Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement



Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement

of Academic Departments

Peer Review Group Report

Department of Zoology

University College Dublin

Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement

Peer Review Group Report

Department of Zoology

Academic Year 2001/2002

Contents

Page

Members of the Peer Review Group 4

1. The Department 5

2. The Departmental Self-assessment 7

3. The Site Visit 8

4. The Peer Review 10

5. Findings of the Peer Review Group 12

6. Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats 22

7. Recommendations for Improvement 24

8. Response of the Department of Zoology Co-ordinating Committee

to the Peer Review Group Report 27

Appendix 1 29

Members of the Peer Review Group

Name Affiliation Role

Professor Stephen Phillips University of Glasgow Extern

Dr Julian Reynolds Trinity College Dublin Extern

Dr Angela Bourke Department of Modern Irish, UCD Chair

Professor Pat Shannon Department of Geology, UCD Rapporteur

Professor Ciaran Regan Department of Pharmacology, UCD Cognate

1. The Department of Zoology

1.1 Location of the Department

Located on the Belfield campus, the Department of Zoology at University College Dublin occupies a working area of c. 1699 m2 (2179 m2 including corridors, toilets, halls etc) in the Biology Building in the Science Block. An additional lecture room (54 m2) is located in the main Science Lecture Theatre Building. Details of the space resources available are presented in Appendix 11 of the Self-Assessment Report (SAR). The building, a purpose-built facility, was first occupied in 1964. The Department of Zoology occupies the south end of two floors, together with some rooms on the third floor and a small room on the ground floor of the Biology Building.

There is a total of 13 offices in the Department. All academic staff have their own individual office space, as do the Departmental Administrative Assistant, the Principal Technician and one Senior Technician (whose office is used as a stationery store and the reception point for deliveries).

1.2 Staff

The Self-Assessment Report, written by the Departmental Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) Co-ordinating Committee, tabulates the staffing levels in the Department at the time of the assessment. There are 11 academic staff (one Professor, six Senior Lecturers (including one who recently retired) and four Lecturers). Two young Lecturers have been appointed and the appointees will take up their posts in the late summer. There is one Senior Administrative Assistant. The complement of technical staff is ten full-time (one Principal Technician, five Senior Technicians, two Technicians, two Senior Attendants), and two (Senior Technicians) part-time technical staff. Three post-doctoral fellows are employed in the Department. Thirty-four postgraduate students are currently registered in the Department. Detailed Curricula Vitae of the academic, administrative and technical staff are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. Summaries of the postgraduate students and their research projects are given in Appendix 4.

3. Courses and Programmes

The Department is currently involved in five undergraduate degree programmes. These are as follows:

• BSc Honours Degree in Zoology,

• BSc Joint Honours Degree in a Biological Subject and Molecular Genetics,

• BSc Topical (Honours and General) Degree in Cell and Molecular Biology,

• BSc Topical (Honours and General) Degree in Environmental Biology,

• BSc General Degree.

It also contributes to undergraduate teaching in the faculties of Agriculture and Medicine. The Department runs a taught Master of Applied Science degree in Environmental Science (MApplSci), with input from other departments and faculties. Academic staff from the Department also contribute to courses in the degree of Master of Engineering Science (MEngSc, Faculty of Engineering), and to the degree of Master of Science (Agriculture) in Environmental Resource Management (MSc(Agr), Faculty of Agriculture).

Undergraduate student numbers in the Department have remained relatively constant in all years during the past five years (Table 1) but they represent a substantial increase on the previous five-year period, particularly at Second Year level. The number of students in the taught masters (MApplSci in Environmental Science) is at the highest level since the instigation of the course.

Table 1 Total Number of undergraduate students in each year

| |1996/97 |1997/98 |1998/99 |1999/00 |2000/01 |

|1st Science |362 |369 |368 |337 |364 |

|Service Teaching | | | | | |

|First Agriculture |199 |199 |218 |226 |214 |

|Medicine |142 |123 |140 |139 |155 |

|2nd Science |123 |112 |120 |129 |108 |

|3rd Science |72 |56 |84 |60 |78 |

|4th Science |47 |49 |53 |63 |48 |

Details on each of the individual taught programmes are presented in Chapter 3 of the SAR. Each programme is described in detail in a clear fashion with information provided on such aspects as objectives, course overview, methods of teaching, methods of assessment, skills acquired and examination results. This information is backed up by a most comprehensive and thorough description and analysis of each course in Appendix 7. This provides information on each lecture and on each practical, together with details of required texts and recommended reading.

2. The Departmental Self-Assessment

1. The Co-ordinating Committee

The Departmental QA/QI Co-ordinating Committee was established in March 2001, following the outlines for procedures from the QA Office. The Co-ordinating committee comprised members of the academic, technical and administrative staff and a postgraduate student. It was representative of all grades of staff in the Department. The members of the committee were:

Dr Mark Rogers Senior Lecturer & Acting Head of Department

Professor Eamonn Duke Professor of Zoology

Dr Declan Murray Senior Lecturer (retired)

Dr Bret Danilowicz Lecturer & Associate Dean

Dr Mary Kelly-Quinn Lecturer

Ms Dorothy Allen Senior Executive Assistant

Mr Robert French Principal Technician

Ms Jennifer Coughlan Technician

Ms Louise Bailey PhD student

2. Methodology Adopted

Following an outline of the QA/QI procedure from Professor Don McQuillan in February 2001, the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee was established in March 2001. Regular meetings were held with the facilitators (Dr Angela Bourke and Professor Pat Shannon), in accordance with the schedule outlined by the QA Office. Four such meetings were held and individual contact with the facilitators took place throughout the procedure for clarification on specific points of issue.

The Committee met formally on 11 occasions. Informal discussion took place on numerous occasions between members of the committee and with other members of the staff. In the final weeks of report preparation members of the Committee met as and when necessary to deal with the paperwork.

Dr Mark Rogers convened the meetings and prepared the agenda. Ms Jennifer Coughlan acted as recording secretary. Minutes of each meeting were circulated, after approval at the subsequent meeting, to the facilitators, all members of staff and all postgraduate students of the Department.

Student questionnaires were distributed during the first- and second-semester courses of the academic year 2000-2001. Questionnaires to past graduates and employers were circulated in September 2001.

Dr Declan Murray acted as co-ordinator of the report. Responsibility for individual chapters was allocated to various members of the Department. All staff in the Department were involved in collecting, compiling and analysing data, and contributed in some way to the preparation of the report.

3. The Site Visit

1. Timetable

The detailed timetable for the PRG visit is enclosed as Appendix 1 of this report. The site visit took place on 15th to 17th April 2002. The PRG met:

• All staff members, as groups and/or individuals,

• Representative groups of Third and Fourth Year undergraduates, taught MSc and postgraduate students,

• Postdoctoral fellows

• The Dean of Science,

• A representative of the Careers Office.

The PRG viewed teaching and research facilities of the Department.

2. Methodology

The work of the PRG involved the following:

• Review and assimilation of the Self Assessment Report (SAR) and the accompanying documentation, in advance of the site visit.

• Meeting with Professor Don McQuillan on 14th April 2002 for a briefing on the site visit procedure, to discuss initial collective overview and to assign tasks to individual members of the PRG.

• Meetings with the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee, Acting Head of Department, Professor of Zoology, Dean of Science, academic, technical and administrative staff, member of the Careers Office, post-doctoral fellows, postgraduate students, Third- and Fourth- Year undergraduate students.

• Visit to the teaching and research facilities within the Department, involving informal discussions with academic and technical staff and research students.

• Private meetings of the PRG during the site visit, to identify and discuss key issues, to evaluate the information provided and to adjust the agenda as required.

• Analysis, synthesis and discussion of facts and views. SWOT analysis with identification of departmental strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Identification and discussion of PRG preliminary recommendations.

• Preparation of outline skeleton of PRG report.

• Preparation and delivery of the Exit Presentation at the completion of the site visit.

3. General Comments

The PRG found the site visit to be an extremely informative process. The information, views and opinions expressed by the staff and students served to clarify and strengthen the information provided in the very comprehensive Self-Assessment Report and accompanying material. The visit to research laboratories and teaching facilities also helped the PRG to evaluate the physical state of the Department as described in the Self-Assessment Report. We are grateful to all members of the Department for their open and candid answering of our questions, and note the very high level of professional commitment shown to the Department’s work by all the staff. We also wish to record our appreciation of the courtesy afforded the PRG by the Dean of Science and the staff of the Faculty Office, who made the Faculty Boardroom available at short notice for our interviews and meetings when the departmental boardroom proved too small.

The PRG noted with disappointment the fact that no First- or Second-Year undergraduate students turned up for the scheduled meeting. Neither was there an opportunity to meet with employers in order to gain an independent view of the quality of graduates and of the relevance of the taught programmes and research training to a career in industry, biomedical research and other areas of employment that graduates of the Department have followed. It was not clear whether employers are consulted when courses are being devised or revised.

The PRG particularly wishes to thank the Acting Head of Department for his co-operation at all stages of the process. His personal attention to the Self-Assessment process and to the Site Visit made our work both more efficient and more comfortable.

4. The Peer Review

1. Methodology

The PRG first met on the evening of Sunday 14th April 2002. Throughout the entire period of the site visit the PRG group worked together, including visiting the teaching and research laboratories. As the Department of Zoology is not over-large, it was felt that the ideal methodology was to work as a group in relation to meetings with groups and individuals rather than to break into sub-groups with specific tasks. During off-campus analysis the PRG also worked as a group.

The expertise brought to the PRG by the external reviewers was vital to the successful completion of the work, particularly in the areas of comparative analysis of the teaching and research areas.

The tasks of overseeing the various parts of the review were subdivided, by agreement, initially into the following areas:

Departmental Details: Professor Pat Shannon

Planning and Organisation: Dr Angela Bourke

Taught Programmes: Professor Ciaran Regan

Teaching and Learning Dr Julian Reynolds/Professor Stephen Phillips

Research and Publications: Professor Stephen Phillips/Dr Julian Reynolds

External Relations: Professor Ciaran Regan

Support Services Dr Angela Bourke

Responsibility for the SWOT analysis, together with the recommendations, was shared by the entire PRG group, as was the preparation of the Exit Presentation. The finished report was produced through an editorial process that involved all members of the PRG.

2. Sources Used

The main sources used by the PRG in the review and preparation of the report comprise the following:

• The SAR, and accompanying 11 appendices, produced by the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee

• Information, views and comments provided by groups and individuals representing the Co-ordinating Committee, the academic, technical and administrative staff of the Department, postdoctoral fellows, postgraduate and undergraduate students, the Dean of Science and a representative from the Careers Office.

• The collective impressions gained from the tour of the Departmental teaching and research facilities.

• Copies of postgraduate theses.

• Additional documentation requested by the PRG regarding aspects of the University’s strategic development plan, the Division of Biosciences, job descriptions, the new benchmarks for promotion to Senior Lecturer, and Careers Office documentation on First Destinations of recent Zoology graduates from the Department.

4.3 Peer Review Group’s View of the Self-Assessment Report

The PRG acknowledges the wholehearted participation of all the staff of the Department throughout the QA/QI process. This was very evident in the quality and clarity of the information in the SAR. The openness, hospitality and generosity with time during the entire QA/QI process, and especially during the site visit, was greatly appreciated. The members of the Department found time to produce an excellent report while revising many of the Department’s taught courses and continuing to carry out research and normal teaching duties. The genuine team effort was very impressive and professional, and has made the task of the PRG much easier. Notwithstanding the team effort, it was clear to the PRG that the Acting Head of Department had exercised considerable leadership during this testing time and had conspicuously led from the front. He has shouldered a full teaching burden and maintained his research group. He is to be congratulated for this.

The factual information provided in the SAR report and in the accompanying documentation provided an excellent, clear and informative insight into the operations of the Department, its personnel and its teaching and research programmes. The clarity of its layout and presentation will allow this SAR to serve as a reference document for many years to come. The SAR provides valuable background information that will be of use in helping to plan the future development of the Department. In addition to the factual information, the Department, in the SAR, offers a frank assessment of what it perceives are its strengths and weaknesses. It is to be complimented on this.

5. Findings of the Peer Review Group

1. Department Details

The Department of Zoology occupies part of the oldest purpose-built building on the UCD campus at Belfield. The building was first occupied in 1964 and has had minimal renovation or refurbishment since then. The PRG considers that the Department, in the context of its current staff complement, is adequately provided with its current total allocation of space, but it is clear that the present layout is quite inappropriate for the teaching and research needs of a modern University department. The current room layout in the Department does not permit the most effective use of the available space and the Department will face difficulties in providing appropriate space for the new Professor of Zoology. The provision or promise of good quality space will be required to attract outstanding candidates for the Chair. Pressure on space will also increase once the new lecturers develop their own research groups. The spread of the Department on parts of four floors in the Biology Building is far from ideal and there is a particular problem with the storage of bulk equipment used in fieldwork. Currently some of this is stored in an insecure outbuilding. Secure storage needs to be provided by the University either within or outwith the Department for this purpose. There is a very urgent need for radical refurbishment of both teaching and research laboratories. This should be the responsibility of the University: the Department should not be expected to fund it from its Supplies & Travel budget.

Strong adherence to the requirements of Health and Safety is not always obvious in the Department and reference was made to this fact in the SAR. For example, protective laboratory coats do not appear to be always routinely worn in laboratories, while bags of samples are sometimes left lying around in laboratories. Some areas were particularly cluttered and untidy, with exit aisles in laboratories sometimes impeded. A bicycle was parked in the Autoclave room. Greater attention needs to be given to increasing the general awareness of Health and Safety throughout the Department.

The Department is the largest Zoology department in Ireland with a current complement of 11 academic staff (with a further two new academic staff joining in the next academic year), 12 technical staff (including two part-time) and one Senior Administrative Assistant. The age profile and the committed and dedicated staff are very positive aspects of the Department.

The Department has a strong and proud history of serving Irish science and society, and honouring the intellectual traditions of classical Zoology, while embracing new developments. The skills, flexibility and positive attitude of the technical staff have contributed greatly to the development of the Department in its teaching and research activities.

2. Planning and Organisation

The high quality of its Self-Assessment Report shows the Department of Zoology’s ability effectively to plan and organise its operations. The process of self-assessment, however, has made the Department aware of certain deficiencies in its own administrative structure, which it has already begun to address, with positive results. We support this constructive approach and recommend that it continue, with the participation of all members of the Department. The PRG expects that the momentum already generated will carry the Department towards an improved structure for the planning and organisation of all its work where transparency and a culture of communication and exchange of information are paramount.

Zoology is fortunate in having a generous and dynamic Acting Head, who leads from the front and considers the welfare of all staff members as well as students. The Department is at a crossroads, however, with many changes in recent years and more expected. Two new appointments have been made to academic staff and these people will take up their positions in the coming months. The current Professor of Zoology is about to retire and the Chair of Zoology will soon be advertised. All taught courses are under review. The Conway Institute has yet to become fully operational, while the new Division of Biosciences, which will bring several departments together in a format as yet undecided, is still at the planning stage. Notwithstanding that all the staff we spoke to were broadly welcoming of this Division, we note that the letter of intent to form the Division of Biosciences which was sent to the President of UCD was dated November 2000, almost 18 months prior to our site visit. Progress in developing the Division seems to be very slow and members of the Department appear to know little about the plans or progress of the plans. In the absence of a timetable, or a clear picture of how that Division will be structured, it is apparent that a degree of apprehension exists about the future identity and profile of the Department of Zoology within it. It is essential that the Department identifies its own priorities now and draws up structures for the management of change. The professionalism, flexibility and openness shown by all staff during the QA/QI process give us confidence that this can be achieved.

Appendix 5 of the SAR gives the text of the Department’s Five-Year Plan, produced in 2000. While this document is useful, its emphasis is on the maintenance of existing areas of excellence and on open-ended exploration of further possibilities, rather than on defined strategies. Chapter 2 of the SAR notes that the QA/QI process has focussed the Department’s attention on its goals; it also anticipates the preparation of a new five-year plan following the presentation of the present Report by the PRG. We warmly recommend this course of action, as we find little evidence so far of the sort of strategic planning which will be required at this crucial period of the Department’s development if it is to maintain and enhance its position in teaching and research.

Certain areas of planning and organisation work excellently. Despite many complaints about communication, we found that members of staff interact well with colleagues on a personal level and share a commitment to excellence in the Department. What seems most strongly lacking is an efficient central clearing house for information, with defined lines of communication and a committee structure that can be understood by everyone. The PRG commends the Department on already establishing new committees and subcommittees to deal with aspects of planning and organisation, but its operational procedures are still not fully transparent, especially in the distribution of teaching duties. A description of the Department’s management structure should be prepared, therefore, and made available to all staff, with a staff activity profile for each member of the Department. The University’s new Staff Development Programme will offer further opportunities to review the work of individuals, and we would expect each staff member to meet with the Head of Department on at least an annual basis to discuss his/her career and contribution to the Department’s work.

The Zoology Department has a high profile in the scientific community and among the general public — perhaps more than is realised by the members of the Department. As the Department has recognised, however, its corporate image needs to be improved. A visitor at present receives an impression of a jaded department with little ambience of vitality and pride in achievements, with no obvious focus and little orientation. Staff have commented that their achievements and those of their students, whether as individuals or groups, are barely noted, much less celebrated (as say, by displaying book jackets or posters prominently on noticeboards). It is important that the First- and Second-Year classes be used to attract students to stay with Zoology, and here again, the Department’s ability to communicate its message clearly through various media will be vital. Those students we spoke to who are below Fourth-Year level professed themselves baffled by the Department’s structure; we therefore urge the re-establishment of the Staff-Student Committee without delay, and the provision of a comprehensive handbook for each year.

The Departmental Office has an important role to play in the areas mentioned here, since its function is to facilitate all of the Department’s work. Given that the Senior Executive Assistant is expected to be the first line contact for students, this office should be the natural heart of the Department. At present it is not clearly signposted and is reached via a small dark lobby, which contains a photocopier and a fax machine and easily becomes crowded. The arrangement of its furniture, moreover, makes it a less than welcoming place for students, staff and visitors. We recommend that this space be redesigned with a desk or counter facing the door, and that well-lit noticeboards be installed in its immediate vicinity to convey important and frequently-changing information about courses and other activities, and to designate this area as the Department’s administrative centre. If possible, the office should accommodate racks for documentation. All members of the academic staff and the Principal Technician should have keys to it.

The main role of the Senior Executive Assistant is to provide administrative and secretarial support to the Head (or Acting Head) of Department. While much of this function will in practice devolve to all members of the academic staff, the Senior Executive Assistant must have easy access to the Head. The Head of Department should therefore establish a presence as soon as possible in the present Professor of Zoology’s office, which is about to be vacated and which adjoins the Departmental Office.

The filling of the Chair of Zoology must be carefully planned. The Department should draw up a briefing document for the Academic Council Committee on Chairs. To attract a high-calibre candidate, moreover, it must plan the allocation of space and facilities. At present, resources of various kinds, from the expertise of the technical staff to laboratories and storage space, are inefficiently used. There is a tradition in the Department of history rather than need and merit dictating the allocation of space, technical assistance and other resources. This reduces flexibility and the ability to respond to a continually changing scientific environment. The Department should move away from a model of ‘ownership’ by individual academic staff of technical support and laboratory space, and consider establishing a more flexible system including technical support units, each under the direction of a Section Head Technician. Storage space is clearly a problem for a department that relies so much on fieldwork, but a coherent policy on the use of space is not apparent. Along with its policy on health and safety, this should be an important part of the Department’s new five-year plan.

3. Taught Programmes

The Department is currently involved in five undergraduate degree programmes; it also runs the interdisciplinary Master of Applied Science in Environmental Science degree and contributes to other undergraduate and postgraduate courses leading to Master of Science degrees in the Engineering, Agriculture, Veterinary and Medical Faculties.

The undergraduate teaching programme in Zoology is broad-based and reflects the research interests of the academic staff. There has been a commitment to updating and re-organising the course content on a regular basis. The Fourth-Year course is quite powerful and most appropriate to the current needs of zoologists working in a community that is becoming more and more aware of its environment. The courses on immunology, animals and genes, prions and cell culture, while excellent in content and generally enthusiastically received by the students, could be considered to be further developed as integrated courses in the planned Division of Biosciences.

The Biosciences initiative, with nine degree options and involving one third of all science graduates, has stimulated a major overhaul of First Year courses, with revision of the Second-Year courses now in progress. Despite such integrated courses, the different destinations of students in the first three years should be seen as an opportunity to recruit from the best students into Zoology. This will require interdepartmental co-operation and the active involvement of course committees.

The PRG met a group of fifteen students that represented Third Year, six students from Fourth Year Zoology, two students from the taught MSc course and 15 postgraduate students. Fourth-Year students perceived themselves as fully integrated into the Department; they reported a highly demanding but exciting and challenging course and an approachable staff who were generous with their time. This was in marked contrast to Third-Year students, who found the staff unapproachable. These students had no sense of departmental layout, location of staff offices or whom to approach for specific information. They had sought unsuccessfully for examination details on new courses and their requests for knowledge of exam paper layout and sample questions had been turned down. The taught practical course was perceived by Third Years to be out of date and lacking in organisation when compared to other Bioscience departments. While the Third-Year students appeared somewhat disoriented and to a degree disillusioned, the transformation in the Fourth Year and taught MSc students was remarkable. These students, by contrast, gave glowing reports of their laboratory and fieldwork experiences.

There appears to be some over-teaching and duplication in respect to the formal lecture component of the taught programmes. Some aspects of the programme could equally well be taught in joint courses or by other departments. The burden of teaching loads could also be reduced considerably by an increased ‘learning to learn’ approach. This approach would, however, require an emphasis on the use of tutorial classes. There is also a need to ensure transparency in the staff teaching allocations.

A residential field course is lacking, and would provide a needed bonding experience for Third Years. The practical component of the taught courses could be improved by updating the practical manuals and by ensuring that the demonstrators are sufficiently versed in their theoretical content and in the objectives to be attained. Greater involvement of the staff in these latter aspects would contribute significantly to attaining this goal. Student handbooks should be provided for all undergraduate years, with information on evaluation and marking schemes and emphasis on how the courses build year by year.

The practical class laboratories also need to be updated and upgraded, especially in respect to facilities required for teaching aspects of modern molecular genetics and microbiology. This upgrading will require significantly more funding than that available from the departmental budget, especially as there is a pressing need to ensure that Fire and Health and Safety requirements are satisfied. The provision of such funding should be the responsibility of the University.

4. Teaching and Learning

Teaching currently is carried out along traditional lines of lectures and practicals in all undergraduate years except Fourth Year. Departmental policy has been to allocate teaching responsibilities equally among academic staff, notwithstanding the level of research activity or time spent on administrative and other duties at departmental, faculty or University level. While all academic staff should carry a teaching load, the Department should review annually the basket of teaching, research and administrative responsibilities of each member of staff in assigning teaching duties. There is an awareness of the desirability of including more active learning techniques – directed reading, research projects and essays. Teaching techniques have incorporated advances such as computer-assisted presentation, and students are encouraged to read around the course. One-to-one supervision in Fourth- Year projects is to be commended.

Mentors are available in First and Second Years, but the recruitment of postgraduate demonstrators for practical classes is becoming increasingly difficult. This is a vitally important area of contact with students, and steps to improve the demonstrator training and their remuneration should be implemented. The heavy reliance on multiple choice examinations in the First Year also needs consideration to evaluate if it is the optimum method of assessment.

Despite a stated formal commitment to integrating courses within the Biosciences initiative, there seems to be a reluctance to decreasing contact hours lest this result in a dilution of Zoology. The PRG understands the commitment of the academic staff who perceive a need for a continuing broad curriculum in classical Zoology while recognising the benefits of integration. The PRG suggests that academic staff consider if and how contact hours could be reduced and/or alternative methods of learning be introduced, and would emphasise the positive career implications of training in the scientific method, information searching, essay writing and oral presentation of findings.

5. Research and Scholarly Activity

In its strategic plan, ‘UCD recognises the prime importance of self-motivation of academic staff in the conduct of high-level international research and the necessity of creating supportive conditions within Departments and Institutes where research flourishes.’ In the future the University plans to monitor research outputs, in their different forms, and to use this information in the formula to determine faculty funding allocated from the centre. Thus there is an incentive to departments to maintain and improve research activity.

All academic staff of the Department of Zoology are research active and the staff complement includes researchers of national and international calibre. This is rarely the case in similar departments elsewhere. Most researchers have collaborative programmes in their portfolio of projects within the Department, the University, Ireland and overseas. Collectively this presents a very dynamic picture. The publication output in numbers of refereed publications is very respectable and has improved over the last 5 years. There has not been a strong policy of trying to publish in journals of as high an impact factor as possible and the average impact factor for the Department is rather low. Many of the articles by members of staff have been published in very reputable Irish journals. Despite the fact that these Irish journals operate a high standard of peer review, they are not much read internationally and so generally have a low impact factor. There appear to have been no papers published in very high impact factor journals in the past 5 years although several colleagues have done so during their careers and for a few there is an expectation that they will do so again in the future. It is noted that some academics are engaged in much report writing, possibly at the expense of writing refereed papers. The PRG recommends that up-to-date impact factors for journals be made available in the Departmental Office.

Research income is relatively high but the greater proportion over the review period is earned by a relatively small number of individuals. It is noted, however, that the research of some is more expensive than that of others and that income alone is not the best or only index of research excellence and activity. There is no scheme for assisting staff who are in difficulties or lack funding with their research activities, but the Departmental Supplies & Travel budget is very valuable here.

The number of PhD students in the Department is high and a large proportion of the PhD students is made up of UCD graduates. The expectation is that the PhD will take at least 4 years to submission. While recognising that the commitment to demonstrating work by some PhD students eats into their research time, the Department should be encouraging and facilitating PhD students to submit within three years, with four years as the maximum duration. Supervisor and student should aim to have at least some work submitted for publication by the time the thesis is completed. The website, which most students outside UCD use as their entry point to a department, needs development to be an effective means of recruiting research students.

There are very few postdoctoral researchers, and none in their second postdoctoral appointment when they might be of most value. The Department should address urgently how such researchers can be attracted.

There is no Departmental seminar programme and no expectation of academics to give seminars. It was disappointing to learn that attendance at Departmental seminars had been poor and that this was a reason for dropping the seminar programme. Most active research departments would have a thriving seminar programme and efforts should be renewed to develop such a programme. However, the recently instituted ‘away day’ for presentation of research by second- and third-year postgraduates was very successful.

Some members of staff have written books that have been well received. Some academic staff members have attracted major conferences to the campus, bringing great kudos to the Department, the Faculty and the University. However, there is no tradition of celebrating the achievements of an individual or a group at the departmental level to the benefit of collegiality of all.

6. External Relations

The Department has a very high external profile. Members of staff participate regularly in TV, radio and popular press events and have extensive links with state, semi-state and private organisations. The staff involved are to be complimented on these links and encouraged to foster them as an important means of publicising the work of the Department, and to attract students and research funding.

The Department has many research projects in collaboration with researchers from external agencies. The number, size and diversity of these projects are a clear indication of the research strength and international academic standing of several members of the Department. These research links offer the opportunity to increase and enhance the research reputation of members of academic staff. They also have the potential to help with the placement of graduates from the Department and for the attraction of possible postgraduate students or postdoctoral researchers.

Some members of the Department perceive that the proposed Division of Biosciences, and the Conway Institute, may threaten and/or dilute the discipline and funding of Zoology by diverting resources into specialised research areas that are away from mainstream Zoology. Such issues need to be discussed in an informed fashion by the Department in order to allay fears and to develop a strategy for development of the Department in the context of the new initiatives. The Department should consider being more proactive by developing more cross-discipline courses and by initiating additional research collaborations with other departments in the Faculty of Science, especially those that are involved in the Division of Biosciences initiative. However, in developing such collaboration the Department should have a clear idea on how its teaching and research activities will fit into the development plans of the Department and of the Division of Biosciences and the Conway Institute.

The Department has begun to revise and enhance its website. An attractive and informative website will enhance the ability of the Department to attract postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers, both from home and abroad.

7. Support Services

Chapter 7 of the SAR, entitled ‘Support Services’, is based chiefly on an analysis of responses by staff, students and former students of the Department to questionnaires about services provided to the Department from elsewhere in UCD. In this section we consider that chapter and also discuss the support given to the Department’s academic work by its own technical and administrative services.

5.7.1

The SAR acknowledges the support given to the Department of Zoology’s work by the University’s administrative offices, while noting the heavy burden of administration in connection with both teaching and research which falls to academic and technical staff. The Department is particularly appreciative of the support it receives from the Faculty of Science Office.

Library and Computing Services are found to be in general satisfactory, especially for the needs of undergraduate teaching, although students have criticised the lack of support provided by the Library in that multiple copies of some often-used books are kept in Earlsfort Terrace rather than in Belfield. The Library’s funding does not allow it to provide adequately for research needs, however, and students described the electronic library as generally poor, with Library staff unequipped to help students navigate the system. Computing Services does not appear to have enough staff to deal with problems in a timely way. The small sample of students interviewed said that the Careers Office provided little information on job opportunities and advice and timing of applications for postgraduate opportunities, especially in the UK. To date, members of the Department have rarely used the services of the Teaching Development Unit, although its courses aimed at postgraduate students are likely to be helpful for the induction of new Demonstrators.

The SAR expresses concerns about security within the Science Building, especially when offices are left unlocked and sometimes open after cleaning. Postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows often work late; they operate a policy of working in pairs, but some nevertheless feel unsafe in such a large building with so many entrances and such free access.

The Department of Zoology relies heavily on the Central Transport Pool (CTP), and the new requirement that staff who use their own cars on University business must have their own business insurance will increase that reliance. Use of the CTP was greatly reduced last year due to Foot and Mouth Disease prevention measures, but certain problems which should be addressed by the University were brought to the attention of the PRG (SAR pp.110-111). In particular the PRG recommends that (a) cost accounts for the use of vehicles should be on a monthly basis, and the Head of Department should approve all payment transfers to the CTP, and (b) staff should be permitted, when necessary, to keep vehicles at home both before and after field trips. The requirement that keys be dropped off at a location different from the vehicle drop-off is unreasonable.

Chapter 7 of the SAR does not consider the Careers and Appointments Office. Students’ questionnaire responses indicate that they would like to know more about career options and suggest that they are uninformed about the transferability of the skills they acquire in the Department. The small number of students interviewed by the PRG reported that they had not found the Careers Office useful or well informed. The PRG interviewed a member of that office, however, and discovered a real willingness to liaise with the Department about its needs and to organise a programme specifically aimed at its students.

5.7.2

Technical and administrative staff are key members of the Department, and the PRG was pleased to note that their professional contribution to the efficient operation and development of the Department and the University is increasingly acknowledged and valued within the University. As that contribution is essentially in support of the Department’s teaching and research work, we consider it here.

Technical backup within the Department is not equitably or efficiently distributed. Certain areas of research are less well supported than others, and the telling quotation, ‘I’ll lend you my technician’, reflects an earlier and undesirable culture which cannot but persist in some form while technical staff are deployed as they are. The PRG recommends that, where necessary, technical support units be established, each under the direction of a Section Head Technician, to afford the sort of flexibility and optimal use of technical-staff skills which are required in a changing scientific environment. Such units would also offer career development opportunities to technical staff, whose contribution to published research could also be acknowledged in print as a matter of departmental policy.

The Department of Zoology’s SAR expresses dissatisfaction at several points with the administrative support provided by its own Departmental Office, and this dissatisfaction was raised repeatedly with the PRG during the site visit. Certain structural changes have been recommended in 5.2 above regarding access to the office, the layout of its space and the relocation of the Head of Department’s administrative function closer to it. In the context of a new five-year plan, the Department should re-examine all aspects of the Office’s working. It is important that this be done in conjunction with the drawing up of a briefing document on the filling of the Chair of Zoology, and in order to adapt to changes in the working environment. The Head or Acting Head should liaise with the Senior Executive Assistant to review her job description and consider how best in the future to implement her role as administrative and secretarial support to the Head of Department and first line contact for students.

6. Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Strengths

• National/international leaders in research in the Department.

• Strong commitment to teaching.

• Record of attracting international conferences.

• High output of PhDs.

• Rising and impressive research income.

• All academic staff are research active.

• Breadth of disciplines currently covered for teaching. Morale in the Department has improved within the last year.

• Wide range of skills, positive attitude, flexibility of technical staff.

• Age profile of the academic staff within the Department.

• Perceived benefits from SAR recognised by staff.

• Ability of the members of the Department to work together, in a flexible manner.

• Willingness to take on board the challenge of QA/QI process.

• Recent changes in organisation and management of the Department proving effective.

• High national and international media profile.

• Taught Masters degree.

• Acting Head of Department who leads from the front (dedicated, energetic, research- and teaching-active).

• Some money from the Travel and Supplies budget available against lean funding periods for academic staff.

• Fourth Year and postgraduate students enthusiastic about staff support.

Weaknesses

• Lack of strategic plan and coherent vision.

• Awareness of Health and Safety requirements is generally poor within the Department.

• Lack of corporate identity and unattractive departmental shop window.

• Departmental Office does not provide the support adequate for a dynamic and ambitious department.

• Great concerns by Environmental Protection Agency regarding quality of facilities for molecular work and recombinant technology.

• Teaching laboratories in a poor state of modernisation.

• Achievements by department members are not adequately celebrated.

• Lack of an adequately sized and experienced postdoctoral cohort.

• Heavy reliance on UCD graduates to populate the postgraduate school (mix is not right).

• Poor promotion of department’s activities.

• Practical classes are outmoded and are not well received by students.

• Third Year students perceive academic staff as unapproachable.

• Lack of documentation on courses for Second and Third Years and for postgraduate students.

• Historical lack of recognition of value of impact factor for publications.

• Lack of research seminars by staff.

• Expectation of long duration of postgraduate projects.

• Historically poor communication at various levels of the Department.

• Obsessive concern among some academic staff that all academic staff should have equal teaching loads irrespective of individual level of research activity and contributions in other ways to the Department and the University.

• Staff room not routinely used by all staff and postgraduate students.

• Current teaching and research equipment often in poor repair.

• Lack of residential field courses for Third Year students.

• Lack of secure storage for fieldwork equipment.

Opportunities

• The Chair of Zoology is to be advertised shortly.

• Development of the proposed Division of Biosciences is viewed with broad support by all staff.

• The new Conway Institute offers opportunities for research collaboration.

• The current allocation of space offers the potential for redesign, enabling development and growth

• New appointments have been made of young academics with potential.

• New benchmark for promotion of academic staff to improve morale.

• New funding opportunities through Science Foundation Ireland, etc.

• The relocation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Veterinary Faculty on the Belfield campus offer new possibilities for collaborative research.

• The website can be developed for much greater effectiveness in information and recruitment.

• Staff Development Programme requires annual meeting of staff with Head of Department, which will aid personal and departmental planning and development.

Threats

• Failure to address concerns about loss of identity through lack of communication.

• Zoology may be submerged in the Division of Biosciences.

• Impact of Conway Institute may reduce opportunities for funding in some areas of Zoology.

• Inadequate promotional prospects for technical and administrative staff.

• The University’s increasing devolution of administration to departments at the expense of research time.

• Loss of potential zoologists in First and Second Years.

• May be difficult to attract outside high calibre candidates for the Chair of Zoology.

7. Recommendations for Improvement

The PRG acknowledges the many positive and constructive aspects of the Department of Zoology. There have been the major and ongoing positive changes in the areas of departmental organisation, and in teaching and research programmes. The generally positive attitude of the members of the Department is clearly evident and will be a positive driver for continued development and progress in the future. The successes and positive aspects of the Department have been highlighted in preceding sections of this report. In this section, however, the PRG offers a series of constructive suggestions and recommendations for improvement. These are not intended as criticisms of the Department but are offered instead as pointers which may help to continue the process of development which has been embarked upon and which will aid towards realising the full potential of the Department of Zoology. The recommendations are grouped under various convenient headings.

Image and Identity

• The corporate image and collegiality of the Department are important and should be developed.

• The Department should re-examine all aspects of the working of the Departmental Office. The Office should be reorganised to facilitate the reception of visitors and the dissemination of departmental information.

• Nameplates should be on staff and laboratory doors, and a departmental directory should be provided for visitors and students.

• Notice boards for different activities should be provided.

• The appearance of corridors and the entrance to the Department should be improved.

• Recent papers or books, posters from conferences and Fourth-Year projects that have led to published work should be on display in a prominent position in the Department.

• A periodic departmental Newsletter should be produced, outlining newsworthy features of interest to staff and students.

• The Senior Executive Assistant should liaise regularly with the departmental webmaster to maintain a comprehensive up-to-date website. Some retraining may be required.

Research

• Draw up a departmental strategic plan, which should encompass a vision for the future, both for research and teaching needs. Consultation with employers will help adjudge whether the current curriculum is optimal for graduate employment.

• Plan for filling the Chair of Zoology. Evaluate the incentives required, and their availability, to attract high-calibre candidates.

• Take a fresh look at the allocation of space and technical support. History should be set aside and the Department should look at current needs, expectations and the need for efficiency. Allocation of critical departmental resources should be reviewed at least annually.

• Technical support units should be established where appropriate, each under the direction of a Section Head technician, to provide maximum flexibility in the running of the Department’s operations.

• PhD students should aim to finish in three years – they should certainly have submitted within four years. The Department should work towards the development of a culture of three-year PhD completion

• Attract more PhD students from outside UCD. Consider how best to attract overseas PhD students with a bench fee.

• Investigate methods of attracting more postdoctoral workers including research fellows from abroad, especially postdoctoral workers in their second postdoctoral appointment.

• Develop a Staff Activity Profile or Workload model to avoid disputes over relative contributions to the work of the Department/Faculty/University.

• Consider rewarding technical input into publications by a place in the author list where justified. This can improve morale.

• Revive the departmental Seminar Programme, to include staff participation.

• The Department should consider the implications of the University’s stated commitment to reward research excellence and activity in its new funding formula, and how best to benefit from it.

Undergraduates

• Increase emphasis on learning to learn.

• Reinstate Third-Year residential field courses.

• Use First- and Second-Year classes to attract rather than discourage recruiting into Honours Zoology.

• Consider introducing Third Year tutorials

• Revamp and redesign practicals.

• Prepare Course Information handbooks for Second and Third Years.

• Lectures to undergraduate classes, especially First and Second Years, should only be given by members of the academic staff, except in exceptional circumstances as approved by the Head (or Acting Head) of the Department.

• Teaching loads should be distributed as equitably as possible, taking into account research activities and other Department, Faculty and University commitments.

General

• A greater adherence to the requirements of Health and Safety is required urgently but this will need serious input from the University. There should be a general tidying up of the Department. Unannounced spot Safety checks should be carried out. All laboratory users should sign off annually confirming that they are aware of, and will adhere to, the Health and Safety regulations of the Department.

• All staff should meet with the Head of Department as part of the Staff Development Programme on at least an annual basis to review and agree their progress within and contribution to the Department.

• In progressing the Biosciences initiative it could be helpful to visit other institutions where such a re-organisation has taken place and been running for a period.

University

• The University should fund departmental refurbishment, particularly structural requirements under Health and Safety. Departmental Supplies & Travel funds should not be required for this purpose.

• The Central Transport Pool should submit accounts to the Department on a monthly basis, with all financial transfers to be approved by the Head of Department. Staff should be permitted to keep vehicles at home both before and after field trips.

Response of the Department of Zoology Co-ordinating Committee to the Peer Review Group Report

The QAQI Co-ordinating committee would like to thank the Zoology Department Peer Review Group (PRG) for the obvious commitment and effort put into the site visit and the subsequent report. The Department appreciated the comprehensive nature of the review undertaken by the PRG before, during and after the site visit.

The QAQI Co-ordinating committee welcomes the report and the recommendations made in relation to improving the quality of teaching, research and management of the Department. The broad validation of the conclusions made in the Department's Self Assessment Report (SAR) adds impetus and weight to their implementation both internally and in the recognition that funds should be provided by the College to address the structural issues highlighted in both the SAR and PRG reports.

The QAQI Co-ordinating committee would like to clarify and emphasise a number of points made in the PRG report.

The recognition that there is an urgent need for refurbishment of the Department and that proper refurbishment would obviate the need for increased space allocation to the Department must be stressed (PRG report section 5.1). The specific identification of an urgent need for secure storage space was also welcomed.

The committee also welcomed the recommendations made by the PRG in relation to proper remuneration for demonstrators but believes this must be dealt with by the University and not independently by the Department (PRG report Section 5.4).

There was some concern expressed that the PRG had the view that some staff were too involved in writing reports and this was at the expense of writing research papers. (PRG report Section 5.5). Some Academic staff have been actively involved in seeking funding to address specific demands/needs from industry and semi-state bodies because of limited funding opportunities in some disciplines. This funding has provided support for undergraduate and postgraduate projects which otherwise could not have been undertaken. Remuneration for this activity has contributed to the funding, or partial funding, of a number of PhD, MSc, MApplSc and, in some cases, 4th year undergraduate projects. The compilation and submission of reports is a requirement of such activities. Such work, reflected in a "report" has not only provided essential information to the funding body but has also fostered a vibrant research ethos, supported undergraduate and postgraduate research and in many cases (where confidentiality is not an issue) has also later resulted in peer reviewed papers.

Similarly, the PRG have stated that there is no departmental seminar programme (section 5.5). The Seminar programme in the last academic year involved 10 speakers from outside the College. In the SAR, the Co-ordinating Committee recognised that the programme was not as effective as it should be and recognised that there was a problem with attendance, but the Department has for many years operated a seminar programme and will strive to improve it.

The PRG report also indicated that there was a failure to recognise the achievements of staff at the departmental level (Section 5.5). The Co-ordinating Committee also recognised this problem but would argue that the failure extends beyond the Department to both Faculty and University as well.

The Co-ordinating Committee endorses the views expressed by the PRG in relation to the Central Transport Pool but would also suggest that the age restriction on students driving should be addressed as a matter of urgency. The Department would also urge that the procedures used by the CTP in relation to charging be improved to allow Departments to identify staff responsible for hiring and appropriate grant codes to assist in the proper distribution of those costs.

The Co-ordinating committee did not agree that there was a historical lack of recognition of the value of impact factors for publications. Emphasis has always been placed on dissemination of results through publication in the most appropriate journal for the research undertaken while recognising that, in some instances, the most appropriate journal may not necessarily have a high impact factor

APPENDIX 1. Timetable of Site Visit

Sunday, April 14

5 p.m. PRG only.

7.30 p.m. Dinner hosted by the Registrar and Dean of Science

Monday April 15

9.00-9.30 Greeting by Head of Department followed by PRG meeting.

9.30-10.15 PRG meets with Department Co-ordinating Committee to discuss the Department in the context of the SAR

10.15-10.45 PRG meets with Acting Head of Department.

10.45-11.15 PRG meets with Dean, Faculty of Science over coffee.

11.15-11.30 PRG meet in private.

11.30-12.15 PRG meets academic staff excluding members of the Co-ordinating committee.

12.15-12.30 PRG meets with Senior Executive Assistant in the Department.

12.30-1.15 PRG meets with Technical staff excluding members of the Co-ordinating committee.

1.15-2.15 Working Lunch (PRG only).

2.15-3.00 PRG tours Department to see teaching facilities.

3.00-3.30 PRG meets with postgraduate students.

3.30-5.00 PRG meets individual members of the Department.

5.00-5.30 PRG meets post-doctoral fellows.

Evening: PRG meets in Hotel, followed by dinner.

Tuesday April 16th

9.00-9.30 PRG meeting.

9.30-10:00 PRG meets Principal Technician.

10.00-12.00 PRG reviews research activities, facilities and resources.

12.00-12.30 PRG meets with 3rd year students.

12.30-1.00 PRG meets Taught Masters students.

1.00-2.30 Working Lunch (PRG only).

2.30-5.00 PRG meets individual members of the Department.

15. PRG meets Careers Office representative.

5.15-5.45 PRG meets individual members of the Department.

5.30-7.00 PRG work on presentation.

Evening: PRG working dinner in Hotel.

Wednesday April 16th

9.30- 10.15 PRG meets with Chair of Department.

10.15-11.00 PRG meets with Acting Head of Department.

11.00-1.00 PRG work on presentation.

1.00-2.00 Working lunch (PRG only).

2.00-4.00 PRG work on presentation.

4.00-5.00 PRG presentation to full Department.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download