it became evident that there were variations across the
Faculty in a number of respects:
-
-
-
Student-staff ratios in teaching Departments varied. These ranged from 13.1 to
27.5, with six exceeding 20:1. There is no doubt that the effective delivery of
teaching programmes in Departments with such high student-staff ratios must
provide a considerable challenge for staff.
Students indicated that there was variation in the effectiveness of feedback,
provision of course outlines, and instructions in essay, thesis, PowerPoint and
CV preparation.
Undergraduate students indicated that there was some variation in the
effectiveness of the assistance provided by demonstrators in some courses.
Students indicated that there was some variation in the effective utilisation of
computer-based teaching technologies across the Faculty.
Students would have preferred a greater focus on preparation for employment
or for gaining awareness of postgraduate opportunities.
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
7
Staff expressed concern about the potential conflicts between excellence in teaching
and excellence in research. There was a fear that commitment to teaching might
decline as pressure towards research excellence intensified. It was agreed that the
numbers of awards for teaching excellence should be increased and that credit for
teaching commitment and effectiveness should continue to be one of the principal
platforms for promotion. There was a clear recognition that the University would need
to reassert its commitment to the importance of teaching and the fundamental role of
research in informing excellent teaching. (This point was regularly reiterated and is
further discussed in Section 4, together with specific recommendations for action.)
Staff indicated several other concerns that would have negative impacts on the
teaching and learning experience for students:
-
-
-
Poor attendance at lectures was identified by staff as a significant problem.
The rate of examination deferral in the Faculty of Science appears to be higher
than in some other Faculties.
Timetabling appears to be rigid and does not allow for the maximum
utilisation of resources. The traditional allocation of lectures to morning
timeslots and practicals to afternoons exacerbates this rigidity.
The system used for the allocation of final-year research projects to students in
Denominated degree programmes was not the most rational possible
mechanism.
Newly appointed and inexperienced members of the academic staff were
sometimes given heavy teaching loads.
The Review Team shares the concerns expressed about the introduction of a
post of ‘University teacher’. This represents an unacceptable casualization of
academic teaching and can only have a negative impact on the student
experience.
Students and graduates were articulate and complimentary of the efforts of many staff
members. All rated their experience at NUI Galway very highly, including those who
had previously attended other Irish institutions.
The Faculty is invited to consider:
3.1
The introduction of a review system that would assess the viability of
Denominated programmes.
3.2
The establishment of staff-student ratio norms, and finding ways of bringing
Departments close to those norms in an effort to ensure relative equality of
delivery in all programmes.
3.3
Measures for ensuring that uniformly high levels of assistance in feedback,
course information, study skills, and related student support are provided in all
programmes.
3.4
The provision of training for demonstrators so that friendly and positive
interactions can be maximised between undergraduates and their postgraduate
role models.
3.5
Encouraging the further rollout of appropriate, computer-based teaching
technologies.
3.6
Reviewing attendance and instituting procedures to ensure effective
engagement by students.
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
8
Interaction with other Faculties to ensure that there are uniform approaches to
deferrals.
Reviewing the timetable, with a view to maximising the utilisation of space
resources.
Taking a view on the equality of opportunity in research project choice for
students in Denominated programmes vis-à-vis students taking degrees in the
core subject Departments.
Developing a policy that allows new staff to grow effectively into their
teaching and research roles under the mentorship of experienced staff.
The University is invited to consider:
3.11 Measures to reaffirm its commitment to excellence in teaching and to
emphasise the positive interaction between research and high-quality teaching.
4.
Scholarship and Research
The Faculty of Science at NUI Galway, is to be congratulated on the scale of its
success in the research funding schemes operated by the Higher Education Authority
(specifically its Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions, PRTLI), Science
Foundation Ireland, and other national and international funding bodies. It is evident
that the Faculty of Science has been a major force in developing the excellent
research culture of NUI Galway, and has thus contributed significantly to the
enhancement of the research profile of the institution. Indeed, the Faculty has played a
leading role in the transformation of the research culture of the University as a whole.
The key function of the Faculty in encouraging and facilitating research is well
illustrated by the number of successful applications for funding from PRTLI. These
have led to the establishment of, or provided further support for, a number of
extremely important research centres: the National Centre for Biomedical Engineering
Science, the Environmental Change Institute and the Martin Ryan Marine Science
Institute. Funding has also been obtained from Science Foundation Ireland for two
Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology (CSETs), namely the Regenerative
Medicine Institute and the Digital Enterprise Research Institute. Additional support
has been received from other national funding agencies, such as the Health Research
Board and Marine Institute, and international schemes including the EU Framework
programmes.
However, this success has brought with it significant challenges, chief amongst which
is the very evident tension between research and teaching and the perception of
differing values being afforded by the University to these roles.
Recommendations:
4.1
It is recommended that the Faculty and all stakeholders should be engaged in
an institution-wide process, led by Senior Management, to address the
challenges NUI Galway will face in a future research environment.
The University is invited to consider:
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
9
4.2
The urgent need, within this context, for a clear definition of the role of an
academic, valuing teaching, research and service to the community.
5.
Community Service
The Faculty of Science has a clear view of its broader social role, and particularly its
contribution to the achievement of a knowledge-based society, as committed to by the
Government. The unique position of NUI Galway, as the only university in the
Border, Midlands and Western Region, has placed a particular responsibility on the
institution, of which the Faculty of Science is keenly aware and to which it is fully
committed. This has led the Faculty to reflect productively on its provision of primary
and higher degree programmes, as well as its contribution to up-skilling and life-long
learning. Crucially, outreach activities are conceived not simply as a way of
maintaining undergraduate recruitment, but also as a means of encouraging
community access to Science and Technology, including a variety of learning and
career opportunities.
Concrete examples of this engagement were noted in Faculty initiatives targeted at a
broad range of constituencies: primary-science programmes for schools and schoolteachers such as the highly innovative and nationally recognized Fionn project and
involvement in the Forfás Primary Science initiative; liaison with CSET-funded
outreach officers; the hosting of summer research activities by second-level teachers
under the SFI-funded STAR initiative; and involvement in the UREKA projects. The
Foundation course for adults wishing to undertake a degree in Science has proved
very successful over the five years that it has been offered, with steady year-on-year
increases in numbers (currently 60 students enrolled) and significant potential for
extending the course to other locations and/or through distance learning. Around half
of the 2004/2005 cohort of approximately 40 students subsequently enrolled for Year
1 BSc or Engineering courses, despite the current lack of any contribution from the
Faculty of Engineering.
The Faculty is invited to consider:
5.1
Further provision of short topical courses for Adult and Continuing Education.
5.2
Further promotion of science in schools, possibly through the appointment of a
Faculty outreach officer, together with a system of planned visits, and other
targeted promotional material.
5.3
The extension of the Foundation course in Science, in addition to seeking
some contribution from the Faculty of Engineering.
6.
The Wider Context
The change-management process currently being developed by the University Senior
Management Team needs to be concluded, communicated and acted upon as a matter
of immediate priority. This would bring much needed and desired clarity on the roles,
responsibilities and executive authority for the various elements of the new
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
10
management structure(s), not least for the Dean and Faculty.
It is recommended that the strategy of the Senior Management Team, including future
structural reorganisation, and plans for the further expansion of capacity and
competence in key priority areas, be communicated more effectively to all
stakeholders. While there is an acceptance of the inevitability of structural change in
the organisation of Departments and Faculties, there is the risk that delayed action by
the Senior Management Team in rolling out its plans would run the risk of
jeopardising the success of institutional responses to the change-management
challenge that will follow.
The fact that a 35% turnover in senior members of the Faculty of Science is going to
occur in the next few years presents both an opportunity and challenge.
Recommendations:
6.1
It is recommended that an inclusive, but decisive, process be facilitated by
Senior Management in order to strike the appropriate balance between:
• Strategic priority requirements in teaching and research competence and
capacity;
• Perceptions of value afforded by NUI Galway to these essential services;
• Affording appropriate support for new staff appointees;
• Effectively communicating decisions to all stakeholders.
The University is invited to consider:
6.2
That, should budgetary restraints impose limitations on NUI Galway’s scope
to accommodate demands across the spread of disciplines currently offered by
the institution, it may be required of Senior Management to make difficult, but
necessary, prioritisation decisions in both teaching and research scope, and to
consolidate and support a narrower spread among strategic priority areas.
7.
Concluding Remarks
The next phase of Ireland’s socio-economic development will call for a major
intensification of our scientific endeavour in pursuit of the nation’s drive towards a
knowledge economy. This endeavour has the potential to create unprecedented
opportunities for the expansion of university-based scientific capacity and service
delivery. However, this opportunity will also call for innovative and dynamic
leadership, together with the capacity for a prompt, market-led, management response
on the part of third-level institutions, especially those seeking to be in the forefront of
this national effort.
It will be incumbent on all such institutions to position themselves with the most
appropriate management structures and strategies to take advantage of this period of
exceptional scientific opportunity. The external perception of this preparedness on
the part of third-level institutions, for example from external funding sources, may
well prove to be an important factor in determining success rates. All universities,
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007
11
Faculty of Science: Review Report 2005–06
including specifically NUI Galway and its Faculty of Science, would be prudent to
examine their preparedness for this challenge and to act accordingly.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
1. The relatively limited opportunity afforded the Review Team to interact with the
Senior Management Team may have resulted in a lower appreciation of the state
of readiness of that Team’s change-management plan than may in fact be the
reality.
2. The Review Team was highly appreciative of the frank and open dialogue that
was facilitated by staff of the Faculty and University.
Professor Bernie Hannigan (Chair)
Professor Gerry Doyle
Dr Peter Heffernan
Professor John Waddell
Dr Philip Dine (Rapporteur)
4 April 2006
File name, Print date
ScienceFac06FinalReport
05/07/2007