University College Dublin
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
of Academic Departments
Peer Review Group Report
Department of Modern Irish
Academic Year 2001/2002
April 2002
Table of Contents
Page No.
Members of the Peer Review Group (PRG)
3
1.
The Department of Modern Irish
4
2.
The Departmental Self Assessment
7
3.
The Site Visit
8
4.
The Peer Review
10
5.
Findings of the Peer Review Group
12
6.
Response of the Department of Modern Irish Coordinating Committee to the Peer Review Group Report
22
Appendix 1 - Timetable of the Site Visit
2
26
MEMBERS OF THE PEER REVIEW GROUP
NAME
Professor Mícheál MacCraith
AFFILIATION
ROLE
National University of
Ireland, Galway
Extern
Professor Dónall Ó Baoill
Queen’s University of Belfast
Extern
Professor David Fegan
Department of Experimental Physics,
UCD
Chair
Department of Accountancy,
UCD
Rapporteur
Department of Modern Irish History,
UCD
Cognate
Professor Peter Clarke
Professor Thomas Bartlett
3
1. THE DEPARTMENT OF MODERN IRISH
1.1. Location of the Department
The Department of Modern Irish (the Department) at University College Dublin is the
largest Irish department in the country in terms of staff and student numbers. Thus, it
should be in the position to make a unique, important and evolving contribution to
scholarly activities in this area. In academic terms it is located in both the Faculty of
Arts and the Faculty of Celtic Studies, together with related departments such as those
of Early and Medieval Irish and Irish Folklore. In physical terms, it is located on the
second floor of the John Henry Newman Building on the Belfield Campus. There are
a total of 13 offices in the Department, which accommodate academic and tutorial
staff together with administrative personnel. The Senior Executive Assistant’s Office
(Room C218) contains records on courses, examinations, and information about
students and other Departmental matters. In addition, the Department has its own
dedicated language laboratory An Teanglann (B207) with its sound and video archive
(B205). The Department's Dialect Archive An Chartlann, which is a valuable
research facility in the Department, is located in room C215. There is also a Student
Common Room An Seomra Caidrimh, which provides a location and opportunity for
students to practice their spoken Irish in an informal setting.
1.2 Staff
The Self Assessment Report (SAR), drafted by the Departmental Committee, as part
of the Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) process, tabulates staffing
levels within the Department, at the time of the assessment (SAR, pages 3 and 4).
The work of the Department is carried out by 9 permanent academic staff, one faculty
fellow, one archivist, a Language Laboratory Director with an assistant, together with
a Departmental administrator. In addition, there are two occasional lecturers and
eight tutors.
The PRG noted the fact that the Head of Department (1996-2001) was
contemporaneously Dean of the Faculty of Celtic Studies. This required a great deal
of work outside the Department and the same was true in the case of another staff
member who is Assistant Dean in the Faculty of Arts Modular Degree.
1.3 Courses and Programmes
The courses and taught (undergraduate) programmes delivered by the Department are
listed mainly on pages 25-30 of the SAR. A total of 47 courses are available as part
of BA (including the BA modular) or B Comm (International) Degrees to a total of
297 students, for academic session 2000/01. These courses are delivered as follows:
st
1 Year courses
2nd Year courses
3rd Year courses
Total courses
12
16
19
47
4
In addition, a week-long visit to the Gaeltacht in March each year is an integral and
compulsory part of the above Second and Third Year courses. The Department
provides a three-day intensive language course which students are required to attend
before leaving for the Gaeltacht.
The Department also offers an MA and MLitt degrees in Modern Irish and in
Classical Irish. Such postgraduate students select a range of the seven courses (units)
offered in addition to completing a minor thesis (12,000 - 15,000 words). The
Department also offers a PhD degree in any one of the wide range of areas. There are
11 postgraduate students in the Department at present. Student numbers for the past
five years, which show a declining trend, are as follows:
Student numbers (including modular programmes)
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
1st. year
128
123
128
113
112
2nd. year
86
80
73
79
84
3rd. year
77
79
82
74
64
Modular (evening)
19
35
18
28
11
310
317
301
294
271
17
8
4
3
11
328
325
305
297
282
Postgraduate
Source: UCD Records Office
In addition, the Department offers the Diploma in Applied Irish and some 50 students
are enrolled in the first year of this two-year part-time course. (From academic year
2001/02 this Diploma replaced the Higher Diploma in Irish Linguistics and the
Teaching of Irish). Students receive two hours of tuition each Wednesday evening.
One consequence of the relatively small and declining student numbers in the
Department is that the overall cost per student is one of the highest in the Faculties of
Arts, Philosophy and Sociology and Celtic Studies. The total cost per student (in
Euro) in the Department for recent years is provided below together with comparative
data for the combined faculties:
Data on cost per student (per annum)
1997/98
Cost per student in the
Modern Irish Department
€ 5,922
Average cost per student in
combined faculties
€4,246
Overall position in terms of most
costly student per department
6th
within combined faculties
Source: Data supplied by the Faculty of Arts
5
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
€ 6,508
€ 7,630
€8,408
€4,522
€5,205
€5,680
6th
6th
5th
It should be noted that the above figures are based on annual calculations and should
not be equated with the “cost per graduate”. In addition, while a financial metric such
as “unit cost per student” cannot capture the richness of the various academic
activities performed within any department, nevertheless this blunt statistic is gaining
increasing importance in the allocation of resources within the University system.
6
2. THE DEPARTMENTAL SELF-ASSESSMENT
2.1 The Co-ordinating Committee
The Departmental QA/QI Co-ordinating Committee was established in March 2001.
The individual members of the committee were:
Professor Pádraig A. Breatnach
Professor Seosamh Watson (Chair)
Professor Alan Harrison
Dr Caoimhín Breatnach
Mr Éamonn Ó Dónaill
Ms Úna Nic Gabhann
The PRG wishes to correct the error on page 1 of the SAR which states that Dr.
Angela Bourke was a member of the Co-ordinating Committee. This was not the case.
The PRG noted the composition and membership of the Departmental SelfAssessment QA/QI Co-ordinating Committee and noted that it was representative of
all levels of staff (professor, senior lecturer, lecturer and administrative) and all
degree programmes. The PRG was satisfied that it conformed to guidelines laid down
by the NUI Dublin Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement Standing Committee.
2.2 Methodology adopted
The Departmental Committee met on numerous occasions and the QA/QI process was
discussed at Departmental staff meetings held throughout the period. Also, a
specially convened staff meeting was held in order to discuss the final draft. The
responsibility for separate chapters of the SAR was assigned to various persons so that
all members of the Committee contributed to the report. Professor Seosamh Watson
undertook the co-ordinating and editing duties. The presentation of material could
have been more uniform in terms of profiling staff scholarly activities and research
interests.
In addition, the Departmental Committee held three meetings with the two facilitators
(Professors David Fegan and Peter Clarke) during the self-assessment period. The
dates of these meeting were: 1st. May, 4th. October and 15 November, 2001.
The PRG’s detailed analysis of the workings of the Department of Modern Irish, of
the SAR documentation and of the site visit is summarised in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
this PRG report.
7
3. THE SITE VISIT
3.1 Timetable
The itemised timetable for the PRG site visit is enclosed in Appendix 1 of this report.
The visit took place between the 5th and 7th March, 2002. The PRG wishes to record
its gratitude and appreciation of all the help that it received from members of staff
within the Department, from the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and from various groups
of undergraduate and postgraduate students who were available to help the PRG to
compile this report.
The PRG also acknowledges the provision of a large room An Seomra Caidrimh,
together with a constant stream of refreshments appropriate to the hour, which made
its exhausting task that little bit easier.
3.2 Methodology
The work of the PRG may be described by the following sequence of events:
i.
Reading of and gaining familiarity with the SAR distributed to the PRG in
advance of the site visit.
ii.
An informal meeting of the 5 members of the PRG on the evening of 4th.
March 2002, together with Professor Don McQuillan (Director of Quality
Assurance at UCD) and Professor Frank Hegarty (Vice President of Research
at UCD), in order to agree a collective overview of the PRG task, formulate
strategy and assign responsibility in relation to component tasks of the Peer
Review Process.
iii.
Formal site visits by the PRG on 5th to 7th. March 2002, which included
meetings with the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee, Head of
Department, Dean of the Faculty of Arts, academic and administrative staff,
undergraduate and postgraduate students, together with a small group of
employers who recruit the Department’s students.
iv.
Private meetings of the PRG during the site visit, followed by discussion and
synthesis of key material presented.
v.
Preparation of a very primitive draft of the PRG report that formed the basis of
the exit presentation to, initially, the head of Department followed by a
presentation to the full Department.
vi.
Delivery of the exit report at the completion of the site visit.
3.3 General Comments
The PRG found the site visit to be a most beneficial and informative process. The
PRG was left in no doubt concerning the scholarly research interests, activities and
8
dedication of Departmental members and the sheer enthusiasm of its students for the
discipline.
The PRG was impressed with the facilities available in An Teanglann and would have
wished to have had more time allotted to that part of the site visit. It would have been
particularly beneficial if it had been possible to observe a learning session in action.
The PRG regrets that it did not meet with all members of the academic staff.
9
4. THE PEER REVIEW
4.1. Methodology
Aspects of the Peer Review methodology have already been outlined in Chapter 3 of
this report. The salient points of the methodology are that the full PRG met together
for the first time on the evening of 5th. March in a location remote from the Belfield
campus. For the full 3 days of the site visit, the PRG worked as a team on all aspects
of the review, including meetings with individuals. However, to facilitate the
preparation of the main sections of the exit report and the final PRG report, special
responsibilities were assigned to members of this report as follows:
Departmental mission, objectives and
facilities
Departmental planning and management
Departmental details, profile, budgeting and
support services
Taught programmes together with teaching,
research and scholarly activities
Professor Thomas Bartlett
Professor David Fegan
Professor Peter Clarke
Professor Mícheál MacCraith and
Professor Dónall Ó Baoill
The unique and critical analytical expertise brought to the review exercise by both
External Assessors provided the PRG with special and valuable insights, particularly
regarding teaching, research and scholarly activities. However, responsibility for
preparing the PRG report, together with its considerable series of recommendations,
was the agreed responsibility of the entire review group. All arising issues were fully
discussed, within the important and severe limitation of time availability, and all
matters reported herein are the product of consensus within the PRG. There are no
aspects associated with any items examined by the PRG that might warrant any form
of minority report.
The PRG acted at all times as a cohesive unit. The motivation of the group was to
adopt a positive and forward - looking approach to the review process, building on the
many positive attributes of the staff’s research and teaching expertise while at the
same time listening to the points of view expressed by other interested parties
It was also agreed that this PRG would take the format of discussion and analysis of
selected issues, followed immediately by the PRG’s recommendations. Thus, there is
no separate chapter devoted to “Recommendations”. Likewise, it was considered
more relevant to link, where applicable, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats (SWOT) facing the Department, within the overall discussion, analysis and
recommendations, rather than in a separate chapter.
4.2
Sources used
The material, evidence and other documents consulted and used by the PRG can be
listed briefly as follows:
i.
The SAR produced (in Irish and English) by the Departmental Co-ordinating
Committee, together with 3 appendices in a special volume.
10
ii.
Various group meetings including those with the Departmental Co-ordinating
Committee, other members of the academic and support staff, undergraduate
and postgraduate students, and a small group of employers of the
Department’s graduates.
iii.
A meeting with the Dean of the Arts Faculty which included the provision of
additional information.
iv.
Private meeting with individual members of staff which facilitated open
discussion and exchange of views.
v.
The impressive and informative Departmental handbook Lámhleabhar 2001 –
2002, which is available to all students of the Department. This handbook
contains information on the Department, staff members, together with course
information and descriptions.
4.3
Peer Review Group’s View of the Self-Assessment Report
The SAR prepared by the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee was presented to
the PRG in both the Irish and English languages. The dual language format is entirely
understandable (and commendable) considering that the working language of all those
in the Department is Irish. The SAR was, initially, prepared through Irish and then
translated into English. The PRG notes that the translation process added greatly to
the work in preparing the SAR, and all those involved are highly complimented for
their efforts. The SAR consisted of the main report together with a separately bound
volume of appendices, which is dominated by an intimidating array of student
evaluation forms. The SAR itself, consisted of 8 chapters, containing information on
the Department, including its staff and resources, planning and organisation,
description of various courses, teaching and learning, research and scholarly activity,
external relations, a survey of support services, and finally, conclusions.
Concern was expressed by those members of staff who were not members of the Coordinating Committee, as to the level and detail of their contributions to the SAR.
There was the feeling that aspects of the Department’s operation were not
comprehensively captured in the SAR, a situation which might have been
circumvented through broader consultation. The PRG was somewhat mystified as to
how or why such a situation might have come about, given that the process was
ongoing for almost a year and would have been an agenda item of various
Departmental staff meetings. However, the PRG has operated on the principle that
the peer review is very much a two component process, comprising SAR and site
visit, and that in combination, a just and balanced overview of opinions, concerns and
aspirations is realised.
11
5. FINDINGS OF THE PEER REVIEW GROUP
After exhaustive discussion and analysis, the findings of the PRG are as follows:
5.1 Department: Context and Profile
The Department has a high scholarly profile both in the Faculty of Arts and in an
international context. This is evidenced by the Department’s research output in terms
of important books authored by staff members, publications in refereed and nonrefereed journals and the organisation/delivery of public lectures. In addition,
members of the Department have obtained generous funding for their research
activities. The number of staff (including former staff) publications and lectures for
the period 1990 – 2002 is as follows (SAR, page 52):
Publications and lectures of staff members 1990 - 2002
Books written by members of staff
Books edited by members of staff
Articles in journals, periodicals and books
Lectures and seminars by members of staff
24
26
150
155
The PRG notes and welcomes the recent initiative of Professor Seosamh Watson and
Dr. Angela Bourke as team leaders in the shortly to be established Humanities
Institute of Ireland in UCD, as part of the PRTLI programme.
The PRG noted the impressive academic qualifications of the 10 (permanent) teaching
staff, of whom 8 possess a PhD degree. However, the average length of service in
UCD within the Department is 19 years with a number of senior staff being close to
retirement age.
The PRG recommends:
 That future academic requirements be quickly established by a representative
grouping of the Department and that this be done in the context of the agreed
Departmental mission statement and strategic plan. (These issues are presented in
sections 5.2 and 5.3 below).
The PRG also noted that 90 per cent of the permanent teaching staff are male in
contrast with the majority of students in the Department, which are female.
5.2 Department: Mission, Planning and Organisation
The PRG has read the self-assessment report carefully and discussed it extensively
with members of the Department. Paragraph 2 in the report (SAR, page 10) headed
‘Objectives’ fails to identify a single objective; and the Departmental mission
statement states baldly that it will ‘promote learning in Irish and the written and
spoken language’ which is too general in scope, and very unclear as to the specifics.
We have concluded on the basis of the report and of these discussions that the
Department has no very clear idea of where it is going, what constitutes its mission or
12
what are its objectives. This reflects, in our view, a certain complacency at the
highest levels of the Department, which has produced serious frustration amongst
some staff members.
The PRG also notes with concern the Department’s apparent failure to recognise that
it faces competition for excellent students both within the University and also from
other Universities. Much of the SAR reflects an introspective view with significant
attachment to a model which, while it might have worked well in the past, now needs
to be re-examined in the light of rather profound societal changes many of which may
be beyond the control of the Department but nevertheless will have consequences for
its operation.
The absence of a Strategic Plan (discussed in sections 5.2 and 5.3. of this report) is a
further indication of a lack of forward planning. In addition to the laudable and very
necessary linguistic aim of producing scholars of the highest calibre, the Department
also has a responsibility to train graduates in the Irish language capable of
communicating effectively and intervening in contemporary literary, linguistic, and
cultural debates.
The PRG recommends:
 That the mission statement, objectives and vision of the Department must be reexamined in the light of the drastically changed circumstances of the world in the
21st century, and with a view to attending to the needs of the students of today.
5.3 Department - Strategy, Management and Organisation
5.3.1 Departmental strategy
Operational and budgetary aspects of the Department are summarised in Chapter 2 of
the SAR. In particular, management issues are addressed in the context of
Departmental headship, Departmental committee and the workings of additional
committees within the Department. Reference is made to a number of ancillary
committees dealing with tutorials, postgraduate study and seminars, examination
grading and appeals, and a committee dedicated to Quality Assurance. While the
indications are that staff members are content with the functioning of the various
committees, the PRG has concerns as to the limited range of activities addressed by
the existing committees.
The PRG recognises the evolving complexity of operating a University department
and the growing burden of administrative tasks that have to be performed by all levels
of staff. The PRG notes the commitment of the Department to teaching its entire
programme through the medium of Irish. Strategic planning underpins every
Department’s ability to deal with the challenge of maintaining the highest possible
academic standards. In addition, it enhances the Department’s ability to capitalise on
new funding opportunities such as those administered by the Irish Research Council
for the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS) or the PRTLI schemes.
The PRG is concerned that, while the Department of Modern Irish justifiably claims
to be the largest such department in the country in terms of staff and student numbers,
13
the Department has not presented any strategic plan to back up its existing mission
statement or to position itself strategically to deal with the rapidly evolving landscape
at third level and the role of the Department as we enter the third millennium.
Based on best practice methodology used elsewhere on the UCD campus and also in
other Universities, the PRG makes the following recommendation:

That a representative Departmental Strategy Committee be elected under the
Chairmanship of the Head of Department, with a mandate to develop a 5-year
strategic plan for the Department. The committee will consider the interests of all
the stakeholders in the process, including Departmental staff, Faculties,
undergraduates, postgraduates and potential employers. The Committee will
examine all aspects of the Department’s operation and will draw up a
comprehensive and inclusive plan which will be presented for discussion and
approval by the full Departmental committee. This process should proceed
immediately and be well under way by the beginning of the next academic year,
September 2002. The Departmental Strategy Committee should build on the
recommendations of the PRG and incorporate such other initiatives as are deemed
appropriate.
The PRG is conscious of the scale of the challenge implied in implementing a 5-year
plan, particularly in approaching such a task for the first time. Certain sensitivities
will have to be respected in implementation of such a plan.
The PRG makes the following recommendation:

That the Department give serious consideration to involving an agreed facilitator
in the drafting stages of the 5-year Strategic plan.
In relation to the proposed Strategic plan, the PRG also makes the following
associated recommendation:

That the plan be presented to the Deans of the relevant faculties for
implementation on an incremental basis with annual target attainments clearly
identified and strategies developed to meet targets. It will be essential to
incorporate a critical reviewing process that will track and monitor all aspects of
the implementation. Feedback should be sought from both teaching staff and
students as a measure of the efficacy of just how well components of the plan are
working. Ideally, the Departmental Strategy Committee will be a permanent
committee that will oversee and implement strategy as part on a rolling 5-year
review. The constitution of the committee should change from time to time.
5.3.2 The Departmental decision - making process
The PRG recognises that the Departmental Committee has an important role to play in
terms of the decision-making processes within the Department. It enables each staff
member to express views on Departmental issues and to participate in decision
making, effectively sharing ownership of the process. The view was expressed that
while the Departmental committee operates as an open and democratic forum, the
range of issues and topics discussed did not always reflect societal change and the
14
potential impact on the Department. Concerns were also expressed about the lack of
follow through on some matters agreed at staff meetings.
The PRG makes the following recommendation:

That matters agreed as action items should be clearly marked as such and
responsibility for implementation noted. Where appropriate, clearly defined target
dates for completion of each task should be recorded.
5.4 Departmental Budgeting and Spending
The Departmental budgeting and spending can be classified under 3 headings, viz.,
Departmental Pay, Tutorial Allocation and Supplies and Travel. The approximate
spend under these headings are €1,000,000, €30,000 and €30,000 respectively. Of
these sums, the latter two amounts, representing about 5 per cent of the overall
running cost of the department, are an agreed allocation from the Faculty of Arts and
are under the direct control and discretion of the Department. Thus, the department
has a discretionary spend of about €200 (£170) per student per annum. Of this
discretionary sum, approximately one-half is spent on tutoring costs in order to
enhance the spoken language skills of its students.
The sum of approximately €30,000 is available for Departmental Supplies and Travel
but this amount includes a figure of €13,000 to compensate the Department for the
fact that one member of staff is heavily involved with administrative duties in the
Faculty of Arts. In other words, nearly one-quarter of the discretionary spending of
the Department is generated by one departmental member performing (important)
administrative tasks on behalf of the Faculty. Should this arrangement (and source of
revenue) not continue in the future, it may have a significant impact on the ability of
the department to carry out its normal activities.
The PRG recommends:
 That the departmental budgeting system becomes more transparent to all members
in the Department, and spending initiatives, within reason, be subject to greater
consensus within the department.
 That the annual sum made available to the Department should be considerably
increased but that this sum should be linked to definite progress, involving all
members of the Department, on the non-financial issues mentioned in this report –
mainly sections 5.5 to 5.12.
 That, in order to facilitate the extra sum of discretionary spending in the
Department, the Faculties of Arts and Celtic Studies could assign a specific sum to
be allocated to Departments on the basis of specific, innovative proposals rather
than on the basis of FTE’s.
5.5 Degree Programmes and Taught Courses
After discussion and analysis, the PRG recommends:
15
 That the Department establish a better balance in their undergraduate programmes
between the different periods of the Irish cultural and literary tradition, paying
particular attention to the role of contemporary literature on the curriculum. Given
the necessity of attracting and retaining students in first year, we recommend the
following:
(a) a more open-ended approach to the overall first year programme.
(b) ensuring that the first year programme does not repeat substantial elements of
the Leaving/Senior Certificate curriculum, especially literature and heritage
content.
The Department is to be complimented on the preparation of a new first year language
programme. We have, however, detected divergent views within the Department
between two different methodological approaches to language teaching, namely, more
traditional methods and approaches and more modern approaches based on findings
and on-going research in applied linguistics. The resolution of this conflict has
obvious consequences for the content, presentation and evaluation of these courses.
We strongly recommend:
 The development of this programme to encompass second and third year courses.
To co-ordinate this development in second and third year, it is essential:
(a) that all interested parties get together and agree on a cohesive and sequential
plan, having clear overall aims and objectives, including specific, attainable
targets.
(b) serious consideration should be given to the incorporation of a variety of
methodologies and approaches, including those used in the seemingly successful
first year language course.
(c) each programme to run through at least one cycle and not more than three
before an overall evaluation is undertaken.
(d) constant monitoring of the success of the new programmes, by both staff and
students, is an essential element of this process (e.g. performance of students visà-vis set targets, oral and written feedback, staff evaluation, etc.).
The periods spent in the Gaeltacht amounting to just one week per year, are far too
short to be of real benefit to the students in the context of developing linguistic
competence and usage.
We strongly recommend:
 That serious consideration be given to the following:
i.
a three-week period in the Gaeltacht in August/September.
ii.
students returning from the year abroad programme to participate in
this course. Furthermore, we recommend that the department appoint
16
an Erasmus co-ordinator who would ensure that students engage with
the Irish language during the year abroad (e.g. essays, projects,
translations etc.).
iii.
the possibility of degree students spending a semester in a Gaeltacht
region.
5.6 Postgraduate Studies
After discussion and analysis the PRG recommends:
 That the Department should give priority to the creation of a research culture
through a well thought out strategic plan into which postgraduate students can be
initiated.
 That the Department appoint a director of Postgraduate Studies, whose task will
include the following:
i.
review existing MA programmes.
ii.
initiate new MA programmes in relevant areas (e.g. 20th century literature,
culture and heritage; translation studies, film and media studies) From our
discussions with employers, we have discovered that a great demand exists
for skilled graduates, particularly in the areas of translation and media.
iii.
encourage postgraduate students to compete for Government of Ireland
scholarships, using the taught MA one-year programme both as a stepping
stone to a PhD and as an opportunity to prepare proposals for submissions.
Members of the Department will enhance such proposals through a proper
mentoring scheme.
iv.
introduce a formal system of supervision of postgraduate students.
v.
consider the development of both part-time and full-time PhD
programmes.
vi.
provide an introductory course in teaching methods and techniques for
new postgraduate tutors.
vii.
establish a more systematic and formalised series of Postgraduate
Seminars, with contributions from members of the Department, outside
visiting lecturers and postgraduate students.
viii.
initiate with relevant departments (e.g. English, Irish, History, Folklore,
Archaeology etc.) an interdisciplinary postgraduate programme in Irish
Studies. This would both enhance the profile of the department and attract
a greater number of students from Ireland and overseas. The Department
will have to address the issue of having to teach some of this course
through the medium of English.
17
5.7 Teaching and Learning
After discussion and analysis, the PRG recommends:
 That the Department should establish a permanent Curriculum Evaluation
Committee, incorporating contributions from the student body into this process.
 That each member of the Department should take responsibility for the evaluation
procedures of his/her particular courses. The Head of Department should coordinate the overall summary of the individual evaluations at the end of each
semester.
 That specific job descriptions be drawn up for each Head of Year and a process be
initiated to report to the full Departmental Committee on a regular basis.
 That serious consideration should be given to appraising the existing balance
between formal examination, project work and continuous assessment.
5.8 Research and Scholarly Activity
The PRG was distinctly impressed by the on-going contribution made by the
Department to research and scholarly activities in the roles of publications, editorial
work, reviews and public lectures. Nevertheless, the group feels that this contribution
could be further enhanced through the creation of a Strategic Plan for research that
would involve collaborative projects.
The PRG recommends:
 That a formal rostering system of sabbatical leave be built into this strategic plan,
thus facilitating the creation of a more efficient research culture in the Department,
through enabling younger and senior members alike to compete for HEA awards.
 That the Department participates in collaborative projects with other Irish
Departments in other Universities thereby enhancing their chances of PRTLI
funding. Such collaborative programmes would not only be of intrinsic value in
themselves, but would also facilitate the development of academic discourse in
Irish and furthermore help the recruitment of postgraduate students both from
within and outside the Department.
 That, in addition to participating in collaborative projects with other Irish
Departments, the Department could also develop interdisciplinary projects within
UCD itself. The recent success of the Memory and Identity project for the
Humanities Institute of Ireland is a striking example of what the Department can
achieve when its talents are harnessed in a collaborative project.
5.9 Appointments and promotions
The PRG notes that a high proportion of the members of the Department is due to
retire around the same time.
18
The PRG recommends:
 That the Department and the University should give serious consideration to a
staggered form of recruitment over the next few years in order to maintain
continuity and in accordance with the department’s strategic plan.
5.10 Safety issues
The PRG are not aware of any significant issues under this heading.
5.11 Support Services
The SAR (pages 105-108) provides the results of surveys by staff members and
students of support services. In relation to staff, it is obvious that the frequent absence
of responses is an indication that the department has little contact with many services.
The principal suggestions for improvement are:
(a) increased use of Irish by those in Administration building that may deal with the
Department;
(b) information in relation to Departmental spending and budgeting issued through the
Bursar’s office should be presented in a more accurate and timely manner.
The PRG recommends
 That the Departmental Secretary be provided with an easily operated accounting
package, together with appropriate training, to track the actual spend against
agreed budget headings.
 That Departmental Secretaries should have a regular meeting with a responsible
person in the Accounts Office at which discrepancies would be noted. The PRG
would like to make stronger recommendations in this area but feel that this is
beyond the scope of the PRG report.
Students (excluding first years) were also surveyed regarding their opinions of
Support Services in UCD. Unfortunately, many students were reluctant to complete
"yet another" questionnaire and the overall response rate was about 20% of the
Department's student population. In general, students were not too dissatisfied with
any one particular service mentioned in the survey. The greatest level of
dissatisfaction was with the bookshop, main restaurant and overall cleanliness of the
buildings and Belfield Campus.
The PRG recommends:
 That the Department of Quality Assurance in UCD note these particular sources of
student dissatisfaction and monitor the level and frequency of such complaints
arising from PRG visits to other Departments in UCD.
19
5.12 Archives and the Department of Modern Irish
5.12.1. Cartlann na gCanúintí/Dialect Archive
Cartlann na gCanúintí/Dialect Archive is a major linguistic and historical resource,
comprising tapes, microfilm, notecards, manuscripts and the working papers of the
late director, an tOllamh T. de Bhaldraithe. The Archive fills room C215. An
Archivist oversees the Dialect Archive and the PRG would wish to recognise and pay
tribute to her dedication and energy over many years. On investigation it is evident
that the Archive is not much used by researchers, staff or students. Following a site
visit, we are agreed that the present room is entirely unsuitable and that the very
valuable material currently stored there is in constant danger of degradation. In recent
years some items have been removed. As a matter of urgency, the PRG recommends:
 That this material be removed immediately to a secure, temperature-controlled
storage facility, either in the UCD Archives Department or to the department of
Special Collections in the Library. We also propose that the more important
sections of this material be copied and that the Archivist continues to work on
these copies under the direction of the Head of Modern Irish.
5.12.2. An Teanglann/Language laboratory
An Teanglann/Language laboratory is an essential and valuable source for the
teaching of spoken Irish and contains a very large collection of audio tapes and
videos, which in their own right constitute a valuable research resource. The PRG is
satisfied with the location, situation, and decor of the language laboratory. The PRG
strongly recommends:
 That the position of the Stiúrthóir be enhanced in order to reflect adequately the
importance of this position within the Department’s BA programme, and ancillary
programmes.
5.12.3. The Franciscan Manuscripts
The PRG notes that the Department of Modern Irish criticises the decision to house
the Irish Manuscripts formerly held by the Franciscans at Killiney, in the UCD
Archives department. The PRG well understands the Department’s sensitivity on this
matter. However, on grounds of security, of conservation, and in order to ensure that
these manuscripts are held in a temperature and humidity-controlled environment, it is
important that these be retained in their present location.
The PRG recommends:
 That these papers be retained in their present location on the UCD campus.
5.12.4. Position of Secretary within the Department of Modern Irish
The PRG has noted with concern the very heavy responsibilities discharged by the
long-serving secretary of the Department of Modern Irish. Her position as the
lynchpin of the administration of the Department has effectively precluded her from
20
availing, from time to time, of the in-house training opportunities offered by UCD,
and thus enhancing her professional skills. One obvious area in which her enhanced
skills could be deployed is in the matter of the Departmental website which is
remarkably uninformative and has not been up-dated since March 1999. The PRG
recommends:
 That, as a matter of urgency, steps be taken to make a case to Personnel for the
appointment of additional secretarial assistance within the Department of Modern
Irish.
 That the Departmental website be updated as soon as possible to include course
titles, course descriptions, teaching staff together with their research interests,
recent publications and other material relevant to the life of the Department.
Reflection
The PRG is of the view that now is the time for the Department of Modern Irish to
move forward, using the SAR and this PRG report as a launch pad. The Department
has to recognise the cultural and attitudinal changes in students and the challenge
which arises from such changes and from the falling numbers entering the discipline.
The Department needs to look outwards in order to position and adapt itself to the
changing environment of the 21st century. It needs to be more aware of what its
competitors are doing and to seek out new and exciting challenges and opportunities.
Staff should work more as a team, with a greater spirit of co-operation and in the
process change the culture of the Department for the better. Debate needs to be more
open and more inclusive. The ownership of the complete process of research and
teaching needs to be shared. Monitoring, feedback and follow-through on initiatives
needs to be strengthened. The challenge is well worthwhile.
21
6. RESPONSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MODERN IRISH COORDINATING COMMITTEE TO THE PEER REVIEW GROUP REPORT
The staff of the Department of Modern Irish would like to thank the Peer Review
Group for their dedicated work in producing their report; for the courtesy they showed
in their dealings with the department throughout the process, and in particular during
their site visit; and for the many helpful recommendations included in the Report
itself.
The Department undertakes to comprehensively review the Report in all its aspects
and to give positive consideration to all recommendations in accordance with our
obligation to serve the best academic interests of our subject. Staff members are
firmly committed to approach implementation of the report in a spirit of unity,
collegiality and urgency, and to seek the necessary resources from the University to
this end.
The following contains the response of the Co-ordinating Committee to the PRG
Report.
A
Figures and costs
(a) The figures for student numbers listed at p. 5 do not reflect the fact that in alternate
years there are two cohorts of modular students in the Department. Furthermore, it
would be preferable that the figures for students enrolled in the Diploma should be
entered in the 2001/02 column; exclusion of these tends to distort the overall pattern
which shows a largely stable student cohort.
The precise meaning of the phrase ‘relatively small’ at p. 6, referring to student
numbers, is unclear. It is important that the reference to ‘declining student numbers’
(see foregoing) be seen in the context of a well-documented decline in the numbers
studying languages at University level in general in recent years.
(b) The relative costs per student in the department as listed (p. 6) are based on
aggregates which are inclusive of the costs of An Teanglann and Cartlann na
gCanúintí. It should be noted that these are facilities which are without counterpart in
comparable departments of the Faculty.
Research and scholarly activities
While the report refers several times in passing to this topic (e.g. pp 7, 9, 10) it offers
no specific review of the very active and high-profile programme of academic
research and publication in refereed journals and of scholarly journal-editing in the
department. It is felt that some critical notice of the many areas of research being
pursued together with an estimation of the impact of such activity on the world of
learning outside the department would have been helpful, especially in view of the
apparent criticism at p. 7 (‘presentation of material could have been more uniform in
terms of profiling staff scholarly activities and research interests’). Likewise the
22
beneficial impact of the strong research ethos in the department on the formation of
undergraduate and graduate courses should be acknowledged as crucially relevant.
The Co-ordinating Committee also feels that the contribution made towards the
forward-planning process by pursuit of an active research programme may have been
overlooked (p. 13).
In section 5.8 of the Report emphasis is placed on the need to initiate interdisciplinary
postgraduate programmes (pp. 18-19). While welcoming the Report’s
recommendations in this area, and its particular acknowledgement of the departmental
input in the Memory and Identity project of the HII, the Co-ordinating Committee
feels that the Department’s record of interdisciplinary research to date has been
somewhat understated. The central involvement of staff in Faculty interdisciplinary
programmes such as the MPhil in Irish Studies and MPhil in Medieval Studies should
not be ignored. The diminished student intake in these programmes in recent years has
arisen as a result of a failure of support from the larger departments of English and
History. Likewise staff participation in a number of major joint ventures and
collaborative interdisciplinary projects should be noted (see p. 20), e.g. Stair na
Gaeilge (Professor Seosamh Watson, Dr Nicholas Williams), Irish apocryphal texts
(Dr Caoimhín Breatnach, Professor Pádraig Breatnach), The Field Day Anthology (Dr
Angela Bourke, Professor Pádraig Breatnach, Professor Alan Harrison), Foclóir na
Nua-Ghaeilge (Professor Seosamh Watson), Eighteenth-Century Ireland (Professor
Alan Harrison, Assoc. Editor), Éigse: A Journal of Irish Studies (Professor Pádraig
Breatnach, Editor).
Teaching and syllabus
The Report records in passing (3.3) its observation of what it terms ‘the sheer
enthusiasm of [the Department’s] students for the discipline’. This positive
assessment of student attitudes is, of course, strongly endorsed in much of the
feedback from courses documented in the SAR (Appendices). The Co-ordinating
Committee is concerned, however, that this assessment may have been lost sight of
elsewhere in the PRG Report where reference is made to ‘apparent failure’ by the
Department ‘to recognise that it faces competition for excellent students’ (p. 13), and
also in the context of the Report’s discussion of possible changes in undergraduate
programmes (p. 16). At the same time its members accept that such perceptions on the
part of the PRG have their own validity and welcome the encouragement these
provide to the department to engage in the kind of detailed analysis and planning
which is recommended, and which it will be the set purpose of the Strategy
Committee to pursue.
The Committee notes that here and there throughout the Report the precise import or
rationale of some comments and recommendations is obscured owing to a tendency
towards vague formulation (e.g. call for ‘a more open-ended approach’ in the 1st year
programme, p. 16; see also notice of ‘societal change’ at 5.2. pp. 13, 15).
An Teanglann; Gaeltacht study
The Committee notes the Report’s statement concerning An Teanglann at p. 9 (3.3)
Parg. 2 to the effect that ‘It would have been particularly beneficial if it had been
possible to observe a learning session in action’. The Department would have been
23
very happy to arrange such a session if requested. However, it is understood that the
Guidelines for QA/QI do not allow for observation of teaching sessions.
While the Co-ordinating Committee endorses the comment that periods spent by
students in the Gaeltacht are ‘far too short’ (p. 17), it feels that the very large cost
implications of the recommendations for alternative arrangements (5.5.) should be
acknowledged.
Representation and communication
In section 4.3 the Report records concern by members of staff ‘who were not
members of the Co-ordinating Committee as to the level and detail of their
contributions to the SAR’ (p. 11), and adds that the PRG group was ‘somewhat
mystified as to how or why such a situation might have come about’. The Coordinating Committee too is puzzled by this finding. From the date of its
establishment the deliberations of the Co-ordinating Committee were minuted, and a
report of work in progress was given by the chairman/head of department to all
meetings of the Staff Committee (Cruinniú Foirne) and minuted accordingly
throughout the duration of the process. Staff were urged to participate in the process,
contributions to the drafting of the Report were invited, and every effort was made to
incorporate all comment on the draft-report in the final document. That the necessity
to draft and translate the document put a strain on the resources of the Co-ordinating
Committee and the Department is rightly acknowledged in the PRG Report (4.3. p.
11).
However, the Co-ordinating Committee recognises that the fact that the PRG has
monitored the perception as reported is itself evidence of the need to improve the
systems of communication and decision-making in the department. It will be among
the priorities of the proposed Strategy Committee to identify ways of achieving such
improvement.
PRG Report, Section 5. 12 (Franciscan Manuscripts)
The Co-ordinating Committee wishes to make clear that it welcomes the acquisition
of the Franciscan collection of Irish-language manuscripts by UCD and does not
advocate relocation of the collection from its present location in the UCD Archives
Department (p. 21). What is a matter of urgent concern, however, is that present
arrangements for the management of the collection by the Ó Cléirigh Institute do not
allow for formal input of any kind by the Irish Department, which has much to offer
by way of specialised advice and expertise. This concern has been heightened by the
recent advertisement of Research Fellowships in the Ó Cléirigh Institute to initiate a
programme of work on the manuscript collection. Since by definition prospective
researchers will require qualification in the handling of sources in the Irish language it
is essential that the Irish Department be party to the assessment of applicants for such
Fellowships.
The import of the relevant section of the SAR was to indicate that the Franciscan
Collection is the paramount resource for the study of Irish manuscript literature in
UCD. The Irish Department, in undertaking to draft a strategic plan as recommended
in the PRG Report, will make comprehensive proposals for exploiting this resource
both for the benefit of students of Irish and in the best interests of UCD’s reputation
24
as a seat of Irish learning. Accordingly the Co-ordinating Committee considers it
essential that the Department be permitted to be directly involved in the management
of the collection and urges the formalisation of arrangements by the President of UCD
to enable the appointment of the Professor of Classical Irish (or nominee) to the board
of management of the Ó Cléirigh Institute.
PRG Report, Section 5. 12 (Cartlann na gCanúintí)
The Co-ordinating Committee regrets that the PRG Report includes some
misapprehensions as to the role and functioning of An Chartlann, and considers that a
fuller consultation with interested parties in the Department including the Professor of
Modern Irish would have been desirable. Contrary to the Report’s findings, Cartlann
holdings are in use by linguistic researchers including Department staff and the team
of lexicographers of the Dictionary of Modern Irish (Royal Irish Academy). While the
Report refers to the fact that certain holdings ‘in recent years … have been removed’,
the actual history in question is quite complex and no failure of security was involved.
With regard to the safety of the collection, it has to be pointed out that the
accommodation in which they are retained is similar to that in which other important
collections are held in UCD, e.g. sections of the Irish Folklore Collection. As in the
latter case, a specialist archivist is also required to curate the Cartlann collection. The
Co-ordinating Committee strongly opposes the proposal that the originals be removed
from the care of the archivist, as this is based on the mistaken premise that the
archivist could function properly using copies of the archival holdings. The solution in
this case is digitization, a process which will be initiated in a limited fashion as part of
the Virtual Archive Project in the projected HII undertaking.
The Co-ordinating Committee feels that the development of An Chartlann as a
departmental resource can best be assured by the appointment of an academic director
having specified duties and research targets, and proposals along these lines can be
expected to develop as a result of the strategic planning process.
B
p. 4
(1.1) The list of ‘related departments’ in this paragraph should include all
language departments in the first instance.
(1.2) (parg. 2) One member of the Co-ordinating Committee was on leave of
absence in the session 2000/01.
p. 5
(1.3) The programme for the MA in Classical Irish involves a separate and
onerous teaching schedule (not mentioned).
p. 7
(2.1) (line 13) ‘senior lecturer’ This level of staff was not represented on Coordinating Committee.
(2.2, line 2) ‘at Departmental staff meetings’: read ‘at all Departmental etc.’
p. 8
(section v)) It would have been preferable if the session convened for the
PRG’s exit presentation with HOD had allowed for a dialogue rather than a
presentation only.
p. 11
(4.3) line 3. For ‘the working language of all those in the Department’ read
25
‘the working language of the Department’.
- (line 19) For ‘various Departmental staff meetings’ read ‘all Departmental
staff meetings’.
p. 12
(Table) ‘Books edited’; should distinguish Journals edited. The table does not
distinguish refereed/unrefereed articles.
11 Meitheamh 2002
26
APPENDIX 1: Timetable of the Site Visit (timings are approximations)
Monday 4th March, 2002
5.00 p.m.
PRG met the Director of Quality Assurance
7.30 p.m.
PRG dinner hosted by the Vice-President for Research
Tuesday 5th March, 2002
9.00 - 9.30 Peer Review Group meet in An Seomra Caidrimh
9.30-10.30 PRG meets with Departmental Co-ordinating Committee to discuss the
Department in the context of the Self-assessment Report
10.30-11.00 PRG meets with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts
11.00-11.30 PRG meets with the former Dean of the Faculty of Celtic Studies in the
absence of the current Dean
11.30-12.00 PRG meets with Head of Department
12.00-13.00 PRG meets with Departmental staff who were not on the Departmental
Co-ordinating Committee
13.00-14.00 Working lunch, PRG only
14.00-15.00 Walkabout of Department offices for academic and administrative staff
15.00-16.00 PRG meets with 3 postgraduate students from Department
16.00-16.20 Coffee
16.20-17.00 PRG to visit An Teanglann
5 p.m. +
Peer Review Group only, discussion followed by working dinner
(concluded at 9.30pm)
Wednesday, 6th March, 2002
9.00-9.30
PRG meet
9.30-10.00 PRG meets 1st year students
10.30-11.00 PRG meets 2nd year students
11.00-11.30 Coffee break, PRG only
11.30-12.00 PRG meets final year students
12.00-12.30 PRG to meet with graduates of the Department
12.30-14.00 Working lunch, Peer Review Group with Department of Irish graduate
employers
14.00-18.15 Private meetings with staff
6.30 p.m. + Peer Review Group only, discussion followed by working dinner
(concluded at 9pm)
27
Thursday, 7th March, 2002
9.00-10.30 Additional visits by staff members
10.30-13.00 Peer Review Group to complete the first draft of the report
13.00-14.30 Working lunch, PRG only
14.30-15.00 Peer Review Group meets with the Head of Department
15.00-15.45 Peer Review Group makes a presentation to all members of the
Department available to attend in An Seomra Caidrimh.
28