University of Bath Minutes of

Meeting

URSC07/08-46

Meeting University Research Students Committee

Place Wessex House Committee Room 3.36

Date and Time Thursday 22 May 2008 at 10.15am

Present Professor Kevin Edge (Chair)

Mr Eddie Bell Professor Andrew Brown Mr Frederik Dahlmann Professor Alan Day Ms Carol Lacey Dr Eamonn O’Neill

Dr Tracey Stead

Dr Dylan Thompson Professor Geof Wood

Apologies Dr Alan Wheals

Not present Mr Prince Punnackal

In attendance Dr Lisa Isted (secretary) Dr Katherine Lloyd Clark Mr Tim Stoneman

Minute
/

Action

58 / Minutes of the previous meeting (URSC07/08-33)
The minutes were approved and signed by the Chair as an accurate record of the meeting.
59 / PGR Recruitment Roadshow (URSC07/08-34)
Dr Lloyd Clark introduced the paper. The following points were made during discussion:
·  it was important that strong links existed between recruitment and research strategy, and the Committee endorsed the University Research Committee’s view that there was a need for greater clarity of research strategy at department, school and faculty levels. It was noted that factors motivating recruitment of research students might differ between departments/schools and the university as a whole. There was a need to articulate University goals more clearly, and then use the annual planning cycle to ensure departmental alignment. It was noted that Professor Edge was intending to review the annual planning cycle process when he became Deputy Vice-Chancellor. It was also noted that the Roadshow had indicated that Heads of Departments and their staff had variable understanding of the annual planning process. If this process was to be used to steer future PGR developments, it was important that there was greater clarity about it, and that Heads of Departments were fully engaged;
·  PGR students needed to be better integrated into the research profiles of departments and schools. Their value to the University beyond fee income should be recognised and articulated;
·  it was important that the responsibilities and functions of the Graduate Office and the Research Development Support Unit were clear, and that the two offices worked together as effectively as possible, especially with regard to Research Council related business, the GWR initiative and international students. In his role as University Research Advisor, Professor Wood would give further consideration to this issue and would make recommendations to the incoming Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research);
·  the current Research Allocation Model did not support co-supervision arrangements;
·  it was noted that the University needed to be as competitive as possible in seeking and exploiting grants and contracts income;
·  there were concerns about space allocated to PGR activity. While the 4West development would help, there had already been some delays. It was noted that the masterplanning exercise included plans for more space for PGR activity;
·  there was a need for an industrial contact at institutional level, which might fall within the area of Alumni Relations. Dr Lloyd Clark would discuss this with Mr Lutley;
·  it was noted that Dr Wheals was planning to deliver presentations within the University on the merits of the NewRoutePhD model. Communication would also take place with the Head of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships with a view to publicising this scheme more widely.
It was agreed that the report should go to a Heads of Departments meeting, with Professor Edge and Dr Lloyd Clark present.
It was agreed that this matter should be re-visited at the next Vice-Chancellor's Retreat. / KAE
GDW
KLC
AEW
KAE/
KLC/
AEW
60 / University Research Studentships (URSC07/08-35)
The paper was noted. During discussion the following points arose:
·  the Committee endorsed the University Research Committee’s view that that the URS scheme should continue to be supported. The Excellent candidate route was felt to be good, but there was need for a more transparent approach, and a fixed closing date;
·  in response to a question about Graduate Schools, Professor Edge explained that the report from the Working Group on Graduate Schools set up in 2007 had concluded that a Graduate School should not be established at institutional level, but that there were good local examples in place, for example in Mathematical Sciences. URS funds might in future be used to pump prime such initiatives;
·  it was agreed that the GTA scheme should be reintroduced, and that this should be revisited during deliberations about the URSC scheme;
·  Professor Ibell’s proposal for fee-waivers was considered. There were operational concerns around the lack of a stipend, but it was suggested that the proposal could be taken forward as a very carefully monitored and constrained pilot exercise. It was noted that was potential for this scheme to work with a GTA scheme, but that recipients of such awards would need to be made fully aware of the responsibilities they would have in terms of teaching requirements.
Professor Edge would consider all these points as part of his deliberations about the future of the URS scheme and how the annual planning cycle might be used to drive progress. / KAE
61 / Regulation 16 (URSC07/08-38)
The proposed amendments to Regulation 16 were agreed, subject to the following further minor amendments:
16.1(a) title to be changed to ‘Admissions Provision applying to all Higher Degrees other than DSc and DLitt’
16.1(a) (ii) AP(E)L to be replaced by Accreditation of Prior (Experiential) Learning
The proposed amendments would be recommended to Senate. / LI
62 / Revisions to QA7 (URSC07/08-36)
It was agreed that the revisions recommended in the paper, together with an additional amendment to paragraph 16.8 following comments from the Faculty of Science Office would be recommended to Quality Assurance Committee. With regard to a request from the faculty of Science for a revision to paragraph 16.9, it was noted that Chairs were able to take actions on behalf of the Board of Studies only under vacation powers.
It was agreed that it was good practice for the ‘Guidelines for Examiners’ document to be made available to students. / LI
LI
63 / In-principle proposal for a PhD by Professional Practice (URSC07/08-37)
Professor Wood introduced the paper, which had arisen from discussion within the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Several points were raised in the course of discussion:
·  it was important to differentiate the programme from the existing professional doctorates;
·  further clarification about APEL was required;
·  the proposal could well be of interest to the wider University community;
·  the National Qualifications Framework definition of a PhD needed to inform the development of the proposal, especially as there was some unease about offering a PhD in this way.
Professor Wood explained that
·  the ‘gold standard’ of the PhD was an important aspect of the proposal;
·  he felt that the proposal was stronger than the existing part-time model because of the structured modules. These modules provided two benefits: students would welcome updates in both methodology and their subject area; and it would facilitate the creation of stronger structural links with alumni and their organisations
It was agreed that the proposal should be considered in due course by the Vice Chancellor’s Group and that the Deans and Heads of School should also be invited to comment. / GDW
64 / Plagiarism and e-theses (URSC07/08-39)
The Committee agreed that there was a need to promote greater awareness of plagiarism. There was also an increasing need to remind students of the need to respect copyright, especially with regard to reproduction of figures and diagrammes. It was also agreed that the process of plagiarism checking should form part of the formal examination, but should take place prior to the thesis being passed to the external examiner(s). It was suggested that Turnitin could be used both as a means of raising awareness and for detection. The MPhil/PhD transfer point might offer a timely opportunity to use the software and remind students of the unacceptability of plagiarism.
A more detailed proposal, including necessary changes to the Regulations , would be drawn up and brought to a future meeting of the Committee. / LI
65 / External examiners feedback on research degrees (URSC07/08-40)
The Committee noted that feedback would in subsequent years be included in the Directors of Studies reports. However, it was noted that the feedback was generally very good. It was also noted that Departmental administrative staff were often acknowledged for their support in the feedback forms, and it was important that this was passed on to them. / LI
66 / Report from the Postgraduate Skills training Coordinator (URSC07/08-41)
Dr Stead reported that:
·  revised guidance on spending Roberts’ funding had been distributed to all faculties;
·  focus groups and interviews with part-time research students had been conducted, and a paper summarising responses and actions would be presented to the Committee in 2008/9;
·  collaboration with the Universities of Bristol and Exeter was taking place on both GradSchool and e-learning activity;
·  development of an online booking system was well under way;
·  the programme for training in 2008/9 was being finalised.
66 / Report from the Postgraduate Association
Over 50 people had signed up for the ‘Meeting of Minds conference on 2 June 2008, and all the presentation slots and 8 poster slots had been allocated. There would be a new Chair of the PGA in post for 2008/9.
67 / Report from the Director of Postgraduate Research Development (URSC07/08-42)
The Committee noted the contents of the paper.
68 / Report from the Faculty/School Research Students Committees
No reports were provided.
69 / Report from the Graduate Office
Interviews for the post of Postgraduate Admissions Officer would take place on 2 June. Two new members of staff – Kim Spencer and Alison Tozer – had joined the team.
70 / Postgraduate Admissions Figures (URSC07/08-43)
The paper was noted.
71 / Minutes of meetings (URSC 07/08-29 and URSC07/08-30)
The minutes of Faculty/School Research Students Committees and the Quality Assurance Committee were noted.
72 / Matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting
Minute 45 PRES outcomes: it was noted that the 1994 Group had recently agreed to share PRES results. The Chair would follow this up. / KAE
73 / Other business
The Chair thanked all members of the Committee for their work over the year, and noted that several members, including himself, would be standing down.
74 / Dates of future meetings
13 November 2008, 29 January 2009, 12 March 2009, 28 May 2009