Higher Education Policy Dev
Content
January 2003/01
Policy development
Consultation
Respond by Friday 14 March 2003
This document invites higher education
institutions to contribute to the development
of threshold standards for research degree
programmes, prior to formal consultation on
this issue in spring 2003. The standards are
drawn from a report by independent
consultants, initially published on the web in
October 2002.
Improving standards in
postgraduate research
degree programmes
Informal consultation
HEFCE 2003
Contents
Executive summary
3
Background
4
Proposed core standards
6
Issues for consultation
7
Research report
2
Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes
To
Heads of all UK higher education institutions
Of interest to those responsible for
Reference
Research degrees, Postgraduate training,
Internal quality assurance
2003/01
Publication date
January 2003
Enquiries to
Will Naylor
tel 0117 931 7471
e-mail [email protected]
Executive summary
Purpose
1.
This document invites higher education institutions (HEIs) to contribute to the
development of threshold standards for research degree programmes (RDPs), prior to formal
consultation on this issue in spring 2003.
Key points
2.
This is the first stage of a three-stage programme led by the four UK higher education
funding bodies. The aim is to enhance the quality of research training across the UK by
developing a set of minimum standards to which all research funders and HEIs would
subscribe.
3.
The programme has its origins in concerns expressed to the funding bodies in their
recent reviews of research policy and funding, including those from major sponsors of
postgraduate education, about the quality and consistency of research training.
4.
The proposed threshold standards are drawn from a research report, originally
published on the HEFCE web-site in October.
Action required
5.
We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs
by responding to the conclusions in the report and the proposed core standards set out in
Table 1 below. Responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for threshold standards
for RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public consultation in April
2003.
6.
Any responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at
the HEFCE, [email protected]
3
Background
7.
The UK higher education funding bodies commissioned a report on improving
postgraduate research degree programmes, in response to concerns about the quality and
consistency of research training that were raised in recent reviews of research policy and
funding. These concerns were echoed this year in the review by Sir Gareth Roberts of the
supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematical skills (‘SET for
success’, HM Treasury, April 2002).
8.
The work was undertaken by a team of consultants led by Dr Janet Metcalfe, and
overseen by the Joint Funding Councils’ Steering Group on postgraduate education, chaired
by Professor Roland Levinsky.
9.
The report was originally published in October 2002 on the HEFCE web-site,
www.hefce.ac.uk under ‘Publications/R&D reports’. It presents a quality framework covering
the breadth of research training, including the research environment; selection, induction,
progress and examination of students; supervisory arrangements and skills development; and
institutional arrangements for quality assurance, procedures and regulations. The framework
encompasses all those with a role in research training, including institutions, supervisors and
the students themselves.
Role of Research Councils
10.
The report defines over 30 items as minimum standards. We recognise that assessing
this number of standards would pose serious challenges for HEIs in terms of internal quality
assurance. Therefore we have extracted, in concert with the Research Councils, a set of core
standards which appear to us to represent an essential minimum for providing high quality
RDP training. These core standards are outlined below. They represent the emerging views
of the funding bodies and the Research Councils, and not necessarily those of the Steering
Group on postgraduate education or the consultants. We envisage that all HEIs in receipt of
funding for postgraduate training should comply in future with a list of core standards,
although we hope that institutions would also aspire to the complete framework set out in the
report.
11.
The framework in the report and our proposed core standards have been discussed in
detail with the Research Councils, who were represented on the project steering committee.
The Research Councils endorse the principles behind this framework, and they all place
similar requirements upon the departments in receipt of their own studentship funding.
12.
Our interaction with the Research Councils reflects our aspiration to achieve better coordination and agreement around the different requirements that separate research funders
have for research training. A key aim is to reduce the accountability burden currently faced by
HEIs in complying with several sets of quality criteria, although the Research Councils do not
as yet have a view on how the framework should be monitored and assessed. Furthermore,
funding council strategy and future funding arrangements do not fall within the remit of the
Research Councils. Therefore their support at this stage does not necessarily imply future
endorsement by the Research Councils of any policies that might be developed by the
funding bodies to implement the recommendations of this review.
4
13.
It should also be stressed that our proposed list of core standards can be applied
flexibly to accommodate the needs of different types of research students, including part-time
and mature students. Equally, we would not seek to impose criteria that individual students
feel are inappropriate. Under training, for example, HEIs would be expected to provide every
student with the opportunity to complete a suitable programme in research and other skills;
but we would certainly not envisage the participation of each student on such a programme
as mandatory (although other funders may have different views).
5
Table 1 Proposed core standards
Institution
Evidence that the institution has paid attention to the quality of RDP training
provision, as evidenced by the implementation of a Code of Practice.
Minimum standard:
•
Research
environment
Implementation of a Code of Practice covering the areas identified in the
summary of framework standards (Annex D).
All research training to be provided in an appropriate environment, as
evidenced by: the presence of a critical mass of researchers in the
appropriate subject area; adequate facilities; and minimum submission
rates. A minimum RAE rating has also been suggested as a measure of the
quality of the research environment.
Minimum standards:
• Unit/cognate area of research should have a way of providing effective
•
•
Supervisory
arrangements
interaction with a mix of at least five research active staff or postdoctoral researchers, and between a group of at least 10 research
students. (For institutions with a relatively small number of researchers,
this could be achieved by collaborating with neighbouring HEIs.)
70 per cent submission rate within four years.
Suggested minimum RAE rating of 3a (again this could be achieved
through collaboration).
Appropriate supervisory arrangements to be in place as evidenced by:
mandatory training for new supervisors; defined supervisory teams,
including experienced main supervisor; and an upper limit on the number of
students per main supervisor.
Minimum standards:
•
•
•
•
Admission
criteria
All new supervisors to undertake mandatory, institutionally specified
training.
Supervision to be provided by supervisory teams consisting of at least
two supervisors, one of whom shall be designated as the main
supervisor.
Supervisors to have had experience of at least one successful
supervision within a supervisory team before acting as a main
supervisor.
Main supervisors to have responsibility for a maximum of eight students.
Students to be appropriately prepared for the RDP, as evidenced by
fulfilment of minimum standard entry qualification.
Minimum standard:
•
Training
Normal entry requirement for RDP to be a 2(i) degree in a relevant
subject, or a relevant Masters qualification.
Appropriate arrangements to be in place to develop research and other
skills, as evidenced by existence of training programme.
Minimum standard:
• Provision of a training programme to develop research and other skills,
as outlined in the Joint Research Councils/AHRB Statement on Skills
Training Requirements.
6
Table 1 Proposed core standards
Progression,
assessment
Arrangements to be in place to monitor student progress and ensure fair
and appropriate examination as evidenced by: existence of institutional
and appeals
procedures for progress monitoring; examination by an appropriately
constituted panel; and availability of appeals procedures.
Minimum standards:
• Student progress to be reviewed annually by panels of at least three
academic staff, the majority of whom are independent of the supervisory
team.
•
•
Final examination to be by viva to an independent panel of at least two
examiners, of whom at least one is an external examiner and at least
one is from a minimum 3a rated department.
Institution to arrange and publicise complaints and appeals procedures.
Issues for consultation
14.
We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs
by responding to the conclusions made in the research report and the proposed core
standards in Table 1 above. These responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for
threshold standards in RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public
consultation in April 2003.
15.
In particular, we would welcome views on the following key questions:
a.
Do you agree that the framework set out in the research report broadly
represents the best way to improve the quality and consistency of RDPs?
b.
Do you agree that individual framework standards are appropriate (summarised
at Annex D)? Are the minimum levels suggested here too high/too low?
c.
What do you think of the core standards proposed in Table 1 above? Are there
aspects of the framework summarised at Annex D that should be added to the core?
d.
Do you agree that monitoring only a set of core standards, but requiring HEIs to
adopt a code of practice covering the complete framework, is appropriate?
e.
How would you measure your compliance with the framework?
16.
Responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at the
HEFCE, e-mail [email protected]
7
Policy development
Consultation
Respond by Friday 14 March 2003
This document invites higher education
institutions to contribute to the development
of threshold standards for research degree
programmes, prior to formal consultation on
this issue in spring 2003. The standards are
drawn from a report by independent
consultants, initially published on the web in
October 2002.
Improving standards in
postgraduate research
degree programmes
Informal consultation
HEFCE 2003
Contents
Executive summary
3
Background
4
Proposed core standards
6
Issues for consultation
7
Research report
2
Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes
To
Heads of all UK higher education institutions
Of interest to those responsible for
Reference
Research degrees, Postgraduate training,
Internal quality assurance
2003/01
Publication date
January 2003
Enquiries to
Will Naylor
tel 0117 931 7471
e-mail [email protected]
Executive summary
Purpose
1.
This document invites higher education institutions (HEIs) to contribute to the
development of threshold standards for research degree programmes (RDPs), prior to formal
consultation on this issue in spring 2003.
Key points
2.
This is the first stage of a three-stage programme led by the four UK higher education
funding bodies. The aim is to enhance the quality of research training across the UK by
developing a set of minimum standards to which all research funders and HEIs would
subscribe.
3.
The programme has its origins in concerns expressed to the funding bodies in their
recent reviews of research policy and funding, including those from major sponsors of
postgraduate education, about the quality and consistency of research training.
4.
The proposed threshold standards are drawn from a research report, originally
published on the HEFCE web-site in October.
Action required
5.
We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs
by responding to the conclusions in the report and the proposed core standards set out in
Table 1 below. Responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for threshold standards
for RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public consultation in April
2003.
6.
Any responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at
the HEFCE, [email protected]
3
Background
7.
The UK higher education funding bodies commissioned a report on improving
postgraduate research degree programmes, in response to concerns about the quality and
consistency of research training that were raised in recent reviews of research policy and
funding. These concerns were echoed this year in the review by Sir Gareth Roberts of the
supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematical skills (‘SET for
success’, HM Treasury, April 2002).
8.
The work was undertaken by a team of consultants led by Dr Janet Metcalfe, and
overseen by the Joint Funding Councils’ Steering Group on postgraduate education, chaired
by Professor Roland Levinsky.
9.
The report was originally published in October 2002 on the HEFCE web-site,
www.hefce.ac.uk under ‘Publications/R&D reports’. It presents a quality framework covering
the breadth of research training, including the research environment; selection, induction,
progress and examination of students; supervisory arrangements and skills development; and
institutional arrangements for quality assurance, procedures and regulations. The framework
encompasses all those with a role in research training, including institutions, supervisors and
the students themselves.
Role of Research Councils
10.
The report defines over 30 items as minimum standards. We recognise that assessing
this number of standards would pose serious challenges for HEIs in terms of internal quality
assurance. Therefore we have extracted, in concert with the Research Councils, a set of core
standards which appear to us to represent an essential minimum for providing high quality
RDP training. These core standards are outlined below. They represent the emerging views
of the funding bodies and the Research Councils, and not necessarily those of the Steering
Group on postgraduate education or the consultants. We envisage that all HEIs in receipt of
funding for postgraduate training should comply in future with a list of core standards,
although we hope that institutions would also aspire to the complete framework set out in the
report.
11.
The framework in the report and our proposed core standards have been discussed in
detail with the Research Councils, who were represented on the project steering committee.
The Research Councils endorse the principles behind this framework, and they all place
similar requirements upon the departments in receipt of their own studentship funding.
12.
Our interaction with the Research Councils reflects our aspiration to achieve better coordination and agreement around the different requirements that separate research funders
have for research training. A key aim is to reduce the accountability burden currently faced by
HEIs in complying with several sets of quality criteria, although the Research Councils do not
as yet have a view on how the framework should be monitored and assessed. Furthermore,
funding council strategy and future funding arrangements do not fall within the remit of the
Research Councils. Therefore their support at this stage does not necessarily imply future
endorsement by the Research Councils of any policies that might be developed by the
funding bodies to implement the recommendations of this review.
4
13.
It should also be stressed that our proposed list of core standards can be applied
flexibly to accommodate the needs of different types of research students, including part-time
and mature students. Equally, we would not seek to impose criteria that individual students
feel are inappropriate. Under training, for example, HEIs would be expected to provide every
student with the opportunity to complete a suitable programme in research and other skills;
but we would certainly not envisage the participation of each student on such a programme
as mandatory (although other funders may have different views).
5
Table 1 Proposed core standards
Institution
Evidence that the institution has paid attention to the quality of RDP training
provision, as evidenced by the implementation of a Code of Practice.
Minimum standard:
•
Research
environment
Implementation of a Code of Practice covering the areas identified in the
summary of framework standards (Annex D).
All research training to be provided in an appropriate environment, as
evidenced by: the presence of a critical mass of researchers in the
appropriate subject area; adequate facilities; and minimum submission
rates. A minimum RAE rating has also been suggested as a measure of the
quality of the research environment.
Minimum standards:
• Unit/cognate area of research should have a way of providing effective
•
•
Supervisory
arrangements
interaction with a mix of at least five research active staff or postdoctoral researchers, and between a group of at least 10 research
students. (For institutions with a relatively small number of researchers,
this could be achieved by collaborating with neighbouring HEIs.)
70 per cent submission rate within four years.
Suggested minimum RAE rating of 3a (again this could be achieved
through collaboration).
Appropriate supervisory arrangements to be in place as evidenced by:
mandatory training for new supervisors; defined supervisory teams,
including experienced main supervisor; and an upper limit on the number of
students per main supervisor.
Minimum standards:
•
•
•
•
Admission
criteria
All new supervisors to undertake mandatory, institutionally specified
training.
Supervision to be provided by supervisory teams consisting of at least
two supervisors, one of whom shall be designated as the main
supervisor.
Supervisors to have had experience of at least one successful
supervision within a supervisory team before acting as a main
supervisor.
Main supervisors to have responsibility for a maximum of eight students.
Students to be appropriately prepared for the RDP, as evidenced by
fulfilment of minimum standard entry qualification.
Minimum standard:
•
Training
Normal entry requirement for RDP to be a 2(i) degree in a relevant
subject, or a relevant Masters qualification.
Appropriate arrangements to be in place to develop research and other
skills, as evidenced by existence of training programme.
Minimum standard:
• Provision of a training programme to develop research and other skills,
as outlined in the Joint Research Councils/AHRB Statement on Skills
Training Requirements.
6
Table 1 Proposed core standards
Progression,
assessment
Arrangements to be in place to monitor student progress and ensure fair
and appropriate examination as evidenced by: existence of institutional
and appeals
procedures for progress monitoring; examination by an appropriately
constituted panel; and availability of appeals procedures.
Minimum standards:
• Student progress to be reviewed annually by panels of at least three
academic staff, the majority of whom are independent of the supervisory
team.
•
•
Final examination to be by viva to an independent panel of at least two
examiners, of whom at least one is an external examiner and at least
one is from a minimum 3a rated department.
Institution to arrange and publicise complaints and appeals procedures.
Issues for consultation
14.
We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs
by responding to the conclusions made in the research report and the proposed core
standards in Table 1 above. These responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for
threshold standards in RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public
consultation in April 2003.
15.
In particular, we would welcome views on the following key questions:
a.
Do you agree that the framework set out in the research report broadly
represents the best way to improve the quality and consistency of RDPs?
b.
Do you agree that individual framework standards are appropriate (summarised
at Annex D)? Are the minimum levels suggested here too high/too low?
c.
What do you think of the core standards proposed in Table 1 above? Are there
aspects of the framework summarised at Annex D that should be added to the core?
d.
Do you agree that monitoring only a set of core standards, but requiring HEIs to
adopt a code of practice covering the complete framework, is appropriate?
e.
How would you measure your compliance with the framework?
16.
Responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at the
HEFCE, e-mail [email protected]
7
