Faculty Responses to the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2013
School of Medicine and Dentistry
Introduction
This paper outlines the Doctoral College's response to Queen Mary’s results in the
Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) for 2013 provided by the Higher
Education Academy.
An initial analysis of the PRES results, comparing Queen Mary to the sector as a whole and
to other Russell Group Universities and broken down by Faculty, was prepared by Planning
and provided to the Doctoral College Management Group in September 2013. The results
were discussed by the DC Management Group at its September meeting, with more detailed
results - collated by School, and including free text comments, circulated by the Deputy
Deans to the Directors of Graduate Studies in each School for consideration. Schools were
asked to produce an Action Plan detailing their responses to any issues where satisfaction
levels fell below the Russell Group average, for return to their Faculty Deputy Dean for
Research by the 1st week of November for consideration and summary by the Doctoral
College Management Group.
Whilst the Doctoral College values PRES, it recognises that on its own PRES does not
always provide the fine grained analysis that is most useful to assessing student experience.
As a result, from September 2013 the Doctoral College have circulated a more detailed Exit
Survey to all Queen Mary students on completion of their PhD. Together with existing forms
of feedback (individual student progress reports, reports from student representatives on
School Graduate Studies Committees, and on the Doctoral College Management Group)
and PRES, this survey will provide a much fuller picture of the Queen Mary PGR experience.
School of Medicine and Dentistry
Response rates in 2013 had significantly increased (33% response rate in 2013 compared to
17% in 2011) and were in-line with the sector average, but the Faculty would like to see
rates improve still further. Although comparisons of satisfaction rates across the Faculty
have been made, it is noted that the number of students enrolled in each Institute differs,
with the Institute of Health Sciences Education and the Wolfson Research Institute having
relatively small numbers of students.
SMD scored well in PRES with overall experience satisfaction levels of 84% - above Queen
Mary’s average by 4% and in-line with the Russell Group average. All Institutes recorded
scores of 75% or above, with some Institutes scoring highly (Institute of Health Sciences
Education 100%, Institute of Dentistry 95% and William Harvey Research Institute 85%).
1
Students in SMD reported especially high levels of satisfaction with supervisory
arrangements, workspace and computing resources provision, induction and formal
progression monitoring arrangements and opportunities to develop research skills. Students
across SMD reported lower levels of satisfaction with regards to the provision of library
resources and opportunities to become involved in a wider research community. Students
also expressed a lower level of satisfaction in regards to whether they felt the institution
valued and responded to their feedback.
In response to these PRES results, Institutes were asked to draw up action plans to address
any areas of concern raised by their students. Institutes’ results, and the actions put in place
by the Doctoral College, Faculty and individual Institutes to address these concerns are
outlined below.
Supervision
Institutes in SMD scored highly on PRES questions relating to the quality of supervision.
When asked whether their supervisors had the skills and subject knowledge to support
students’ research, all Institutes scored a student satisfaction level of over 81% with the
Institute of Dentistry, the Institute of Health Sciences Education and the Wolfson Institute all
scoring 100%. Institutes also scored highly in regard to the regularity of contact with
supervisors and standard of supervisory feedback.
Actions: All Institutes in SMD will continue to offer a high level of supervision to all
postgraduate research students. Institutes will also ensure that supervisors attend supervisor
training run by the Doctoral College and refresher courses organised locally and delivered by
the Dean for Postgraduate Studies.
Resources
Students’ satisfaction rates across the Faculty varied in response to questions regarding the
provision of resources. All Institutes scored high students satisfaction rates in relation to
suitable working space (Barts Cancer Institute 79%, Blizard Institute 80%, Wolfson Institute
88%, Institute of Dentistry 90%, William Harvey Research Institute 93% and Institute of
Health Sciences 100%) and computing resources and facilities (Blizard Institute 85%, Barts
Cancer Institute 86%, Wolfson Institute 88%, William Harvey Research Institute 92%,
Institute of Dentistry 95% and Institute of Health Sciences Education 100%). Levels of
student satisfaction with regard to library provision and specialist resources, however, were
not as high. In particular, relatively low scores were achieved by Barts Cancer Institute,
William Harvey Research Institute and Wolfson Institute in regard to student library facilities
(67%, 69% and 63% respectively).
Actions: It is highly likely that rates of satisfaction for library provision from Barts Cancer
Institute, William Harvey Research Institute and Wolfson Institute were negatively impacted
by the potential closure of the local Medical School Library at West Smithfield, which has
now become a non-lending library operating at reduced hours: Charterhouse Square
campus does not have a library onsite. Colleagues have campaigned to keep the Medical
2
School Library open and members of staff have volunteered to staff the library, in a bid to
keep it open for students. This issue has been raised several times at College level as
closure of the library will impact all Institutes based on the Charterhouse Square campus as
well as the large population residing in Dawson Hall. The lack of resources on the
Charterhouse Square campus was also reflected in a selection of the free text comments.
Dissatisfaction with library provision is a serious concern, and one that more obviously
demands a response at Faculty and College level.
Research Culture
PRES asked students four main questions to gauge satisfaction with regard to their
experience of a broader research culture. Students were asked about their
department/Institute’s seminar programme, opportunities to discuss their research with other
research students, the research ambience in their Institute or Faculty, and whether they felt
there were opportunities for them to become involved in the wider research community,
beyond their own department/Institute. Most participating students in SMD were satisfied
with the seminar programmes run in their department (Barts Cancer Institute 83%, William
Harvey Research Institute 77%, Wolfson Institute 75% and Blizard 72%). In most cases,
students recorded high levels of satisfaction with their Institute’s research ambience, though
satisfaction levels were lower in the Wolfson Institute (57%) and the William Harvey
Research Institute (65%). The lowest levels of satisfaction were recorded in relation to the
extent to which students felt that they had opportunities to engage with a research
community beyond their institutes. The Russell Group average in relation to research culture
was 67% - all but two Institutes (Institute of Health Sciences Education 100% and William
Harvey Research Institute 69%) fell well below this level: Institute of Dentistry 58%, Blizard
Institute 57%, Barts Cancer Institute 55%, Wolfson Institute 50%.
Actions: Institutes are already engaged in programmes aimed at developing a stronger
sense of research environment. The Blizard Institute runs a weekly seminar, ad hoc centrebased seminars and an ‘all on board programme’ for students only. There is an annual
induction day with a networking reception at the end and a Graduate Studies day for
students to present and talk about their projects. Monthly tutorials on specific technologies
are also organised. Turnout for some of these events can be low, possibly due to a lack of
communication. The Graduate Studies Committee has recently established a page for PGR
students on QM Plus and it is hoped that this, together with the usual email circulars will aid
communication. The William Harvey Research Institute holds weekly seminars and
additional ad hoc ones. The Institute holds regular work in progress meetings aimed at
PGRs and new Postdocs to discuss their on-going projects. The Institute also has poster
session at the William Harvey review days for students to show their data more widely. The
Institute are keen to improve and will ask their Student Liaison Committee for further ideas.
The Barts Cancer Institute places great emphasis on group-driven research, creating a
highly collegiate, inclusive and sociable environment. To encourage wider interaction, the
Institute runs several seminar series with both internal and external speakers. The Institute
does hope to improve interaction with the research community at Queen Mary and is hoping
to establish more joint campus student events and forums. Interaction can be hindered by
the physical separation of campuses, but the Life Sciences Initiative will help to establish
more formalised links between other Institutes and Schools, and campuses.
3
It is likely that students have also used this section to reflect on opportunities to engage with
researchers beyond their own disciplinary networks, in other Schools and Faculties within
Queen Mary. Fostering further such engagement requires action at a College and Faculty
level and is being led by the Doctoral College with twice yearly cohort days designed to bring
Queen Mary PGR students together and foster inter-disciplinary exchange, and – building on
existing initiatives (Café Scientifique and the 3 Minute Thesis Competition) – new social
events to bring Queen Mary’s PGR community together (the Doctoral College Annual
Debate and Curry Night). In addition, the Doctoral College events calendar (that also lists
School seminar and reading groups) should greatly increase awareness of the wide range of
research events across Queen Mary.
Induction, Progression, Arrangements and Assessment
PRES monitors students understanding of, and satisfaction with, the ways in which their
progress is monitored, the standards required for the award of a PhD, knowledge of the
examination procedures, and student induction processes. There were high levels of student
satisfaction across the faculty, particularly in regard to student induction (Institute of Health
Sciences Education 100%, William Harvey Research Institute 89%, Wolfson Institute 80%,
Institute of Dentistry 85%, Blizard Institute 83% and Barts Cancer Institute 66%), and formal
monitoring processes (Institute of Health Sciences Education 100%, Institute of Dentistry
90%, William Harvey Research Institute 89%, Wolfson Institute 88%, Blizard Institute 87%
and Barts Cancer Institute 66%). There were also high levels of student satisfaction for some
Institutes in response to questions concerning the understanding of thesis standards
(Institute of Health Sciences Education 100%, William Harvey Research Institute 85%,
Institute of Dentistry 80% and Blizard Institute 77%) and student understanding of final
assessment procedures (Institute of Health Sciences 100%, William Harvey Research
Institute 82%, Institute of Dentistry 80%, Blizard Institute 77%). The Wolfson Institute scored
63% and Barts Cancer Institute scored a comparatively low 59% for both questions.
Actions: All SMD Institutes ensure as much as possible that all students and supervisors
are aware of what is required for the progression and assessment processes. It is unclear
why satisfaction levels of Barts Cancer Institute in regard to understanding the required
standard of the thesis and knowledge about the final assessment was below 60%. All Barts
Cancer Institute students are required to complete College, Faculty and local induction
programmes as well as lab induction session. Students have one to ones with their
Postgraduate Tutor and Academic Coordinator where progression requirements of their
programmes are discussed. Information and guidance related to progression and
assessment are accessible to students on the VLE and reiterated at the Annual Barts
Cancer Institute postgraduate day. Any changes made to progression requirements, whether
by implementing new regulatory requirements or responding to student feedback, are
communicated immediately with staff and students. The Institute will continue to look for
ways to improve communication of information to staff and supervisors. The Blizard Institute
scored high levels of students’ satisfaction and will continue to ensure that students attend
College and Institute inductions. The issue surrounding the requirements for a PhD thesis
was raised at a recent staff-student liaison committee meeting. In response to these
concerns, a senior academic has offered to run a session on thesis structure and wording for
the disciplines in the Institute. If these sessions prove popular it will become a regular event.
4
Responsibilities
Queen Mary values feedback from all students and staff. Postgraduate Research students
are represented on the Doctoral College Management Group with a standing member from
the Students’ Union and the President of the newly formed Doctoral Society. At a Faculty
level, student feedback is provided to the faculty and the Doctoral College via the Director of
Graduate Studies from each Institute who meet each term. Overall, there were high levels of
student satisfaction recoded across the Faculty to questions asked in the ‘Responsibilities’
section. All Institutes scored over 85% in regard to student understanding of their
responsibilities as research students, over 78% student satisfaction rates concerning student
support networks (outside of the supervisor/supervisee relationship) and over 72%
concerning student awareness of supervisor responsibilities. However, all Institutes scored
low satisfaction rates in response to whether they felt that their institution valued and
responded to their feedback, with only the William Harvey Research Institute and the
Institute of Dentistry scoring over 60%. It is unclear, however, at what level students feel that
their feedback is not valued – the question does not make clear whether ‘institute’ refers to
Institutes, Faculty or the College. Other Faculties also scored low student satisfaction rates
to this question.
Actions: At Faculty level there are clear mechanisms in place in Institutes for students to
give feedback. Barts Cancer Institute’s students are strongly encouraged to engage and
feedback to the Institute through the student forum who report to the Postgraduate tutors.
Where possible, all comments have been acted on but there have, inevitably, be some
issues which have needed input from a Faculty and College level, such as access to
learning resources and space. The Wolfson Institute identifies the need to respond to
students’ concerns more quickly. The Institute will address this in their postgraduate
research committee and staff-student liaison committee. The Institute of Dentistry has seen
an improvement in communication between staff and students, with the Director of Graduate
Studies responding quickly to issues. The Blizard Institute were disappointed that only 50%
of their students participating in PRES agreed that their institution responded well to
feedback. The Institute will look at other Schools at Queen Mary who scored highly in this
regard to see whether may serve as good models for the Blizard Institute.
Staff-Student Liaison Committees and student forums held in Institutes provide robust ways
for student concerns to be carried forward to the SMD Directors of Graduate Studies
Committee, the Faculty and the Doctoral College. In addition the launch of the Doctoral
College’s Exit Survey will provide additional and on-going feedback of the PGR experience
at Queen Mary to add to the information received from PRES. It is possible that
communicating the processes involved more clearly to students at SSLCs might give them a
clearer sense that their feedback is being addressed, even if resulting actions are not
immediate.
Research skills and development
There were high levels of student satisfaction in regard to questions relating to research
skills and development. Satisfaction rates were recorded at over 90% in regard to the
5
development of research methodologies, tools and techniques during research, over 93% in
response to whether students believed their critical analysis and evaluating skills had
developed during their research degree, over 71% concerning whether students felt their
confidence to be creative of innovative had developed during their studies, and over 89% in
regard to student understanding of research integrity – an attribution to the standard of
ethics training offered in the Faculty. Students across the Faculty also seemed satisfied with
opportunities provided by Institutes to develop professional networks and professional
development, with five Institutes scoring over 75% for both questions.
Actions: All Schools in SMD provide opportunities for their students to engage in
professional development. In addition, all students have access to the professional
development course offered through Queen Mary’s Centre for Academic and Professional
Development (CAPD). Barts Cancer Institute dedicates a lot of time to helping develop their
students’ research skills by running internal courses and arranging guest lectures, seminars
and talks. This provision has increased over the last year based upon earlier student
feedback confirming that it is a valuable resource for them. Barts Cancer Institute also
emphasise the importance of professional development and run a travel bursary in addition
to the College and SMD bursaries. This enables students to attend conferences to present
their work and have the opportunity to network. Students are expected to present at
conferences during the last two years of their courses which may be why the question
relating to networking scored a lower level of satisfaction than other areas. Students from the
Wolfson Institute indicated that they wished to have more training courses run that are run at
the Mile End and Whitechapel campuses to be run on the Charterhouse Square site. This
would also benefit Barts Cancer Institute students. These concerns will be discussed with
the providers of College-run training and the Graduate Studies Committee to see whether
this is possible. The Institute of Dentistry will look to assess and development student
provision in the Institute in terms of seminar programmes and journal clubs. The Blizard
Institute scored high student satisfaction levels in regard to the research skills and
professional development sections. This is encouraging and the Institute will continue to
uphold college policy on transferable skills training as well as the retention of technical
courses run by staff associated with our core facilities. The Blizard Institute scored slightly
less in regard to student perceptions of the opportunity to develop professional contacts and
networks but this could be a reflection of the Institute’s demographics. A large proportion of
their PhD students return to clinical medicine and already have established contacts and
networks through the profession. The Blizard Institute will continue to invite external
speakers in order to give students opportunities to network.
The Doctoral College reviewed all CAPD courses against student feedback in July 2013 to
identify the areas of strength and concern, and CAPD and School/Institute provision is now
augmented with twice yearly cohort days organised by the Doctoral College focusing on key
areas of professional development (for example, academic networking and impact). In
addition, in September 2013 the Doctoral College introduced a new funding scheme, named
the Postgraduate Research Initiative Fund, to extend the financial support available to
Queen Mary PGR students through the Postgraduate Research Fund, for students who wish
to develop innovative training opportunities of their own. In Spring 2014 the Doctoral College
will carry out a review of the College’s training points system (with a particular focus on the
availability of training opportunities across different RCUK research training domains, and
the weighting of training requirements across those domains and each year of study), and
6
will introduce a new, more user friendly interface to the training database – now hosted on
the Doctoral College website.
7