Proceedings of the AQ 97 Conference
Winchester, 2 December 1997

The new code of practice for research education: implications for institutions

Jon Owen and Stan Taylor
Quality Enhancement Unit
University of Newcastle
[email protected]
[email protected]

Introduction

Over the past decade or so, quality assurance and enhancement systems for taught programmes have become all but universal across the higher-education sector, but such systems have been largely conspicuous by their absence from research programmes, principally the MPhil, PhD, and MD. However, over the past two years, a series of reports [1: Recommendation 19, 4: p.9] have called for the adoption of such systems and the Higher Education Quality Council [2] has produced guidelines on the quality assurance of research degrees to form the basis for institutional codes of practice.

Both the need for systems and the code of practice model were accepted by the Dearing Committee [3: p.158]. The Committee recommended that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAAHE) should draw up a national code of practice. Institutions would be expected to adopt the code and to develop mechanisms for assuring provision, which would then be audited by the QAAHE. This recommendation has been accepted, and QAAHE has begun producing drafts of a code of practice. So, in the near future, all institutions will be asked to demonstrate that they are complying with the code of practice.

The purposes of this paper are to explore the potential implications of the introduction of a code of practice for institutions and to consider how institutions might respond. In particular, this paper seeks: to outline the likely content of the code of practice; to set out, on this basis, the implications for institutions and the agenda; and to give a case study of how one institution, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, has responded to that agenda.

The likely content of the code of good practice

The code of practice seems likely to be based heavily upon the HEQC Guidelines and is expected to cover at least five core areas, with an number of sub-categories within each. The core areas seem likely to be:

Admissions

Requirements here seem likely to include:

1. Documented selection procedures which are consistent with equal opportunities and relevant legislation.

2. Explicit and documented procedures for interviewing prospective students which are fair, valid and reliable.

3. Explicit and documented procedures for the consideration of applicants with special needs.

Induction to the institution and to postgraduate work

The code is likely to require explicit and documented induction programmes for new research students covering:

1. The institution and its postgraduate portfolio.

2. Registration procedures and degree regulations.

3. The challenges likely to face students during the course and where guidance may be sought in the event of difficulties.

4. Postgraduate supervision arrangements, including dealing with difficulties with supervisors.

Supervision

Institutions are likely to be required to demonstrate, amongst other things, that research supervisors:

1. Undertake appropriate training and development, including an apprenticeship as a second supervisor, before acting as primary supervisor.

2. Have demonstrated that they have the competence and the appropriate breadth of understanding to make a positive contribution to students' studies.

3. Have the appropriate skills to facilitate the production of high-quality work by the student.

4. Are aware of and comply with institutional requirements to monitor progress formally, including progress when engaged in off-site study.

5. Will return work submitted for scrutiny within a reasonable time and give constructive feedback.

6. Will provide advice, encouragement and counsel on future career plans.

Skills training

Training programmes for postgraduates will probably be mandatory (as they are at present for some of the Research Councils) and it will have to be demonstrable that they:

1. Develop students' competences as scholars and as individual thinkers.

2. Foster the sharing of experience and understanding beyond the immediate programme area.

3. Cover research design and methodologies appropriate to the study area and programme.

4. Cover general study skills (e.g. word-processing, statistics, database management, writing) and give students constructive feedback.

5. Cover employment-related transferable skills e.g. presentation, career planning, and intellectual property rights.

Assessment

The code of practice is likely to include provision that:

1. Assessment must be undertaken by appropriately qualified staff, who have been adequately trained and who are given regular opportunities to update and enhance their expertise as assessors.

The implications of the likely code of practice for institutions

The introduction of a code along the lines set out above has the implications that institutions will, if they do not already, have to:

1. Have appropriate guidelines for selection procedures, interviewing of prospective students, and consideration of applicants with special needs, and train staff in their use.

2. Develop extended induction programmes covering the institution, registration, research management, and supervisor-supervisee relationships.

3. Develop mentoring and training programmes for prospective research supervisors covering the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for effective supervision.

4. Develop skills training programmes for postgraduates covering the range of both subject-specific and transferable skills.

5. Develop appropriate training programmes to induct new examiners and to refresh the expertise of established ones.

6. Establish appropriate systems for assuring and enhancing the quality of items 1. to 5. above.

Responding to these implications: a case study

At the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, there have already been a number of responses to these implications. These include, or are planned in the near future to include:

1. The introduction of training sessions on selection, induction, and supervision of research students into the Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education which is mandatory for new academic staff.

2. The provision of 'refresher' sessions for established supervisors in these areas.

3. The institution of a mentoring scheme for new supervisors.

4. The piloting of model induction and skills training programmes for postgraduates which, in the latter case, include a range of transferable skills.

5. Training sessions for prospective examiners.

6. A system for the quality assurance and enhancement of research education which is currently being piloted

While a number of universities have all or part of 1. to 5. above, few if any have 6. and it may be useful to expand upon this innovation.

The system for the quality assurance and enhancement of research education is modelled on that for taught programmes. At Newcastle, the latter are assured and enhanced by a system involving biennial self-evaluations by Degree Programme Directors of provision against benchmarks of good practice. The resulting evaluations are then subject to review at faculty level, leading to a faculty report on teaching quality, and at the University level leading to an institution-wide report. In addition, provision in subject areas is also subject to a five-yearly programme of full review, including observation of teaching by a team with an external member or members, whose report similarly goes to the faculty and University levels.

In the past year, a comparable system has been developed for research education. This involved:

1. Devising statements of good practice in research education covering the likely areas of the code of practice and a number of others.

2. Establishing mechanisms for departmental benchmarking of their practice.

3. Establishing faculty-level mechanisms for review: to highlight and to disseminate good practice and to provide assistance where required.

4. Establishing university-level mechanisms for reporting on quality, disseminating good practice, and for dealing with common issues and problems.

This system will be piloted in the current academic year, and the outputs from the exercise will be used to assure the quality of provision of research education in the University and to enhance provision by disseminating good practice and by driving the future staff development and training agenda.

Conclusions

Research degrees have, for long, been the poor relation of taught programmes in terms of quality assurance and enhancement and in terms of staff development and training. But the introduction of a code of practice seems likely to transform this situation and to pose both new challenges and new opportunities to institutions. Clearly, there is a major agenda which will have to be met by quality managers in higher education and by staff developers.

Note

Copies of the Statements of Good Practice in Research Education being piloted at Newcastle can be obtained from Dr. Stan Taylor, Director of Quality Enhancement, Armstrong Building, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU.

References

1. HEFCE and CVCP, Final report of the Joint Planning Group for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Bristol, 1996.

2. HEQC, Guidelines on the quality assurance of research degrees, London, 1996.

3. Dearing et al, Higher education in the learning society (the Dearing report), Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, HMSO, London, 1997.

4. Harris et al, Review of postgraduate education (the Harris Report), HEFCE, CVCP and SCOP, Bristol, 1996.