A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP PGR PERIODIC REVIEW Sara Crowley

Context Quality Assurance Agency and the Quality Code New Chapter B11 for Research Degrees> introduced 2012 PGR Periodic Review at UoL Reviews have not taken place for approx. 5 years Consultation on new framework in November 2014 Framework considered by committees: PGR Working Group- December 2014 Academic Quality and Standards Committee- February 2015 Strategic Executive Team- February 2015 Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee- Chairs action Special Committee of Senate- March 2015 Formally approved by the University in March 2015 Three PGR Periodic Reviews taking place in Semester 2 of Full schedule of reviews to be developed in 2015 QAA HE Review> November 2015

Scope and level of review PhD, MPhil, MD and professional doctorates (not MRes) On campus, online and offsite Provision delivered with partners, e.g.: Co-supervision agreements Dual or joint PhDs Doctoral Training Centres Partnerships with industry Undertaken at level 2: School or Institute

Principles of review Thematic in approach Inclusive of and focused on students Constructive process External input Makes use of management information

Overview of the process 1.Self-evaluation (template pro forma and the advanced documentation) 2.Advanced scrutiny of documentation 3.Review event 4.Final report 5.Action plan 6.Follow up

The Panel A Chair Academic from another School/ Institute within the same faculty A level 2 director from another faculty Academic rep from a relevant faculty committee Guild Officer External panel member Professional Services rep In attendance: A Secretary PGR Student Team representative

Self-evaluation Undertaken by the review area Self- evaluation document template (appendix 3) Admissions Induction Research environment Supervision Skills, training and employability Progress Assessment Collaboration Policy Quality management Student engagement Staff engagement

Self- evaluation (cont) Describe and evaluate Evidence base Strengths Areas for development Template for listing partners (appendix 4) Student engagement Students should be involved in the development of the SED.

Additional Supporting Documentation Collated by the review area Documents: handbooks, induction materials, samples of APRs and examiner reports, committee structure Stats and MI: Performance in PRES surveys Stats on admissions/ applications Breakdown of student body by mode and residence Staff/ student ratio stats Funding sources Stats on changes to registration Completion rates Stats on complaints, appeals etc

Advanced scrutiny of documentation Panel should be sent the SED and documentation at least one month before the review event Panel will scrutinise the information provided Panel may request clarification or further information from the review area (two weeks before the review event)

Review event Held over two days Flexible agenda to allow panel to focus on areas of interest Meetings address themes in groups of three (e.g. Admissions, Induction and Supervision are considered at the same meeting) Meeting with students Students at the meeting should be representative of the student body Attendance is decided by the review area

Final report, action plan and follow up Is prepared by the Chair and Panel Recommendations and highlight best practice for dissemination Head of review area drafts action plan Students engaged in drafting of action plan Initial Post-Periodic Review Meeting Chair, Secretary, Head of review area, PVC Education, PVC RKE, review area staff (as appropriate), rep from Facilities Management, rep from PGR Student Team Final report and action plan sent to: Faculty Academic Quality and Standards Committee University Academic Quality and Standards Committee PGR Working Group Faculty Senior Management Team Follow up action plan six months after the Initial Post-Periodic Review Meeting

Questions?