HEFCE 2003

January 2003/01Policy developmentConsultationRespond by Friday 14 March 2003

This document invites higher educationinstitutions to contribute to the developmentof threshold standards for research degreeprogrammes, prior to formal consultation onthis issue in spring 2003. The standards aredrawn from a report by independentconsultants, initially published on the web inOctober 2002.

Improving standards inpostgraduate researchdegree programmes

Informal consultation

2

Contents

Executive summary 3

Background 4

Proposed core standards 6

Issues for consultation 7

Research report

3

Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes

To Heads of all UK higher education institutions

Of interest to those responsible for Research degrees, Postgraduate training,Internal quality assurance

Reference 2003/01

Publication date January 2003

Enquiries to Will Naylortel 0117 931 7471

e-mail w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk

Executive summary

Purpose

1. This document invites higher education institutions (HEIs) to contribute to thedevelopment of threshold standards for research degree programmes (RDPs), prior to formalconsultation on this issue in spring 2003.

Key points

2. This is the first stage of a three-stage programme led by the four UK higher educationfunding bodies. The aim is to enhance the quality of research training across the UK bydeveloping a set of minimum standards to which all research funders and HEIs would

subscribe.

3. The programme has its origins in concerns expressed to the funding bodies in theirrecent reviews of research policy and funding, including those from major sponsors ofpostgraduate education, about the quality and consistency of research training.

4. The proposed threshold standards are drawn from a research report, originallypublished on the HEFCE web-site in October.

Action required

5. We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPsby responding to the conclusions in the report and the proposed core standards set out inTable 1 below. Responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal for threshold standardsfor RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full public consultation in April

2003.

6. Any responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor atthe HEFCE, w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk

4

Background

7. The UK higher education funding bodies commissioned a report on improvingpostgraduate research degree programmes, in response to concerns about the quality andconsistency of research training that were raised in recent reviews of research policy andfunding. These concerns were echoed this year in the review by Sir Gareth Roberts of thesupply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematical skills (‘SET for

success’, HM Treasury, April 2002).

8. The work was undertaken by a team of consultants led by Dr Janet Metcalfe, andoverseen by the Joint Funding Councils’ Steering Group on postgraduate education, chairedby Professor Roland Levinsky.

9. The report was originally published in October 2002 on the HEFCE web-site,www.hefce.ac.uk under ‘Publications/R&D reports’. It presents a quality framework coveringthe breadth of research training, including the research environment; selection, induction,progress and examination of students; supervisory arrangements and skills development; and

institutional arrangements for quality assurance, procedures and regulations. The frameworkencompasses all those with a role in research training, including institutions, supervisors andthe students themselves.

Role of Research Councils

10. The report defines over 30 items as minimum standards. We recognise that assessingthis number of standards would pose serious challenges for HEIs in terms of internal qualityassurance. Therefore we have extracted, in concert with the Research Councils, a set of corestandards which appear to us to represent an essential minimum for providing high quality

RDP training. These core standards are outlined below. They represent the emerging viewsof the funding bodies and the Research Councils, and not necessarily those of the SteeringGroup on postgraduate education or the consultants. We envisage that all HEIs in receipt offunding for postgraduate training should comply in future with a list of core standards,although we hope that institutions would also aspire to the complete framework set out in the

report.

11. The framework in the report and our proposed core standards have been discussed indetail with the Research Councils, who were represented on the project steering committee.The Research Councils endorse the principles behind this framework, and they all place

similar requirements upon the departments in receipt of their own studentship funding.

12. Our interaction with the Research Councils reflects our aspiration to achieve better co-ordination and agreement around the different requirements that separate research fundershave for research training. A key aim is to reduce the accountability burden currently faced by

HEIs in complying with several sets of quality criteria, although the Research Councils do notas yet have a view on how the framework should be monitored and assessed. Furthermore,funding council strategy and future funding arrangements do not fall within the remit of theResearch Councils. Therefore their support at this stage does not necessarily imply futureendorsement by the Research Councils of any policies that might be developed by the

funding bodies to implement the recommendations of this review.

5

13. It should also be stressed that our proposed list of core standards can be applied

flexibly to accommodate the needs of different types of research students, including part-timeand mature students. Equally, we would not seek to impose criteria that individual studentsfeel are inappropriate. Under training, for example, HEIs would be expected to provide everystudent with the opportunity to complete a suitable programme in research and other skills;but we would certainly not envisage the participation of each student on such a programme

as mandatory (although other funders may have different views).

6

Table 1 Proposed core standards

Institution Evidence that the institution has paid attention to the quality of RDP trainingprovision, as evidenced by the implementation of a Code of Practice.

Minimum standard:

• Implementation of a Code of Practice covering the areas identified in thesummary of framework standards (Annex D).

Researchenvironment

All research training to be provided in an appropriate environment, asevidenced by: the presence of a critical mass of researchers in theappropriate subject area; adequate facilities; and minimum submissionrates. A minimum RAE rating has also been suggested as a measure of thequality of the research environment.

Minimum standards:• Unit/cognate area of research should have a way of providing effective

interaction with a mix of at least five research active staff or post-doctoral researchers, and between a group of at least 10 researchstudents. (For institutions with a relatively small number of researchers,this could be achieved by collaborating with neighbouring HEIs.)

• 70 per cent submission rate within four years.

• Suggested minimum RAE rating of 3a (again this could be achievedthrough collaboration).

Supervisoryarrangements

Appropriate supervisory arrangements to be in place as evidenced by:mandatory training for new supervisors; defined supervisory teams,including experienced main supervisor; and an upper limit on the number of

students per main supervisor.Minimum standards:

• All new supervisors to undertake mandatory, institutionally specifiedtraining.

• Supervision to be provided by supervisory teams consisting of at leasttwo supervisors, one of whom shall be designated as the mainsupervisor.

• Supervisors to have had experience of at least one successfulsupervision within a supervisory team before acting as a mainsupervisor.

• Main supervisors to have responsibility for a maximum of eight students.

Admissioncriteria

Students to be appropriately prepared for the RDP, as evidenced byfulfilment of minimum standard entry qualification.

Minimum standard:

• Normal entry requirement for RDP to be a 2(i) degree in a relevantsubject, or a relevant Masters qualification.

Training Appropriate arrangements to be in place to develop research and otherskills, as evidenced by existence of training programme.

Minimum standard:• Provision of a training programme to develop research and other skills,

as outlined in the Joint Research Councils/AHRB Statement on SkillsTraining Requirements.

7

Table 1 Proposed core standards

Progression,assessment

and appeals

Arrangements to be in place to monitor student progress and ensure fairand appropriate examination as evidenced by: existence of institutional

procedures for progress monitoring; examination by an appropriatelyconstituted panel; and availability of appeals procedures.

Minimum standards:• Student progress to be reviewed annually by panels of at least three

academic staff, the majority of whom are independent of the supervisoryteam.

• Final examination to be by viva to an independent panel of at least twoexaminers, of whom at least one is an external examiner and at leastone is from a minimum 3a rated department.

• Institution to arrange and publicise complaints and appeals procedures.

Issues for consultation

14. We now invite HEIs to contribute to the development of threshold standards for RDPs

by responding to the conclusions made in the research report and the proposed corestandards in Table 1 above. These responses will be incorporated into a formal proposal forthreshold standards in RDPs, which the funding bodies plan to issue jointly for full publicconsultation in April 2003.

15. In particular, we would welcome views on the following key questions:

a. Do you agree that the framework set out in the research report broadlyrepresents the best way to improve the quality and consistency of RDPs?

b. Do you agree that individual framework standards are appropriate (summarisedat Annex D)? Are the minimum levels suggested here too high/too low?

c. What do you think of the core standards proposed in Table 1 above? Are thereaspects of the framework summarised at Annex D that should be added to the core?

d. Do you agree that monitoring only a set of core standards, but requiring HEIs toadopt a code of practice covering the complete framework, is appropriate?

e. How would you measure your compliance with the framework?

16. Responses should be sent by e-mail, by Friday 14 March 2003, to Will Naylor at theHEFCE, e-mail w.naylor@hefce.ac.uk