1. A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP PGR PERIODIC REVIEW Sara Crowley https://www.liv.ac.uk/student-administration/research/pgrperiodicreview/

2. What is Periodic Review? “Postgraduate Research Periodic Review is the system that the University operates to review the quality and standards of the postgraduate research provision offered by each academic area. It is a reflective and evaluative process that provides the review area the opportunity to consider PGR provision in its entirety and to receive constructive feedback from colleagues experienced in the delivery and management of PGR programmes. Periodic Review highlights best practice so that valuable experience and knowledge can be shared across the University. Areas for development and solution-focused mechanisms are defined to ensure issues are addressed at the appropriate level within the University (School/ Institute, Faculty and University).”

3. Context Quality Assurance Agency and the Quality Code New Chapter B11 for Research Degrees> introduced 2012 PGR Periodic Review at UoL 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- March 2015 Special Committee of Senate- March 2015 Formally approved by the University in March 2015 Three PGR Periodic Reviews taking place in Semester 2 of 201415 Full schedule of reviews to be developed in 2015

4. 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

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

6. Overview of the process 1.Preparation 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

7. 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

8. Student engagement Development of the Self Evaluation Document Template document the review area completes in consultation with student body. Section 12 asks the review area to comment on how the student body has been engaged in the development of the SED Review event student meeting Private meeting between students and the Panel Students in attendance should be representative of the student body in the review area Will be one large meeting, not split into smaller groups Should include offsite and online students (where applicable) Development of the action plan Review area should engage student body in development

9. Self- evaluation Describe and evaluate Evidence base Strengths Areas for development Template for listing partners (appendix 4) Student engagement

10. Self-evaluation Self- evaluation document template (appendix 3) Admissions The process, duration of process, information provided Induction Information provided, timing of induction Research environment Facilities including office, social and lab spaces, student involvement with research groups, provision of journal clubs/ seminars etc, academic/ pastoral support available, vibrancy of research environment Supervision Frequency of contact, availability of required expertise Skills, training and employability Availability of training, processes in place to manage training, identifying training needs and opportunities

11. Self-evaluation Undertaken by the review area Self- evaluation document template (appendix 3) Progress The process, managing progress Assessment Specifically the examination process Preparation for viva, supervisor support in preparing thesis, Collaboration Management/ governance arrangements Policy Accessibility, application, clarity Quality management How feedback is collated and acted upon, setting and maintaining standards Student engagement Staff engagement

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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 Private meeting between students and the Panel Students in attendance should be representative of the student body in the review area Will be one large meeting, not split into smaller groups Should include offsite and online students (where applicable Attendance at panel meetings is organised by the review area

15. Outcomes Final report> prepared by the Chair and Panel Recommendations made Best practice highlighted 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

16. Questions?