SENATE

SEN12-M8

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Senate on Wednesday 7 November 2012.

Memis Acar
Steve Austin
Morag Bell
Tracy Bhamra
Jon Binner
Jonathon Chambers (ab)
Jim Chandler
Alistair Cheyne
Steve Christie
Paul Chung
Laurence Clift
Samantha Davis
Rob Dover
Simon Downs
Phil Eames
Mark Everitt
John Feather
Jacqui Glass
Russ Harris / Robert Allison
Chris Hewitt
Elaine Hobby
Ruth Jenkins
Terry Kavanagh
David Kerr
Mark King
Angus Laing
Paul Leaney
Mark Lewis
Chris Linton
Joe Maguire
Dominic Malcolm (ab)
Neil Mansfield
Constantine Marlas
Fehmidah Munir
Myra Nimmo
David Parish
Rob Parkin (ab)
Keith Pond / Jonathan Potter
Ellie Read
Helen Rendell
Peter Render
Chris Rielly
Carol Robinson
Sebastien Roger
Steve Rothberg
Andrew Selby
Chris Szejnmann
Paul Thomas
Tony Thorpe
Paul Turner
Mike Waring
Iris Wigger (ab)
Jonathan Wright (ab)
Shuang-Hua Yang
Huaizhong Zhao
Lazar Zindovic

In attendance: Chris Backhouse (for item 12/104), Mike Caine (for item 12/105), Chris Dunbobbin, Robert Hamilton (for item 12/104), Jennifer Nutkins, Caroline Walker.

Apologies for absence were received from:Jonathon Chambers, Dominic Malcolm, Rob Parkin, Iris Wigger, Jonathan Wright.

The Vice Chancellor welcomed Samantha Davis, Constantine Marlas, and Sebastien Roger, who were attending their first meeting as students of the University, elected from and by the students involved in the academic representation structure of the Students’ Union.

12/100Minutes

Senate RESOLVED to confirm and sign the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on 4 July 2012 (SEN12-M5), and of the Extraordinary meeting held on 11 October 2012.

12/101Matters Arising from the Minutes

SEN12-P131

Review of Information Science, Information Systems and Information Management (RISM)

At its meeting on 4 July 2012, Senate had approved a proposal to establish a Centre for Information Management (CIM) in the School of Business and Economics, but had askedto receive an implementation plan, incorporating a more detailed timetable, and more in-depth proposals in relation to research, teaching and enterprise, taking into account the issues raised by DIS staff. An Implementation Group (IG), comprising SBE and DIS staff had been established to address these issues, and had consulted widely with DIS staff, students, and others. The following sections of the IG’s report were highlighted:

i)Staff Planning. In the initial proposal, it had been recognised that some DIS staff might wish to transfer to another area of the University to achieve a better fit in relation to their research interests, and this had been addressed by the IG. Most R&T staff within DIS had expressed a wish to be part of the CIM, but staff within the Publishing Group had asked to transfer to the School of the Arts, English and Drama (AED), and this had been accepted in principle by AED. Two other staff had asked to transfer to the Department of Computer Science, and this move was under consideration. Contract research staff would transfer to the relevant Schools, depending on the relocation of the relevant member of R&T staff.

ii)Accommodation Planning. All DIS R & T staff joining the CIM would be accommodated within the Sir Richard Morris Building, and planning for this was well underway.

iii)Programme Planning. The IG had reached agreement regarding the transfer of DIS programmes to SBE, Computer Science and AED respectively, and it was intended that those programmes transferred to SBE would be reviewed during 2013.

iv)Research and Enterprise Planning. The proposed vision and focus of the CIM had been refined from that set out in the initial proposal. It was emphasised, however, that the focus on six themes, while constituting the core of CIM activity and the basis of the Centre’s international reputation, did not preclude staff from also pursuing areas of personal research interest.

v)Timescale for Implementation. It was proposed that the Centre be formally established on 1 March 2013, with the official launch in April/May 2013. The Director if the CIM would be appointed by the end of December 2012, through an open internal recruitment process, and all DIS staff would transfer to SBE (or other Schools) on 1 August 2013.

It was noted in discussion that all LISU staff would transfer to the CIM, and that work was envisaged to broaden the unit’s range of services, while maintaining and strengthening its external-facing profile.

Senate thanked Professor Angus Laing and the other members of the IG for their work.

12/102Powers and Functions of Senate

SEN12-P98

Senate NOTED the powers and functions of Senate.

12/103University Strategy and Planning

SEN12-P99

Senate RECEIVED proposals for a fundamental review of University Strategy. The increasing pace of change in the HE sector had made it apparent that it would be necessary to undertake a major review of the existing Strategy: Towards 2016, and at its meeting in November 2012, Council would be asked to begin the process, to be completed towards the end of 2013. As a first stage, an evidence base would be developed to demonstrate the progress made in relation to the existing Strategy, and Senate was asked to comment on relevant measures that. More broadly, Senate was asked to consider what should be taken into account in the process forreviewing the Strategy.

The following points were noted in discussion:

i)Consultation should be as wide as possible, internally and with external stakeholder institutions and organisations, including those outwith the HE sector. There was an opportunity in this context to capitalise on the University’s raised profile in the year of the London Olympics.

ii)Designing processes to capture qualitative data to inform the Strategy was likely to be more difficult than identifying and incorporating relevant quantitative metrics. It was important, however, that this “soft-knowledge” was incorporated.

iii)92% of respondents to the 2012 Staff Survey had agreed that the University was a good place to work, and asking staff why they had responded in this way might help to capture information on what the University did well at the present time.

iv)Consideration would need to be given to a number of issues including:

  • The likelihood that there would be greater private sector involvement in the HE Sector in the next decade and beyond.
  • The increasing impact on the University of the global HE environment.
  • The extent to which the Strategy incorporated specific targets.
  • The extent to which the University embraced virtual learning in the next stage of its development.
  • Addressing the needs of private sector/industrial partners.
  • What is the University for/what does it seek to achieve; and what is the relationship between being a University which undertook fundamentally worthwhile activities and being a successful one?

Members were encouraged to think creatively about the issues, discuss them with colleagues across the University and continue to feed views into the review process.

12/104British University in Egypt

SEN12-P100

Senate RESOLVED to approve a recommendation from Learning and Teaching Committee that Loughborough ceases to validate the degrees of any further cohorts of students at the BUE, and to note information relating to the honouring of Loughborough’s existing commitment to validate the degrees of the BUE students up to and including the cohort entering the Preparatory year in autumn 2013.

The following points were noted in discussion:

i)It was highly likely that Loughborough’s validation relationship with the BUE would continue until 2018/19 (i.e. until the graduation of the cohort entering the Preparatory Year in 2013), and that the demands on Loughborough would stay the same, if not increase, for the majority of this period.

ii)LU received payment from BUE for the validation of its programmes, but the decision not to extend the validation agreement would not result in any significant loss of net income.

iii)Actions were in hand to ensure that the communication of LU’s decision to BUE and externally was managed appropriately, so as to minimise the risk of any reputational damage to LU or BUE.

iv)Further consideration would be given to existing procedures and support for the joint supervision of PhD students, and for the transfer of undergraduate BUE students to LU.

v)It was not the first time that Loughborough had withdrawn from a significant collaborative arrangement, and as part of the thinking in relation to the University Strategy, it would be important to consider how opportunities for such partnerships were managed.

12/105Developing an Academic Activity on the Olympic Park

SEN12-P101

SenateRECEIVEDan update on key developments since the October 2012 meetings of Senate and Council. Recent external developments had resulted in a revised timeline for decision-making, and Senate AGREED to defer a final decision on whether to proceed until early 2013. It was envisaged that a decision on a final version of the project proposal and associated business plan would be taken at the March 2013 meeting of Council, or sooner, if Senate and Council were able to meet prior to this date.

The following points from the paper were highlighted:

i)Work was underway to review options for recruiting international students using a private sector partner organisation to accelerate the rate at which students were recruited, enabling the target of 1,000 FTE students to be reached sooner than would otherwise be possible.

ii)A more market-facing approach to the identification of appropriate PGT programmes was being explored, with the aim of achieving a robust portfolio of larger scale programmes, which could be delivered more efficiently than modelled to date.

iii)The PVC(R), in association with the AD(R)s and the core project team was working to identify the research discipline areas the University would wish to develop on Olympic Park. It was envisaged that a strategic and structured approach to this would be taken as a precursor to the hiring of new academic staff in relation to the initiative.

iv)A number of scenarios had been modelled financially using assumptions developed as part of the most recent business plan, and although further work was required, there was a clear indication that a viable financial model could be achieved, underpinned by a credible business plan.

The following points were noted in discussion:

v)It would be necessary to recruit high profile/calibre staff in order to achieve the transformational change envisaged, and the cost of this would need to be taken into account.

vi)It had been noted in a previous discussion that the student experience on the Olympic Park site would be different to that on the Loughborough campus. It would important, nonetheless to provide support services of the same quality as those available to students at Loughborough, and concern was expressed in this context about the proposed reduction in support service costs. It was agreed that the project team would liaise with the LSU Executive in relation to the student experience on Olympic Park.

vii)Concern was expressed about whether the proposed use of a private sectorpartner organisation in relation to student recruitment gave an indication that the demand for the proposed portfolio of programmes from high calibre students was sufficient to meet the objectives of the project.

viii)There was potential tension between the initiative and the imminent fundamental review of the University’s strategic direction.

ix)In relation to the exploration of a different approach to the identification of PGT programmes, there was felt to be a danger that what was initially envisaged as a niche, high-end, research-led portfolio was changing to something more broad-based, and less-distinctive, in order to achieve the student numbers required. It was emphasised that it would be important to distinguish the Olympic Park offer from that at Loughborough and at other London Universities.

x)Concern was expressed about what would motivate high quality students or staff to go to a London-based satellite of Loughborough University, rather than to Loughborough itself, or to an established London University; and about whether paying higher salaries in order to attract academic staff to Olympic Park was a desirable model.

xi)It was reiterated that to be successful, the initiative would need to be self-sustaining, such that the University would not be constrained from pursuing projects on the Loughborough campus, which would otherwise be taken forward. Concern was expressed, nonetheless, in the context of budget restrictions announced since the last meeting of Senate, about management capacity and the potential impact on investment on the Loughborough campus.

12/106Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

SEN12-P102

Senate RECEIVED a report for the full financial year ending 31 July 2012. The following points were highlighted:

i)Research Applications and Awards. Applications had been up by 6% (number) and 34% (value) in comparison with the previous year. Awards had been slightly down by number and value of awards, but 2010-11 had been an all-time record year in terms of value, largely due to success in the area of high value manufacturing. Congratulations were offered to staff who had been involved in successful applications in the first quarter of 2012-13. There had been nine large applications of over £1M, and the Research Office was considering how best it could support large, complex, consortium bids.

ii)Annual Research Income and Overhead Contribution Levels. The figures for 2011-12 demonstrated continued growth in the University’s research portfolio despite increasing external competition for research funding.

iii)Research Student Office. PGR student intake was slightly below target, and PhD completions slightly lower than in the previous year.

iv)Outcomes. Reference was made to some recent successes, including the following:

a) A Loughborough team, led by Professor M. Sohail had won a prestigious prize of $60,000 in an international competition organised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to develop a reinvented toilet that was clean, safe, durable and affordable for the poor without the need for connection to electricity or a sewer.

b) Loughborough’s Centre for Research in Social Policy had conducted the research on which an increase to the Living Wage, announced on 5 November 2012, had been based.

v)Publications. Research Committee had established a publications group which would address the issues associated with the “Finch” report.

vi)Data Management. A working group of Research Committee had been established to address the issues of research data management.

vi)REF. Preparations continued, including the submission of the Code of Practice for the Selection of Staff to HEFCE; the review of the latest version of impact case studies and associated material; the finalising of Individual Staff Circumstances forms, and the operation of a tactical REF appointment budget.

12/107Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)

SEN12-P103A

107.1Student Recruitment 2012 Entry.

In relation to UK/EU undergraduates, the University had fallen significantly short of its AAB+ target, and just short of its SNC target. The outcome at School-level was varied, and some Schools had been permitted to overshoot in order to compensate for under-recruitment elsewhere. Reviews of under-recruiting disciplines were being undertaken. Admissions data had been discussed at ALT and Operations Committee, and attempts made to make comparisons with other institutions. It appeared that under-recruitment was not uncommon across the sector, and that several 1994 Group Universities had struggled to fill SNC places. It had been agreed in principle that UK/EU undergraduate intake targets would be increased in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and it was hoped that the change to SNC from AAB+ to ABB+ from 2013-14 would help in meeting these.

The international undergraduate admissions intake was slightly below the agreed target, and the UK/EU and International PGT intakes were also below target. Reasons for these shortfalls were being investigated, and actions underway to address the position for 2013 entry.

Clarification was provided that a pilot of the online application system involving five Schools was underway and on schedule.

SEN12-P103B

107.2National Student Survey 2012.

The results of the most recent NSS had been good, particularly for Materials and Ergonomics. A large number of subject areas were ranked in the top 20, but in some areas outcomes had been very disappointing, and actions were underway to address these.

107.3Approval of Programmes

Senate AGREED that responsibility for approval of new programmes of study and amendments to existing programmes of study on its behalf between meetings be delegated to the Pro-Vice- Chancellor (Teaching).

12/108Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise)

SEN12-P104

Senate received a report. The following points were highlighted:

i)HE-BCI Survey.

Data made publicly available from HEFCE’s 2012 HE-BCI survey had enabled useful benchmarking, which would be used to prompt debate at senior management level particularly in relation to individual School/Departmental contributions. It was noted in this context that almost 40% of the total sums reported were associated with support services. The data showed the importance of a number of other sources of income, including regeneration grants led from the Enterprise Office; activities led by SDC and imago; and rents generated on the Science and Enterprise Park. The survey had financial and reputational implications, and it was emphasised that if Loughborough wished to maintain its position, it would need to improve on its performance.

ii)Grant Activity.

Loughborough’s submission to the EPSRC for a £2M 2 year Impact Acceleration Account (IAA) grant had been successful. The IAA would be administered alongside £745k of HEIF project funding, available to any School on a competitive basis. The University had also been awarded a £25k prize fund to encourage social enterprise amongst staff and students. Two submissions to the third round of the government’s Regional Growth Fund (RGF) had, however, been unsuccessful (continuing a poor record for the East Midlands under RGF), but further submissions for European Regional Development Funds were in progress or under consideration for both projects.

iii)Staff Conditions of Service.

Discussions were underway with Union representatives to update staff conditions of service to reflect the University’s commitment to enterprise.