Future  Researchers  Matter:  Birkbeck  and  Postgraduate  Research    A  College  Review                    Professor  Carol  Watts      Jan-­‐July  2015        

  ii  

Contents      

1. Future  Researchers  Matter:  Birkbeck  and  Postgraduate  Research  1.1 Research  Context  1.2 Measuring  Excellence,  Measuring  Value  

               2. PGR  Profile:  Current  Picture,  Current  Challenges  

2.1 Recruitment/Applications/Offers  2.2 Enrolments  and  Fee  Income  14/15  2.3 Birkbeck’s  PGR  Student  Body  2.4 Full-­‐time/Part-­‐time  Challenges:  Current  Profile  2.5 International  Students  2.6 Success  Rates:  Submission  and  Completion  2.7 Submission  and  Completion:  RCUK/HEFCE/HESA  2.8 Breaks  in  Studies  2.9 Writing  Up  

 3. Funding:  Income  and  Investment  in  Future  Researchers  

3.1 Context  and  Challenges  3.2 Income  and  Spending  3.3 QR  RDP  supervision  funding  3.4 Funded  PhDs  3.5 PGR  Central  Support/  Financial  Circumstances  3.6 Schools:  Further  Information  3.7 Further  Funds:  DTC  and  RCUK  Training  Funds  3.8 Philanthropy  and  Alumni  Engagement  3.9 Solutions?  

a. Recording  and  Reporting  b. Management  c. Communication  d. Further  areas  for  consideration      

4. Leadership,  Management  and  Support  4.1 Academic  Leadership  4.2 Management  and  Support  of  Research  Students:  PRO  4.3 Managing  Communication:  The  PGR  Web  Presence  4.4 PRO  Focus:  The  Future  Researcher  Journey  4.5 Doctoral  Models  and  Pathways  4.6 Student  Representation  and  Experience  4.7 Facilities:  Space  

 5. Supervision  

5.1 Code  of  Practice  5.2 Supervisory  Training  and  Support  

 6. Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  (BGRS)  

6.1 Why  a  central  Graduate  Research  School?  6.2 BGRS  management:  why  establish  a  steering  committee?  

  iii  

6.3 Proposed  communication  structure    

7. PGR  Training  and  Skills  7.1 Context  7.2 At  Base:  Using  the  Vitae  Research  Development  Framework  (RDF)  7.3 Delivery  of  Skills  and  Training  

a. Generic  Skills  (BGRS)/  Central  Provision  b. Specialist  Researcher  Development  Skills  

(Departments/Programmes)  c. Cross-­‐School  Provision,  Networks,  Centres  and  Institutes  d. External  Training  (DTCs  or  RCUK  funded)  e. External  Skills  Networks  

7.4 Specialist  College  Skills  (Indicative  Strategic  Directions)  a. Digital  Knowledges  b. Teaching  Excellence  c. Business  and  Other  Ecologies  d. Public  Engagement  Skills  and  Training  

7.5 Modes  of  Delivery    

8. Conclusion    

9. Summary  of  Recommendations    

10.  Appendix  A1      Terms  of  Reference  A2        Graduate  Research  School  Pages  A3        Example  of  Training  Needs  Analysis  (TNA)  Form  (Sussex)  A4        Transferable  Skills  and  Monitoring  Form  (ISMB/Biological  Sciences)  

   

  1  

 1.  Future  Researchers  Matter:  Birkbeck  and  Postgraduate  Research  

     1.1    Research  Context    In  Birkbeck’s  Research  Strategy  Plan  2014-­‐19  the  College  sets  out  its  research-­‐intensive  commitment  to  PGR  students,  who  are  described  as  ‘members  of  the  College’s  research  community  and  as  having  major  importance  in  sustaining  the  research  mission  of  the  College  and  of  universities  in  general’.  Under  the  title  ‘Future  Researchers  Matter’,  the  Plan  establishes  that:    

As  a  signatory  to  the  Concordat  to  Support  the  Career  Development  of  Researchers,  Birkbeck  is  committed  to  advancing  the  prospects  of  more  junior  researchers  as  a  major  way  in  which  it  sustains  and  renews  its  research  community.  PhD  students  are  regarded  as  vital  contributors  to  this  community  and  are  included  in  many  of  its  research  teams  and  in  the  activities  of  its  Centres  and  Institutes.  High  quality  supervision  is  the  key  to  the  positive  development  of  the  careers  of  these  students.  

 This  Review  takes  further  the  understanding  of  PGR  students  as  future  researchers  who  have  a  central  role  in  sustaining  and  renewing  Birkbeck’s  research  community  and  that  of  the  sector  as  a  whole.  It  makes  the  case  that  PGR  students  are  important  drivers  of  that  research  culture  in  key  respects.  Further,  PGR  students  might  also  be  seen  as  exporters  of  Birkbeck’s  research  culture  and  reputation  in  academic  and  professional  terms,  nationally  and  internationally.  Each  one  of  these  elements  needs  to  be  understood  and  actively  brought  into  view,  if  the  College  is  fully  to  deliver  on  the  potential  of  its  research  environment  for  junior  researchers,  and  also  realize  the  importance  of  investment  in  postgraduate  research  for  the  College  as  a  whole.      The  challenge,  and  indeed  opportunity,  for  Birkbeck  is  our  distinctive  body  of  over  800  PGR  students,  funded  and  self-­‐funded,  full  and  part-­‐time,  who  are  a  key  part  of  a  vibrant,  ambitious  research-­‐intensive  institution  in  which  over  half  of  all  students  are  currently  postgraduates.  The  quality  of  Birkbeck’s  research  environment  is  measured  in  part  by  PGR  experience,  and  the  way  it  is  handled  ‘within  the  constraint  of  available  resource’  to  generate  possibilities  substantially  beyond  the  usual  profile  of  an  institution  of  this  size.  In  the  next  ten  years,  decisions  made  in  this  area  will  directly  affect  the  College’s  ability  to  maintain  that  research-­‐intensive  claim  in  a  sector  that  is  actively  upping  its  game  in  the  context  of  higher  education  PGR  strategy.  At  the  same  time,  establishing  a  robust  ground  for  that  claim  will  enable  Birkbeck  to  build  and  communicate  confidently  what  is  unique  and  exceptional  about  our  future  researcher  profile.    This  Review  aims  to  take  forward  key  dimensions  of  Principle  13  of  the  College’s  Research  Strategy.    It  recommends  that  the  current  Code  of  Practice  for  Postgraduate  Training  and  Research  for  Research  Degrees  (dating  from  2011)  should  be  reviewed  in  the  light  of  this  Strategy  and  the  findings  of  the  Review.    A  

  2  

renewed  PGR  mission  should  establish  the  main  tenets  for  future  researcher  development,  in  the  light  of  the  RCUK  expectations  that  track  PGR,  postdoctoral  training  and  ECR  opportunities  in  a  research  lifecycle:  here  to  be  understood  as  the  PGR  student  ‘journey’  (see  4.4).  This  mission  should  also  address  the  expanded  professional  development  of  researchers  who  may  not  finally  seek  a  research  or  academic  career,  but  are  nonetheless  integral  to  the  distinctive  quality  of  PGR  life  in  the  College  and  part  of  a  global  research  agenda  with  its  demand  for  postgraduate  level  skills.    Its  delivery  should  be  part  of  a  transformed  Graduate  Research  School  mission,  described  in  Part  6  below.    This  Review  explores  some  of  the  major  structural  obstacles  to  the  delivery  of  these  aims  at  Birkbeck,  setting  out  a  programme  for  their  solving  where  possible,  identifying  areas  for  essential  consideration  in  future  planning.  It  is  the  contention  of  the  Review  that  the  weakness  of  organizational  structural  support  and  resource  in  a  number  of  central  areas  means  that  the  College  is  in  some  key  respects  fundamentally  unable  to  measure  and  build  on  the  outstanding  quality  of  PGR  work  currently  in  place.  There  are  challenges  of  communication,  of  management  structure,  and  of  financial  and  other  systems  reporting  and  coordination.    There  is  a  deep  need  for  appropriate  resourcing  and  prioritising.  In  all  too  many  areas,  as  this  Review  has  itself  found  symptomatically,  information  is  frequently  not  available,  and  key  oversight  missing.  All  staff,  whether  academic  or  administrative,  struggle  with  this  on  a  daily  basis,  and  it  generates  a  considerable  and  often  disproportionate  cost  in  energy,  hard  work  and  time  to  make  up  for  this  lack.  In  College  terms,  PGR  has  been  of  relatively  low  priority  because  it  does  not  resemble  taught  processes  in  a  way  that  makes  it  intelligible,  and  because  fee  income  is  comparatively  low.  Attention  has  been  elsewhere.  With  increasing  pressures  and  competition  in  the  sector  it  will  become  increasingly  difficult  to  maintain  research  quality  and  PGR  growth,  if  this  structural  poverty  of  attention  continues.  This  lack  directly  impacts  on  the  research  mission  of  the  College  going  forward,  and  potentially  on  its  overall  standing  in  the  sector.  The  timescale  for  its  addressing  and  implementation  is  of  immediate  importance,  since  decisions  made  now  and  any  delays  in  key  areas  of  action  will  have  an  impact  on  DTC  accession,  RCUK  grant  success,  REF  excellence,  and  the  sustaining  of  high  quality  PGR  growth.    1.2  Measuring  excellence,  measuring  value    How  then  is  a  strong  case  to  be  made  for  investment  in  future  researchers,  when,  as  one  AD  put  it,  PGR  fee  income  is  not  why  they  are  important  to  us?    Birkbeck’s  claim  to  research  intensivity  is  central  to  its  mission  and  the  distinctive  creative  quality,  independence  and  dynamism  of  its  academic  life  which  is  valued  by  students  and  staff  alike  at  all  levels.  These  are  qualities  that  often  go  beyond  the  narrower  instrumental  assessments  of  what  constitutes  excellence,  just  as  the  research  environment  is  not  reducible  to  REF.    That  claim  nonetheless  has  to  rest  on  a  number  of  key  indicators.  The  UK  QAA  Quality  Code  (B11)  sets  out  the  conditions  of  the  excellence  of  a  research  environment,  which  is  the  necessary  ground  for  the  attraction  of  high  quality  PGR  students.  A  strong  community  of  PGR  students  and  related  researcher  

  3  

development  provision,  are  also  conversely  indicators  of  that  excellence.  This  code  underpins  the  claim  of  any  institution  to  the  excellence  of  its  research  environment.  The  section  of  the  QA  code  on  Research  Environment  notably  points  institutions  towards  the  Vitae  Researcher  Development  Framework  (RDF),  which  I  address  later  in  the  Review  (7.2).  It  informs  the  success  of  that  institution  for  the  REF,  for  example,  where  the  central  narrative  must  support  the  claims  of  subject  areas.  It  is  not  enough  simply  to  meet  the  terms  of  the  code,  as  the  College  broadly  does,  as  is  currently  usefully  being  reviewed  in  the  RSSC  in  the  light  of  the  QA  audit  in  2017.  The  current  College  Code  of  Practice  for  Postgraduate  Training  and  Research  responds  to  the  QA  principles  clearly  in  most  basic  aspects.  However  the  College  also  needs  to  communicate  this  richly  in  its  materials,  organization  and  central  narrative,  articulate  it  consistently,  and  demonstrate  its  continual  enhancement  in  practice  and  in  its  online  materials.  This  is  key  to  success  in  all  aspects  of  research,  from  the  REF  to  membership  and  participation  in  Doctoral  Training  Partnerships,  themselves  now  major  engines  of  national  and  international  research,  and  other  major  international  training  networks  that  are  also  conduits  of  outstanding  academic  research.    PGR  students  are  therefore  an  integral  part  of  the  excellence  of  the  research  environment  of  Birkbeck  and  its  researcher  development.  As  such  they  contribute  to  REF  success,  and  to  the  robustness  of  a  research  culture  that  aims  to  secure  major  funding  and  build  new  initiatives  suited  to  a  twenty-­‐first-­‐century  research  agenda.  In  this  sense  PGR  students  are  drivers  or  engines  of  research  possibility  in  ways  that  impact  beyond  their  immediate  cultures.  Their  contribution  to  the  active  life  and  new  knowledge  of  Institutes,  Centres  and  Departments  is  significant,  and  not  measurable  according  to  simple  income  or  quality  indicators.  As  HEFCE  surveys  have  indicated,  PGR  students  increase  research  capacity,  and  are  vehicles  for  innovation,  often  working  on  higher-­‐risk  and  more  speculative  projects  than  a  REF-­‐oriented  culture  may  permit.  Reasons  for  recruitment  are  varied,  though  Russell  Group  universities  tend  to  emphasise  the  research  ‘pipeline’,  and  post  1992  institutions,  research  capacity1:    

   Attracting  good  PhD  students,  both  funded  and  self-­‐funded,  means  that  academic  staff  can  develop  their  own  research  projects,  connect  to  wider  

                                                                                                               1  HEFCE,  Understanding  the  recruitment  and  selection  of  postgraduate  researchers  by  English  Higher  Education  Institutions  (2014)  

  4  

networks,  deepen  fields  of  research  specialisms  and  generate  new  ones,  extend  exchange  and  influence,  forge  partnerships,  gain  promotion.  In  a  climate  of  financial  restraint  where  academic  posts  are  in  short  supply,  it  is  often  junior  researchers  –  PGRs,  postdocs,  and  ECRs  –  who  are  crucial  to  the  continuing  renewal  and  indeed  sustaining  of  academic  research  life.  Investment  here  pays  off  valuably  for  our  key  performance  indicators  in  ways  that  we  do  not  measure,  and  which  can  consequently  often  remain  under  the  radar,  difficult  to  articulate  alongside  the  necessary  bread-­‐and-­‐butter  emphases  on  UCAS  BAs  or  PGT  income.      Just  fifteen  minutes  spent  on  REF  environment  returns  and  with  anecdotal  evidence  also  produces  a  striking  picture  of  Birkbeck’s  reach.  The  ecology  of  students  within  the  M25  is  an  identified  part  of  Birkbeck’s  resource  going  forward.  Yet  PGR  students  export  Birkbeck  research  culture  nationally  and  around  the  globe  as  they  enter  career  paths.  The  QAA  code  notes  under  Indicator  3  that  monitoring  of  the  success  of  PGR  may  include  ‘information  on  subsequent  employment  destinations  and  career  paths  of  research  students  who  have  received  the  qualification’.  The  College  holds  limited  information  here  and  reports  (via  Careers  and  Planning)  to  the  HESA  Destination  of  Leavers  Survey  as  required,  6  months  after  completion.  The  longditudinal  survey  addresses  leavers  no  more  than  3.5  years  after  their  departure.  The  Alumni  Office  knows  little  about  PGR  alumni  but  is  keen  to  develop  a  strategy  here.  It  is  as  if  the  human  and  financial  investment  in  researcher  development  largely  ceases  to  register  for  the  College  on  submission.  This  research  reach  is  part  of  Birkbeck’s  PGR  success,  and  is  a  resource  that  should  be  valued  and  tracked.    A  quick  non-­‐exhaustive  survey  (based  on  brief  Psychology,  Computer  Science,  Economics,  Sociology,  English,  HCA  and  Philosophy  REF  returns  alone,  with  some  anecdotal  additions)  suggest  that  ex-­‐Birkbeck  PGRs  hold  national  and  international  faculty  positions,  sometimes  several,  at  more  than  48  universities.2  A  five-­‐minute  survey  yields  20  postdoctoral  positions.3  While  reported  major  industry,  commercial  and  entrepreneurial  posts  include  senior  positions  in  the  NHS,  leading  roles  in  museums  and  galleries,  R&D  posts  in  sectors  such  as  advertising,  finance,  bioinformatics  and  pharmaceuticals,  as  well  as  analysts  in  financial  companies,  banks  and  the  IMF,  directors  of  multinationals  and  government  ministers.  

                                                                                                               2  Bedfordshire,  Birkbeck,  Birmingham,  Bradford,  Brunel,  Edge  Hill,  Edinburgh,  Essex,  Exeter,  Kent,  Kings,  Leicester,  Manchester,  Middlesex,  Leeds,  Liverpool  John  Moores,  London  Metropolitan,  Northampton,  Open,  Oxford  Brookes,  QMUL,  Reading,  RHUL,  Southampton,  St  Andrews,  Surrey,  UEL,  University  of  the  West  of  England,  Westminster,  York.  Cagliari,  Copenhagen,  Cyprus,  Dongbei  China,  Hong  Kong,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Mexico  City,  New  South  Wales,  New  York,  Okan,  Pretoria,  Stellenbosch,  SUNY,  UEA,  Warsaw,  Western  Australia  3  Birkbeck,  Berlin,  British  School  Athens,  Cambridge,  City,  Essex,  European  Centre  for  Minority  Issues  in  Flensburg,  Germany, Goldsmiths,  IoE,  KCL,  Jerusalem,  Leeds,  Leuven,  Max  Planck,  Oxford,  Porto,  Rochester  USA,  Sciences-­‐Po,  South  Africa,  UCL.    

  5  

 More  research  here  would  produce  a  substantial  and  influential  body  of  researcher  alumni  and  a  considerable  global  post-­‐doctoral  footprint.  College  plans  for  2023  should  consider  bringing  this  senior  researcher  community  together  in  celebration,  but  the  substantive  creation  of  a  PGR  Researcher  database  needs  creating  sooner.  In  some  departmental  areas  of  best  practice,  PGR  alumni  are  drawn  into  dialogue  with  current  students,  often  in  relation  to  career  opportunities  and  ‘real  world’  experience  –  this  should  be  at  our  fingertips.  Some  alumni  form  the  kernel  of  ongoing  national  and  international  research  relationships  and  PGR  partnerships.  Understanding  the  mobile  nature  of  twenty-­‐first-­‐century  knowledge  production,  portfolio  careers,  the  translation  of  research  into  possibility,  means  tracking  this  footprint  in  the  name  of  those  still  to  come.  But  the  scale  of  possibility  here  is  simply  not  harnessed,  nor  known.      Recommendations  

-­‐ to  update  the  College  Code  of  Practice  on  Postgraduate  Training  and  Research  for  Research  Degrees  in  the  light  of  the  future  researcher  model  

-­‐ to  establish  a  corresponding  future  researcher  mission  document  for  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  

-­‐ to  consider  available  PGR  data  on    ‘information  on  subsequent  employment  destinations  and  career  paths  of  research  students  who  have  received  the  qualification’    

-­‐ to  consider  the  place  of  this  global  postgraduate  and  post-­‐doctoral  researcher  community  and  its  research  and  professional  profile  in  the  context  of  2023  planning  and  alumni  networks  

                   

                     

     

  6  

2.  PGR  Profile:  Current  Picture,  Current  Challenges        In  2014-­‐15  (measured  in  April)  the  total  number  of  PGR  students  enrolled  at  Birkbeck  was  839  (704  FTEs).  31%  were  in  SSHP,  28%  in  Arts,  18%  in  BEI,  15%  in  Science  and  8%  in  Law.  384  PhDs  have  been  awarded  since  2011/12.    2.1  Recruitment/Applications/Offers    The  PGR  cohort  varies  over  each  year  with  the  entry  and  completion  of  students,  and  with  shifts  in  the  market  including  financial  pressures  and  funding  availability  that  can  impact  rapidly.  Birkbeck  relies  like  other  institutions  largely  on  online  advertising  of  funding,  and  on  word  of  mouth  and  staff  and  department  reputation.  Close  work  with  PGT  students  drawing  on  a  strong  current  platform  of  masters  provision  backed  by  PGT  bursaries  to  create  a  potential  PGR  stream,  can  help  build  ongoing  research  relationships,  but  this  is  a  transition  which  remains  unevenly  addressed  by  the  College.  Some  staff  work  actively  to  do  this,  framing  the  MA/MSc  dissertation  as  a  first  step.  There  are  also  good  examples  of  new  M.Phil  and  PhD  models  rethinking  this  PGT/PGR  relation  (see  4.4).        In  the  past  two  years  there  have  been  overall  increases  in  student  applications,  but  the  current  year  for  15/16  (circa  July)  shows  a  decrease  of  10%  overall,  matched  by  an  increase  in  offers.      

 Digging  down,  the  decline  is  marked  in  part-­‐time  applications  and  offers:    

Full-­‐time  applications  are  down  this  year,  but  the  offer  rate  overall  is  increasing  each  year  as  Birkbeck  competes  for  the  full-­‐time  funded  market:    

  7  

   Within  these  figures  at  School  level,  the  current  position  on  applications/offers  for  the  last  two  years  is  as  follows:    Arts:    14/15:  FT  applications  up  38%,  offers  up  39%.  PT  applications  up  31%,  offers  up  14%.  15/16:  FT  applications  down  20%,  offers  down  14%.  PT  applications  down  26%,  offers  down  19%.    BEI:  14/15:  FT  applications  up  22%,  offers  down  5%.  PT  applications  down  28%,  offers  down  27%.  15/16:  FT  applications  down  22%,  offers  up  15%.  PT  applications  down  27%,  offers  down  50%.    Law:  14/15:  FT  applications  up  33%,  offers  even  at  0%.  PT  applications  even  at  0%,  offers  down  50%.  15/16:  FT  applications  up  34%,  offers  up  57%.  PT  applications  even  at  0%,  offers  even  at  0%.    Science:  14/15:  FT  applications  down  11%,  offers  up  29%.  PT  applications  down  55%,  offers  up  50%.  15/16:  FT  applications  up  7%,  offers  up  6%.  PT  applications  down  22%,  offers  down  67%.    SSHP:    14/15:  FT  applications  up  10%,  offers  up  10%.  PT  applications  up  3%  offers  down  59%.  15/16:  FT  applications  down  5%,  offers  up  16%.  PT  applications  down  23%,  offers  up  57%.    There  is  evident  volatility  in  this  snapshot.  The  picture  would  need  to  be  updated  by  October,  with  more  detail  about  the  composition  by  department  and  programme.  Factors  to  note:    

1. A  decline  in  part-­‐time  applications  across  the  whole,  with  financial  concerns  evident.  Offers  are  also  declining  here  in  almost  all  Schools,  which  may  suggest  a  tougher  regime  of  entry,  concern  about  student  quality,  and  completion  rates,  and  staff  having  reached  their  limits  of  

  8  

supervision.  Some  outstanding  FT  students  switch  to  PT  on  enrolment  –  figures  on  this  would  be  useful.  

2. FT  student  applications  are  down  in  three  of  the  five  Schools,  with  funding  and  increased  competition  with  DTCs  at  issue  here.  HEFCE  recruitment  surveys  report  that  most  institutions  are  planning  for  growth  in  PGR  numbers  over  the  next  five  years,  post  1992  in  particular;  Russell  group  institutions  less  so.  Overall  the  total  aspirations  would  add  up  to  something  like  5%  growth  a  year.  But  these  aspirations  are  primarily  constrained  by  access  to  funding.  

3. Arts  in  particular  is  taking  a  predicted  hit  from  the  loss  of  AHRC  BGP2  studentships  in  15/16,  without  alternative  RCUK  funding  streams.  A  very  strong  success  last  year  with  careful  School  advertising  sustained  interest,  but  the  offer  is  more  dependent  this  year  on  more  narrowly  framed  funding  as  staff  have  actively  sought  alternative  resources.  School/College  funding  is  crucial  to  maintain  ahead  of  BGP3  when  Birkbeck  will  be  eligible  for  studentships  should  CHASE  be  successful,  but  it  is  more  than  halved  again  next  year.  The  risk  here  to  an  outstanding  postgraduate  culture  is  a  permanent  loss  of  market  share  and  a  challenge  to  position  in  world  rankings.  A  fuller  picture  will  be  available  in  September.  

4. Funding  is  a  magnet.  College  Anniversary  scholarships  with  their  thematic  cross-­‐disciplinary  emphases  have  not  been  framed  to  generate  bigger  pools  of  applications,  though  they  may  have  other  strategic  logics.  College  funding  was  poorly  advertised  and  the  timing  of  decisions  not  helpful.  Donor  funded  scholarships  are  also  often  narrowly  framed  to  suit  the  donation.  See  funding  in  Part  3  below.  

5. Law  showing  positive  sustained  interest  ahead  of  ESRC  joining  process.  6. Science  works  closely  with  UCL,  so  much  of  the  data  is  held  there.  

 2.2  Enrolments  and  Fee  Income  14/15    Offers  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  enrolments,  with  students  often  considering  several  institutions  at  a  time.  Enrolments  can  also  buck  application  trends,  with  careful  admissions  work.  All  Schools  have  experienced  top  funded  candidates  finally  opting  for  other  offers,  and  this  will  intensify  as  the  DTC  climate  takes  hold.  Locally  targeted  partial  and  full  fee  waivers  and  bursaries,  and  GTA  packages,  can  bring  in  and  retain  outstanding  students  in  concrete  ways,  some  of  whom  opt  for  the  part-­‐time  route  alongside  employment  in  the  current  financial  climate.  The  process  of  bringing  in  the  best  PGR  students  now  requires  proactive  staff  engagement  over  the  duration  and  good  central  and  departmental  materials/communication  in  support.      Total  fee  income  in  14/15  was  £2,886,000,  which  was  133%  of  the  fee  income  target.    All  PGR  students  2014-­‐15        Enrolments      FTE      £K  Income      Average  Fee  per  

FTE    ARTS  TOTAL    236      196      731      3,733    

  9  

Arts    50      44      204      4,605    Cult  &  Lang    31      25      79      3,198    English  &  Human  

 92      77      286      3,714    

Film,  Med  &  Cul    23      18      74      4,044    Hist  Of  Art    41      32      88      2,794              BEI  TOTAL    155      127      566      4,443    Comp  Sci  &  Is    33      29      135      4,737    Econ  Maths  Stat  

 53      43      200      4,608    

Management    42      34      163      4,766    Org  Psychology    27      21      68      3,192              Law    64      54      181      3,346              SCIENCE  TOTAL  

 123      110      461      4,176    

Biological  Sci    42      38      161      4,259    Earth  Sciences    22      17      62      3,605    Psych.  Sci    59      55      238      4,296              SSHP  TOTAL    261      217      947      4,374    Appl  Ling  &  Com  

 56      50      361      7,177    

Geog  Env  Dev    20      18      88      5,000    Hist  Clas  Arch    77      63      188      2,989    Philosophy    55      45      171      3,843    Politics    13      11      36      3,214    Psychosocial  St    40      30      103      3,433              Grand  Total    839      704      2,886      4,098    Broken  down  by  year  of  study                            Enrolments      FTE      £K  Income      Average  Fee  per  

FTE    ARTS    236      196      731      3,733    1    49      41      205      4,976    2    42      37      179      4,891    3    42      35      126      3,621    4    65      57      165      2,915    5    12      8      19      2,262    6    9      6      14      2,222    7    17      12      23      1,933              BEI    155      127      566      4,443    1    36      32      169      5,314    

  10  

   Enrolments      FTE      £K  Income      Average  Fee  per  FTE    

2    31      25      112      4,480    3    32      26      121      4,601    4    29      25      113      4,449    5    7      5      12      2,449    6    5      4      10      2,857    7    15      11      29      2,762              LAW    64      54      181      3,346    1    10      9      48      5,106    2    14      12      62      5,345    3    12      11      33      3,143    4    17      15      21      1,409    5    1      1      2      2,857    6    5      4      7      2,000    7    5      4      8      2,286              SCIENCE    123      110      461      4,176    1    32      31      133      4,361    2    33      29      149      5,068    3    37      35      130      3,757    4    10      8      32      3,902    5    1      1      2      2,857    6    6      4      8      1,905    7    4      3      7      2,500              SSHP    261      217      947      4,374    1    67      60      368      6,123    2    66      56      271      4,857    3    46      39      131      3,376    4    43      35      97      2,756    5    17      12      27      2,269    6    11      8      31      4,026    7    11      7      22      3,143              Grand  Total    839      704      2,886      4,098      Broken  down  by  fee  status                Enrolments      FTE      £K  Income      Average  Fee  per  

FTE    ARTS    236      196      731      3,733    Home    204      164      467      2,846    International    32      32      264      8,328              BEI    155      127      566      4,443    Home    119      95      291      3,073    

  11  

International    36      33      275      8,410              LAW    64      54      181      3,346    Home    49      39      101      2,563    International    15      15      80      5,442              SCIENCE    123      110      461      4,176    Home    106      94      309      3,277    International    17      16      152      9,441              SSHP    261      217      947      4,374    Home    214      171      512      2,994    International    47      46      435      9,560              Grand  Total    839      704      2,886      4,098    2.3  Birkbeck’s  Student  Body    For  the  past  five  years  the  PGR  FT  and  PT  student  profile  has  remained  fairly  consistent  in  terms  of  gender,  ethnicity  and  disability.      

 

  12  

 

     There  is  particular  room  for  improvement  in  the  diversity  of  the  PGR  student  body.  The  gender  balance  is  even  for  part-­‐time  PGR  study,  with  more  women  now  taking  up  FT  places.    c.  Age  Range    FT  students  are  grouped  largely  between  21-­‐40,  with  notable  concentrations  of  students  (35%  and  above)  aged  between  21-­‐25  in  English,  Economics,  Biological  Sciences  (61%),  Psychology,  and  Philosophy;  and  those  between  26-­‐30  in  Cultures  and  Languages,  History  of  Art,  London  Consortium,  Computer  Science,  Law,    Earth  Sciences  (79%),  GEDS,    and  Politics.  FT  students  in  their  30s  are  notably  found  in  Cultures  and  Languages,  Management,    Organisational  Psychology,  Applied  Linguistics.  Among  those  over  40,  Organisational  Psychology  has  the  largest  concentration  of  FT  students.    PT  students  are  spread  over  a  greater  age  range  as  would  be  expected,  with  some  departments  in  Arts  showing  significant  spread,  along  with  History.  The  greatest  concentrations  (35%  plus)  are  in  the  31-­‐40  age  range,  in  English,  

  13  

Computer  Science,  Economics,  Management,  Law,  Biological  Sciences,  Psychology,  GEDS,  Politics  and  Psychosocial  Studies.    FT  PGR  Student  Profile  by  Age    

     PT  PGR  Student  Profile  by  Age  

     

  14  

2.4  Full-­‐time/Part-­‐time  Challenges:  Current  Profile    One  of  the  central  challenges  for  Birkbeck  in  its  development  of  a  future  researcher  strategy  is  the  unique  combination  of  full-­‐time  and  part-­‐time  PGR  provision  central  to  the  College  mission.      The  current  distribution  by  modes  of  study  (July  2015)  is  as  follows:    

       

       

  15  

   There  are  particular  concentrations  of  FT  students  in  English,  Biological  Sciences,  Psychology,  Applied  Linguistics,  and  HCA.  PT  students  are  grouped  in  larger  overall  numbers  in  Arts  and  SSHP,  notably  in  English,  History  of  Art,  HCA,  Philosophy  and  Psychosocial  Studies,  but  there  are  also  significant  numbers  in  Law  and  BEI.      There  is  growing  emphasis  across  all  areas  of  the  College  on  the  attraction  of  strong  full-­‐time  funded  students  within  DTCs  or  by  other  funding  routes,  and  the  corresponding  need  for  Russell  Group  quality  of  support,  management  and  provision.  In  some  areas  this  is  already  in  place,  notably  in  the  Sciences  who  work  closely  with  UCL.  Membership  of  DTCs  requires  a  level  of  equivalence  with  

  16  

the  practice  of  other  partner  universities;  competition  requires  a  distinctive  offer  and  robust  communication  of  quality.  The  importance  of  part-­‐time  PGR  students  however  in  the  overall  picture  is  shifting,  and  expectations  are  tighter,  even  as  applications  are  reducing.  In  some  areas  eg  Sciences  they  may  be  key  to  doctoral  research  projects  being  realized,  though  given  Science  costs  may  have  insufficient  funds.  Some  areas,  such  as  Arts,  have  an  active  admissions  policy  with  some  targeted  partial  or  full  fee  waivers  that  bring  in  outstanding  students  via  the  PT  route,  when  applicants  have  not  secured  FT  funding.    This  allows  the  PGR  community  to  keep  a  steady  state,  and  the  achievement  of  these  students  is  often  equal  to  their  funded  FT  peers.  Flexibility  in  status  is  part  of  the  College’s  armoury.  There  are  not  enough  funded  studentships  available  to  develop  or  secure  a  strong  FT  cohort  in  all  areas.  Part-­‐time  students  can  keep  postgraduate  communities  and  the  wider  research  environment  thriving,  and  often  have  professional  connections  and  experience.  They  may  come  through  Masters  and  professional  routes.  At  the  same  time  the  pressure  to  take  part-­‐time  numbers  –  which  has  historically  been  a  default  position  at  PGR  level  in  some  areas  –  is  reducing,  if  it  means  that  weaker  students  are  likely  to  take  up  supervisory  time,  and  trouble  completion  figures.  There  is  also  interest  in  other  routes  that  might  capture  mature  students  wishing  to  research  at  advanced  level,  where  the  strictures  of  a  doctorate  may  no  longer  serve.    The  PT/FT  distinction  may  give  way  in  the  near  future  to  that  of  funded  and  self-­‐funded  postgraduate  researchers,  located  within  flexible  models  of  doctoral  provision,  in  an  environment  that  includes  postgraduate  loans.  The  HEFCE  postgraduate  recruitment  survey  reports  that  institutions  expect  the  distinctions  to  become  more  blurred.  At  an  Inside  Government  HEFCE  postgraduate  conference  in  2014,  universities  were  told  that  they  were  ‘missing  a  trick’  if  they  did  not  consider  the  part-­‐time  PGR  market,  using  various  platforms  for  delivery  from  distance  learning  and  online  modules  to  evening  provision.  Birkbeck’s  distinctive  profile  and  depth  of  experience  here  is  a  potential  resource  for  the  College,  if  combined  with  a  clear  strategic  articulation  of  the  options  for  PGR  study,  underpinning  the  future  researcher  journey  and  its  expanded  possibilities.  This  needs  addressing  if  Birkbeck  is  to  remain  ahead  of  the  field.    Key  issues  to  consider  here  include:    

-­‐ increasing  pressures  in  the  sector  (DTCs,  RCUK  research-­‐intensive  agendas)  towards  a  research  elite,  in  which  funded  students  benefit  from  high  quality  provision  which  is  not  equally  accessible  to  all;  an  evident  two-­‐tier  system  with  differentiated  resources  

-­‐ deliverable  FT  and  PT  portfolio(s)  of  PGR  experience,  skills  and  training,  which  might  draw  together  resource  to  mitigate  the  above    

-­‐ completion  rates:  concerns  about  progress,  in  which  part-­‐time  students  in  particular  who  have  gone  beyond  deadlines  may  take  up  disproportionate  amounts  of  supervisory  time  in  achieving  their  goal.  In  fact  current  figures  suggest  more  FT  students  may  be  on  writing  up  for  3  years+.  

-­‐ priorities  of  programme  provision:  the  scheduling  of  day-­‐time  and  evening  training  and  events  meaning  that  not  all  can  access  the  PGR  offer  uniformly;  flexible  modes  of  delivery  for  those  who  are  time-­‐poor  

  17  

-­‐ maintenance  of  a  complex  PGR  narrative,  within  a  strong  research-­‐intensive  profile  

-­‐ the  need  for  consideration  of  a  range  of  postgraduate  options  post  MA/MSc,  so  that  professional  routes  are  available  where  research  PhDs  are  not  advisable  

-­‐ more  calibrated  understanding  of  the  PGR  market  for  Birkbeck,  with  market  research  in  PGT  and  PGR  share  in  London.  Tableau  on  FT  and  PT  postgraduate  market  share  is  revealing:  eg.  English  has  40%  of  PT  postgraduate  market  share  in  London.  

-­‐ the  particular  needs  of  international  students  in  the  context  of  full-­‐time  study  

-­‐ identification  of  areas  of  projected  growth  and  strategic  targeting  of  resources  and  planning  to  capture  FT  and  PT  students  in  those  fields  

 2.5  International  Students    Of  the  836  PGR  students  enrolled  in  14/15,  42  are  international  students.    These  are  subject  to  Tier  4  monitoring.  The  International  Office  runs  induction  and  social  events  for  international  students,  and  BGRS  has  put  on  social  events  in  the  past  which  are  not  always  strongly  attended.  The  international  prospectus  is  here:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/prospective/downloads/international_prospectus.pdf.  On  p.43  dedicated  to  prospective  M.Phil/PhDs  the  College  offers  ‘Professional  development  support  and  academic  networking  opportunities’  and  foregrounds  the  work  of  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School.  More  explicit  articulation  of  provision  with  the  narrative  offered  to  international  students  would  be  advantageous.  At  the  meeting  with  student  reps  one  international  student  described  his  experience  in  attending  social  events  which  gathered  international  students  at  all  levels  from  BA  up  –  wanting  instead  exchange  among  doctoral  students  which  seemed  more  appropriate.  The  international  PGR  experience  clearly  needs  continued  enhancement.      In  addition  there  are  a  number  of  PGR  international  exchanges  and  connections.  Law  have  a  joint  doctorate  with  PUC-­‐RIO  which  begins  recruiting  in  2017.  Some  bring  PhDs  students  for  shorter  periods  of  time  and  which  do  not  require  Tier  4  arrangements.  A  good  example  of  what  is  possible  here  is  to  be  found  on  the  HCA  pages  listing  doctoral  exchanges  with  Pisa,  Columbia,  Sydney,  Canada,  Verona  and  Florence:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/history/prospective-­‐students/phd-­‐mphil/international-­‐exchange-­‐scheme.  BEI  collaborate  with  DUFE  GIME  in  China    http://www.bbk.ac.uk/history/prospective-­‐students/phd-­‐mphil/international-­‐exchange-­‐scheme.  There  are  exchange  arrangements  with  Pittsburg  and  BIMI  and  potentially  with  Cultures  and  Languages,  and  PhD  students  also  come  for  limited  months  to  Arts  via  the  Brazilian  CAPES  scholarships  after  upgrading.  There  is  no  overall  sense  of  the  numbers  here,  and  thus  the  wider  international  PGR  footprint.  Do  these  shorter-­‐term  international  students  also  become  alumni?    More  detailed  collation  of  information  about  initiatives  across  the  College  with  PGR  international  students  in  specific  view  would  help  strengthen  the  profile  

  18  

here.  The  exchange  of  best  practice  would  benefit  the  creation  of  further  PGR  possibilities,  particularly  for  areas  in  which  there  is  not  a  strong  international  PGR  market.  The  HEFCE  PGR  recruitment  survey  noted  KCL’s  use  of  new  PGR  delivery  models  with  international  partners,  including  blended  delivery  and  preferential  fees,  and  investment  in  studentships.  The  harnessing  of  current  PGR  international  group  policy  with  other  strategic  logics  –  such  as  identifying  new  areas  of  PGR  potential  growth  within  Birkbeck  including  cross-­‐College  trends  like  medical  humanities/sciences  –  would  be  valuable  here.    Aspirations  for  extent  of  change  sought  in  the  PGR  numbers  over  the  next  five  years  by  domicile  have  been  surveyed  by  HEFCE  as  follows:    

   No  doubt  shifts  in  government  policy  will  have  a  bearing  here.    2.6  Success  Rates:  Submission  and  Completion      All  Schools  currently  have  concerns  about  completion  rates  and  their  impact  on  research  standing.  There  was  agreement  during  the  Review  consultation  across  the  board  about  the  difficulty  of  our  commitment  to  a  long  tail  of  PT  students,  often  with  breaks  in  studies  for  compelling  reasons,  who  may  take  up  disproportionate  amounts  of  supervisory  time.  Birkbeck  is  clearly  undergoing  something  of  a  sea  change  in  internal  attitude  here,  and  most  areas  of  the  College  are  now  considering  admissions  and  progress  more  rigorously,  implementing  academic  regulations  if  students  are  not  meeting  standards.  New  work  on  Tableau  makes  the  information  available  in  ways  that  staff  can  easily  access,  and  this  is  to  be  welcomed  since  it  quickly  underpins  policy  and  its  communication.    Submission  and  award  dates  are  now  recorded  there.      

  19  

Below  are  graphical  representations  of  submissions  in  relation  to  years  to  submit  (April  2015).  These  are  useful  indicators  of  the  extent  of  study  over  almost  a  decade.  The  valency  of  the  4  and  7  year  HEFCE  completion  targets  is  evident  in  some  of  the  peaks  and  troughs.  I  would  expect  these  graphs  to  change  quickly  as  the  PGR  landscape  shifts.    Blank  =  not  yet  submitted.      

   

   

  20  

 

 

   

  21  

Annual  PGR  reports  to  the  RSSC  are  asked  to  comment  on  completion  rates,  and  these  might  be  used  more  effectively  to  coordinate  strategy  across  the  College.  The  BEI  return  was  particularly  detailed  this  year  in  weighing  completion  and  withdrawal  rates,  and  summarises  the  range  of  issues:       The  large  share  of  students  –  PT,  but,  especially,  FT  –  who  do  not     complete  on  time  but  do  stay  with  the  programme  could  be  interpreted     in  a  number  of  ways:  as  reflecting  the  inherent  variability  in  times     required  to  finish  a  PhD;  as  reflecting  another  selection  failure  (taking     candidates  who  will  finish,  but  not  on  time);  as  reflecting  inadequate     structure  or  support  to  ensure  timely  completion;  or  as  indicating  a     need  to  extend  the  allowed  time  as  a  research  student,  for  instance  by     attaching  an  MRes  to  the  front  end  of  the  degree  as  standard.    2.7  Submission  and  Completion:  RCUK/HEFCE/HESA    It  is  important  to  note  that  Birkbeck  like  many  universities  uniformly  operates  a  submission  based  model  along  the  lines  expected  by  RCUK  funders.  In  other  words,  what  is  counted  is  the  point  of  submission  within  4  and  7  years,  which  is  treated  de  facto  as  completion.  The  College  reports  the  date  of  submission  and  the  date  of  award  to  funding  councils.  Birkbeck  is  effective  in  bringing  funded  students  to  submit  in  the  period.  Submission  rates  have  been  commended  by  the  AHRC  (in  2013  84%  against  an  institutional  threshold  of  70%)  and  the  ESRC  rate  of  80%  (compare  Goldsmiths  67;  RHUL  75;  QMUL  78;  Imperial  80;  KCL  84)).  I  do  not  have  data  for  MRC,  BBSRC  and  NERC.      In  the  ESRC  ruling,  the  expectations  are  as  follows:    

   In  the  AHRC  regulations,  the  ruling  is  as  follows:    

For  studentships  commencing  on  or  after  1  October  2011  the  submission  date  is  calculated  from  the  end  date  of  an  award,  with  full-­‐time  students  expected  to  submit  one  year  after  the  end  of  an  award,  and  no  later  than  4  years  after  the  start  of  the  award.  Part-­‐time  students  are  expected  to  submit  two  years  after  the  end  of  an  award,  and  no  later  than  4  years  FTE  after  the  start  of  the  award.    

 The  AHRC  ask  for  students  to  be  completed  or  nearing  it  in  their  third  year  and  then  use  the  final  4th  year  for  meeting  any  'unforeseen  circumstances'.  They  encourage  submission  'if  possible'  by  the  end  of  funding.  They  collect  annual  

  22  

data  on  submission  rates,  and  it  is  on  the  basis  of  these  that  an  institution  can  be  sanctioned.    Submission  however  is  not  the  same  as  completion,  though  it  effectively  serves  as  that  for  the  statistics.  The  AHRC  guidelines  further  state:    

The  AHRC  also  collects  information  on  completion  rates  as  part  of  the  annual  submission  rate  survey.  For  these  purposes,  completion  is  defined  as  the  award  of  a  doctoral  or  other  degree.  This  is  normally  counted  as  the  date  of  the  successful  viva  examination  and  is  the  earliest  date  on  which  it  is  known  that  the  doctoral  degree  can  be  recommended.  If  that  information  is  not  readily  available,  an  alternative  is  the  date  the  Degree  Committee  or  equivalent  recommended  the  award.  

Completion  is  here  understood  to  include  viva  and  award  recommendation.  This  would  appear  to  approach  the  HEFCE  definition  of  completion:  

48.  A  full-­‐time  Research  Council  PhD  student  who  started  their  course  in  1996-­‐97  would  normally  have  three  years  of  funding  to  complete  their  PhD  studies.  Assuming  no  significant  delay  in  their  studies,  they  would  be  expected  to  submit  their  thesis  for  PhD  assessment  early  in  academic  year  1999-­‐2000.  It  would  be  usual  for  the  PhD  viva  then  to  take  place  around  two  months  later,  with  another  month  or  so  for  corrections  if  the  viva  was  successful.  The  student  would  be  awarded  their  PhD  by  a  Board  of  Studies  (or  equivalent)  between  January  and  April  2000.  This  is  usually  the  completion  date  recorded  on  the  HESA  records.  So  under  these  conditions,  we  would  record  the  PhD  student  completing  their  PhD  within  four  years  (September/December  1996  through  to  January/April  2000).  4    

This  distinction  –  between  RCUK  submission  expectations  in  4/7  years,  and  completion  which  would  require  viva  and  award  in  the  same  period,  is  causing  concern  in  the  sector  currently  because  of  the  REF  inclusion  of  completion  figures.  I  have  heard  it  reported  that  the  AHRC  was  approached  by  DTCs  to  clarify  their  position  but  none  has  been  forthcoming.  Consequently  some  universities  are  now  working  along  HEFCE  lines,  expecting  completion  including  viva  and  award  in  the  designated  4/7  years,  in  order  to  ensure  REF  compliance.  Sussex  assumes  submission  in  three  years  and  a  term.  Exeter  is  3  years.  UCL  expectation  is  3/6  for  submission.  In  one  example,  issues  of  completion  have  not  gone  away  and  increased  stress  and  health  problems  have  been  reported  among  the  students.  Other  universities  eg  Manchester  are  currently  maintaining  the  emphasis  on  submission  in  4/7  years  in  keeping  with  the  RCUK  position,  and  expect  completion  in  five  years,  which  is  effectively  what  we  do  now.    The  HESA  figures  are  calculated  along  algorithms  established  to  measure  qualification  rates  over  a  25  year  and  7  year  period.    The  methodology  is  here:  

                                                                                                               4  HEFCE,  ‘PhD  Research  Degrees:  Entry  and  Completion’  Issues  Paper,  January  2005/02.  Confirmed  in  HEFCE  update  2007/28.  

  23  

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201317/  These  Research  Degree  Qualification  Rates  (RDQR)  predict  that  83%  at  Birkbeck  get  a  PhD  in  25  years  compared  with  a  77%  sector  average.  The  7  year  projection  however  puts  Birkbeck  at  63%  and  the  sector  at  69%.  We  have  significantly  more  mature  entrants  (defined  as  age  25+  on  entry)  –  64.8%  with  the  sector  average  being  52%.  Five  universities  expected  to  exceed  their  benchmarks  are:  QMUL,  King’s,  Oxford,  Liverpool  and  Bradford.  Birkbeck  reports  annually  with  full  data  for  all  PhDs,  including  interruptions,  submission  dates  and  dates  of  award.  All  who  complete,  regardless  of  the  length  of  time  they  take,  are  deemed  successful.  How  the  RDQR  figures  inform  REF  is  unclear.    HESA  has  decided  to  no  longer  publish  the  Research  Output  tables  which  were  part  of  their  performance  indicators.  See  https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/res.  Previously  table  R1  included  the  following:      

Table  R1  provides  four  indicators  of  annual  research  output.  They  are  not  intended  to  replace  the  Research  Assessment  Exercise,  which  remains  the  most  reliable  indicator  relating  to  quality  of  research.  The  indicators  here  look  at  numbers  of  PhDs  awarded  and  amount  of  research  grants  and  contracts  obtained,  relative  to  the  academic  staff  costs  of  a  HE  provider  and  relative  to  the  funding  council  allocation  of  quality  related  (QR)  research  funds  to  that  HE  provider.  Each  indicator  is  expressed  as  the  proportion  of  output  relative  to  the  rest  of  the  sector  per  proportion  of  input  relative  to  the  rest  of  the  sector.  To  take  account  of  the  different  patterns  of  input  to  output  in  different  cost  centres,  the  ratios  are  obtained  for  each  cost  centre,  and  then  combined  to  give  the  single  indicator.  

 This  has  been  discontinued  this  year  for  reasons  set  out  here:  http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2014/CL,212014/CL2014_21a.pdf  .  These  reasons  include  the  use  of  such  UKPIs  in  external  ranking,  and  ‘poor  usage  and  widespread  lack  of  understanding’.  New  and  current  measures  of  research  activity  are  now  being  reviewed  through  expert  groups  and  roundtables.    Recommendations    

-­‐ On  completion  targets:  Birkbeck  needs  to  monitor  the  position  here  actively  and  gather  information.  There  are  problems  with  a  completion  model  where  the  viva,  corrections  and  award  are  assumed  in  the  four  years,  because  of  potential  delays,  and  time  given  for  corrections;  in  some  areas  such  as  science  it  is  not  possible  to  submit  in  three  and  still  follow  the  programme.  It  may  be  that  there  will  be  sector  wide  discussions  here,  and  consistency  established  within  DTCs.  However  Psychosocial  Studies  at  Birkbeck  has  moved  to  3/5  years  submission  for  incoming  students.  The  College  website  ‘apply  here’    lists  a  number  of  different  figures:  eg  3/5  (Philosophy);  3-­‐4/5-­‐7  English),  and  confusingly  also  minimum  periods  on  some  pages  2/3  years.  Handbook  information  can  be  at  variance.  The  presentation  here  needs  to  be  consistent  and  understood.  

  24  

Sharper  delineation  of  expectations  is  essential,  and  improvement  of  completion  rates  is  necessary.    

-­‐ The  HESA  stats  and  Research  Output  UKPI  discussions  need  understanding  in  the  context  of  REF  PGR  strategy.  The  situation  is  clearly  transitional.  Any  changes  here  need  feeding  through  to  those  directing  research  and  PGR  strategy  from  Planning.  

-­‐ PT  students  enrolled  this  year  will  be  those  figured  in  the  REF  completion  results.  Clarity  about  expectations  here  is  essential,  and  monitoring  of  progress  and  completion  rates  to  ensure  better  results  within  the  guidelines.  The  RSSC  is  a  good  forum  for  this  via  School  annual  reporting,  which  might  be  used  more  actively.    

2.8  Breaks  in  Studies    Breaks  in  studies  are  taken  into  consideration  in  the  4/7  year  completion  data  and  reported  annually.      

 There  is  reasonable  consistency  in  PGR  use  of  breaks  in  studies  from  year  to  year,  which  have  to  be  confirmed  by  departments.  These  are  often  given  on  

  25  

medical  or  other  extenuating  grounds.  Financial  pressures  can  also  register.  The  spikes  in  the  graph  below  correspond  to  shifts  between  terms,  since  BIS  works  on  a  termly  basis.    2.9  Writing  Up    Writing  up  regulations  require  that  writing  up  should  last  for  a  year  (2  years  for  PT),  and  then  full  fees  be  reinstated  if  submission  has  not  taken  place.  In  practice  this  has  proved  difficult  to  realize  on  the  ground,  and  the  status  is  often  renewed  as  students  are  supported  as  they  move  towards  completion.  The  reduced  fee  at  writing  up  often  enables  students  under  financial  pressure  to  continue,  and  staff  are  consequently  often  supportive  and  reluctant  to  remove  this.  Reimposition  of  full  fees,  particularly  on  international  students,  may  mean  the  loss  of  that  student.  Writing  up  also  has  different  connotations  in  the  arts/humanities  and  the  sciences.      

 It  is  notable  that  there  are  more  FT  than  PT  students  on  writing  up  after  three  or  more  years,  the  opposite  of  what  is  often  assumed.    Recommendation:    It  may  be  that  the  College  would  wish  to  impose  a  maximum  here  (as  it  does  with  bis),  and  include  writing  up  status  in  the  annual  monitoring  review  and  progression  process.  Since  income  is  largely  not  the  issue  here  for  the  College,  but  completion  is,  Birkbeck  needs  a  clear  model  that  will  support  students  in  their  progress,  provide  exceptions  for  extenuating  circumstances,  and  deliver  on  our  targets.                              

  26  

3.  Funding:  Income  and  Investment  in  Future  Researchers        3.1  Context  and  Challenges    Birkbeck  currently  spends  approx.  £3.2million  on  PGR  students  from  a  variety  of  sources,  primarily  RCUK,  School  budgets  and  central  College  funding.  This  figure  was  previously  arrived  at  after  an  earlier  attempt  to  collate  the  information.  I  have  been  unable  to  test  it  further.  I  think  it  is  likely  to  be  a  conservative  estimate,  if  all  dimensions  of  spend  are  included.  At  the  same  time  the  range  of  PGR  income  is  not  fully  tracked  and  understood  centrally.      Under  the  terms  of  reference,  this  Review  was  asked  to  consider  the  following:       The  review  will  need  to  identify  a  College-­‐wide  funding  strategy,     involving  not  only  the  management  of  Doctoral  Training  Consortia       and  associated  funding  (including  doctoral  projects  embedded  in       research  grants  or  funded  by  philanthropic  donations,  as  well  as  School     and  College  funded  studentships  and  Graduate  Teaching  Assistantships)     and  a  clearer  strategic  overview  of  the  diverse  sources  of  funding  offered     across  the  College.    There  are  several  main  reasons  why  this  strategic  overview  is  immediately  challenged:    

-­‐ no  systematic  way  of  gaining  information  centrally:  a  problem  of  systems  and  coding,  consequently  information  impossible  to  break  down.  Two  accounting  codes  for  spending  K11  and  K12  are  used  for  all  levels  not  just  PGR.  No  way  of  knowing  what  within  the  School  spend  is  PGR.  Difficulty  of  telling  relation  of  students  to  funding/recharging.  

-­‐ lack  of  coherent  PGR  management  structures,  so  that  the  Research  Grant  Office  (not  tasked  with  PGR  and  therefore  with  response  to  future  researcher  expansion  -­‐  including  postdocs  and  ECR  -­‐  horizon  scanning,  funding  applications,  while  responsible  for  some  Wellcome  and  Marie  Curie  PGR  funds)  and  the  operations  of  the  Research  Students  Unit  (overseeing  some  financial  DTC  processes  including  some  RCUK  PGR  training  funds)  are  continually  hamstrung,    and  not  coordinated.  The  divide  of  the  Research  Grants  Office  from  PGR  will  be  put  under  pressure  given  future  researcher  transformations  of  the  sector.  Academic  staff  are  often  unable  to  get  the  support  they  need  relating  to  PGR  funding  applications  since  they  are  not  in  the  remit  of  either  office.  The  College  is  therefore  not  building  up  central  institutional  expertise  and  memory  in  these  expanding  areas.  

-­‐ consequent  uncertainty  across  the  College,  with  information  held  unevenly  in  Schools  because  it  can’t  be  entered  centrally,  and  central  support  in  some  areas  but  absent  in  others;  signing  off  financially  in  some  areas  eg  for  RCUK  research  grants  but  not  eg  for  the  same  RCUK  studentships;  or  central  checking  and  signing  off  local  DTC  funds  in  some  

  27  

areas  eg  AHRC,  ESRC  but  not  others  eg.  Science  who  require  checking  over  of  studentship  figures  though  they  work  in  key  areas  with  UCL.  There  is  no  central  oversight.  No  clear  lines  of  contact  or  process  established  overall.    

-­‐ leadership  eg  in  overseeing  the  work  of  DTCs  overall  for  the  College  -­‐ problems  of  communication  and  coordination  enabling  College  level  

strategy  to  be  coordinated  at  all  levels  eg  in  the  advertising  of  funding.    -­‐ lack  of  central  resource  to  implement  and  deliver  quality,  including  

staffing  -­‐ general  opacity  in  key  areas,  particularly  in  reporting  and  sharing  of  

information,  and  sharing  of  good  strategy  and  initiatives.  No  specific  platform  for  the  marketing  of  outstanding  practice  and  success:  PGR  led  funds  secured,  placements  won,  outstanding  research  conducted.  Future  researcher  information  lost  and  with  it  institutional  memory.    

-­‐ Cross-­‐College  collaboration  forged  through  funded  initiatives  eg  anniversary  studentships  remain  under  the  radar  and  unreported.  Consequently  difficult  to  sustain  and  build  on  as  central  strategy.  

 The  combination  of  all  these  factors  suggest  that  structures,  reporting  and  communication  in  key  respects  are  not  fit  for  purpose  in  supporting  processes  across  in  all  areas  of  PGR  delivery.  There  is  cost  here  in  staff  time  and  in  potential  PGR  success.      In  what  follows  I  recommend:    

-­‐ prioritizing  of  work  on  College  systems  so  that  PGR  information  is  centrally  available  and  connected  to  students,  with  consideration  of  a  new  account  coding  system  as  one  possible  model,  and  corresponding  central  work  on  SITS.  Currently  this  area  is  uneven  and  makes  reporting  almost  impossible.  

-­‐ Consideration  of  the  creation  of  a  Postgraduate  Research  Office  as  a  one-­‐stop  shop  for  all  matters  PGR,  including  financial  oversight  of  DTC  funds,  doctoral  projects  in  larger  grants,  philanthropic  and  donor  PGR  funding,  postdoctoral  funding,  horizon  scanning  and  support  for  staff  in  developing  PGR  bids  for  studentship  and  other  funds.  Clear  recording  of  all  aspects  of  PGR  funding  so  there  is  structural  institutional  memory  and  a  building  of  expertise.    

-­‐ A  clear  annual  planning  timetable  for  the  communication  of  Birkbeck  funding,  and  its  advertising  via  an  augmented  central  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  (Part  6)  

 Firstly,  current  information  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained.  Information  in  some  cases  has  taken  days  to  gather  and  remains  inconclusive.  Thanks  to  Katharine  Bock  for  assistance  here,  and  School  Managers.            

  28  

3.2  Income  and  Spending    Total  PGR  fee  income  in  14/15  was  £2,886,000.    Studentship  Spending    

     

  29  

       

   3.3  QR  RDP  supervision  funding  by  UoA,  following  REF  settlement.      Annual  figures  depend  on  number  of  PhD  students  submitted.    Psychology,  Psychiatry  and  Neuroscience   £328,  551  Biological  Sciences   £211,665  Earth  Sciences  and  Environmental  Sciences   £91,981  Computer  Sciences  and  Informatics   £97,736  Economics  and  Econometrics   £74,392  Business  and  Management  Studies   £88,366  Law   £94,  540  Politics  and  International  Studies   £28,312  Sociology   £103,  881  Modern  Languages  and  Linguistics   £148,554  English  Language  and  Literature   £252,  760  

  30  

History   £198,649  Philosophy   £140,  096  Art  and  Design   £191,  395  TOTAL   £2,050,878      3.4  Funded  PhDs      KB  analysis  September  2014,  on  spending  in  2012-­‐13  from  the  K11/K12  studentship  and  stipend  budget  codes,  merged  back  with  student  records  where  possible.  Reported  to  RSSC  4  November  2015.        Source   Headcount   £K  Spend   Spend/Headcount  AHRC   49   125   2,554    BBSRC   14   308   22,014  ESRC   19   59   3,112  MRC   9   94   10,419  COLLEGE   200   1,348   6.740  ALL   291   1,934   6,647    There  were  774  PhD  students  in  the  College  that  year.    3.5  PGR  Student  Central  Support/  Financial  Circumstances    The  College  hardship  fund  of  £300,000  is  for  students  at  all  levels  who  need  financial  support  due  to  unforeseen  circumstances.  The  scheme  is  on  demand  and  nothing  is  ringfenced  for  PGR.  The  Research  Students  Unit  have  helped  13  PGR  students  in  the  past  four  years  at  a  cost  of  approx  £25,000.  Financial  pressures  are  increasingly  connected  to  withdrawal,  and  availability  of  funds  cited  as  the  reason  for  why  PGR  places  are  not  taken  up.  An  informal  review  of  email  correspondence  in  Arts  suggested  that  over  20%  of  applicants  and  students  withdrew  in  14/15  due  to  lack  of  finance  –  we  think  the  actual  figures  much  higher.  PGR  loans  may  make  the  difference  here  in  the  future  though  students  will  already  be  carrying  debts.  There  is  no  record  keeping  here.      3.6  Schools:  Further  Information      Information  about  PGR  commitments  is  often  wrapped  up  with  PGT  and  other  funds.  The  largely  broad-­‐brush  information  below  includes  PGR  studentships,  fee  waivers  and  current  GTA  or  Associate  Tutor  spending.    Arts  2014/15  5  Birkbeck  Anniversaries  2  new  AHRC  studentships  from  BGP1  funds  24  continuing  AHRC  students  (this  excludes  those  with  an  end  date  of  3/9/14  of  which  there  were  7)  3  Collaborative  Partnership  Awards  (AHRC):  National  Gallery,  V&A,  Royal  Society  

  31  

39  students  in  receipt  of  full  and  partial  fee  waivers  1  fee  waiver  for  Sasakawa  Foundation  (FMACS)  2015/16  6  Arts  Awards  Postgraduate  Studentships  3  Anniversaries  2  Digital  humanities  studentships  including  donor  funds,  eg  JISC  1  Bloomsbury  I  part-­‐time  fee  plus  bursary  (Murray,  HoA)    Total  fee  waiver  sum  2014/15  =  £86,  540  Committed  for  2015/16  =  studentships  (£140,763)    

                   ARS  (fee  waivers)  =  £102,  074    Associate  Tutor  programme  (available  to  all  PGR  students  to  apply  for  cross-­‐depts)  English:  £40,  212;  FMACS:  £12,  810;  HoA:  £3,  224    Research  student  support  (conferences,  extraordinary  research  expenses,  student-­‐led  events)  14/15  budget  15k,    15/16  budget  17.5k    BEI    

       

  32  

Law      2014/15  2  anniversary  studentships  –  at  the  home/EU  rate  (including  a  fee  waiver  covering  the  standard  Birkbeck  PhD  fee  and  an  annual  stipend  at  RCUK  rates  inclusive  of  London  Weighting  -­‐  approx.  £15,726  per  year).  These  are  tenable  for  3  years.    2  GTA  posts  -­‐  this  is  a  fixed-­‐term  3  year  post  and  includes  a  fee  waiver.  Salary:  Fixed-­‐term  at  Grade  6.  £15,590  per  annum  inclusive  of  London  Allowance  (this  is  0.4  FTE  pro-­‐rata  to  the  full-­‐time  equivalent)  and  also  includes  a  fee  waiver:  one  at  the  home/EU  rate;  and  one  at  the  overseas  rate      The  same  is  planned  for  2015/16  (to  continue  the  GTA  posts  and  offer  studentships).    In  addition  to  this  for  14/15  we  waived  fees  for  one  student  at  the  overseas  rate  (just  for  the  one  year).  Provisional  budget  for  fee  waivers  £4.5k  but  only  for  exceptional  circumstances.      PGR  students’  conference/research  allocation  expenditure  is  approx.  £9k  to  date,  £10k  in  budget  for  the  next  year.    Science    Biological  Sciences  

   

                 

  33  

14/15  

   15/16  

 

 Earth  Sciences    

   

  34  

   Psychology    

 

   

  35  

   

   

     

   

     SSHP  Fully-­‐funded  students:  In  2014/15  there  were  approx  35  fully-­‐funded  students,  as  follows:    6  new  Birkbeck  Anniversary  Scholarships    3  fully-­‐funded  SSHP  Studentships  (1  new)  2  students  funded  by  alumni  donor    5  students  funded  by  Research  Grant    

  36  

8  students  funded  by  Research  Council  awards    9  externally  funded  (Charities,  Government)  2  GTA  (fees  and  stipend  approx  £32,000)    There  were  18  ongoing  SSHP  fee  waivers  (most  of  these  are  existing  part-­‐time  CRS,  departmental  and  SSHP  fee  waivers).    Commitments  for  2015/6:  The  School  has  4  new  SSHP  awards,  2  BAS    1  new  GTA    in  Psychosocial  (fees  and  stipend)  1  new  Research  Grant-­‐funded  1  new  externally  funded  award  (plus  ongoing  awards  as  above)    Total  Fee  Waivers:  2014/5  £197400  Committed  for  2015/6  =  £240000    TAs:  Philosophy  and  HCA  employ  graduate  students  as  associate  tutors  to  run  seminar  teaching.  Approx  sums:  Philosophy  £35,000,  HCA  £15,000.    SSHP  Research  Student  Support  (conferences,  fieldwork,  training  events):  Across  the  School  about  £13,000  was  contributed  by  departments  to  this  in  14/15.    This  does  not  include  events  funded  by  successful  Generic  Skills  bids.    3.7  Further  Funds:  DTC  and  RCUK  PGR  Training  Funds    There  is  no  central  recording  of  the  assorted  range  of  funds  received  by  the  College  for  PGR  opportunities  and  training.  Students  apply  each  year  to  the  RTSG  for  AHRC  or  ESRC  training  funds  administered  by  the  Research  Students  Unit.  Generic  skills  funds  distributed  via  the  Unit/RSSC,  based  on  a  HEFCE  calculation  of  £200  per  student,  amount  to  £100,000  annually.  But  wider  training  allocations  aren’t  recorded  centrally,  so  the  wealth  of  resource  deployed  by  the  College  isn’t  fully  understood  or  easy  to  report.  These  might  include  sums  awarded  by  DTCs,  such  as  the  supplement  recently  allocated  by  the  MRC  (£48,349)  for  high  cost  training,  placements  and  postdoctoral  transitions.  They  may  include  sums  secured  by  academic  staff  for  training  programmes,  such  as  the  AHRC  Arts  of  Experiment  in  Arts  (£50,  013),  or  student-­‐led  events  such  as  Critical  Waves  (£2925).  Students  secure  placements,  which  bring  in  funds  eg  6  AHRC  placements  between  2013-­‐15  totalling  £30,788.93.  Increasingly  the  ‘lifecycle’  of  the  future  researcher  will  generate  funds  that  trouble  the  divide  between  research  office  and  PGR  that  the  College  currently  maintains,  including  postdoctoral  and  ECR  initiatives.  The  Wellcome  ISSF  funds  are  a  good  example  of  this.  The  PGR  awards  are  below:    

  37  

       While  the  Research  Grants  and  Contracts  Office  has  key  financial  oversight  of  certain  PGR  initiatives  in  so  far  as  they  relates  to  major  funding  bodies  eg  Marie  Curie  Early  Stage  Researchers  or  Wellcome  ISSF,  it  does  not  handle  future  researcher  funding  which  falls  to  the  Registry,  or  sometimes  departments.  This  is  available  in  a  jumble  of  accounts,  not  all  of  which  relate  to  PGR:    

   

  38  

     The  grand  total  in  such  accounts  –  of  which  around  half  are  listed  above  –  is  £2,986,869.  But  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  these  accounts  comprise,  nor  how  they  attach  to  particular  students  or  PGR  initiatives.    3.8  Philanthropy  and  Alumni  Engagement    The  Development  team  has  raised  philanthropic  income  to  support  PhD  students  at  a  range  of  levels  ranging  from  covering  fees  only  to  awards  covering  fees  and  a  full  stipend  over  recent  years.  These  have  been  supported  by  major  donors,  charitable  trusts  and  companies.  There  is  significant  potential  to  increase  our  philanthropic  funding  for  PGR  and  guidance  around  areas  of  priority  and  levels  of  funds  required  to  do  so  would  be  welcome.  A  clearly  articulated  College-­‐wide  PGR  strategy  which  outlines  our  areas  of  priority  would  enable  funding  for  research  activity  to  be  one  of  the  key  strands  of  a  2023  fundraising  campaign.      Our  alumni  community  is  becoming  increasingly  influential  across  the  College  and  building  a  specific  network  of  PGR  alumni  who  can  contribute  in  a  variety  of  ways  (profiling,  mentoring,  fundraising)  is  an  option  for  the  years  ahead  if  the  College  deemed  this  to  be  worthwhile.    3.9  Solutions?    Recording  and  Reporting    If  the  College  is  to  have  a  PGR  strategy  at  all,  it  needs  strong  foundations  in    robust  reporting,  and  centralized  access  to  financial  and  other  data.  Investment  in  getting  systems  to  work  is  essential.  There  is  evidence  that  new  work  on  Tableau  has  transformed  the  ability  to  plan  and  underpin  policy.  Colleagues  consulted  in  all  areas  underlined  the  overdue  need  for  these  changes.    Recommendations  here  are  twofold:  overhaul  of  SITS,  and  consideration  of  new  coding  systems  for  financial  data.  Both  are  a  priority.      

  39  

 a.  Systems  support  for  PGR  Students    Data  recording  

-­‐ Improved  recording  of  supervisor  information  in  SITS  -­‐ Recording  of  viva  information  in  SITS  (date/venue)  -­‐ Displaying  supervisor  and  viva  information  in  MyBirkbeck  Profile  -­‐ Better  use  of  student  status  to  monitor  the  PGR  student  journey  -­‐ Identify  what  additional  information  is  held  in  local  dept  spreadsheets  

and  determine  how  it  can  be  recorded  centrally  in  SITS  -­‐ Development  of  user-­‐friendly  interface  to  capture  and  display  data  held  in  

SITS      Funding  

-­‐ Using  SITS  Fund  Manager  to  make  studentship  maintenance  payments  -­‐ Using  SITS  to  record  funding  source  of  all  funded  students  

 Reporting  -­‐ Develop  a  suite  of  reports  based  on  user  requirements  

   Resource  required  for  implementation  A  more  detailed  scoping  is  needed  to  determine  the  development  resource  required,  but  an  initial  estimate  would  be  at  least  0.8  from  a  combination  of  3-­‐4  staff  in  Planning  and  Business  Systems/Corporate  Information  Systems  for  12  -­‐18  months.  This  is  to  review,  consult  on,  design  and  implement  (including  training)  a  centralised  system  for  holding  research  student  data.    b.  New  coding  system  for  accounts    A  more  precise  coding  system  would  make  the  PGR  accounts  more  intelligible  and  accessible.  Consultations  with  Mike  Devereux  using  a  version  of  the  solution  below  are  currently  underway.    Cost  codes  are  made  up  of  three  components,  Cost  Centre,  Activity  Code,  Analysis  code:    Cost  centre:              xxC00            core  code  for  xx  dept  Activity  code:        xxX01          core  pay  and  non-­‐pay  for  xx  dept  Analysis  code:      K11                  student  maintenance  code      Proposed  changes  to  account  codes  might  be  summarised  as  follows:   Set  up  a  new  cost  centre  xxP00,  where  xx  is  the  dept  (or  School),  which  would  be  used  to  identify  (externally?)  funded  Projects  separately  from  Core  or  Special  funds  accounts.  Projects  could  then  be  further  sub-­‐divided  into  Studentships,  Consultancy,  or  other  Projects  (training,  development,  collaborations  &  exchanges)  using  the  Activity  Code.      With  the  example  of  English  and  Humanities,  with  EN  as  the  dept:      

  40  

ENP00.ENP01  –  P  denotes  a  project  ENP00.ENY01  –  Y  denotes  a  studentship  ENP00.ENW01  –  W  denotes  consultancy      By  identifying  Studentships  separately  in  the  finance  system  in  a  consistent  way,  reports  can  then  be  easily  run  to  identify  funded  studentships,  by  school,  dept,  etc.      Another  advantage  of  using  dept  codes  (and  not  Registry  codes)  is  that  dept.  administrators  would  have  direct  access  to  the  web  financial  reports.      If  we  also  expanded  the  analysis  codes  for  student  maintenance  and  fees  payments,  currently  K11  and  K12,  so  that  we  have  different  analysis  codes  for  PGR  /  PGT  /  undergraduate,  etc.  then  we  would  also  be  able  to  separate  out  the  different  types  of  studentships,  as  well  as  being  able  to  see  where  they  are  based  within  Birkbeck.      We  could  also  mirror  the  set  up  that  we  use  for  Research  Income  analysis  codes  (shown  below),  which  would  tell  us  what  type  of  funder  is  funding  the  studentship(s):    

Possible  issues  arising  here  include:  clarity  of  governance  and  management  of  RCUK  funds  of  all  kinds,  and  the  location  of  the  operation  of  these  specialist  project  accounts  (with  multiple  end  dates,  unlike  the  usual  College  accounts).  Central  oversight,  signing  off,  invoicing  and  income  management  of  such  accounts  is  essential,  otherwise  the  system  while  seemingly  more  legible,  may  challenge  unhelpfully  at  departmental  or  school  levels.  Consultations  over  the  summer  may  lead  to  implementation  in  August.    c.  Management    The  creation  of  a  Postgraduate  Research  Students  Office;  strong  senior  academic  leadership  (see  below  Part  4).      

  41  

d.  Communication    

1. The  budgetary  planning  cycle  should  include  a  point  (in  May?)  where  the  sums  dedicated  to  PGR  (studentships,  fee  waivers,  GTAs,  bursaries)  are  massed  up  and  identified  for  the  following  year  (both  for  the  College  and  for  Schools).    

2. Any  committing  of  Anniversary  funding  should  also  be  agreed  and  the  criteria  established  at  that  point  so  that  they  can  be  applied  for  and  confirmed  in  the  summer  term,  in  advance  of  the  next  academic  year.  

3. It  is  essential  that  the  College  advertise  the  major  committal  of  funds  and  any  related  opportunities  in  the  early  autumn,  in  order  to  compete  for  the  best  funded  students.  A  common  timetable  should  be  established  as  far  as  possible,  mapped  for  reasons  of  competition  alongside  the  normal  cycle  of  DTCs.  We  are  already  late  for  this  year.  Last  year  we  were  applying  for  anniversary  scholarships  in  the  autumn  and  did  not  find  out  the  results  until  January.  Advertising  was  uncoordinated,  and  there  was  no  overall  College  push.  This  had  an  impact  on  our  success.  

4. The  location  of  the  advertising  and  its  implementation  needs  to  be  agreed.  Who  is  responsible  here  for  the  development  of  the  PGR  message  and  its  communication?  There  needs  to  be  coordination  across  College  websites,  work  with  external  relations  and  the  postgraduate  research  office.  

5. With  the  creation  of  an  augmented  Birkbeck  College  Graduate  School  (Part  6)  there  would  be  a  hub  for  the  communication  of  funding.  

 e.  Further  areas  for  consideration:    

-­‐ the  strategic  use  or  recycling  of  finance/fee  income  for  GTAs  or  internships:  most  but  not  all  parts  of  the  College  advertise  limited  GTA  arrangements  which  cover  stipend  and  fees  in  return  for  teaching.  Not  all  areas  have  funds  to  underpin  these.  This  is  increasingly  a  model  used  across  the  sector.  A  high  quality  and  more  coherent  cross-­‐College  strategy  here  (in  the  light  of  the  debate  about  PGR  employment  https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/queen-­‐mary-­‐university-­‐london-­‐considers-­‐making-­‐phd-­‐students-­‐employees)  would  be  productive.  Student  concerns  about  precarity  and  low  pay  need  thought  here.  Teaching  opportunities  are  also  available  via  the  associate  tutor  route  for  both  funded  and  self-­‐funded  students,  which  is  used  in  Arts  and  SSHP  and  integrated  well  into  training  and  skills.  The  total  package  here  –  including  the  HEA  recognized  certificate  –  could  be  strong  in  the  context  of  future  TEF  pressures.  International  programmes  such  as  5  yr  doctoral  arrangements  in  the  US  include  teaching  and  employment  with  training  over  a  number  of  years  including  summer  schools,  and  articulation  of  the  duration  of  doctoral  work  at  each  stage.  These  initiatives  could  be  part  of  an  integrated  PhD  model  for  Birkbeck.  There  may  be  particular  difficulties  here  for  Tier  4  students  given  hardening  government  policy.  

-­‐ The  effectiveness  of  full  or  partial  fee  waivers  in  encouraging  strong  applicants  to  stick  with  Birkbeck,  targeted  with  awareness  of  the  DTC  timetables,  is  proven.  Support  of  this  kind  for  current  ie  on-­‐course  self-­‐funded  students  who  exhibit  exceptional  performance  is  also  necessary  

  42  

and  builds  Birkbeck’s  reputation.  The  ground  here  shifts  fast  during  the  application  period  as  students  make  decisions,  and  flexibility  is  needed  with  calibrated  knowledge  of  the  particular  strategy  for  the  subject  area/department/School,  and  hands  on  work  by  admissions  staff.  There  is  no  easy  one-­‐to-­‐one  relation  of  strategy  to  results,  since  the  admissions  process  is  subject  to  many  variables.  Students  often  come  when  there  is  a  clear  ‘fit’  with  supervisor  and  environment,  and  fee  waivers  can  cement  attachment  and  enable  students  to  embark  on  their  research.  

-­‐ International  students  –  particular  pressures  here.  Anniversary  studentships  cover  home  fees  only.  Best  practice  here  in  international  collaborations  could  be  shared.  

-­‐ Parity  and  differential  resourcing  of  Birkbeck  PGR  students,  and  identification  of  the  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  in  this  light  –  what  is  free,  and  what  discretionary?  

-­‐ What  is  the  extent  of  funding  initiatives  linked  to  development  of  business  and  other  corporate  and  social  interests  eg  Good  Energy?  Do  we  have/use  data  about  professional  sponsorships  and  donations?  

-­‐ Are  there  PGR  areas  which  need  building  and  investing  in  across  the  College,  eg  medical  humanities/sciences,  so  that  initiatives  like  ISSF  might  be  built  on,  further  studentships  sought?  How  might  funds  be  targeted?  

-­‐ Postdoctoral  appointments  for  six  months  after  completion,  to  maintain  the  future  researcher  route;  use  of  honorary  research  associate  positions.  

-­‐ Growing  collaborative  integration  with  DTCs  needs  forward  planning,  including  expectations  about  match  funding,  administrative  costs,  cohort  development  investment,  high  quality  training  opportunities  

                                 

         

   

  43  

4.  Leadership,  Management  and  Support        4.1  Academic  Leadership    PGR  strategy  requires  focused  senior  academic  management,  particularly  in  the  context  of  sector  transformations  in  future  researcher  development.  Though  part  of  research  strategy,  PGR  concerns  are  substantive  and  need  to  be  articulated  distinctively  within  the  College’s  wider  research  portfolio.  An  active  PVM  PGR  would  have  the  development  of  a  future  researcher  strategy  centrally  in  view,  and  speak  to  it  as  a  priority,  working  closely  alongside  the  PVM  Research  and  reporting  via  the  RSSC  to  the  Research  Committee.  The  PVM  PGR  could  liaise  with  PVM  work  at  PGT  level.  The  PVM  PGR  should:    

-­‐ oversee  the  collective  DTC  position  in  the  College,  so  that  there  is  awareness  of  changing  emphases  and  developments,  PGR  training  initiatives  across  the  whole,  and  requirements  for  College  central  support,  alongside  the  current  subject-­‐specific  actions  and  collaborations;  sharing  of  best  practice  and  standardization  where  useful.  

-­‐ lead  on  particular  PGR  issues  which  impact  on  the  College  as  a  whole,  such  as  completion;  

-­‐ keep  abreast  of  wider  PGR  shifts  in  the  sector;  -­‐ chair  the  business  of  the  RSSC  and  related  QA  issues;  -­‐ chair  an  augmented  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  with  steering  

group  and  Postgraduate  Research  Office  (PRO)  support;    -­‐ work  closely  with  the  PRO;  -­‐ liaise  actively  with  ADs  postgraduates,  all  of  whom  have  strategic  

portfolios.  Not  all  Schools  have  ADs  of  this  kind,  but  Schools  and  the  College  would  benefit  from  equivalence  here,  even  from  those  who  work  via  strongly  separated  departments;  

-­‐ coordinate  strategic  initiatives  relating  to  Birkbeck’s  PGR  portfolio  for  both  funded  and  self-­‐funded  students,  including  generic  –  ‘researcher  development’  –  skills  and  associated  budget  (with  PRO);  

-­‐ respond  to  funding  initiatives,  such  as  CDA  coordination;  RCUK  calls;  including  close  work  with  the  alumni  office;  

-­‐ develop  2023  PGR  strategy;  -­‐ work  to  support  the  distinctive  PGR  profile  of  different  parts  of  the  

College  with  departments,  Centres  and  Institutes,  and  bring  all  students  into  a  common  Birkbeck  community  

-­‐ have  access  to  a  budget  to  support  initiatives  and  attend  sector  events  -­‐ respond  with  the  PRO  to  the  Postgraduate  Research  Experience  Survey  

 4.2  Management  and  Support  of  Research  Students:  PRO    Birkbeck  powerfully  needs  an  integrated  and  resourced  Postgraduate  Research  Office,  as  a  one-­‐stop  shop  for  students  and  staff.  This  should  be  an  office  with  bookable  space  and  facilities.  Without  the  range  of  support  systems  in  place  which  are  the  norm  in  research  intensive  universities,  such  as  Research  

  44  

Development  Offices,  the  College  must  concentrate,  clarify  and  augment  its  PGR  services.    Establishing  a  PRO  core  to  build  on  would  be  a  first  step.      The  needs  here  are  stark.  Currently  there  are  particular  areas  of  PGR  practice  –  particularly  that  relating  to  funding,  horizon  scanning,  support  and  management  of  training  funds  development,  central  oversight  and  governance  of  all  studentships  –  which  are  poorly  served  and  in  some  cases  simply  unavailable.    Where  do  staff  and  students  go  advice  on  going  for  a  Wellcome  studentship  and  who  checks  the  application?  Who  processes  applications  for  placements  and  where  do  the  funds  sit?  Who  checks  the  figures  finally  for  Science  studentships?  Who  engages  in  PGR  horizon  scanning?  Where  do  staff  network  funds  go  that  relate  to  DTC  PGR  possibilities?  What  about  the  development  of  European  funded  training  networks?  Where  is  the  archive  of  Birkbeck  PGR  research  success  in  these  areas?  There  is  something  of  a  black  hole  here.    The  pressure  here  is  likely  to  increase  as  DTCs  expand  their  role  as  shared  research  environments,  as  well  as  doctoral  training  platforms.  The  future  researcher  remit  is  an  agenda  now  that  the  College  needs  to  adapt  to  coherently,  not  least  because  it  has  direct  repercussions  on  its  claim  to  research  intensivity.  There  is  confusion  in  practice  and  the  feeling  that  some  areas  here  are  working  hand-­‐to-­‐mouth.  Communication  lines  are  unclear  to  staff  and  students  in  some  areas.    There  is  no  coherence  across  all  the  interactions  with  an  RCUK  funder.  The  College  needs  clearer  structures  and  central  resourcing,  including  additional  staff.  It  needs  structures  that  can  build  institutional  memory,  and  expertise  (which  will  not  disappear  as  staff  move  on).  It  needs  robust  governance  extended  to  PGR  practice.  Birkbeck  relies  on  people  to  deliver,  but  it  appears  structure  and  resource-­‐lite  in  key  areas.      Currently  Registry  provides  a  necessary  central  service  for  PGR  support.  Student  Administration  provide  support  for  PGR  admissions,  and  the  Research  Students  Unit  provides  active  support  for  the  following  areas:  

-­‐ Research  student  queries  and  enquiries  -­‐ PhD  examination  support:  examiner  appointment,  submission  of  viva,  

awarding  -­‐ Research  student  funding  –  management  of  a  number  of  College  

studentships  including  AHRC,  ESRC,  Bloomsbury  and  Anniversary  (not  Wellcome,  MRC,  NERC,  BBSRC  and  others)  

-­‐ Support  to  the  Research  Students  Sub-­‐Committee  -­‐ Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  -­‐ Research  student  regulations  and  policies,  QA  related  issues  -­‐ Organization  of  supervisor  training  via  BGRS  

 There  is  a  depth  of  support  for  research  students  at  School  and  department  level,  and  some  areas  of  service  provided  locally  overlap  with  central  support  eg  School  of  Science  managing  of  studentship  awards,  School  advertising  of  studentships,  the  arranging  of  vivas.  Communication  and  consistency  here  is  key,  and  reporting  mechanisms  currently  don’t  always  support  this  well  (such  as  knowing  when  a  viva  has  taken  place  and  the  result,  managing  referrals  and  so  on,  which  are  not  currently  available  as  information  on  SITS).  Processes  often  

  45  

depend  upon  proactive  administrators  in  the  Schools  to  overcome  the  gaps,  and  are  vulnerable  to  staff  turnover.    The  Research  Students  Unit  is  highly  committed  and  has  made  strides  in  improving  the  regulatory  practice  of  PGR  provision.  The  Unit  inherited  a  situation  in  some  disarray,  and  uses  the  RSSC  well  to  address  QA  issues  and  process.  The  agreement  and  appointment  of  examiners  has  become  more  efficient.  The  annual  reporting  has  improved,  and  there  has  been  useful  work  on  the  reporting  of  completion  rates  via  Tableau.  The  small  team  have  become  proactive  on  generic  skills,  as  far  as  limited  resources  allow,  and  have  been  excellent  recently  in  responding  to  practical  queries.  But  it  is  clear  that  if  nothing  else  changes,  this  team  remains  under  resourced  for  the  consistency  and  quality  of  practice  that  PGR  conditions  require.  In  the  light  of  the  discussion  of  the  augmented  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  below  (Part  6),  and  the  projects  to  improve  the  management  of  data,  the  Research  Unit  needs  a  permanent  administrative  manager  to  provide  the  appropriate  level  of  dedicated  operation  management.  This  would  require  scoping  and  grading  but  a  grade  7-­‐8  Research  Students  Manager  role  reporting  to  the  Head  of  Academic  Services  would  be  appropriate.  Additional  web  resource  for  an  augmented  BGRS  would  also  be  essential.  They  cannot  deliver  what  is  required  otherwise.  But  this  alone  is  not  adequate  to  the  wider  picture.    A  Postgraduate  Research  Office,  incorporating  the  Research  Students  Unit,  would  also  need  to  address  the  full  future  researcher  agenda  if  the  College  is  serious  about  its  research  mission.  Birkbeck  urgently  needs  PGR  research  administration  staff  able  to  respond  beyond  the  Registry  remit:  developing  studentship  and  other  PGR  funding  resources  including  collaborative  doctoral  awards,  bringing  together  governance  of  RCUK,  philanthropic  and  donor  funds  of  all  kinds,  horizon  scanning  to  enable  future  strategy,  advising  academic  staff,  overseeing  applications,  engaging  with  DTC  initiatives,  connecting  PGR,  postdoctoral  and  ECR  developments,  building  expertise.  A  post  here  is  required.    Currently  the  Research  Grants  and  Contracts  Office  deals  with  all  funds  that  come  under  the  definition  of  research  income:  https://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_studrec&task=show_file&mnl=14031&href=FSR_Table_5a_and_5b.html  But  all  PGR  related  funds,  such  as  studentships,  are  understood  as  Research  Training  Support  grants  and  not  included  in  the  business  of  the  office  unless  within  larger  grants.  The  Research  Grants  and  Contracts  Office  is  continually  asked  for  help  on  PGR-­‐related  matters,  but  is  unable  to  support.  Schools  have  to  work  on  these  themselves  without  guidance,  with  the  Office  or  Registry  willing,  sometimes  reluctantly  given  workload,  to  ‘push  the  button’.  Key  areas  of  oversight  are  lacking.    This  position  is  not  widely  understood  by  staff.  Birkbeck  is  therefore  unable  to  build  expertise  in  an  area  that  is  likely  to  expand  in  coming  years,  and  initiatives  are  not  sustained.  An  integrated  Postgraduate  Research  Office  would  allow  the  College  to  meet  the  challenges  of  the  next  phase  of  DTC  membership,  and  produce  dividends  in  both  staff  time  –  across  the  College  as  a  whole  -­‐  and  in  PGR  future  funding.      

  46  

4.3  Managing  Communication:  The  PGR  Web  Presence    Any  transformations  in  the  future  researcher  and  BGRS  narrative  would  need  to  be  consistent  across  Birkbeck’s  offer.  PGR  content  is  developed  and  maintained  as  part  of  the  much  larger  Birkbeck  web  context  (i.e.  it  is  managed  in  exactly  the  same  way  as  other  strands  of  course  recruitment  activity).  Content  across  the  Birkbeck  website  is  maintained  on  a  devolved  content  maintenance  basis  due  to  limited  central  resources  (particularly  in  relation  to  content  management).      Delivery  of  the  recommendations  of  this  Review  would  require  work  with  the  web  team  and  additional  resources  for  development  and  continuing  maintenance  of  an  augmented  high  quality  Graduate  Research  School  site,  liaising  with  the  PRO  and  BGRS.  The  central  site  could  link  to  various  PGR  feeder  sites  that  are  emerging  eg  Careers  portal  with  microblogging,  which  could  develop  a  PGR  channel  here:  http://www.scoop.it/t/careers-­‐employability,  http://www.scoop.it/t/enterprise-­‐entrepreneruship    Different  web  segments  currently  comprise:      

-­‐ Online  course  listings  (www.bbk.ac.uk/study/),  including  PGR  course  pages:  these  are  managed  by  a  Digital  Publications  Officer  in  ER,  but  developed  through  close  partnership  with  schools  and  other  professional  service  departments.  Currently,  close  to  90  people  in  schools  and  departments  are  permissioned  to  update  our  online  course  listings,  including  our  PGR  pages.  This  system  has  been  in  place  since  we  redeveloped  all  of  our  course  listings  in  2012/2013.  

-­‐ Tertiary  pages  on  the  Study  at  Birkbeck  site  (www.bbk.ac.uk/prospective):  these  are  maintained  by  ER  but  developed  through  partnership  with  schools  and  other  professional  service  departments.  

-­‐ PGR  pages  on  local  school  and  department  sites  (e.g.  www.bbk.ac.uk/arts):  the  responsibility  for  maintaining  these  pages  has  been  entirely  devolved  to  schools,  and  local  web  maintainers  are  responsible  for  content  maintenance  and  updating.  However,  ER  provide  central  support  and  help,  largely  through  the  internal  communications  tool,  Yammer  (all  school  and  department  web  maintainers  are  invited  to  be  part  of  our  support  group),  where  we  share  best  practice,  advice  and  guidance  on  maintaining  information,  as  well  as  access  to  our  web  house  style  guidelines.  In  addition,  school  and  department  web  maintainers  use  this  group  to  post  queries  and  get  support.  

-­‐ PGR  funding  information:  ER  maintains  a  top-­‐level  scholarship  and  funding  page  (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/prospective/research/research-­‐funding-­‐and-­‐scholarships):  this  page  provides  an  overview  of  funding  possibilities,  but  signposts  detailed  information  managed  by  local  school  and  department  web  editors,  and  members  of  the  Funding  Advice  Service  (in  relation  to  hardship  funding,  etc.).  ER  relies  on  school  and  department  web  maintainers  and  the  FAS  to  alert  us  when  new  funding  information  is  added  to  local  sites,  and  puts  out  calls  for  updates  on  a  regular  basis  (through  our  Yammer  group).  

  47  

-­‐ Experts’  database  (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-­‐research/experts-­‐database):  ER  provides  a  search  facility  for  prospective  PhD  students  to  find  supervisors.  This  largely  comprises  very  short  descriptions  of  supervision  areas  for  individual  academics,  the  main  aim  being  to  get  students  onto  more  detailed  staff  pages  on  school  and  department  sites.  This  database  is  maintained  by  ER  on  behalf  of  the  college,  and  we  aim  to  update  this,  as  a  minimum,  on  an  annual  basis,  by  putting  out  a  call  for  content  through  our  Yammer  group.  

4.4  PRO  Focus:  The  Future  Researcher  Journey    One  way  of  testing  and  gathering  Birkbeck’s  practice  internally,  as  well  as  articulating  expectations  and  possibilities  for  the  student,  would  be  a  strong  sense  of  the  future  researcher  journey,  from  admissions  through  each  year  to  completion,  and  postdoctoral  and  ECR  opportunities  beyond.  Birkbeck  should  have  a  central  handbook  setting  out  that  journey  –  there  are  good  examples  in  the  sector  to  draw  on.  Sussex  is  one  example  here:  https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=handbook-­‐for-­‐doctoral-­‐researchers-­‐2013-­‐14-­‐web.pdf&site=46  I  have  described  the  wider  context  for  such  a  Handbook  within  an  augmented  Birkbeck  Graduate  School  below  (Part  6).  The  PRO  should  have  a  clear  sense  of  the  research  student  ‘lifecycle’.    The  articulation  of  this  journey  would  allow  sharpening  of  procedure,  at  the  same  time  as  giving  departments  the  chance  to  look  at  their  processes  and  milestones,  which  will  remain  varied  and  subject-­‐specific.  Some  parts  of  the  College  already  set  expectations  clearly  throughout,  particularly  those  in  Science  who  are  working  closely  with  doctoral  training  partners.  Computer  Science  sets  out  its  progression  stages  with  presentations  and  reports:  http://www.dcs.bbk.ac.uk/research/phdbbk_public.php.    Student  reps  report  that  they  are  keen  for  clarity,  rather  than  things  appearing  ‘ad  hoc’.  Student  experience  should  be  at  the  heart  of  this  journey,  and  it  needs  to  address  the  experience  of  both  full-­‐time  and  part-­‐time  students,  and  international  PGRs,  year  on  year.  Students  should  be  consulted,  and  the  PRES  survey  considered.  Once  in  place  as  a  framework,  it  is  possible  to  communicate  the  range  of  events,  activities  and  training  on  offer  and  adapt  that  journey  to  the  cultures  of  different  part  of  the  College.    For  the  purposes  of  this  Review  there  are  particular  areas  for  immediate  internal  consideration,  which  might  work  alongside  a  review  of  the  College  Code  of  Practice  for  Postgraduate  Training  and  Research  for  Research  Degrees  :    

-­‐ Admissions:  Registry  are  currently  reviewing  and  documenting  practice  here  for  QA  purposes,  reporting  to  the  RSSC.  Are  forms  appropriate  for  different  parts  of  the  College  eg  where  students  apply  to  science  projects  rather  than  proposing  their  own.  HR  sets  out  the  requirement  for  Admissions  training  before  taking  up  a  position  as  Admissions  tutor,  but  provide  none.  

-­‐ Supervisor  training  practice  (see  Part  5).  

  48  

-­‐ Progression:  structures  here  are  key  to  delivering  on  completion  rates.  Overall  procedure  here  needs  bringing  into  line.  Examples  of  good  practice  in  the  College  exist  with  the  implementation  of  progress  reviews  alongside  annual  monitoring  and  upgrading,  and  implementation  of  academic  procedure  where  students  are  not  progressing.  Guidelines  for  recognizing  warning  signs  and  poor  performance  and  related  procedures  are  established  at  some  institutions,  and  these  may  be  of  use  in  reviewing  our  own  expectations  here.    

-­‐ Upgrading:  necessarily  a  range  of  subject  specific  practice  here  but  guidelines/knowledge  of  the  range  of  practice  would  be  useful  in  exchanging  best  practice.  

-­‐ Researcher  Portfolio:  Opportunities  for  training  and  skills  should  be  gathered  in  a  Birkbeck  portfolio,  scheduling  across  the  range,  with  clear  sense  of  choice  and  expectations  

-­‐ Student  support:  what  is  available?  -­‐ Student  facilities:  what  are  available?  -­‐ Student  funding:  how  is  this  communicated,  what  is  available?  -­‐ Tier  4  monitoring  currently  overseen  by  International  Office  

procedures,  should  have  common  PGR  model  here.    -­‐ Appointment  of  Examiners:  currently  processed  via  the  RSSC  

committee,  and  has  been  improved  in  efficiency.    -­‐ Awareness  of  equality  and  disability  issues  here,  including  reasonable  

adjustment.  How  is  that  activated?  Do  staff  know?  -­‐ Vivas:  established  by  supervisors  and  departments  –  needs  improved  

communication  with  PRO  and  SITS.  Use  of  Chairs  and  ongoing  questions  of  viva  recording  and  supervisor  attendance  need  review  so  all  on  the  same  page.  

-­‐ Award:  needs  considering  with  viva  in  the  light  of  4/7  completion  dates.    -­‐ Appeals:  the  appeal  process  needs  review  with  regard  to  employing  of  

examiners  as  arbiters.  -­‐ Postdoctoral  Opportunities:  maintaining  of  post-­‐PhD  period,  sourcing  

of  related  funds,  use  of  honorary  associate  positions  to  work  on  applications  for  further  funding,  now  part  of  RCUK  expectations.  

-­‐ Careers:  how  does  the  College  address  PGR  employability,  offer  networks,  maintain  alumni  contact.  

   Recommendations:    

-­‐ appoint  PVM  PGR  -­‐ establish  a  Postgraduate  Research  Office  and  scope  for  two  posts  in  the  

first  instance,  one  to  lead  operations  and  the  other  to  develop  the  future  research  agenda.  

-­‐ Address  web  management  for  consistent  delivery  of  PGR  resources.  -­‐ establish  space  and  facilities  for  the  PRO  -­‐ create  PGR  handbook  based  on  future  researcher  journey  -­‐ embed  student  lifecycle  as  a  means  of  testing  practice  and  articulating  

Birkbeck  procedures  and  provision    

  49  

4.5  Doctoral  Models  and  Pathways    The  PGR  journey  incorporates  a  number  of  different  models  of  doctoral  study  at  Birkbeck.  More  sharing  of  practice  here  might  offer  new  solutions  to  problems  of  numbers,  funding  pressures,  pathways  from  the  large  range  of  MAs,  and  professional  routeways  suitable  for  some,  rather  than  academic  research  tracks  for  all.  Birkbeck  emphasizes  face-­‐to-­‐face  doctoral  programmes,  but  has  confirmed  a  model  based  on  distance  learning.  The  College  permits  submission  of  practice-­‐based  theses  in  alternative  formats.  The  bigger  picture  of  post  MA  options  at  Birkbeck  needs  mapping  in  the  light  of  new  financial  packages  that  might  be  advisable.      Alongside  the  traditional  pattern  of  the  research  doctorate,  Birkbeck  also  offers  other  flexible  options.  Indicative  examples  are:    

-­‐ the  Integrated  PhD:  12  months  FT/  20  months  PT  to  complete  qualifying  taught  modules,  plus  2  years  FT  or  3  years  PT  for  research  element.  Dissertation  length  shorter  than  conventional  thesis.  See  Applied  Linguistics:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/linguistics/study-­‐here/routes-­‐to-­‐the-­‐phd.  Adapted  for  Tier  4  use.  

-­‐ the  use  of  M.Phil.Stud  followed  by  2  years  full-­‐time  or  3  years  part-­‐time  in  Philosophy    

-­‐ PhDs  with  partner  universities,  which  may  include  joint  awards,  such  as  Law’s  arrangement  with  PUC-­‐RIO  which  is  a  2+2  arrangement  including  a  qualifying  M.Phil  (from  Oct  17).  

 All  make  it  possible  for  a  taught/research  preparation  element  in  which  can  also  be  an  exit  award,  and  may  be  attractive  to  students  concerned  about  building  up  debt.        Though  the  College  emphasizes  face-­‐to-­‐face  doctoral  programmes,  it  has  confirmed  a  distance  learning  amendment  in  M.Phil/PhD  in  Archaeology.  Here  Skype  or  other  ‘virtual’  face-­‐to-­‐face  meetings  will  replace  regular  supervisor  meetings  on  campus  (provision  for  this  already  exists  in  the  Code  of  Practice  for  postgraduate  training  and  research  for  research  degrees,  item  no.  24)  Mandatory  visit  at  end  of  year  of  first  year  (FT)  or  end  of  second  year  (PT)  for  participation  in  PhD  workshop  activities  and  meetings  with  supervisors,  from  October  2015.  Attendance  in  London  for  the  upgrade  from  MPhil  and  the  Viva  is  also  mandatory.  There  is  concern  expressed  at  RSSC  about  support  for  distance  learning,  both  in  terms  of  technology  and  staff  time.  Increasingly  students  are  using  skype  when  they  have  to  spend  time  away  or  for  reasons  of  flexibility.  The  HCA  Archaeology  programme  underlines  the  aim  ‘to  enhance  opportunities  for  learners,  who  in  keeping  with  out  core  mission,  might  not  otherwise  have  access’.    Professional  and  ‘industry’  routes  are  also  options  –  these  need  further  work  and  researching.  The  two  DPsychotherapy  programmes  are  closing  down  in  Psychosocial  Studies.  Clinician/research  dynamics  remain  part  of  plans  in  medical  humanities.  The  range  of  current  PGR  sponsorship  (based  on  SITS  

  50  

information)  is  now  available  on  Tableau  for  reference  –  there  is  a  notable  decline  overall.  SSHP  PGR  students  outstrip  other  Schools  by  some  way:      

   Recommendations:    

-­‐ to  consider  the  range  of  flexible  options  of  doctoral  study  here  post  MA  and  share  information  about  practice  here.  

-­‐ To  gather  information  about  professional  and  industry  routes  and  the  consider  the  range  of  sponsorship.  How  do  we  use  this  information  strategically?  

 4.6  Student  Representation  and  Experience    Birkbeck  operates  a  student  representative  liaison  system  that  may  need  reviewing  in  some  Schools  to  make  sure  it  is  operating  well.  The  RSSC  does  not  have  a  student  representative  as  a  member  but  is  moving  to  ensure  this.  Plans  for  the  BGRS  steering  group  below  (Part  6)  would  require  active  liaison  with  student  reps.  The  student  reps  meeting  called  by  the  Research  Students  Unit  for  this  Review  was  hugely  useful,  and  students  appreciated  the  chance  to  meet  others  from  across  the  Schools  of  the  College,  and  share  experiences.  There  was  constructive  discussion.    The  biennial  Postgraduate  Research  Experience  Survey  (PRES)  run  by  the  HEA  provides  useful  data,  and  should  be  a  vehicle  for  active  communication  with  

  51  

Birkbeck  PGR  students  and  evaluation  of  progress.  The  current  analysis  of  the  Birkbeck  return  against  the  London  benchmark  suggests  areas  for  action  both  within  subject  areas  and  across  the  piece:    

     

 

  52  

 There  is  a  lot  of  work  via  the  HEA  about  the  best  use  of  surveys,  and  the  incorporation  of  students  into  response  and  delivery  of  areas  they  identify.  The  PRES  survey  needs  to  be  active  in  PGR  culture  in  this  way.    4.7  Facilities:  Space    In  the  PRES  survey  Birkbeck  scores  well  overall,  with  80%  satisfied.  But  the  College  scores  particularly  badly  compared  with  benchmarked  London  institutions  on  Professional  Development  and  Resources.  The  latter  includes  computing  and  library  resources,  and  study  space.    

   Dedicated  PGR  space  and  related  facilities  are  essential  to  the  quality  of  the  research  environment.  Investment  in  facilities  is  noted  in  REF  returns,  part  of  the  vitality  of  a  world-­‐leading  research  institution.  This  is  an  area  that  Birkbeck  needs  to  address,  and  an  overall  five-­‐year  strategy  here  including  the  PRO  and  BGRS  should  be  considered.  Lack  of  space  means  that  students  are  less  likely  to  come  in  to  the  College  to  meet  and  work.  It  impacts  on  postdoctoral  opportunities  too.  Quiet  working  spaces,  especially  for  students  with  disabilities  who  require  voice-­‐activated  software,  including  PGR  library  spaces,  are  rarely  available.  Development  of  dedicated  research  resources  in  keeping  with  the  future  researcher  strategy  should  be  part  of  the  College’s  thinking.      Currently  there  is  uneven  basic  provision,  with  some  improvements  and  areas  of  strength:    SSHP  has  a  small  dedicated  PGR/postdoctoral  space  for  hotdesking  with  kitchenette  in  the  basement  in  Russell  Square,  with  computer  and  printing  facilities.  Student  reps  reported  that  this  has  facilitated  exchange  among  students  across  departments.    

  53  

Arts  has  a  room  with  computers  and  printers  and  bookable  space  for  reading  groups  and  events,  but  it  is  constrained  and  students  consistently  raise  it  as  an  issue,  including  the  lack  of  a  dedicated  kitchenette.    BEI  has  a  ‘brand  new  Graduate  Centre’  with  a  suite  of  computers,  chill-­‐out  area  with  sofas,  sound  insulated  meeting  area  with  flat-­‐screen  display.    Law  PGRs  have  a  room  for  their  collective  use,  pincoded,  which  includes  lockers  and  computers.    Psychology  reports  that  apart  from  office  space  for  all  FT  PhD  students,  there  are  areas  for  PGR  students  in  three  separate  buildings,  basement  of  Main  Building,  32  Torrington  Square,  and  Henry  Wellcome  Building.  These  involve  seminar/meeting  rooms  and  kitchenettes.  These  are  not  exclusively  for  PhD  students  but  are  shared  with  other  research  staff  (postdocs,  RAs).  They  are  locally  bookable  (via  informal  google  calendars)  and  are  therefore  available  as  a  space  resource  to  support  research,  as  well  as  fostering  a  positive  informal  environment  for  research  activities.    In  Biological  Sciences  every  FT  PhD  student  will  have  a  desk  in  an  office  which  is  normally  a  mix  of  postdocs,  scientific  support  staff  and  PhD  students.  It  is  research  space  rather  than  PGR  space.    Offices  tend  to  be  used  by  one  or  two  research  groups  but  spill  over  happens.    Most  part-­‐time  students  get  the  same,  but  they  may  have  to  desk  share.    What  it  means  is  about  1-­‐1.2m  of  desk  ie  enough  for  a  computer  and  a  decent  screen-­‐  many  will  have  24  inch  or  even  two.    Typically  a  lab  based  student  would  have  about  the  1.5  m  of  lab  bench  of  their  own  as  well.    Postdocs  would  get  no  more  typically.  There  is  also  communal  lab  space  and  space  for  equipment.  Total  space  for  research  offices  is  485  m2  (not  including  academic  offices);  to  put  in  context  that  is  the  same  as  the  English  and  Media  and  cultural  studies  offices  combined  (2013  space  survey)  so  it  is  a  sizeable  investment.    On  the  other  hand  the  volume  per  person  is  at  or  below  the  suggested  health  and  safety  minimum,  but  they  do  not  sit  at  desks  all  day.  In  terms  of  communal  space  there  is  a  small  specialist  computer  space,  a  meeting  room  for  up  to  20  and  a  lecture  theatre  for  60  that  they  can  book  and  access.    Most  research  groups  meet  weekly  or  fortnightly  to  discuss  progress  and  most  supervisors  timetable  30  minutes  a  week  with  each  FT  student.    There  is  also  a  departmental  seminar  every  week  and  two  students  or  postdocs  present  each  Friday  with  snacks  beforehand.    Further  work  is  needed  here  in  assessing  PGR  facilities  overall  and  space  in  particular.      Recommendations:    

-­‐ review  PGR  student  representation  across  the  College  to  ensure  consistency  and  parity  

-­‐ ensure  there  is  student  representation  on  the  RSSC  and  BGRS  steering  group  

-­‐ consider  in  what  ways  should  the  College  respond  to  the  PRES  survey  and  ensure  active  communication  going  forward  

-­‐ review  PGR  facilities  over  the  College  and  include  in  estates  planning      

  54  

5.  Supervision    

   The  relation  to  a  supervisor  or  supervisors  is  central  to  the  experience  of  postgraduate  research.  As  the  College  Research  Strategy  sets  out:  ‘High  quality  supervision  is  the  key  to  the  positive  development  of  the  careers  of  these  students’.  Birkbeck  has  a  strong  reputation  here  of  supervisory  engagement  with  PhDs  in  keeping  with  its  combination  of  teaching  ethos  and  research  intensivity,  and  student  reps  underlined  the  quality  of  this  in  our  meeting.  Information  about  supervisors  is  held  on  departmental  pages,  and  also  on  the  Experts  database  maintained  by  External  Relations,  which  directs  to  School  and  departmental  sites.    5.1  Code  of  Practice  Practice  across  the  College  varies,  though  there  are  fundamentals  in  common  established  according  to  the  current  Code  of  Practice:    

-­‐ All  students  have  a  first  and  second  supervisor,  though  the  presence  of  the  second  supervisor  is  used  differently  according  to  the  practice  of  the  subject  area.  In  some  departments,  especially  those  with  larger  numbers,  the  second  supervisor  is  a  backstop  when  the  first  supervisor  cannot  function,  and  can  be  asked  to  read  material;  in  others  there  is  a  more  active  relationship  drawing  in  staff  who  may  not  otherwise  have  supervisory  experience.  The  PRES  survey  highlighted  the  need  in  some  areas  to  explain  the  role  of  second  supervisor  (the  PRES  questions  are  framed  around  a  slightly  different  model  which  assumes).  

-­‐ Joint  or  co-­‐  supervisions  are  also  common,  where  the  topic  demands  a  range  of  specialist  support.  Interdisciplinary  cross-­‐departmental,  and  more  rarely,  cross-­‐School  supervision  take  this  route.  DTC  practice  may  also  extend  this  to  cross-­‐institutional  supervision  increasingly  in  the  future,  in  the  manner  of  the  Bloomsbury  arrangements.  

-­‐ New  staff  are  not  permitted  to  supervise  alone  until  they  have  seen  through  a  PhD  to  completion  in  a  co-­‐supervisory  arrangement  with  a  more  experienced  member  of  staff.  

-­‐ Supervisory  panels  are  common  in  Science.    5.2  Supervisory  Training  and  Support    The  Code  of  Practice  underlines  the  importance  of  supervisory  training:       All  academic  staff  undertaking  the  supervision  of  postgraduate     research  students  should  have  received  training  in  respect  of     postgraduate  supervision  as  part  of  their  staff  development.  The  

training  of  supervisors  and  updating  of  supervisory  skills,  for  example  in  the  light  of  new  research  sources,  methods  and    technologies,  should  be  a  normal  part  of  continuing  staff  development,  and  should  apply  not  just  to  new  or  inexperienced  supervisors.  Departments  should  ensure  that  the  appointed  supervisors  have  

  55  

appropriate  expertise  for  the  student’s  research  project  and  can  provide  appropriate  guidance  on  research  techniques  and  methodologies.  Supervisors  who  have  not  themselves  successfully  completed  a  PhD  thesis  will  be  expected  to  have  equivalent  research  and  publications  experience.  

 The  College  via  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  puts  on  a  limited  number  of  supervisor  workshops  with  John  Wakefield  from  the  Missenden  Centre.  They  are  not  widely  attended,  though  useful.  In  fact  there  is  very  little  training  available,  and  almost  no  time  dedicated  to  it  in  the  probationary  training  all  academic  staff  have  to  follow.  In  the  main,  supervisors  learn  by  co-­‐supervision  and  mentoring  from  more  experienced  staff  in  almost  all  areas  of  the  College.  It  is  difficult  to  be  trained  to  supervise  in  abstract  without  a  PhD  in  place,  with  the  corresponding  specialist  skills  required  by  a  discipline  learned  in  situ.    More  training  should  be  available  however  with  masterclasses  or  other  reflective  opportunities  throughout  the  professional  life  of  the  supervisor.  Provision  is  thin  at  Birkbeck,  despite  the  strong  organic  methods  of  learning  on  the  job.  In  addition  there  are  particular  complex  pressures  on  the  supervisory  process,  which  often  mean  that  experienced  supervisors  themselves  need  support.  For  example,  mental  health  crises  and  anxiety  can  be  a  common  part  of  doctoral  life,  and  transferential  and  other  issues  can  arise  beyond  the  limits  of  reasonable  pastoral  care.  Supervisory  support  and  training  needs  itself  to  be  of  high  quality.  Mentoring  of  early  career  staff  might  be  usefully  formalized  so  that  expectations  and  good  practice  are  clear.    Student  feedback  on  PRES  highlights  a  range  of  supervisory  issues.  Problems  of  communication  such  as  response  to  emails,  and  the  impact  of  supervisor  workload  and  teaching  timetable  on  access  to  supervisions,  are  highlighted  along  with  excellence.    Supervision  is  a  key  area  that  needs  review  and  a  refreshing  of  aims  in  the  College,  particularly  in  the  light  of  DTC  expectations  and  the  sector  transformations  around  the  future  researcher  journey  now  in  train.  A  Birkbeck  supervisor  handbook  would  be  helpful,  with  advice  about  practice,  continuing  development  and  student  and  staff  support.  Good  practice,  such  as  the  use  of  logbooks  and  identification  of  PGR  training  and  pastoral  needs,  should  be  clearly  articulated.  The  student  journey  needs  to  be  internalized  in  advice  and  planning.  Supervision  is  a  rewarding  part  of  academic  life,  and  key  to  the  progress  of  both  the  future  researcher  and  the  academic  supervisor  too.  More  coordination  and  structural  support  through  the  central  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  would  be  productive  here.    Recommendations    

-­‐ to  consider  review  and  consistency  of  Supervisor  training  provision  including  best  practice  

-­‐ a  supervisor  handbook    

  56  

6.  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  (BGRS)        6.1  Why  a  central  Graduate  Research  School?    Birkbeck  has  almost  no  central  presence  that  gathers  together  full  resources  from  across  the  College  for  postgraduate  research  and  related  information  for  staff.    Currently  there  are  minimal  online  pages  for  the  BGRS,  which  list  generic  skills  provision,  and  further  useful  but  ad  hoc  materials  on  MyBirkbeck,  which  are  not  accessed  by  staff  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  seriousness  of  this  omission  can’t  be  understated,  and  the  quality  of  presentation  is  poor.    A  strongly  functioning  central  Graduate  School  in  actual  and  online  form  should  underpin  all  aspects  of  PGR  provision  in  the  College,  a  central  port  of  call  for  all  PGR  students  and  staff.  It  should  be  an  important  strategic  hub  for  development,  bringing  together  College  services  with  academic  priorities,  and  identifying  needs  and  pressures  ahead,  not  least  in  postgraduate  researcher  and  supervisory  training,  employment  and  opportunities.  It  should  coordinate  and  share  best  practice,  and  underpin  the  work  of  Schools.  In  short,  it  should  lead,  with  an  established  mission  that  has  world  leading  aspirations  and  a  live  sense  of  Birkbeck’s  distinctiveness  in  the  sector.    An  effective  central  Graduate  School  is  a  public  showcase.  It  should  be  resourced  to  ensure  quality  of  communication.  It  plays  a  crucial  part  in  the  external  evaluation  of  the  PGR  claims  an  institution  makes,  such  as  when  joining  a  doctoral  consortium  or  maintaining  its  presence  within  one,  or  underlining  the  REF  narrative.  It  will  have  reduced  our  standing  in  the  last  REF  return,  and  we  have  some  anecdotal  evidence  for  that.  Birkbeck’s  presence  is  so  weak  in  this  regard,  that  it  needs  addressing  as  a  matter  of  urgency.    It  impacts  on  our  reputation  as  a  research-­‐intensive  institution,  and  occludes  the  excellent  work  that  is  going  on  across  the  College  that  is  largely  under  the  radar.  The  BGRS  is  referred  to  across  Birkbeck  online  and  departmental  pages  and  materials,  so  students  are  often  directed  to  its  resources  as  a  first  port  of  call.      Comaprisons  of  current  pages  at  Birkbeck  compared  with  Graduate  School  pages  ar  Kent,  Kings,  York  and  UCL  are  immediately  instructive,  and  suggest  the  gulf  at  present.  Screen  shots  of  Kent,  King’s,  York  and  Birkbeck  are  in  the  Appendix  at  A2.    http://www.bbk.ac.uk/bgrs/  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/get-­‐ahead-­‐stay-­‐ahead/phd-­‐support  https://www.kent.ac.uk/graduateschool/  http://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/pg/school/index.aspx  https://www.york.ac.uk/research/graduate-­‐school/  http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk    A  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  in  its  facing  towards  the  College  should  address  the  following:    

  57  

-­‐ a  clear  PGR  mission  statement  and  concordat  to  complement  the  College  position  on  research,  ensuring  consistency  and  the  best  possible  experience  for  all  research  students  

-­‐ coordination  of  all  current  PGR  resources  online,  so  that  students  and  staff  can  find  relevant  forms,  documents  and  information  relating  to  the  PGR  student  journey,  and  links  to  other  PGR  provision    

-­‐ The  articulation  of  that  journey  for  discussion  and  adaptation  by  Schools.    -­‐ A  single  doctoral  prospectus,  with  all  procedural  and  other  information  

about  that  PGR  journey  gathered  in  one  document.  This  is  possible  to  produce  despite  the  diversity  of  different  specialisms  across  the  College.  There  are  good  models  in  the  sector.    

-­‐ Induction  for  assistant  deans  PGR  so  they  are  informed  about  the  key  issues  in  the  sector  and  for  Birkbeck  as  a  whole  from  the  outset.  

-­‐ Information  and  initial  and  ongoing  training  for  PGR  supervisors.  -­‐ An  agreed  base  of  generic  skills  training,  established  coherently  in  the  

light  of  Birkbeck’s  own  understanding  of  the  Research  Development  Framework  (RDF)  emphases  which  are  driving  the  sector  and  expected  by  the  RCUK  bodies.  All  other  research  intensive  universities  use  this  explicitly  or  adapt  according  to  their  offer.  This  training  might  also  include  postdoctoral  and  ECR  provision:  Researcher  Development  Training  and  Skills.  

-­‐ A  means  of  communicating  the  rich  range  of  skills  training  on  offer  across  the  College,  in  the  form  of  a  calendar;  a  support  for  School  and  departmental  specialist  training  offers,  not  substituting  for  them  

-­‐ Oversight  of  training  and  skills  bids  from  different  parts  of  the  College  with  a  related  budget,  and  their  central  communication  

-­‐ Liaison  with  knowledge  of  the  activities  and  developments  in  Institutes,  Centres  and  networks,  and  planned  School  Graduate  Schools.  

-­‐ Consideration  of  an  annual  Birkbeck  Postgraduate  Conference  fostering  the  Birkbeck  PGR  community    

-­‐ Connection  with  careers  service.    -­‐ A  platform  for  the  identification  of  strategic  Birkbeck-­‐specific  distinctive  

PGR  skills  eg  taking  forward  College  emphases  towards  2023,  in  areas  such  as  public  engagement;  mentoring,  commercialization,  placements;  internships;  practice-­‐based  research  with  partners;  community  based  projects,  and  so  on.  These  to  be  identified  as  part  of  the  necessary  portfolio  of  PGR  skills,  and  given  strategic  resources  for  innovative  development.  

-­‐ Funding  information  to  be  centrally  collated  and  advertised.    -­‐ PGR  news  and  events  -­‐ Active  work  with  student  reps  -­‐ Liaison  with  leaders  of  PGT  strategy  -­‐ Space:  this  should  not  be  solely  virtual  but  include  bookable  space  with  

facilities  for  PGR/postdocs/ECR.        A  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  is  outward  facing,  and  should  address  the  following:    

  58  

-­‐ communication  of  a  robust  world  leading  PGR  environment  for  QA,  REF  and  RCUK  scrutiny,  that  may  also  include  postdoctoral  and  ECR  research  development  

-­‐ have  a  high  quality  and  coordinated  web  presence  with  priority  given  to  the  resourcing  of  this  and  its  ongoing  maintenance;  possibly  accessed  via  College  research  pages  

-­‐ Evidence  online  of  memberships  of  various  doctoral  consortia  and  awareness  and  communication  of  collaborative  developments  with  those  DTCs  –  so  the  range  of  disciplinary  research  intensivity  is  apparent  

-­‐ communication  of  a  distinctive  Birkbeck  profile,  suggesting  skills  and  opportunities  which  will  be  found  nowhere  else  

-­‐ collation  of  all  funding  information  in  any  one  year  and  advertising  it  on  the  web  pages  to  an  agreed  planning  timetable.  

-­‐ Continuing  connection  of  Birkbeck  skills  provision  with  the  Bloomsbury  Postgraduate  Skills  Network  and  increased  awareness/delineation  of  our  profile  there  

 6.2  BGRS  management:  why  establish  a  steering  committee?    The  question  of  why  a  BGRS  steering  group  is  required  in  addition  to  the  current  Research  Students  Sub-­‐Committee  (RSSC)  is  answered  by  the  recent  history  of  the  establishing  of  the  current  model  of  the  BGRS.    BGRS  was  approved  in  the  summer  of  2010,  just  ahead  of  the  shift  that  brought  UoL  examination  processes  in-­‐house  in  August  that  year  requiring  the  Registry  to  bring  its  systems  into  line.  It  dovetailed  with  the  Strategic  Review  establishing  the  new  College-­‐wide  School  structure  and  new  administrative  systems.  BGRS  replaced  the  previous  College  Research  School,  which  had  been  overseen  by  a  College  Research  School  Steering  Committee  that  met  ‘sporadically’.  In  the  new  arrangement,  the  BGRS  was  launched  in  tandem  with  the  Research  Students  Sub-­‐Committee  (RSSC)  .The  BGRS  was  to  be  administered  from  the  Research  Student  Unit  within  Registry  Services  to  save  on  human  resources,  and  directed  by  an  Academic  Director  seconded  in  the  first  instance  on  a  0.4  FTE  arrangement  from  one  the  of  the  Academic  Schools.  That  Director  would  chair  the  RSSC  once  a  term  (see  below  for  RSSC  functions),  which  would  take  on  the  detailed  scrutiny  of  research  student  related  matters,  and  report  to  the  College  Research  Committee.  The  BGRS  would  have  an  ‘existing  physical  resource  base,  including  a  dedicated  School  room  for  research  students  and  its  own  dedicated  web  space’.  The  room  did  not  materialize,  though  web  space  was  established.    The  final  report  of  the  then  Working  Group  defined  the  role  of  Academic  Director  as  follows:    

The  role  of  the  Academic  Director  should  concentrate  on  academic  policy  and  direction  in  relation  to  research  students,  overseeing  the  development  of  training  and  academic  programmes,  the  identification  of  the  support  needs  of  departments  and  schools,  and  ensuring  appropriate  academic  input  into  the  work  of  the  School.  Responsibility  for  the  delivery  

  59  

of  programmes  and  the  day-­‐today  management  of  the  School  should  reside  with  Registry  services.  

 The  duties  of  the  BGRS  were  to  include:    

-­‐ Enhancing  the  research  students’  experience  by  creating  an  environment  that  values  research  students  and  their  supervisors  eg.  having  a  common  social  space,  courses  for  supervisors  and  students  on  transferable  skills,  annual  events  for  research  students  

-­‐ Promoting  good  practice  in  supervision  across  the  College  -­‐ Providing  training  for  both  supervisors  and  students  in  collaboration  with  

Schools  -­‐ Maintaining  links  with  the  Bloomsbury  Colleges  PG  skills  network  -­‐ Facilitating  international  links  and  working  with  the  International  office  

to  meet  the  specific  needs  of  international  research  students    The  final  report  notes  that  ‘Birkbeck’s  challenge  since  establishing  the  School  has  been  to  establish  an  effective  School  with  minimal  resources’.  It  is  clear  that  with  the  BPSN  for  additional  external  provision  (a  network  with  no  management  costs,  coordinated  from  UCL),  and  School  specialist  provision,  BGRS  set  out  a  useful  if  limited  set  of  criteria  for  its  own  functioning  on  a  shoestring  .  For  BGRS  to  work  and  respond  to  shifts  in  the  sector,  it  would  need  academic  leadership  that  could  make  full  strategic  use  of  the  Research  Students  Sub-­‐Committee,  which  was  tasked  with  ‘receiving  reports  on  BGRs  activity  and  considering  detailed  proposals  for  future  operations  such  as  generic  skills  training  programmes,  training  for  supervisors  and  other  operations  designed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  mission  of  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School’.  But  the  RSSC  is  not  framed  to  deliver  strategically  and  thus  support  the  work  of  a  PVM,  save  for  mention  of  ‘working  groups’  that  it  might  establish  in  developing  funding  bids.  The  role  of  academic  director  as  originally  conceived  is  too  narrow  for  the  weight  of  the  PGR  strategic  portfolio  required.    In  this  transitional  period  to  the  present  a  large  part  of  the  work  of  the  RSSC  has  necessarily  been  focused  on  QA  and  governance  questions  post  UoL,  setting  up  the  annual  reporting  mechanisms  and  other  regulatory  matters  relating  to  PGR  which  fill  the  agenda,  and  serving  the  Research  Committee  to  which  it  reports  (see  RSSC  below).  It  has  in  other  words  been  about  the  functioning  of  PGR  management,  rather  than  strategic  or  related  developments,  and  with  HEFCE  QA  concerns,  key  focus  on  completions,  DTC  new  arrangements  and  reports  and  other  related  questions  this  will  continue.  RSSC  discussion  of  generic  skills  provision  has  generally  been  reactive  and  ad  hoc,  with  the  Research  Students  Unit  taking  the  lead  with  PVM  and  indeed  working  hard  at  fulfilling  the  brief  as  far  as  they  have  been  able.  The  RSSC  however  is  not  a  generative  forum  for  the  working  of  the  BGRS,  and  its  membership  is  not  designed  to  maximize  the  established  aim  to  develop  PGR  strategy  for  the  college:  ‘this  will  include  building  capacity;  creating  opportunities,  maximizing  potential  and  encouraging  and  facilitating  interdisciplinary  collaborations’.  It  functions  usefully  as  a  College  committee,  but  might  be  freed  to  focus  properly  on  governance/procedures  as  the  HEFCE  QA  approaches  in  2017,  if  fed  with  academic-­‐led  collaborative  

  60  

strategy  from  BGRS,  overseen  by  a  PVM  actively  working  on  all  aspects  of  PGR  development  within  the  College  and  with  a  reframed  Postgraduate  Research  Office.      Key  actions:    

-­‐ to  make  available  immediate  substantial  resource  to  establish  the  BGRS  online  as  a  major  window  on  Birkbeck  (given  timing  of  DTC  scrutiny  this  is  paramount)  and  identify  how  it  is  to  be  maintained  and  resourced  going  forward.  Further  personnel  for  the  Postgraduate  Research  Office  and  web  team  prioritisation  are  necessary,  getting  informed  advice  and  web  design  resource  with  an  eye  to  benchmarked  institutions  in  the  first  instance.    

-­‐ Establish  a  BGRS  steering  group  to  comprise  eg.  PVM  PGR,  ADs  PGR,  staff  from  the  Postgraduate  Research  Office,  reps  from  key  cross  College  Institutes  and  Centres,  Public  Engagement  Officer,  Library,  DTC  reps,  Careers/Business  Ecology,  Alumni  Office,  student  reps.  That  steering  group  to  report  to  the  RSSC  (Research  Students  Sub-­‐Committee)  and  the  PVM  PGR  also  to  be  present  on  the  College  Research  Committee.  To  meet  three  times  a  year.  

-­‐ BGRS  to  address  all  internal  and  outward  facing  priorities  listed  above  and  establish  timetable  for  delivery  

-­‐ Coordination  of  the  School  with  a  properly  resourced  Postgraduate  Research  Office  (PRO)  who  would  lead  on  delivery  and  management  with  web  support,  working  with  PVM  according  to  an  agreed  academic  strategy.  

 6.3  Proposed  Communication  Structure  (BGRS)        

 

1.  Birkbeck  Graduate  School  (BGRS)  steering  group,  which  reports  to  

2.  Research  Students  Sub-­‐

Committee  (RSSC),  which  reports  to  

3.  College  Research  Committee  

4.  which  feeds  back  strategic  PGR  

development  and  environmental  concerns  via  PVM  PGR  as  appropriate  

to  

  61  

7.  PGR  Training  and  Skills        One  of  the  key  drivers  of  BGRS  should  be  the  oversight,  coordination  and  development  of  a  distinctive  Birkbeck  profile  for  outstanding  PGR  training  and  skills.    7.1  Context    PGR  training  is  increasingly  articulated  in  the  sector  according  to  established  RCUK  models  of  researcher  development,  which  include  a  PGR  journey  extending  to  postdoctoral  and  ECR  opportunities.  The  ideal  specialist  supervisor  is  just  one  element  in  a  complex  investment  made  by  students.  Prospective  students  seeking  funding  weigh  the  provision,  facilities  and  PGR  environment  of  different  universities  in  making  their  choice.  Doctoral  consortia  are  continually  working  to  improve  their  collaborative  skills  offer,  and  explicitly  look  for  consortia  brand  identity  among  their  funded  students,  even  as  those  students  may  sit  within  a  larger  self-­‐funded  community  who  do  not  have  access  to  such  a  range  of  possibilities.    The  pressures  in  the  sector  are  currently  focused  on  generating  a  research  elite,  with  funded  students  able  to  access  high  quality  training  opportunities  such  as  placements  and  international  research  visits,  funds  for  scientific  and  other  research,  public  engagement  opportunities  with  partners  and  post-­‐doctoral  positions,  which  are  not  equally  available  to  all.  A  recent  study  points  out  differences  between  doctoral  training  in  STEM  subjects  and  that  in  the  arts,  humanities  and  social  sciences:  ‘with  the  “single-­‐envelope”  model  in  the  latter  encompassing  a  range  of  subjects,  and  with  thematic  grouping  dominant  in  STEM’.  The  report  continues:       evidence  is  beginning  to  emerge  to  show  that  the  more  structured                              approach  to  PhD  study  is  improving  productivity  and  enabling     candidates  to  ‘cover  the  ground’  more  easily  and  also  that  students     in  universities  with  DTCs  and  CDTs  are  ‘voting  with  their  feet’  to     access  improved  levels  of  training  and  professional  development.5    It  seems  likely  that  this  pressure  will  intensify  as  the  demands  of  (wider,  massed  up)  DTC  membership  increase,  and  government  funds  are  reduced.  The  larger  institutions  are  already  positioning  themselves  powerfully  according  to  this  global  research  agenda.  This  is  a  particular  challenge  to  Birkbeck,  given  the  inclusive  nature  of  the  PGR  student  body,  and  it  needs  imaginative  and  adept  handling  in  keeping  with  our  strengths.  How  does  the  College  see  its  combining  of  full-­‐time  and  part-­‐time  PGR  provision  for  students  funded  by  different  means,  in  a  research-­‐intensive  context?  There  is  a  range  of  opinion  across  the  Schools,  but  all  share  awareness  of  this  funding  pressure  and  the  increased  importance  of  completion  within  a  reasonable  outlay  of  staff  time  (with  its  implications  for  

                                                                                                               5  Report  to  HEFCE  by  Gillian  Clarke  and  Ingrid  Lunt,  ‘International  comparisons  in  postgraduate  education:  quality,  access  and  employment  outcomes’  (September  2014),  p.22.  

  62  

part-­‐time  self-­‐funded  supervision),  the  need  for  targeted  training  resources,  and  a  view  that  the  College  needs  to  do  much  more  to  support  the  articulation  of  our  overall  PGR  offer  to  strategic  effect.      7.2  At  base:  Using  the  Vitae  Research  Development  Framework  (RDF)    Establishing  a  clear  central  base  narrative  would  free  Birkbeck  to  coordinate  and  promote  what  is  distinctive  and  indeed  outstanding  about  what  we  do.    It  could  make  membership  of  the  Birkbeck  PGR  community  more  active,  even  for  those  students  whose  focus  is  on  DTC  arrangements  that  face  elsewhere.  All  PGR  students  should  be  brought  into  the  Birkbeck  PGR  community,  but  not  necessarily  in  the  same  ways.  The  establishing  of  a  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  as  a  key  immediate  aim,  including  a  clear  outline  of  the  student  journey  year  on  year,  access  to  training/skills  expectations  and  range  of  opportunities  (external,  central,  School,  departmental)  could  be  locally  adapted  to  the  specialist  needs  of  different  programmes  and  different  PGR  experience,  but  its  framework  would  ensure  a  common  Birkbeck  identity  alongside  the  key  specialist  attachment  to  department,  programme  or  consortium.    Such  a  Portfolio  might  seem  unnecessary  to  certain  parts  of  the  College,  such  as  among  Science  subjects  where  the  skill  expectations  within  departmental  disciplines  are  already  clearly  established  and  monitored.  But  Science  students  also  have  something  to  gain  from  the  exchange  of  being  part  of  a  wider  Birkbeck  community,  as  the  student  reps  told  us.  The  question  of  what  should  be  included  in  such  a  Portfolio,  and  what  might  be  value-­‐added  because  of  Birkbeck’s  own  distinctive  research  strengths,  would  be  worth  consulting  on  and  actively  developing.    These  moves,  like  the  RDF  framework  itself,  can  feel  like  an  imposition  on  the  PGR  cultures  which  currently  exist,  but  used  effectively  would  support  and  strengthen  their  success  in  attracting  good  students  and  their  internal/public  facing  profile.      At  base  this  narrative  needs  to  be  evidently  informed  by  RCUK  norms,  however  they  are  framed  by  us  locally.  All  other  research-­‐intensive  universities  have  used  the  Vitae  Research  Development  Framework  favoured  by  RCUK    and  enshrined  in  the  Concordat  to  Support  the  Career  Development  of  Researchers  and  the  QAA  Quality  Code  for  Higher  Education:  Research  Degrees  for  some  time.  They  advertise  this  fact  in  their  central  pages.    Larger  institutions  such  as  UCL  and  KCL  map  this  very  closely,  since  they  have  a  depth  of  provision  and  explicitly  locate  research  training  within  ambitious  development  departments,  tailored  to  their  wider  research  agenda.  This  is  training  often  also  available  to  research  staff,  postdocs  and  ECR.  The  application  of  the  RDF  to  an  integrated  annual  ‘Researcher  Development  Programme’    at  KCL  should  be  consulted  as  an  example  here:  http://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/pg/school/RDP/training-­‐and-­‐development/Researcher-­‐Development-­‐Programme-­‐2014-­‐15.pdf  .  The  programme  at  King’s  is  run  by  a  well-­‐staffed  and  trained  ‘Researcher  Development  Unit’  run  from  within  the  Graduate  School.    Other  institutions  adapt  the  RDF  to  the  provision  on  offer,  but  show  reflection  and  planning  around  it.  Some  will  use  online  planners  and  online  training  and  personal  development  websites  from  the  outset  to  encourage  students  to  reflect  

  63  

on  their  research  needs,  or  will  ask  students  to  fill  in  Training  Needs  Analysis  forms  with  their  supervisors  annually  (see  Sussex  example,  Appendix  A3).  In  some  cases  this  process  is  compulsory,  elsewhere  it  is  part  of  the  guidance  mutually  managed  by  supervisors  and  students.  It  underpins  progression  and  successful  completion.  Birkbeck  will  need  to  address  this.    The  main  immediate  task  is  to  map  our  core  PGR  provision  with  reflection  on  the  RDF  emphases,  and  that  would  be  something  ideally  suited  to  the  BGRS  steering  group  with  representatives  as  set  out  above.  The  aims  in  the  first  instance  would  be  threefold:    

-­‐ coordination:  to  know  what  we  currently  offer,  making  the  full  range  of  doctoral  training  opportunities  visible  and  communicated,  and  to  consolidate  the  offer  within  a  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  adapted  to  local  specialist  and  disciplinary  iteration  as  appropriate    

-­‐ coherence:  to  bring  reflection  about  training  into  the  planned  duration  of  a  student  journey  and  identify  core  training  and  skills  that  can  be  offered  centrally  at  each  stage  complementing  specialist  skills  training.  The  aim  here  for  the  future  might  be  a  thoroughgoing  Researcher  Development  Programme  including  postdoctoral  students  and  ECR.  This  would  require  substantial  resources  and  staffing.  

 -­‐ distinction:  to  put  together  strategic  plans  for  the  augmentation  of  

Birkbeck’s  PGR  profile  in  the  light  of  the  RDF,  with  targeted  innovation  funds  where  required,  to  support  a  strong  Birkbeck  presence  in  doctoral  consortia  and  to  contribute  to  the  College’s  research  profile  towards  2020  (REF)  and  the  anniversary  in  2023.      

 

  64  

   The  RDF  model  (QAA  Quality  Code  for  Higher  Education:  Research  Degrees)      The  RDF  is  widely  used  to  establish  an  account  of  training  and  skills.  In  the  KCL  Training  and  Development  pages,  you  can  see  a  direct  online  adaptation  of  the  wheel,  with  students  able  to  access  all  the  courses  in  each  domain  just  by  clicking  on  the  relevant  area:        

  65  

       A  short  survey  of  a  range  of  university  practice  compiled  for  this  Review  below  by  the  Research  Students  Unit  suggests  that  the  RDF  is  adapted  to  a  range  of  provision,  and  is  not  always  used  prescriptively.  Some  institutions  combine  it  with  a  3-­‐6  monthly  or  annual  monitoring  process,  or  with  the  use  of  reflective  online  logbooks.  An  initial  assessment  is  often  expected  in  year  one  (see  York),  in  close  consultation  with  a  supervisor.  Students  are  incentivized  to  take  up  opportunities  by  various  means:  the  use  of  a  points  system  (UCL),  targeted  funding  to  ‘spend’  in  the  department  /externally  (Essex),  ‘up  to  ten  days  a  year’  (KCL)  or  are  commonly  expected  in  doctoral  consortia  to  complete  a  number  of  training  /skills  hours  each  year.  Current  Birkbeck  DTC  membership  already  works  on  this  basis  in  some  areas  (70  hours  per  year  of  transferable  skills  in  biological  sciences,  with  part-­‐time  pro  rata;  10  additional  hours  currently  expected  by  CHASE),  and  it  is  likely  that  such  monitoring  will  become  the  norm  for  full-­‐time  funded  students.  It  would  make  sense  to  bring  overall  provision  into  line  with  these  expectations,  but  what  constitutes  those  hours  elsewhere  can  be  very  flexible  and  include  everything  from  work  in  progress  conferences  to  social  events,  ‘networking’.  Attendance  is  increased  if  students  have  a  level  of  institutional  expectation  they  need  to  fulfil.  But  a  clear  line  about  the  range  and  

  66  

purpose  of  provision  in  relation  to  their  own  research  needs  at  different  stages  is  something  Birkbeck  student  reps  requested  in  our  meeting.      

       Some  Birkbeck  departments  already  actively  work  with  students  on  identifying  their  research  training  needs  in  a  formal  way,  such  as  the  milestones  and  transferable  skills  monitoring  in  biological  sciences  (see  Appendix  A4)  or  the  stages  in  Computer  Science.  Other  departments  appear  more  ad  hoc  after  year  one,  focusing  on  the  supervisor  relationship  as  the  main  source  of  guidance,  but  are  active  in  making  opportunities  available,  and  excellent  in  developing  student-­‐led  possibilities.  Just  5.5%  of  Birkbeck  students  on  the  PRES  survey  return  had  agreed  a  personal  training  or  development  plan.  Birkbeck  also  scored  badly  on  ‘professional  development’  (though  several  of  the  respondents  pointed  out  they  already  had  professional  working  lives  and  were  not  seeking  development  of  this  kind).  It  makes  sense  to  make  practice  here  more  coherent,  

  67  

though  there  will  be  disciplinary  differences.  An  overall  sense  of  what  we  do  as  a  College  would  aid  planning,  economies  of  scale,  wider  interdisciplinary  exchange,  and  more  active  engagement  with  PGR  students  as  they  become  alumni.  It  would  make  consortia  compliance  easier.  Closer  work  with  PGR  students  would  underline  the  different  training  needs  that  students  have,  such  as  those  seeking  professional  or  career  development  rather  than  a  researcher  route.  In  other  words  a  more  formal  thinking  through  of  RDF-­‐led  material  each  year  might  underpin  the  distinctions  within  our  student  body  helpfully,  and  support  expectations  around  completion.      Recommendations:    

-­‐ to  consider  the  establishing  of  a  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  as  a  key  part  of  a  base  narrative  for  Birkbeck  skills  provision,  which  can  be  adjusted  and  augmented  according  to  specific  disciplinary  emphases  

-­‐ to  coordinate  this  with  articulation  of  the  PGR  student  journey  -­‐ to  use  the  RDF  framework  to  assess  and  communicate  the  range  of  

Birkbeck  training  and  skills  provision  -­‐ to  consider  the  identification  of  and  reflection  on  PGR  student  training  

needs  on  an  annual  basis,  to  be  included  within  the  annual  monitoring  structure  

-­‐ to  consider  whether  there  should  be  expectations  about  the  number  of  hours  or  other  measure  committed  to  training/skills  annually,  and  to  be  aware  of  DTC  expectations  across  the  range  

-­‐ to  consider  the  best  format  for  the  identification  of  training  needs  and  its  range  of  uses  –  whether  in  using  a  TDF  form  with  supervisor,  or  online  research  log  tool  which  might  be  piloted.  My  sense  is  that  some  areas  of  the  College  would  want  a  more  responsive  student-­‐supervisor  led  model,  while  others,  such  as  departments  in  Science,  would  benefit  from  implementation  of  the  latter,  and  could  pilot  the  use  of  an  online  log  if  resources  were  found  for  this.  DTC  pressure  will  make  these  moves  inevitable.  So  what  is  the  most  appropriate  and  enabling  path  for  Birkbeck  ?  

                               

  68  

7.3  Delivery  of  Skills  and  Training        For  training  needs  to  be  identified  and  managed,  there  needs  to  be  clarity  about  the  full  range  of  what  is  on  offer  and  its  modes  of  delivery.    Birkbeck  has  habitually  predicated  its  PGR  development  on  the  specialist  research  training  offered  at  department,  programme  and  School  level.  There  is  quality  and  innovation  here  across  the  College,  with  many  examples  of  good  practice  and  close  engagement  with  staff  that  students  recognize  and  value.  Any  central  generic  offer  needs  to  work  in  tandem  with  this  provision,  not  least  because  students  themselves  tend  to  stay  close  to  the  specialist  ‘home’  environment,  and  in  time-­‐poor  conditions,  will  go  for  what  seems  the  most  relevant  and  necessary  to  their  areas  of  study.  But  in  fact  the  College  as  a  whole  offers  a  range  of  opportunities,  set  out  here  broadly  in  their  current  form  as  far  as  it  can  be  established.      

     a.  Generic  Skills  (BGRS)/  Central  Provision    Central  generic  skills  training  is  currently  offered  through  the  Research  Students  Unit,  who  work  actively  with  a  minimal  budget  of  just  £8000  for  BGRS  core  activities.  Provision  is  normally  focused  on  a  limited  number  of  PGR  workshops  that  may  be  repeated  over  the  year,  on  supervisor  training,  workshops  for  staff  on  examining,  and  a  social  event.  Take-­‐up  has  been  patchy,  but  some  recent  initiatives  such  as  a  postdoctoral  funding  event  have  been  well  attended.  The  Research  Students  Unit  will  draw  on  Birkbeck  staff  where  there  is  particular  expertise,  bring  in  consultants,  and  liaise  with  the  Careers  service  (which  is  not  well  resourced  for  PGR).    

1.  generic  skills  (BGRS)/

central  provision  

2.  specialist  skills  (dept)  

3.  cross-­‐School/networks/Centres  

4.  external  training  (DTCs)  or  

RCUK  funded  

5.  external  skills  networks  

(BPSN)  

6.  specialist  College  skills  (Birkbeck)  strategic  

  69  

‘Generic  skills’  is  a  term  that  might  be  usefully  be  replaced,  since  it  suggests  a  generality  which  may  not  be  motivating,  nor  particularly  informative  about  the  relevance  of  the  course/workshop  to  a  particular  stage  of  the  PGR  journey.    Researcher  Development  Skills  (RD  Skills)  might  be  an  improvement.    Workshops  planned  for  15/16  include:  2x  John  Wakeford  student  workshop  (Saturday)  1x  John  Wakeford  supervisor  workshop  1x  PhD  examiner  workshop  (run  by  Registry/academic  staff)  2x  Alternative  Guide  to  Postgraduate  Funding  workshop  2x  Postdoctoral  funding  workshop:  1  for  Science,  1  for  Arts  &  Hum  1x  Social  network  &  research  2x  'Conference'  workshop:  poster  presentations,  how  to  write  and  present  a  paper  1x  Intellectual  Property  &  Copyright  workshop  2x  'Surviving  the  viva'  workshop  1x  Digital  thesis  &  publishing  your  thesis  workshop  (re:  copyright  anxieties)  1x  Ethics  1x  Library  skills  1x  Careers/CVs    In  addition  the  Research  Students  Unit  commissions  well  received  PGR  videos  in  partnership  with  Angel  Productions  which  can  be  incorporated  into  training.  These  are  currently  available  on  MyBirkbeck  and  widely  taken  up  by  universities.  Royalties  are  returned  to  the  BGRS  fund.  This  is  a  good  example  of  what  is  possible.  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/get-­‐ahead-­‐stay-­‐ahead/phd-­‐support  https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/how-­‐to-­‐deal-­‐with-­‐phd-­‐stress-­‐new-­‐film-­‐offers-­‐some-­‐tips/2019111.article  BGRS  has  funded  one-­‐off  workshops  on  demand  eg.  research  communication  in  2014,  and  other  opportunities  as  they  arise  eg  making  5  student  bursaries  available  for  training  in  film  and  research  by  the  Derek  Jarman  lab  in  2015.    A  generic  skills  (which  might  be  now  termed  ‘Researcher  Development’)  budget  of  £100,000,  established  to  meet  HEFCE  expectations  of  £200  per  PGR  student  dedicated  for  training,  is  bid  for  by  departments  for  cross  departmental,  cross  College  and  other  PGR  initiatives  annually.  This  (often  referred  to  by  staff  as  ‘ex-­‐Roberts  money’)  is  managed  currently  by  the  Research  Students  Unit  with  the  PVM  postgraduates,  and  includes  some  Vitae/RDF  categorization,  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the  BPSN  expectations..    Examples  of  generic  skills  funded  initiatives  from  14/15  are  listed  below:    Department/proposer   Course  Title   Amount  Applied  Linguistics   Bloomsbury  Round  Table  

on  Communication  Cognition  and  Culture  

11985.50  

Computer  Science   Python  programming   600  Philosophy   Approaches  to  

Philosophy  825  

  70  

Philosophy   Biannual  Research  Student  Saturday  Workshop  

800  

Biological  Sciences/ISMB   Scientific  Speed  Dating   6900  Computer  Science   Using  LaTeX  for  Scientific  

Writing  600  

English  and  Humanities/19  

Intern  on  Birkbeck  Forum  for  C19th  studies  

5196  

Rosie  Campbell  for  SSHP/BEI/Law  

Social  Science  Research  Skills  

6328  

HCA/SSHP   Student-­‐led  conference/specialist  writing  workshop/German  language  tuition  

5417  

BIMI   Internships  and  Placements  

1800  

BISR   Developing  your  Research  Career  workshops  

1800  

BISR/BIH   Internships  on  Birkbeck  Institute  Graduate  Conference  

4320  

English  and  Humanities/19  

2  interns  on  electronic  journal  19  

10392  

Arts   Practice-­‐based  research  network  CORKSCREW  workshops  

1650  

Arts   Teaching  the  Arts  in  British  Higher  Education  reflective  pedagogy  course  

1600  

Arts   Monograph  publishing  lecture  and  workshop/publishing  articles  in  peer-­‐reviewed  journals/research  communication  workshops  

2790  

GEDS   Skills  for  the  21st  century  Researcher  

2000  

Computer  Science   Using  R  –  Versatile  Statistics  

360  

Computer  Science   Use  email  better   300  Computer  Science   Writing  up  your  

Research  450  

Computer  Science   Image  Processing  Workshop  

600  

  71  

Computer  Science   A  Hands-­‐On  Approach  to  Communicating  your  Discipline  

600  

Computer  Science   Effective  Presentation  Skills  Using  Microsoft  Powerpoint  

600  

Computer  Science   Using  mobile  devices  and  apps  as  part  of  your  research  

600  

Computer  Science   Writing  your  thesis  using  Microsoft  word  

600  

SSHP   Engaging  the  public  online:  outreach  and  communication  of  science.  Public  engagement  

1350  

SSHP   Theorising  Social  Research  

2750  

English  and  Humanities   Researching  the  Text:  Renaissance  Summer  School  

350  

 Total  requested  £73563.50          Bidding  is  an  annual  process  and  it  is  not  cross-­‐referenced  with  central  provision  though  there  is  communication  between  the  Unit  and  ADs  PGR  at  the  RSSC.  This  fund  does  encourage  new  initiatives  to  emerge  from  developing  cross-­‐departmental  and  cross-­‐College  synergies  (and  is  better  located  centrally  in  my  view  than  devolved  to  Schools  for  that  reason),  but  with  a  stronger  central  offer  incorporating  a  wider  agreed  set  of  skills  training  and  better  planning,  less  staff  time  would  be  spent  putting  in  each  year  and  its  relevance  would  be  clear.    It  would  be  appropriate  for  a  BGRS  steering  group  to  oversee  this  process  and  delivery  of  core  provision  to  continue  to  be  coordinated  by  the  Postgraduate  Office.      Library  PGR  Provision    The  Library  regards  provision  and  support  to  postgraduate  researchers  as  an  important  part  of  its  mission.  Library  and  information  literacy  skills  training  is  already  provided  via  the  BGRS.  Obviously  the  Library  also  provides  the  information  resources  for  our  postgraduate  research  community.  The  subscription  paid  for  the  use  of  Senate  House  Library  allows  postgraduate  researchers  access  to  their  collections  and  the  SCONUL  Access  Scheme,  of  which  we  are  members,  allows  postgraduate  researchers,  and  other  students,  to  use  and  often  to  borrow  from  the  collections  of  other  university  libraries.      

  72  

Over  the  next  few  years  the  Library  aims  to  improve  the  support  provided  to  this  section  of  the  academic  community.  It  is  looking  into  ways  to  communicate  with  postgraduate  research  students  as  soon  as  they  are  enrolled  onto  their  programmes  in  order  that  help  and  support  in  the  area  of  information  skills  and  provision  can  be  provided  at  that  stage.  The  aim  is  to  start  a  relationship  in  which  the  postgraduate  researcher  has  a  known  contact  within  the  Library  for  any  information  enquiries  they  might  have  in  the  future.  The  Library  is  hoping  to  get  more  representation  on  School  and  Department  research  committees  so  that  it  can  learn  more  about  the  information  needs  of  all  researchers  at  Birkbeck,  including  postgraduate  researchers  and  use  this  knowledge  to  provide  services  that  are  more  researcher  focused.      The  College  has  just  appointed  a  Research  Data  Support  Manager,  who  will  work  with  Birkbeck  academics,  including  postgraduate  researchers,  to  provide  to  them  a  support  service  for  the  management  of  research  data.  This  person  will  be  part  of  Library  Services  and  will  work  closely  with  other  Library  staff  to  raise  awareness  and  provide  guidance  on  the  management  of  research  data.  For  postgraduate  researchers  it  will  be  important  to  learn  how  to  manage  research  data  at  an  early  stage  in  their  academic  careers,  as  the  research  funders  put  increasing  emphasis  on  this  area  of  research.  The  Library  will  provide  workshops  to  academics  and  postgraduate  researchers  in  this  area  and  it  will  be  important  to  include  training  in  the  Research  School  training  programme.      There  are  currently  119  e-­‐theses  on  ORBIT.  This  page  on  the  Library  website  provides  FAQs  on  the  depositing  of  e-­‐theses:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lib/elib/orbit-­‐1    and  this  information  is  also  available  on  the  MyBirkbeck  site  at:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck/services/administration/assessment/phd_dissertations/orbit-­‐information  There  is  also  a  Twitter  feed  for  ORBIT:  https://twitter.com/@BirkbeckORBIT  Depositing  e-­‐theses  on  ORBIT  involves  both  the  Library  and  the  Research  Student  Unit  in  Registry  and  communication  between  the  two  areas  might  be  improved.  The  member  of  Library  staff  who  manages  ORBIT  provides  training  to  postgraduate  researchers  as  part  of  the  Research  School  training  programme.      Careers/Employability  Provision    There  is  currently  no  specific  careers  provision  for  PGR  students  because  of  limited  resource.  They  can  access  generic  workshops,  one-­‐to-­‐one  appointments,  access  to  a  career  coach  and  access  to  the  online  careers  portal  as  all  current  students  can  do.  This  is  another  area  where  Birkbeck  needs  to  coordinate  and  find  enabling  resource,  and  it  should  be  key  to  the  core  portfolio  offer  addressing  expanded  PGR  needs.  It  is  basic  to  provision  at  most  competitor  universities.  Careers  planning  should  be  integrated  into  strategic  PGR  planning  (see  7.4c),  and  the  online  careers  portal  should  establish  a  PGR  channel  sooner  to  communicate  opportunities  and  link  to  the  BGRS  site.  It  could  combine  with  PGR  in  some  areas.  The  careers  programme  would  like  to  offer:  

-­‐ PG  specific  workshops/sessions  

  73  

-­‐ 2  day  bespoke  PGR  intensive  career  development  programme:  unique  ability/goal  setting/alternative  careers  to  academia/career  mapping/utilizing  social  media/  searching  strategies/finding  hidden  opportunities/interview  coaching/action  plans.  Indicative  costs  would  be:  2x£500  for  facilitator  fee;  advertising  (2000)  logistics  1500;  follow  up  and  feedback  1500;  developing  related  PhD  website  £500  (£6500).  Costs  would  reduce  if  the  BGRS  was  actively  working.  

-­‐ Career  mapping  for  PG/PGR  students  -­‐ Mock  and  interview  support  -­‐ CV  support  –  currently  there  is  one  generic  skills  session  in  liaison  here  -­‐ In  depth  one-­‐to-­‐one  appointments  

 b.  Specialist  Researcher  Development  Skills  (Departments/Programmes)    Birkbeck  is  strong  in  its  local  postgraduate  cultures,  and  there  are  outstanding  examples  of  best  practice  across  the  whole.  Departmental  and  programme  research  methods  are  the  main  point  of  skills  delivery  for  a  PGR  student,  but  there  is  variation  in  their  framing.  The  arts  and  humanities  subjects  tend  to  focus  on  a  first  year  of  training,  with  strong  emphasis  on  student-­‐led  skills  and  workshops  and  collaborative  events  throughout  the  student  journey,  which  draw  on  the  work  of  Institutes,  Centres  and  Societies  within  and  beyond  the  College.  These  tend  to  produce  dynamic  environments,  but  can  appear  more  ad  hoc  to  the  student.  In  BEI  and  the  sciences  the  environment  is  more  structured,  with  moodle  assessments  and  milestones  established  at  each  stage  at  the  most  articulated  end.  There  are  student  work-­‐in-­‐progress  conferences  across  the  board,  some  which  integrate  staff  research,  and  funds  are  provided  for  conferences,  research  and  student-­‐led  events  which  are  actively  used  by  students.  There  is  not  a  strong  sense  of  the  College  generic  skills  offer  and  its  value,  though  it  is  advertised,  and  little  staff  knowledge  of  the  Bloombury  Postgraduate  Skills  Network  in  most  areas  other  than  Science,  where  certain  programmes  are  integrated  with  UCL.  While  students  are  directly  contacted  by  the  Research  Skills  office  about  this  wider  offer,  staff  may  be  oblivious  to  the  possibilities  here  and  so  guidance  may  not  be  forthcoming.      The  information  here  is  taken  from  annual  reports  and  feedback  from  meetings,  but  further  work  is  required  to  understand  the  full  ecology  of  skills  at  a  specialist  level,  and  extend  our  sense  of  best  practice  –  just  indicative  here  –  across  the  College.  This  matters  because  Birkbeck  can’t  communicate  to  a  wider  sector,  and  meet  PGR  challenges  ahead,  if  its  activities  remain  under  the  radar  even  to  itself.  It  also  potentially  reduces  the  considerable  expenditure  in  staff  time  and  energy  if  the  offer  is  more  coherently  put  together  and  communicated,  and  the  wheel  is  not  having  to  be  reinvented  each  year.    Arts  Arts  is  characterized  by  regular  crossings  between  disciplines  and  a  dynamic  PGR  environment.  It  scored  highest  in  the  PRES  return.  It  is  aiming  to  establish  an  Arts  Graduate  School  to  articulate  its  skills  and  training  offer,  to  reduce  proliferation  and  establish  a  strong  PGR  profile  online.  The  School  is  considering  providing  a  single  handbook,  and  making  specific  information  about  the  range  of  

  74  

departmental  provision  available  on  key  platforms.  All  departments  run  research  skills  in  the  first  year  in  the  evenings  along  with  talks  and  seminars,  and  all  have  annual  work-­‐in-­‐progress  conferences.  After  the  first  year  students  work  closely  with  supervisors  and  take  up  training  opportunities  as  the  needs  arise.    Consequently  Year  2  onwards  can  seem  a  falling  away  from  contact  as  students  reps  note,  and  a  narrative  of  the  student  journey  would  be  helpful  here.    Students  are  regularly  contacted  by  email  and  a  research  blog  run  by  the  PGR  administrator.  Students  post  news  about  reading  groups  and  run  an  electronic  journal  from  the  online  platform  Dandelion.  There  is  dynamic  use  of  Centres  and  Institutes  to  constellate  research  activity,  and  a  strong  collaborative  ethos  in  Arts,  with  a  good  record  of  students  and  staff  securing  additional  training  related  funds  including  international  placements.  These  sums  are  finite,  and  overall  the  RSTG  training  funding  is  dwindling  as  the  AHRC  students  complete  and  DTC  funding  becomes  the  focus  for  the  AHRC.  All  students  have  access  to  teaching  opportunities  though  this  is  more  difficult  to  deliver  for  students  in  Cultures&  Languages,  and  the  Teaching  the  Arts  in  British  Higher  Education  course  is  required,  funded  by  generic  skills.  The  School  has  established  a  network  for  the  sharing  of  practice-­‐based  work,  Corkscrew,  also  funded  by  generic  skills.  Postdoctoral  opportunities  have  been  secured  via  ISSF  for  students  in  medical  humanities.  Workshops  on  publishing  monographs,  articles  in  peer  reviewed  journals  and  research  communication  are  also  open  to  SSHP.  The  REF  response  noted  ‘impressive  PhD  completion  rates  and  support  for  PhD  students’  in  Modern  Languages  and  Linguistics.  In  English  ‘an  impressive  range  of  measures  is  in  place  to  support  research  students,  and  provide  postdoctoral  opportunities’.    Best  practice  includes  the  depth  of  student  led  activity,  such  as  initiatives  with  partners  eg  the  AHRC  Critical  Waves  project;  innovative  projects  such  as  the  Artless  Group:  Arts  of  Experiment  international  exhibitions  creation;  use  of  interns  on  electronic  journals  such  as  19  and  CreativeWorks  funded  postdoctoral  projects  such  as  The  Geek  Pound  http://www.geekpound.com/about;  development  of  the  Peltz  gallery  as  a  lab  for  PGR  and  staff  research;  film  essay  project  with  BIMI/Derek  Jarman  Lab;  Vasari  digital  skills;  work  in  progress  regular  seminar  in  HoA  with  staff  feedback  on  writing;  medical  humanities  PhD  placements;  a  growing  practice-­‐based  research  network.      BEI  In  Business  and  Management  new  PhD  students  are  required  to  attend  the  following:  four  taught  modules  including  two  modules  on  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods  respectively;  a  weekly  PhD  seminar  at  which  students  and  outside  speakers  present  their  work  and  at  which  new  students  are  inducted  into  the  norms  of  doctoral  research,  including  issues  such  as  literature  searching,  databases  and  research  ethics  and  ethical  approval;  and  the  annual  PhD  student  conference,  where  they  are  joined  by  many  of  our  academic  staff.    In  the  first  and  second  year  the  annual  report  takes  the  form  of  a  research  prospectus  which  is  assessed  and  examined  viva  voce  by  a  panel.    

EMS  filters  PGRs  through  series  of  technically  demanding  qualifications.  PhD  

  75  

students  take  MSc  and  PhD  level  modules  as  appropriate.  EMS  provides  the  economics  pathway  in  the  Bloomsbury  DTC  (jointly  with  UCL)  and  also  takes  part  in  The  London  Graduate  School  of  Mathematical  Finance  with  partners  from  Brunel,  Imperial,  King’s,  LSE  and  UCL  which  runs  an  annual  PhD  day  at  the  LSE.  

Computer  Science  also  sets  out  clear  progression  through  series  of  stages,  with  a  selection  of  taught  modules  appropriate  to  the  research  project.  It  requires  each  student  to  have  an  up-­‐to-­‐date  webpage  on  the  departmental  site.  The  REF  response  noted  ‘the  unit’s  support  for  PhD  training,  and  the  number  of  PhD  students  graduating,  was  judged  to  be  consistent  with  research  of  internationally  excellent  quality’.  

Best  practice  includes  strong  sense  of  progression  with  outcomes  tied  to  stages;    a  number  of  training  initiatives  with  partners  include  mentoring  (with  an  Alumni,  Credit  Suisse  or  PwC),  Enterprise  events  to  support  student  entrepreneurs  in  starting  and  developing  a  business,  and  employability  events  eg  networking,  voice  coaching,  but  these  are  not  mainly  focused  on  PGR.  The  aim  is  to  create  a  ‘funnel  effect’  of  training  progression,  but  that  has  not  yet  been  established.  

Law  Law  has  a  strong  sense  of  postgraduate  community.  New  students  have  induction  and  research  training  seminars  within  the  school.  Students  are  encouraged  to  coordinate  their  own  reading  groups  with  the  assistance  of  DPR.  There  are  around  5  such  reading  groups  running  at  any  one  time.  Fortnightly  meetings  are  convened  by  senior  graduate  students  where  students  present  their  research  to  each  other,  and  in  tandem  with  this  there  is  a  rolling  programme  of  presentations  from  staff  and  visiting  academics,  organised  by  the  DPR  and  PGR  reps.  This  is  working  well.  The  School  offers  Graduate  Teaching  Assistantships  which  give  PGR  students  professional  skills  in  addition  to  funding.  There  is  interest  in  developing  numbers  of  Criminology  PhDs,  reflecting  the  presence  of  the  Institute.  It  seems  likely  that  the  School  will  be  able  to  join  the  ESRC  from  2017,  and  Law  is  a  growing  area  in  CHASE,  so  further  framing  of  PGR  provision  in  the  light  of  RDF  and  integration  with  central  BGRS  work  may  be  necessary  here.  The  striking  public  engagement  dimensions  of  critical  legal  scholarship  at  Birkbeck  could  be  a  major  resource  for  PGR  training  development.  The  REF  response  stated  that  ‘a  noteworthy  feature  of  the  submission  is  the  strong  support  provided  to  PhD  students’.  

Best  practice  includes  the  strength  of  student-­‐led  engagement;  the  annual  two-­‐day  postgraduate  conference  with  staff;  the  annual  writer  in  residence  programme,  in  which  PGRs  are  involved  in  the  selection,  and  hosting,  of  an  academic  from  another  institution,  who  then  presents  their  work  over  a  two  week  period.  During  this  time,  there  is  also  the  opportunity  for  PGRs  to  present  their  work  to  the  writer  in  residence,  for  comment.  This  has  also  proven  to  be  a  popular  forum  for  students  to  develop  their  work.  

Science  Science  focuses  strongly  on  its  departmental  PGR  cultures  and  their  shared  environment  with  UCL,  and  is  less  focused  on  School  identity  at  PGR  level  for  a  

  76  

common  postgraduate  research  strategy.  The  Department  of  Biological  Sciences,  as  part  of  the  UCL-­‐Birkbeck  Institute  of  Structural  and  Molecular  Biology  (ISMB)  provides  a  number  of  seminars,  including  a  weekly  seminar  series  bringing  international  speakers;  a  world-­‐class  biennial  ISMB  symposium;  a  weekly  Friday  evening  student/postdoc  series  of  talks  called  “Friday  wraps”;  and  a  biennial  two-­‐day  retreat  in  Cambridge.    The  Department  provides  a  compulsory  Graduate  Studies  programme  in  essential  professional  skills  in  the  first  term  of  the  first  year,  including  presentation  skills  and  CV  writing;  time  management  and  record  keeping;  and  applying  for  grants  and  jobs.  This  provides  students  with  key  skills  to  manage  their  career  progression.  In  addition,  in  the  second  term  ,  departmental  alumni  working  in  diverse  employment  sectors  -­‐  such  as  science  administration,  science  journalism  and  industry  -­‐  are  invited  back  to  give  talks  based  on  their  experiences,  to  expose  students  to  the  breadth  of  career  possibilities  and  support  them  in  making  timely  and  informed  career  choices.  The  REF  return  ‘noted  a  strong  and  integrated  research  student  culture’.    In  Psychological  Sciences,  a  structured  PhD  training  programme  is  provided  for  all  doctoral  students  in  line  with  HEFCE  supervision  guidelines.  This  programme  includes  training  in  neuroscientific,  quantitative,  and  qualitative  methods  used  in  our  research,  as  well  as  generic  skills  training  (including  impact-­‐related  topics  such  as  interacting  with  the  media,  collaborating  with  non-­‐academic  beneficiaries,  and  conducting  translational  research),  specialist  seminars,  and  funds  for  complementary  skills  training  (e.g.,  MatLab,  EEG/ERP,  neural  network  modelling,  brain  imaging).  The  department  provides  the  funding  for  research  student  travel  to  international  and  national  conferences,  for  participants  in  PhD  student  research,  and  for  specialist  research  training  costs.  There  is  a  strong  postdoctoral  profile.  CBCD  was  selected  in  2010  as  a  Marie  Curie  Training  Centre  of  Excellence  by  the  European  Commission  for  a  second  time  (it  achieved  this  status  for  the  first  time  in  2004).  A  unique  feature  of  this  training  programme  is  the  extensive  participation  of  private  sector  partners  from  the  technology,  manufacturing  and  services  industry  (e.g.,  Proctor  &  Gamble,  Acuity  and  EGI).  These  collaborations  bridge  the  gap  between  basic  developmental  neuroscience  research  and  private  sector  applications.  For  example,  all  PhD  students  in  this  programme  receive  in-­‐house  training  at  Proctor  &  Gamble’s  global  research  centre  in  Germany  on  how  to  translate  basic  science  into  marketable  products.  

The  Department  of  Earth  &  Planetary  Sciences  is  part  of  the  Institute  for  Earth  and  Planetary  Sciences  and  co-­‐located  with  UCL,  and  part  of  the  NERC  DTP.  Students  access  provision  through  these  routes.  They  may  also  take  modules  from  the  MRes  course.  All  students  present  their  work  annually,  with  second  years  participating  in  the  UCL  Graduate  School  poster  display  competition.  Part-­‐time  students  also  present  their  work  at  an  appropriate  time.  The  REF  return  noted  ‘Postgraduate  support  is  very  good’.  

Students  across  science  make  active  use  of  the  BPSN  and  opportunities  offered  by  doctoral  training  centres  during  the  day,  as  health  and  safety  regulations  mean  that  evenings  are  not  possible.  The  REF  return  in  biological  sciences  notes  that  throughout  their  PhD,  UCL  and  Birkbeck  students  can  take  a  vast  range  of  courses  put  on  by  the  Graduate  School  (courses.grad.ucl.ac.uk/list-­‐training.pht).  

  77  

These  cover  4  broad  areas:  Knowledge  and  intellectual  abilities  (137  courses  relevant  to  this  UoA);  Personal  effectiveness  (90  courses);  Research  organisation  &  governance  (53  courses);  and  Communication  influence  &  impact  (109  courses).  From  2008-­‐2013,  PhD  students  in  this  UoA  took  up  over  3000  places  on  these  courses.  Of  these  courses,  45  are  relevant  to  progression  to  a  career  (academic  or  otherwise)  after  the  PhD,  and  since  2008,  385  PhD  students  in  UoA5  took  part  in  these  courses.  PhD  students  also  have  access  to  the  UCL  Careers  Advice  Service:  539  PhD  students  attended  courses  led  by  Careers  Service  counsellors  and  87  students  were  booked  onto  industrial  employer  led  events.  

As  they  apply  to  projects  via  consortia,  full  data  rests  with  UCL  in  some  key  aspects.  Reasons  to  engage  centrally  with  Birkbeck  provision  are  limited.  In  discussion  with  Science  colleagues  there  was  a  view  that  it  would  be  helpful  to  duplicate  the  structure  of  the  UCL  doctoral  school,  with  the  range  of  training  on  offer  during  the  day.  Part-­‐time  students  face  a  challenge  however  in  that  resources  and  opportunities  for  training  are  often  not  available  via  the  self-­‐funded  route,  and  costs  are  high.  Earth  Sciences  underlined  in  their  Annual  Review  the  importance  of  an  effective  online  Research  Student  Log  tool  for  the  oversight  of  student  progression  and  skills  development,  such  as  that  used  by  UCL,  to  avoid  the  large  variation  in  practice.  Science  tends  not  to  look  to  College  provision,  and  suggested  training  funds  might  be  better  devolved  to  departments.  However  the  student  representative  suggested  that  college  provision  and  opportunities  to  connect  with  a  wider  PGR  community  would  be  of  interest,  and  a  developed  central  platform  of  skills  –  including  public  speaking,  public  engagement,  and  so  on  –  would  be  welcomed.  It  may  be  that  Science  week  would  be  a  potential  public  engagement  forum  where  PGR  students  could  present  their  work  to  a  wider  Birkbeck  community  and  showcase  Science  PGR  research  at  the  same  time.    

Best  practice  includes  highly  organized  and  high  quality  programmes  of  research  training  with  clear  progression;  active  use  of  departmental  alumni  in  various  sectors  to  promote  career  discussion;  innovative  use  of  scientific  speed  dating  (with  generic  skills  funds).  

SSHP  SSHP  has  strong  departmental  PGR  cultures.  It  has  been  working  actively  to  synchronise  practice  overall  with  a  number  of  innovative  PGR  initiatives.  Departments  provide  taught  courses  and/or  postgraduate  research  seminars,  in  addition  to  ‘in-­‐house’  academic  conferences  /  round  tables  and  the  more  obvious  day-­‐to-­‐day  interaction  with  research-­‐active  academic  staff.  SSHP  research  students  have  access  to  the  research  training  modules  funded  by  generic  skills  training  money,  in  addition  to  classes  offered  via  the  Masters  in  Social  Research;  they  are  also  encouraged  to  attend  seminars  and  workshops  provided  by  the  BISR,  BIGS,  BIH  and  BIMI,  as  well  as  externally  via  the  IHR  and  the  Institute  of  Philosophy.    These  research  institutes  and  clusters  offer  vital  cross-­‐departmental  and  cross-­‐School  forums  for  PGR  interaction.  Events  are  advertised  on  departmental  websites  and  continually  updated.  Students  also  have  their  own  online  website  and  noticeboard  in  HCA.  In  the  past  few  years  School-­‐level  research  methods  and  skills  training  has  been  developed  in  conjunction  with  

  78  

Management  (Research  Design,  Introduction  to  Statistics,  Qualitative  Methods),  including  masterclasses  in  social  research.  All  departments  run  postgraduate  conferences  and  funding  is  available  for  conferences,  student-­‐led  initiatives  and  research  activities.  Training  activities  are  also  available  through  DTCs  (ESRC,  CHASE,  ERC)  and  via  Wellcome  and  the  Marie-­‐Curie  funded  postdoctoral  network  (PIMIC).  Some  skills  provision  is  shared  with  Arts.  Students  report  that  designated  space  in  Russell  Square  has  had  a  positive  effect  in  bringing  the  School  PGR  community  together.  The  REF  response  ‘noted  how  strong  placement  had  been  among  the  graduate  students’  in  Philosophy.  

Best  practice  includes  provision  of  the  SSHP  critical  theory  doctoral  seminar  (Psychosocial  Studies);  workshops  such  as  Engaging  the  Public  Online;  research  methods  training  as  part  of  The  Annual  Bloomsbury  Roundtable  on  Communication,  Cognition  and  Culture;  inclusion  of  international  students  in  research  events  (ALC);  Saturday  workshops  (Philosophy  and  Qualitative  methods);  weekly  work  in  progress  seminar  with  staff  (Philosophy).  There  are  strong  international  collaborations  here  bringing  visiting  students  to  the  School.  

c.  Cross-­‐School  Provision,  Networks,  Centres  and  Institutes    The  energy  of  Birkbeck’s  PGR  environment  comes  in  part  through  the  dynamic  interaction  of  departmental  cultures  with  outstanding  supra-­‐departmental  Centres,  Institutes  and  networks.  These  contribute  to  the  PGR  experience  in  numerous  ways,  with  PhDs  participating  in  initiating  and  running  events  and  conferences  alongside  academic  staff,  as  well  as  networking  with  larger  cross-­‐disciplinary  communities,  accessing  internships  and  building  public  engagement  with  partners.  If  PGR  students  are  to  be  seen  as  researchers  in  development,  then  these  research  clusters  can  be  transformative,  and  more  might  be  made  of  this  within  a  Birkbeck  PGR  Portfolio.  The  development  of  BISR  and  BIH  with  its  summer  school,  master  classes,  and  conferences  are  good  examples  of  a  way  forward.  BISR  makes  explicit  its  targeted  ‘support  and  enhancement’  of  PGR  training  in  SSHP,  Law  and  Arts.  BISR  pages  include  internships,  a  Graduate  seminar  in  Social  Research,  Graduate  Conference  and  lunchtime  events  on  ‘Developing  Your  Research  Career’.  Relevant  podcasts  receive  some  2500  hits  each  month.  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/bisr/postgraduate.    Specific  provision  is  offered  by  the  Centre  for  Transformative  Practice  in  Teaching  and  Learning.  Teacher  training  for  GTAs  and  Associate  Tutors  is  addressed  at  7.4b  below.  While  the  Centre’s  remit  is  up  to  taught  PG,  in  practice  a  range  of  activities  are  of  interest  to  PGR  students:  

-­‐ Academic  language  and  grammar  for  postgraduates  (weekly  2-­‐hour  classes  that  run  through  terms  1  and  are  repeated  in  term  2)  

-­‐ Drop-­‐in  academic  English  help  (3-­‐5pm  Saturdays  in  terms  1,  2  and  3  and  4.30-­‐6  Tuesdays  in  term  1  and  4.30-­‐6.00  Thursdays  in  terms  2  &  3)  

-­‐ Regular  workshops/lectures  on  writing  at  PG  level  (includes  writing  for  literature  reviews,  dissertations  and  writing  more  generally)  

-­‐ One  to  one  tutorials  on  writing  problems  –  occasionally  these  are  taken  up  by  PGR  students  but  priority  is  taught  PG  since  that  is  the  Centre’s  mandate  and  they  don’t  have  Learning  Development  Tutors  in  the  Schools  

  79  

-­‐ In  2015/2016  the  Centre  will  be  introducing  an  intensive  16  hours  course  (non-­‐credit  bearing)  for  taught  PG  students  on  Academic  English  for  Dissertations  to  run  in  late  June.    The  Centre  could  consider  doing  this  for  PGR  students  but  would  need  College  backing  for  this.  

-­‐ Birkbeck  Learning  Skills  moodle  module  https://moodle.bbk.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=7881  Students  across  the  College  are  either  automatically  enrolled  (Cert  through  PGT)  or  can  self-­‐enrol  (PGR).    From  this  autumn  there  will  be  a  whole  new  set  of  interactive  online  resources  that  will  target  PGT  students  but  will  be  applicable  to  PGR  students  as  well  (eg.  ‘Writing  an  abstract’  ‘Writing  your  first  conference  paper’)  

   The  Centre  advertises  these  to  PGR  students  through  the  Birkbeck  Research  School  and  the  International  Office,  and  includes  them  in  the  various  forms  of  College  publicity.  PGR  students  who  are  ‘employed’  in  some  way  by  the  College  (as  GTAs  or  Associate  Lecturers/Tutors)  will  also  receive  the  Centre’s  newsletter  and  emails  about  activities  which  include  the  Learning  and  Teaching  Seminars,  the  Critical  Pedagogies  Group  (reading  meetings  and  annual  lecture)  and  the  Centre’s  annual  conference.      One  question  arising  from  the  activities  of  such  Centres  would  be  whether  Centres  and  Institutes  might  have  registered  PhDs  in  addition  to  departmental  programmes,  to  promote  cross  School  supervision  and  generate  new  transdisciplinary  research  communities.  This  would  not  be  possible  under  current  practice,  and  begs  questions  of  support  and  administrative  process  currently  underpinned  by  departmental  and  School  structures.    But  the  example  of  BiGS  (Birkbeck  Gender  and  Sexuality)  is  useful  here.  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/bisr/bigs  PhD  students  working  in  Gender  and  Sexuality  –  a  vibrant  strand  of  cross-­‐College  research  –  can  now  be  both  attached  to  a  departmental  programme  and  tagged  as  Gender  and  Sexuality  PhDs,  and  easily  drawn  together  as  a  cohort  as  such.  The  potential  here  is  considerable  for  the  gathering  together  of  cognate  PG  researchers,  and  supervision  and  training  can  then  be  communicated  much  more  flexibly.  The  strength  of  gender  and  sexuality  research  is  thus  brought  into  view  by  a  simple  mechanism  of  registration  and  systems  adaptation,  though  it  may  have  to  be  entered  manually.  It  may  be  that  medical  humanities  and  other  PGR  fields  spanning  the  College  could  be  similarly  constituted.      A  map  of  the  ecology  of  Centres  and  Institutes  at  Birkbeck  would  be  a  digital  project  worth  investing  in.      d.  External  training  (DTCs  or  RCUK  funded)    Birkbeck  is  a  member  of  a  number  of  doctoral  training  partnerships,  all  of  which  are  engaged  in  the  production  of  high  quality  skills  training  (BBSRC,  CHASE,  ESRC,  MRC,  NERC,  Wellcome).  There  is  currently  no  mechanism  in  the  College  for  the  exchange  of  information  here  across  the  range,  though  locally  those  delivering  on  DTC  arrangements  will  know  what  is  on  offer  and  are  engaged  in  

  80  

delivering  collaborative  provision.  AHRC  and  ESRC  funds  for  student  training  currently  come  into  the  RTSG  funds,  though  the  latter  is  in  transition  and  the  former  is  under  the  old  regime  and  gradually  phasing  out.  Students  apply  annually  for  funds  to  conduct  research  trips.  AHRC  International  Placements  currently  come  through  the  Registry,  but  in  that  awkward  nonspace  between  Research  Grants  and  the  Research  Students  Unit.    There  is  no  consistent  record  here.  The  School  of  Science/UCL  hold  information  about  other  DTC  arrangements  and  disbursements.  This  is  information  that  should  be  part  of  the  deliberations  of  a  reframed  BGRS,  and  it  is  also  an  area  we  may  wish  to  work  on  strategically  so  that  we  underline  a  distinctive  set  of  Birkbeck  opportunities.  We  can’t  at  present  showcase  this  kind  of  PGR  experience  easily,  nor  do  we  ask  students  to  write  it  up  for  news.  The  pressures  from  DTC  membership  will  increase  as  the  RCUK  organisations  justify  their  funds  and  universities  compete  within  a  global  research  agenda.  Birkbeck  could  do  much  more  with  these  PGR  stories.    Implementation  means  that  institutions  need  to  come  into  line  with  methods  of  delivery  and  communication,  and  expectations  of  research  training  quality  and  range.  This  overwhelmingly  affects  full-­‐time  funded  students,  who  are  encouraged  to  identify  with  the  ethos  of  a  particular  consortium,  and  able  to  access  travel,  placements  and  research  opportunities  of  the  highest  quality.  Self-­‐funded  students  can  benefit  from  participating  in  an  research  environment  with  these  DTC  drivers,  including  events  and  training  opportunities  that  are  part  of  cohort  development  planning:  referred  to  as  the  ‘halo  effect’.  But  the  sector  is  producing  an  elite  that  by  definition  means  that  others  have  less  access,  and  this  can  have  particularly  acute  effects,  such  as  in  Science  where  costs  are  high.  This  is  both  a  challenge  and  an  opportunity  for  Birkbeck,  in  that  outstanding  self-­‐funded  students  are  an  important  part  of  our  mix.  A  Birkbeck  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  is  one  way  of  addressing  the  maintaining  of  a  quality  of  provision  for  all.  At  the  same  time  we  need  to  be  producing  research  training  and  skills  that  meet  the  DTC  agenda  for  funded  students.  Work  on  key  areas  such  as  placements  by  the  College  is  crucial,  and  it  would  benefit  all.  There  is  an  external  perception  that  Birkbeck,  with  its  professional  and  working  networks,  is  ahead  in  this  field.    Birkbeck  has  a  good  record  of  winning  funds  for  doctoral  and  postdoctoral  training,  thought  these  are  nowhere  gathered  together  as  part  of  our  profile.  Some  of  the  innovative  projects  are  exceptional,  such  as  the  student-­‐led  Critical  Waves  project  in  Arts  (AHRC)  which  has  established  connections  between  research  forms  and  radio,  widely  attended  with  a  series  broadcast  on  Resonance  FM,  for  a  cost  of  just  £3000.  The  Arts  of  Experiment  project  (AHRC)  sent  students  to  China  and  Japan  in  the  creation  of  potential  exhibitions,  and  established  a  platform  for  project  leverage,  ArtLess.    Marie  Curie  funded  networks  in  History  are  training  postdoctoral  historians  for  the  21st  century;  Psychology  are  part  of  a  network  which  has  twice  won  recognition  as  a  Marie  Curie  Training  Centre  of  Excellence.    ISSF  Wellcome  funding  is  currently  producing  a  new  generation  of  scholars  in  the  medical  humanities.  There  will  be  more  examples  we  should  celebrate.  So  much  of  this  extraordinary  success  remains  unused  by  the  College,  and  the  challenge  is  continually  to  sustain  such  a  record,  building  on  success  to  

  81  

go  for  further  ambitious  funds  rather  than  allowing  it  to  peter  away.  The  cost  in  staff  energy/time  is  considerable  here,  if  the  model  is  of  continual  reinvention  and  forgetting,  rather  than  building  from  innovation  through  structured  and  continuing  support.    e.  External  Skills  Networks    Bloomsbury  Postgraduate  Skills  Network  (BPSN)  The  BPSN  is  an  excellent  arrangement  supplementing  Birkbeck’s  range  of  provision,  bringing  together  partners  in  the  offering  of  almost  1300  places  on  PGR  training  courses  and  events.  The  network  was  set  up  in  2004  by  UCL  with  the  purpose  of  sharing  best  practice  in  generic  skills  training  between  institutions  in  the  Bloomsbury  area.  The  BPSN  is  a  network  of  leading  Higher  Education  institutions,  created  by  UCL  in  order  to  share  best  practice  in  skills  training  for  graduate  research  students  in  the  Bloomsbury  area.  The  purpose  of  the  shared  skills  training  programme  is  to  allow  students  additional  opportunities,  through  attending  training  courses  and  workshops  at  other  member  institutions.  The  Network  is  run  on  a  no-­‐cost  basis  and  has  no  financial  implications  for  any  of  the  institutions  involved  (beyond  offering  small  numbers  of  places  on  their  training  courses  to  other  members:  typically  5%  of  the  places  available  on  the  courses  that  they  are  already  offering  in-­‐house).  UCL  manages  and  runs  the  administration  for  running  the  network.  Prospective  members  are  asked  to  list  the  reasons  for  wishing  to  join  the  BPSN  and  provide  information  with  regards  to  the  additional  skills  training  opportunities  that  they  would  bring  to  the  BPSN  programme.    More  of  an  informal  agreement  is  held  with  the  member  institutions;  all  institutions  are  asked  to  provide  data  on  their  provision  and  continued  commitment  to  the  network  at  an  annual  meeting.  The  RDF  is  a  defining  model.      Currently  BPSN  training  courses  are  not  made  available  to  partners  within  related  consortia  who  are  not  members.    Students  are  contacted  through  the  research  students  unit  if  places  are  still  free,  and  some  courses  operate  a  waiting  list.  Supervisors  are  automatically  emailed  if  a  student  takes  up  a  place  on  a  BPSN  course.  Students  can  also  access  a  range  of  WEBINARS.It  is  worth  noting  that  UCL  holds  key  areas  of  its  training  back  for  its  own  students,  as  one  might  expect.  In  Science  these  are  available  through  Birkbeck/UCL  DTC  arrangements.  Birkbeck  may  wish  to  think  about  delineating  the  offer  here  in  keeping  with  a  more  integrated  training  and  skills  profile.    Data  on  courses  offered  through  BPSN  Sept  14  to  March  15.    

Institution No. of Courses

No. of Places

Birkbeck 8 68 Institute of Modern Languages Research 3 12 King's College London 9 72 London School of Economics 3 20 London School of Hygiene and Tropical 20 205

  82  

Medicine Royal Veterinary College 2 15 School of Advanced Study 22 94 School of Oriental and African Studies 7 86 University College London 85 692

Total 159 1264    Other  networks    There  is  widespread  use  of  networks  via  the  Schools  of  Advanced  Study  to  access  and  share  in  PGR  training  activities  and  events,  including  the  active  use  of  the  Institute  of  Historical  Research,  and  Institute  of  Philosophy  (SSHP).  The  Research  Skills  Intercollegiate  Network  (ReSkIN)  brings  together  art  historians  from  UoL  colleges  including  UCL,  Slade,  Bartlett,  Courtauld,  SOAS,  Goldsmiths  and  Birkbeck,  both  staff  and  PGR.  The  London  Graduate  School  of  Mathematical  Finance  includes  Birkbeck,  Brunel,  Imperial,  King’s,  LSE  and  UCL. There  are  of  course  numerous  subject  specific  societies  and  networks  which  actively  address    PGR  students  in  their  development  of  the  next  generation  of  researchers.  Again,  there’s  not  a  clear  map  of  the  alliances  and  detail  here,  but  these  associations  are  part  of  our  research  environment  and  profile.  In  some  areas  of  the  PRES,  Birkbeck  was  20%  above  the  benchmark  in  its  furthering  of    ‘opportunities  to  become  involved  in  the  wider  research  community’.

7.4  Specialist  College  Skills  (Strategic  Directions)    A  more  articulated  offer  would  give  Birkbeck  and  the  BGRS  the  opportunity  to  work  strategically  –  and  in  collaboration  with  other  projects  –  on  key  PGR  training  strengths  which  would  give  the  College  a  distinctive  and  outstanding  profile.  These  are  initiatives  which  are:  

-­‐ in  place  but  currently  untapped  -­‐ new  developments  which  have  a  Birkbeck  stamp  -­‐ opportunities  we  may  wish  to  include  in  2023  planning,  and  which  may  

be  relevant  to  all  levels  not  only  PGR    The  examples  below  are  indicative  only.    a.  Digital  Knowledges:  Digital  Humanities  and  Digital  Sciences    It  is  evident  across  current  provision  that  there  is  considerable  commitment  to  PGR  training  in  digital  knowledge  and  technologies  of  research  communication/  dissemination.  This  strand  ranges  from  generic  skills  funded  courses  on  programming,  image  processing,  writing  and  presenting  research,  to  media  communication  and  its  relation  to  research,  careers  talks  with  alumni,  and  digital  innovation  via  the  Vasari  in  Arts  or  the  Knowledge  Lab  in  Computer  Science.  Most  recently  the  arrival  of  the  Open  Library  of  the  Humanities  with  its  related  Centre  for  Technology  and  Publishing  means  Birkbeck  can  take  a  lead  on  open  access  debates  internationally,  including  advising  government  on  policy  here.  The  Library  is  also  engaged  here.  A  first  Academic  Publishing  in  the  Digital  Age  

  83  

was  offered  to  Birkbeck  students  to  inaugurate  our  entry  into  CHASE  in  July  2015:  http://www.chase.ac.uk/events/2015/7/1/academic-­‐publishing-­‐in-­‐the-­‐digital-­‐age.    It  would  make  sense  to  consolidate  a  group  of  digital  and  media  courses  as  part  of  the  core  Birkbeck  offer,  so  that  these  are  part  of  a  basic  portfolio.  But  there  is  considerable  strategic  potential  here  that  would  underpin  research  agendas  across  the  College  and  give  us  distinction  in  a  crowded  sector.  Accompanying  this  should  be  reflection  on  the  various  platforms  for  delivery  online,  and  the  building  of  resource  in  this  area.  What  are  the  digital  and  blended  opportunities  for  communication  and  learning  at  PGR  level?  How  does  the  culture  of  e-­‐theses  translate  into  increased  citations  and  dissemination  of  research  knowledge?    b.  Teaching  Excellence    Part  of  the  Birkbeck  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  should  include  the  opportunity  to  teach,  demonstrate  and  communicate  research.  With  discussions  about  a  TEF,  and  sector  moves  towards  employing  doctoral  students  (along  US  lines,  including  GTA  work  from  the  outset),  with  accompanying  concerns  about  the  production  of  a  postgraduate  precariat,  this  is  key  ground.  The  Centre  for  Transformative  Practice  in  Learning  and  Teaching  has  a  role  to  play  here,  not  least  in  its  examination  of  critical  pedagogy  (see  current  provision  in  addition  to  that  below  at  7.3c).  It  may  be  that  innovative  academic  development  and  leadership  in  this  area  for  PGR  could  be  combined  with  planning  for  an  HEA  individual  fellowship  application.  Birkbeck  should  be  leading  the  field,  given  our  strong  teaching  ethos  and  mission.  34.2%  of  students  on  the  PRES  survey  had  taught  or  demonstrated  at  Birkbeck,  with  47%  having  received  training.  At  a  rough  calculation,  370k  is  committed  to  GTA/Associate  Tutor  funds  by  Schools  in  15/16  (without  Law  figures).  With  grad  cert  training  costs  on  top  and  Law,  500k  is  a  likely  minimum  estimate.    The  current  HEA-­‐recognized  Graduate  Certificate  and  Fundamentals  of  Teaching  workshops  underpin  GTA  work  in  the  College:  Graduate  Certificate  in  Teaching  and  Supporting  Learning  in  H.E.  This  course  is  compulsory  for  all  current  research  students  who  are  also  working  as  Associate  Tutors/Teaching  Assistants  and  are  contracted  to  teach  for  more  than  30  hours  in  2015/16.  The  two  modules  of  this  course  run  across  the  spring  and  summer  terms  with  one  full-­‐day  class  (on  Tuesdays)  every  three  weeks.  Successful  completion  leads  to  Associate  Fellowship  of  the  Higher  Education  Academy.  Fundamentals  of  Teaching  workshops These  workshops  are  compulsory  for  all  current  research  students  who  are  also  working  as  Associate  Tutors/Teaching  Assistants  and  are  contracted  to  teach  for  between  6-­‐29  hours  in  2015/16.  The  two  half-­‐day  workshops  (Monday  and  Tuesday  afternoons)  will  run  in  the  autumn  and  spring  terms.      The  notional  spend  on  the  Grad  Cert  in  14/15  (based  on  26  Home/EU  students  and  3  overseas)  was  £64,150.  With  estimated  running  costs  for  both,  the  total  for  the  year  overall  would  be  c.£90,000.    

  84  

GTA  Training    14-­‐15:  Participation  by  School     Grad  Cert   Fundamentals  of  

Teaching  Arts   4   9  BEI   10   0  Law   10   0  Science   0   0  SSHP   5   8    There  are  a  number  of  elements  to  note  here.  The  School  of  Science  have  decided  that  the  courses  were  not  appropriate  for  students  in  the  School,  who  are  held  to  demonstrate  but  do  not  teach.  There  have  nonetheless  been  students  from  Science  who  have  signed  up  in  the  past.  It  may  be  there  are  important  routes  into  science  teaching  and  communication  here,  but  there  may  be  a  specific  context  for  this  decision.  Psychology  has  a  GTA  programme  run  during  the  Assessment  period,  as  does  Earth  Sciences.  The  numbers  in  Law  and  BEI  suggest  the  PGRs  who  teach  more  than  30  hours  each  year,  and  strong  GTA  focus  in  the  Schools.  Arts  offers  GTA  opportunities  to  all  students  and  keeps  the  number  of  hours  lower,  so  that  a  range  of  PGRs  benefit,  and  the  teaching  does  not  impact  on  the  progress  of  the  thesis.  Numbers  are  similarly  smaller  in  SSHP.  Both  Arts  and  SSHP  PGRs  use  the  workshops  for  those  teaching  fewer  hours.  Arts  also  runs  a  teaching  pedagogy  course:  Teaching  the  Arts  in  British  Higher  Education  each  Spring,  that  normally  has  30-­‐40  students  attending,  funded  by  generic  skills.      It  is  worth  noting  again  that  there  is  no  career  path  tracking  of  PGR  students  other  than  the  HESA  leavers  survey,  and  so  the  value  of  this  accreditation  in  career  terms  –  still  in  early  days  of  the  running  of  the  Grad  Cert  -­‐    is  not  currently  measured.  It  is  a  strong  asset  for  PGRs  moving  in  to  academic  job  market  or  into  tertiary  level  teaching.      Considerable  numbers  of  Birkbeck  PhDs  have  also  taken  up  places  at  the  Brilliant  Club,  teaching  university-­‐style  seminars  to  the  best  students  at  non-­‐selective  secondary  schools  in  low  participation  communities.  Between  2013-­‐15:  12  placements  were  offered  in  English,  5  in  HCA,  1  in  Philosophy,  2  FMACS,  3  in  the  London  Consortium,  2  in  Psychology,  1  in  Law,  1  in  ALC,  and  1  in  Politics.  The  Brilliant  Club  are  working  with  Birkbeck’s  Widening  Participation  department  and  interested  in  establishing  a  more  formal  recruitment  process  and  further  researcher  development  links.  One  former  Birkbeck  English  PhD,  now  a  lecturer  at  Birmingham,  is  recruiting  for  the  Brilliant  Club  in  the  Midlands.  http://www.thebrilliantclub.org    c.  Business  and  Other  Ecologies    Current  strategic  work  on  the  Birkbeck  Enterprise,  Employment,  and  Employability  Ecosystem  (B4E)  initiative  has  included  PGR  students,  though  they  are  not  its  focus.  The  key  areas:  mentoring,  careers  and  employment  support  (see  also  7.3a  above);  enterprise  and  entrepreneurial  support;  and  commercialization  should  be  productively  thought  through  with  PGRs  in  view.  They  are  all  areas  which  concern  PGR  students,  and  should  be  integrated  into  a  

  85  

Birkbeck  Researcher  Development  Portfolio.    This  is  crucial  for  students  looking  for  options,  whose  research  careers  might  take  a  number  of  routes.  It  would  also  be  essential  for  students  for  whom  the  PhD  is  work  or  professionally  related,  or  those  who  are  seeking  a  change  of  career.        Currently  there  is  pressure  from  DTCs  to  provide  high  quality  mentoring,  placements,  internships  and  partnerships,  and  Birkbeck  will  need  to  be  generating  opportunities  of  this  kind.  The  business  model  of  ecology  is  a  useful  way  of  opening  up  career  possibilities  to  students  whose  research  might  be  transformed  into  opportunity  across  the  range  of  disciplines,  and  there  are  other  options  –  such  as  via  CreativeWorks,  or  slowly  building  work  with  the  Arts  Council,  that  currently  involve  thinking  along  entrepreneurial  or  partnership  lines.  But  more  coordination,  advice  and  use  of  Birkbeck’s  professional,  business  and  creative  networks  for  PGR  students  (and  indeed  the  drawing  in  of  ex-­‐PGR  alumni)  would  yield  dividends  here.  Birkbeck  should  be  leading  the  field.      d.  Public  Engagement  Skills  and  Training      It  is  Birkbeck’s  current  plan  to  embed  public  engagement  at  all  levels  in  the  College.  Some  opportunities  for  PGRs  have  come  through  Wellcome,  ISSF  and  other  RCUK  funders  either  directly  or  as  projects  led  by  academics  (such  as  AHRC  cultural  engagement  or  doctoral  training  projects  in  Arts;  use  of  CreativeWorks  opportunities  in  Arts;  SSHP’s  development  of  workshops  on  the  public  communication  of  science  via  generic  skills  funds.)  There  are  major  public  engagement  initiatives,  such  as  the  work  in  Law  or  Psychology  via  the  BabyLab,  which  might  usefully  be  showcased  in  innovative  ways.  The  larger  professional  and  community  ‘ecology’  of  Birkbeck  should  also  be  an  asset  here.    Training  for  public  engagement  has  been  shown  to  be  most  effective  when  arranged  around  a  centralised  hub  (see  reports  from  the  Beacons  for  Public  Engagement  www.publicengagement.ac.uk).  Apart  from  saving  resources,  as  training  can  be  run  across  Schools  and  Departments,  this  model  is  highly  visible  to  students  and  allows  them  to  be  effectively  sign-­‐posted  to  the  most  appropriate  training  without  repeating  steps  or  ending  up  on  courses  that  are  not  relevant.  It  is  also  possible  to  integrate  courses  and  training  with  opportunities  for  practice,  collaborations  with  external  partners,  careers  and  employability  training  and  supporting  more  senior  researchers’  public  engagement  work.  Centralised  training  can  be  informed  by  and  overseen  by  the  public  engagement  strategy,  ensuring  excellence  and  sharing  of  good  practice  across  the  Schools.      Not  all  students  will  take  the  research  route,  and  many  will  leave  at  various  stages  to  find  work  elsewhere.  Therefore,  having  work  experience  and  experience  in  a  variety  of  activities,  linked  to  but  outside  of  their  degree/research,  will  be  invaluable  for  the  working  lives  of  these  students.  For  those  that  stay  in  research  at  Birkbeck,  the  principle  of  the  ‘public  researcher’  holds,  providing  our  communities,  stakeholders  and  non-­‐traditional  learners’  access  and  input  into  our  research  and  knowledge.  Providing  effective  public  engagement  training  at  each  level  of  the  student/researcher  career  will  only  help  to  support  this  principle  and  the  work  of  our  researchers.    

  86  

 The  skills,  knowledge  and  behaviours  that  can  be  taught  or  enhanced  through  public  engagement  training  and  practice  at  each  level  of  the  student/researcher  career  are  summarised  below:      

• Undergraduates  o Key  skills  for  careers  and  employability    

§ Presentation  Skills  § Communication  Skills  § Interpersonal  Skills  § Confidence  and  leadership    

o Training  can  be  linked  to  work  experience  and  volunteering  opportunities  through  public  engagement  and  links  with  local  organisations    

• Postgraduates    o Consolidate  subject  knowledge    o Argument/  narrative  construction  o Improves  presentation  and  communication  skills  and  confidence      o Leadership,  project  management  and  time  management    o Team  work  and  partnerships  o Establishing  networks  and  potential  future  collaborations  

 • Research  Staff  

o Improved  communication  skills    o Public  Engagement  work  has  the  potential  to  feed  directly  into  the  

research,  informing  research  strategy,  project  planning  and  development    

o Potential  to  feed  into  impact  statements  o Evaluation  techniques  which  promote  continuous  self-­‐assessment  

and  improvement  of  research  activities    o Raise  profiles  of  researchers,  build  networks,  partnerships  and  

collaborations  o Provides  a  space  for  influence  and  leadership    o Can  be  used  to  enhance  income  and  funding  generation    o Public  engagement  skills  are  easily  transferable  to  effective  

teaching  practice  o Training  on  adapting  to  audiences  can  include  working  with  the  

media    

 Public  Engagement  Lens  on  the  Researcher  Development  Framework:  https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-­‐publications/rdf-­‐related/public-­‐engagement-­‐lens-­‐on-­‐the-­‐vitae-­‐researcher-­‐development-­‐framework-­‐rdf-­‐apr-­‐2013.pdf/view  

  87  

 If  Birkbeck  is  to  embed  public  engagement  further  small  bursaries  could  secure  innovative  training  possibilities  for  PGR  students,  building  on  researcher  development  skills  provision.  Again,  this  produces  a  platform  which  would  underline  Birkbeck’s  distinctive  profile,  and  underpin  the  future  researcher  lifecycle.    7.5  Modes  of  Delivery    In  considering  the  delivery  of  researcher  development  training  and  skills,  there  needs  also  to  be  consideration  of  changing  modes  of  delivery,  from  e-­‐learning  and  mobile  apps  to  forms  of  social  networking.  The  profile  here,  and  connection  of  IT  with  research  and  knowledge  development,  is  at  the  forefront  of  strategy  in  the  sector.  These  may  be  of  particular  interest  to  students  where  time  pressures  are  at  issue.  A  body  of  resource  materials,  including  the  good  video  series,  will  also  augment  provision.  The  use  of  webinars  is  increasing  in  the  sector,  and  some  attention  to  online  materials  including  resources  that  will  draw  in  the  Library  and  other  services  need  to  be  integrated  in  planning  going  forward.  Consultation  with  students  about  how  we  can  best  communicate  with  them  is  essential,  so  that  attendance  is  maximized.  Innovation  funds  should  be  invested  in  strategy  here,  with  piloting  of  new  practice.  This  is  a  project  that  needs  specialist  leadership.      Recommendations:    

-­‐ to  consider  the  range  of  Birkbeck  PGR  training  and  skills  provision  in  the  light  of  the  RDF  emphases  and  incorporate  into  the  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  as  appropriate,  so  that  all  PGR  students  at  Birkbeck  have  a  stake  

-­‐ to  identify  the  core  training  and  skills  that  should  be  included  within  the  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  on  an  annual  basis  from  a  range  of  providers  and  make  appropriate  resource  available,  to  be  managed  by  the  Postgraduate  Research  Office  and  overseen  by  BGRS  steering  group,  reporting  to  RSSC.  

-­‐ to  maintain  the  central  Researcher  Development  Budget  set  at  HEFCE  expectations,  to  which  staff  can  bid  each  year,  in  order  to  facilitate  innovations  and  cross-­‐dept  and  cross-­‐School  initiatives  

-­‐ to  rename  Generic  Skills  ‘Researcher  Development’  Skills  (RD  Skills)  -­‐ to  make  available  online  a  central  calendar  of  departmental/School  

training  and  skills  timetables  with  contacts,  so  that  students  can  access  a  wider  range  where  appropriate  

-­‐ to  be  clear  to  PGR  students  about  our  expectations,  such  as  which  training  is  a  requirement  and  which  discretionary,  and  whether  certain  forms  of  training  come  with  additional  costs  

-­‐ to  consider  the  registration  and  attachment  of  PhDs  in  fields  of  research  that  involve  cross-­‐College  communities  and  networks  

-­‐ to  coordinate  with  Institutes  and  Centres  in  their  development  of  key  specialist  PGR  training  and  related  events,  with  representation  on  the  BGRS  steering  group  

  88  

-­‐ to  consider  the  sharing  of  DTC  information  and  oversight  of  common  training  and  skills  emphases,  that  might  be  centrally  supported  by  strategic  developments  eg  placements,  mentoring,  postdoctoral  training  

-­‐ to  include  reporting  of  details  about  the  take-­‐up  and  development  of  PGR  skills  and  training  in  the  RSSC  standing  item  on  DTCs  

-­‐ to  ask  students  engaged  in  innovative  DTC  and  other  RCUK  training  to  report  on  this  for  BGRS  news  

-­‐ to  continue  to  define  the  Birkbeck  offer  to  the  BPSN  and  inform  supervisors  and  staff  as  well  as  PGR  students  about  its  operation  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  training  needs  

-­‐ to  consider  strategic  initiatives  which  would  underline  researcher  training  distinctive  to  Birkbeck,  including  digital  research  practice,  teaching,  public  engagement  and  forms  of  professional  and  entrepreneurial  practice  

-­‐ to  consider  the  complementary  online  modes  and  platforms  of  delivery  of  training  and  skills  resources    and  consistency  of  the  wider  PGR  pages  

-­‐ to  consider  wider  library  representation  on  research  committees  -­‐ to  connect  the  BGRS  provision  with  the  careers  portal  and  add  a  PGR  

channel              

  89  

8. Conclusion    Birkbeck  is  outstanding  and  highly  active  in  many  areas  of  specialist  PGR  provision,  and  has  notable  resources  in  its  often  gifted  and  dedicated  staff  and  exceptional  doctoral  students.  The  College’s  reputation  here  is  something  students  themselves  are  aware  of  and  value.  PGR  delivery  has  however  been  under-­‐resourced  and  lacks  priority  in  ways  that  are  also  all  too  apparent  and  material  in  their  impact.  Specific  areas  of  College  practice  require  direct  targeting  with  resource  and  immediate  action,  so  that  Birkbeck  can  build  and  realize  its  research-­‐intensive  aims,  and  compete  in  a  sector  that  is  in  key  institutional  aspects  several  leagues  ahead.  In  significant  respects  we  need  to  understand  the  framing  of  long  established  patterns  of  central  communication  and  high  quality  investment  in  PGR  practice  elsewhere,  so  that  the  Birkbeck  PGR  narrative  communicates  within  those  terms.  We  need  to  do  this  because  of  DTC  and  REF  pressures,  but  also  because  we  fall  short  of  our  own  potential,  with  generated  resources  of  all  kinds  remaining  untapped  and  occluded.  What  is  simply  required  here  is  a  clarity  of  mission,  underlined  by  coordination,  coherence  and  distinction,  and  a  confident  central  backing  and  investment  from  the  outset  to  realize  our  strategy  going  forward.  We  have  outstanding  examples  of  innovative  PGR  training  and  success,  which  define  the  work  of  certain  subject  areas  and  departments  internationally  along  with  the  best  in  the  sector,  but  these  remain  largely  under  the  radar  of  the  College  as  a  whole  and  thus  unarticulated  to  ourselves  and  to  wider  public  awareness.  There  is  a  continual  rediscovery  of  the  wheel.  Cross-­‐College  PGR  opportunities  and  initiatives  –  often  enthusiastically  conceived,  and  part  of  the  interdisciplinary  energy  of  the  institution  –  remain  a  challenge  without  this  framing,  communication  and  central  support.  Birkbeck  could  punch  a  very  long  way  above  its  size,  if  it  could  do  structural  justice  to  the  quality  of  PGR  ambition  on  the  ground.  The  College  as  a  whole  would  benefit.    It  is  clear  that  further  investigative  work  is  needed  to  provide  a  more  complete  mapping  and  precise  excavation  of  PGR  provision  across  the  College.  A  major  amelioration  of  structures  of  PGR  organization,  management,  reporting  and  communication  is  necessary  to  make  that  work  possible,  and  delivery  of  the  College’s  strategic  aims  achievable.  Future  strategy  needs  to  be  founded  on  robust  and  accessible  information.  We  need  a  more  granular  picture  of  the  strengths,  qualities  and  aims  of  PGR  practice  currently  in  place.  The  uphill  work  here  in  pulling  information  together  comes  at  considerable  cost  to  all  on  a  daily  basis.  Some  of  the  key  recommendations  outlined  below  are  no  less  than  essential.  Decisions  about  them  are  also  under  time  pressure  given  the  challenges  over  the  next  five  years.      The  distinctive  profile  of  the  PGR  student  cohort  of  the  College  and  the  wider  research  community  they  join  –  as  future  researchers,  drivers  and  exporters  of  a  unique  research  environment  –  are  assets  to  work  with.  The  sharpening  of  procedural  practice  and  management,  reporting,  and  the  underpinning  of  PGR  success  including  completion,  would  allow  the  College  to  articulate  that  mission  internally  and  externally.  Carefully  focused  investment  at  this  point  is  essential.  Creating  a  Postgraduate  Research  Office  as  a  one-­‐stop-­‐shop  for  students  and  

  90  

staff,  would  begin  to  bring  together  PGR  operational  management  and  services,  and  research  training  and  funding  support,  including  future  researcher  expertise  and  oversight  currently  lost  to  College  initiatives  and  planning.  Making  the  BGRS  into  a  robust  central  engine  of  PGR  activity  and  information,  in  actual  and  online  terms,  would  support  and  streamline  the  variety  of  practice  across  the  College  so  that  it  can  develop  further  and  underline  the  College’s  research-­‐intensive  presence  more  powerfully.  Consistency  across  the  Birkbeck  website  and  the  connection  of  the  PGR  future  researcher  journey  to  the  wider  research  message  is  essential.    Identifying  areas  of  PGR  practice  for  innovative  investment  and  planning,  would  yield  dividends  for  the  College  as  a  whole.  PGR  strategic  planning  needs  to  begin  making  changes  immediately,  and  build  that  future  researcher  ambition  year  on  year  towards  2023.        Carol  Watts  July  2015    I  would  like  to  thank  Katherine  Bock  and  the  Research  Students  Unit  for  their  assistance  in  compiling  this  Review,  and  Mara  Arts  in  particular  for  collating  material  from  meetings.      

                                                     

  91  

 9.  Summary  of  Recommendations  

   Immediate  Action    

-­‐ appoint  a  PVM  PGR  -­‐ establish  an  integrated  Postgraduate  Research  Office  (PRO).  Scope  for  two  

posts  in  the  first  instance,  one  to  lead  operations  delivery  and  management  and  the  other  to  develop  the  future  researcher  agenda    

-­‐ make  available  immediate  resource  to  establish  the  BGRS  online  as  a  major  window  on  Birkbeck  (given  timing  of  DTC  scrutiny  this  is  paramount)  and  identify  how  it  is  to  be  maintained  and  resourced  going  forward.  Staffing  via  PRO  and  web  team  prioritization,  getting  informed  advice  and  web  design  with  an  eye  to  benchmarked  institutions.  

-­‐ Total  PGR  web  pages  across  the  College  as  a  whole  should  be  reviewed,  brought  up  to  the  same  level  as  the  new  BGRS,  and  made  consistent  

-­‐ establish  a  BGRS  steering  group;  consider  best  use  of  student  representation  to  integrate  PGR  input  

-­‐ initiate  completion  rate  action:  Birkbeck  needs  to  monitor  the  position  here  actively  and  gather  information  from  sector  on  submission  and  completion;  sharpen  delineation  of  expectations  including  online  information;  confer  on  progress  and  monitoring  best  practice  via  RSSC  

-­‐ essential  prioritizing  of  work  on  College  systems  so  that  PGR  funding  information  is  centrally  available  and  connected  to  students,  with  consideration  of  a  new  account  coding  system,  and  corresponding  central  work  on  SITS.  Systems  support  :  initial  estimate  would  be  at  least  0.8  from  a  combination  of  3-­‐4  staff  in  Planning  and  Business  Systems/Corporate  Information  Systems  for  12  -­‐18  months.  This  is  to  review,  consult  on,  design  and  implement  (including  training)  a  centralised  system  for  holding  research  student  data.  2.  Coding  system  (may  be  possible  over  summer),  consultation  in  progress.  

-­‐ establish  a  clear  annual  planning  timetable  for  the  communication  of  Birkbeck  funding,  and  its  advertising  via  an  augmented  central  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  once  established.    

-­‐ Move  on  the  studentship  position  for  this  year  so  that  massed  up  Birkbeck  funding  advertising  goes  out  as  early  as  possible  in  the  autumn.  Coordinate  with  School  advertising  and  web  information.  Location  of  advertising  and  its  implementation  need  to  be  agreed.  

-­‐ Set  out  timetable  for  action  and  implementation  and  ensure  it  is  meshed  with  REF  and  DTC  planning  

 QA:  Regulations,  Processes,  Management  and  Support  (15/16  ahead  of  QA  visit  in  2017)    

-­‐ to  update  the  College  Code  of  Practice  on  Postgraduate  Training  and  Research  for  Research  Degrees  in  the  light  of  the  future  researcher  model  

  92  

-­‐ to  establish  a  corresponding  future  researcher  mission  document  for  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  and  ensure  this  and  related  narratives  are  reflected  on  web  pages  across  the  College  as  appropriate  

-­‐ embed  student  lifecycle  as  a  means  of  testing  practice  and  articulating  Birkbeck  procedures  and  provision  

-­‐ create  Birkbeck  PGR  handbook  with  articulation  of  the  future  researcher  journey  

-­‐ use  the  annual  reporting  at  the  RSSC  to  share  information  about  completion  rates  and  progress  monitoring  

-­‐ consider  PGR  data  on    ‘information  on  subsequent  employment  destinations  and  career  paths  of  research  students  who  have  received  the  qualification’  

-­‐ discuss  wider  issues  around  submission/completion  targets  -­‐ The  HESA  stats  and  Research  Output  UKPI  discussions  need  

understanding  in  the  context  of  REF  PGR  strategy.    -­‐ Writing  up  -­‐    review  current  position,  perhaps  establish  maximum  and  

exceptions  for  extenuating  circumstances  -­‐ consider  review  and  consistency  of  Supervisor  training  provision  

including  best  practice  -­‐ create  a  supervisor  handbook  -­‐ include  reporting  of  details  about  the  take-­‐up  and  development  of  PGR  

skills  and  training  in  the  RSSC  standing  item  on  DTCs  -­‐ review  admissions  process  including  application  forms  -­‐ produce  knowledge  of  range  of  practice  on  upgrading  -­‐ Tier  4  monitoring  for  PGR  students  needs  reviewing  -­‐ Appeals  process  needs  reviewing  with  regard  to  examiners’  role  as  

arbiters  -­‐ Review  student  representation  across  the  College  and  include  student  rep  

on  RSSC.  -­‐ establish  a  College  mechanism  for  response  to  PRES  so  that  its  findings  

inform  planning  and  active  engagement  is  communicated  -­‐ to  consider  Library  representation  on  research  committees  

 Student  PGR  Provision  and  Training/  BGRS  (2015-­‐17)    

-­‐ establish  deliverable  FT  and  PT  portfolio(s)  of  PGR  experience,  skills  and  training,  which  might  draw  together  resource  to  mitigate  a  two-­‐tier  system  generated  by  DTC  funding.  The  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  can  be  adapted  to  local  specialist  and  disciplinary  iteration  as  appropriate  

-­‐ use  the  RDF  framework  to  assess  and  communicate  the  range  of  Birkbeck  training  and  skills  provision  

-­‐ identify  the  core  training  and  skills  that  should  be  included  within  the  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  on  an  annual  basis  from  a  range  of  providers  and  make  appropriate  resource  available,  to  be  managed  by  the  Postgraduate  Research  Office  and  overseen  by  BGRS  steering  group,  reporting  to  RSSC  

-­‐ Rename  generic  skills  Researcher  Development  Skills  (RD  Skills)    

  93  

-­‐ make  available  online  at  BGRS  a  central  calendar  of  departmental/School  training  and  skills  timetables  with  contacts,  so  that  students  can  access  a  wider  range  where  appropriate  

-­‐ connect  the  BGRS  provision  with  the  careers  portal  and  add  a  PGR  channel  

-­‐ coordinate  with  Institutes  and  Centres  in  their  development  of  key  specialist  PGR  training  and  related  events,  with  representation  on  the  BGRS  steering  group  

-­‐ coordinate  the  Researcher  Development  Portfolio  with  the  student  journey,  so  that  departments  and  programmes  can  consider  the  pacing  of  training  and  skills  as  appropriate  across  the  duration  of  study  

-­‐ ask  students  engaged  in  innovative  DTC  and  other  RCUK  training  to  report  on  this  for  BGRS  news  

-­‐ continue  to  define  the  Birkbeck  offer  to  the  BPSN  and  inform  supervisors  and  staff  as  well  as  PGR  students  about  its  operation  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  training  needs  

-­‐ consider  the  assessment  of  training  needs  by  student  and  supervisor  and  the  best  mode  of  delivery  of  training  needs  analysis  eg.  a  TDF  form  with  supervisor,  or  online  research  log  tool,  with  reference  to  other  models  in  the  sector;  and  discuss  its  relation  to  annual  monitoring  processes  

-­‐ draw  all  PGR  students  into  the  Birkbeck  community  via  the  BGRS:  Birkbeck  postgraduate  conference;  use  of  Science  Week,  Arts  Week  etc  to  showcase  PGR  research  

-­‐ consider  whether  there  should  be  expectations  about  the  number  of  hours  or  other  measure  committed  to  training/skills  annually,  and  to  be  aware  of  DTC  expectations  across  the  range  

-­‐ consider  the  priorities  of  programme  provision:  the  scheduling  of  day-­‐time  and  evening  training  and  events  meaning  that  not  all  can  access  the  PGR  offer  uniformly;  flexible  modes  of  delivery  for  those  who  are  time-­‐poor  

-­‐ consider  the  particular  needs  of  international  students  in  the  context  of  full-­‐time  study  with  more  explicit  articulation  of  provision  within  the  narrative  offered  to  international  students  would  be  advantageous.  

-­‐ consider  the  development  of  Postdoctoral  appointments  for  six  months  after  completion,  to  maintain  the  future  researcher  route;  use  of  honorary  research  associate  positions  while  developing  applications.  

-­‐ create  PGR  handbook  based  on  future  researcher  journey  -­‐ Careers:  how  does  the  College  address  PGR  employability,  offer  networks,  

maintain  alumni  contact;  what  should  be  the  core  provision  here?    Funding  (2015-­‐17)    -­‐ Consider  rational  governance  framework  for  PGR  funding/finance  

oversight  -­‐ Discuss  oversight/governance  of  DTC  and  other  RCUK  research  training  

funds  and  studentships,  including  philanthropic  funds  -­‐ Growing  collaborative  integration  with  DTCs  needs  anticipation  and  

forward  planning,  including  expectations  about  match  funding,  administrative  costs,  cohort  development  investment,  high  quality  

  94  

training  opportunities;  single  timetable  needs  establishing  for  all  DTC  renewals  and  processes    

-­‐ Any  committing  of  Anniversary  funding  should  also  be  agreed  and  the  criteria  established  at  that  point  so  that  they  can  be  applied  for  and  confirmed  in  the  summer  term,  in  advance  of  the  next  academic  year.  

-­‐ It  is  essential  that  the  College  advertise  the  major  committal  of  funds  and  any  related  opportunities  in  the  early  autumn,  in  order  to  compete  for  the  best  funded  students.  

-­‐ To  consider:  the  recycling  of  PGR  fee  income  for  studentships/GTA  packages/internships  and  the  wider  question  of  PGR  ‘employment’  

-­‐ To  consider:  the  general  parity  of  provision  across  the  College  for  students  on  different  modes  of  study;  and  where  relevant,  what  provision  is  discretionary  and  what  is  free  

-­‐ Continue  targeted  use  of  full  or  partial  fee  waivers  to  bring  in  and  retain  outstanding  students    

-­‐ Maintain  the  central  Researcher  Development  (Generic  Skills)  Budget  set  at  HEFCE  expectations,  to  which  staff  can  bid  each  year,  in  order  to  facilitate  innovations  and  cross-­‐dept  and  cross-­‐School  initiatives;  overseen  by  BGRS  steering  group  reporting  to  RSSC  

-­‐ Increase  the  core  skills  funding  currently  used  to  provide  generic  skills  via  the  BGRS  (currently  just  £8000)  so  that  the  Research  Development  Portfolio  is  anchored  

-­‐ Provide  a  budget  for  the  PVM  PGR  -­‐ Consider  the  use  of  innovation  or  other  funds  to  set  up  public  

engagement,  internships,  placements  and  mentoring  to  support  a  strong  Birkbeck  presence  in  doctoral  consortia  and  distinctive  PGR  profile  for  the  College  

-­‐ Consider  the  position  re:  postdoctoral  funding  strategy  -­‐ establish  clearly  articulated  College-­‐wide  PGR  strategy  for  alumni  

engagement  which  outlines  our  areas  of  priority  –  this  would  enable  funding  for  research  activity  to  be  one  of  the  key  strands  of  a  2023  fundraising  campaign.  

-­‐ To  consider:  the  focusing  of  the  alumni  office  on  PGR  strategic  aims  as  part  of  the  learning  ladder  and  wider  philanthropic  strategy  

 Strategic:  Further  Investigation  (2015-­‐23)    

-­‐ to  consider  the  place  of  this  global  postgraduate  and  post-­‐doctoral  researcher  community  and  its  research  and  professional  profile  in  the  context  of  2023  planning  and  alumni  networks  

-­‐ building  a  specific  network  of  PGR  alumni  who  can  contribute  in  a  variety  of  ways  (profiling,  mentoring,  fundraising)  is  an  option  for  the  years  ahead  

-­‐ to  consider  the  need  for  consideration  of  a  range  of  flexible  postgraduate  options  post  MA/MSc,  including  professional  routes  where  PhDs  are  not  advisable  

-­‐ more  calibrated  understanding  of  the  PGR  market  for  Birkbeck,  with  market  research  in  PGT  and  PGR  share  in  London.    

  95  

-­‐ To  gather  information  about  professional  and  industry  initiatives  including  sponsorship  to  inform  further  strategy  

-­‐ More  detailed  collation  of  information  about  initiatives  across  the  College  with  PGR  international  students  in  specific  view  would  help  strengthen  the  profile  here.    

-­‐ identification  of  areas  of  projected  growth  and  strategic  targeting  of  resources  and  planning  to  capture  FT  and  PT  students  in  those  fields  

-­‐ Are  there  PGR  areas  which  need  building  and  investing  in  across  the  College,  eg  medical  humanities/sciences,  so  that  initiatives  like  ISSF  might  be  built  on,  further  studentships  sought?  How  might  funds  be  targeted?  

-­‐ Further  work  is  needed  here  in  assessing  PGR  facilities  overall  and  space  in  particular,  with  planning  via  estates.  

-­‐ establish  space  and  facilities  for  the  PRO  -­‐ consider  the  registration  and  attachment  of  PhDs  in  fields  of  research  that  

involve  cross-­‐College  communities  and  networks  -­‐ consider  strategic  initiatives  which  would  underline  researcher  training  

distinctive  to  Birkbeck,  including  digital  research  practice,  teaching,  public  engagement  and  forms  of  professional  and  entrepreneurial  practice;  how  might  resources  be  provided?  

-­‐ consider  the  complementary  online  modes  and  platforms  of  delivery  of  training  and  skills  resources    and  maintenance  of  the  consistency  of  the  wider  PGR  pages  

         

  96  

 10.  Appendix  

 A1.  Terms  of  Reference    Over  the  past  two  years,  there  has  been  wide-­‐ranging  debate  within  the  College  over  our  PhD  provision.  The  current  review  is  designed  to  crystallise  this  debate  into  an  agreed  college  strategy  for  postgraduate  research  students,  and  to  initiate  the  development  of  academic  management  and  administrative  structures  to  implement  that  strategy.    The  review  will  be  led  by  Professor  Carol  Watts,  who  has  been  closely  involved  in  research  student  policy  at  an  institutional  level  and  is  Assistant  Dean  for  Graduate  Students  in  the  School  of  Arts.  Administrative  support  will  be  provided  from  the  College  Secretariat,  with  Katharine  Bock  leading,  working  with  Mara  Arts  as  administrative  secretary.  Professor  Stephen  Frosh,  the  Pro-­‐Vice-­‐Master  for  Research,  and  Professor  Matthew  Innes,  the  Vice-­‐Master,  will  be  closely  involved  in  supporting  Professor  Watts,  on  account  of  their  responsibility  for  developing  the  college’s  research  strategy,  and  for  co-­‐ordinating  resource  allocation,  respectively.  The  Dean/School  Manager  of  the  School  of  Science  will  similarly  be  closely  involved  in  formulating  the  review,  to  ensure  that  the  review  addresses  the  distinct  needs  and  strong  track  record  in  lab-­‐based  research.  The  review  will  involve  wide  consultation  across  all  Schools  and  other  individuals  may  be  co-­‐opted  onto  the  review  team  in  addition  to  those  already  named  above.  These  will  include  PGR  ADs  and  Assistant  School  Managers.  Particular  consideration  will  be  given  as  to  how  to  ensure  that  the  research  student  voice  is  heard  in  the  context  of  the  review  and  embedded  in  future  processes.    The  review  will  assess  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  current  practice  across  the  whole  range  of  PhD  provision,  including  training,  research  student  support,  admission  and  administration,  and  funding.  As  well  as  identifying  good  practice  that  might  be  replicated  it  will  be  charged  with  identifying  appropriate  departmental,  School  and  central  responsibilities,  and  reviewing  structures  for  academic  management  and  oversight  of  PhD  provision  across  the  college.  This  broad  remit  flows  from  an  understanding  that  responsibility  for  PhD  students  at  Birkbeck  currently  primarily  sits  in  academic  departments  with  their  disciplinary  specialisms,  with  some  School  and  College-­‐level  infrastructure.  The  aim  is  to  draw  on  existing  departmental  and  disciplinary  strengths,  whilst  ensuring  that  the  College’s  graduate  research  activities  can  continue  to  thrive  in  an  ever-­‐more-­‐complex  environment,  with  research  council  training  and  scholarship  funds  disbursed  through  multi-­‐disciplinary  and  multi-­‐institutional  consortia,  and  that  the  college  needing  to  make  the  most  effective  and  visible  use  possible  of  the  £3M  it  currently  spends  on  PhD  scholarships  and  training  to  strengthen  its  position.  The  review  recommendations  will  contribute  to  strategic  research  planning.    In  particular,  the  review  will  make  recommendations  on  the  following:    

  97  

1) Training,  support  and  mentoring  for  postgraduate  research  students.  Departments  are  currently  the  primary  ‘home’  for  most  research  students,  providing  a  wide  range  of  training,  support  and  mentoring,  both  formal  and  informal,  as  well  as  in  many  cases  discretionary  funding  to  attend  external  events,  conferences  or  programmes,  to  a  varying  level  and  via  varying  mechanisms.  However,  students  in  many  areas  are  also  able  to  access  multi-­‐disciplinary  multi-­‐institutional  doctoral  consortia  funded  by  Research  Councils  to  provide  and  market  bespoke  doctoral  training  programmes,  and  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  also  provides  generic  skills  training  centrally,  as  well  as  disbursing  a  small  %  of  PhD  fee  income  back  to  Schools  to  fund  further  activities  via  a  bidding  process.  The  overall  range  of  opportunities  provided  to  research  students  across  the  college  is  almost  invisible  on  the  college  website  and  prospectus,  and  there  is  no  central  collation  or  information  point,  nor  is  there  a  mechanism  for  the  effectiveness  of  our  current  offer  to  be  monitored  or  for  research  students  themselves  to  feedback  or  be  consulted  in  its  planning.  The  review  will  need  to  identify  the  appropriate  array  of  providers  of  training  and  support  within  and  beyond  Birkbeck,  and  propose  mechanisms  to  collate  and  publicise  information,  co-­‐ordinate  and  monitor  activities,  and  plan  and  review  the  overall  offering  year  on  year.  This  will  involve  clarifying  our  expectations  of  departments,  Schools  and  Birkbeck  Research  Centres  and  Institutes  as  well  as  of  central  provision  including  web  provision;  developing  a  consistent  approach  towards  funding  for  conferences  and  external  training;  and  ensuring  that  research  students  receive  a  clear  and  coherent  statement  of  what  opportunities  are  open  to  them,  which  are  requirements  and  which  discretionary,  and  which  free  and  which  at  an  additional  cost.    

2) The  role  of  the  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  (BGRS).  What  is  its  current  perceived  function,  how  well  does  it  communicate  and  fulfil  it,  what  should  it  be  offering/developing  in  the  new  PGR  landscape.  How  does  the  BGRS  liaise  with  doctoral  training  across  the  College,  what  training  does  it  facilitate.  How  might  the  School  or  central  College  provision  of  this  kind  speak  to  developments  in  the  proposed  Research  Office.  

3) Funding.  Birkbeck  currently  spends  over  £3M  from  a  variety  of  sources  (but  primarily  Research  Councils,  Birkbeck  School  budgets  and  central  College  funding),  but  –  as  with  training  –  the  range  of  funding  available  is  not  centrally  collated  and  advertised,  meaning  that  its  impact  –  both  direct  on  recruitment  and  indirect  on  staff  morale  and  research  environment  –  is  not  maximised.  The  review  will  need  to  identify  a  college-­‐wide  funding  strategy,  involving  not  only  the  management  of  Doctoral  Training  Consortia  and  associated  funding,  but  also  enabling  the  central  collation  and  advertisement  of  other  forms  of  funding  (including  doctoral  projects  embedded  in  research  grants  or  funded  by  philanthropic  donations,  as  well  as  School  and  College  funded  studentships  and  Graduate  Teaching  Assistantships)  and  a  clearer  strategic  overview  of  the  diverse  sources  of  funding  offered  across  the  college.  

  98  

4) Mode  of  study.  As  noted  in  a  previous  paper  to  the  college  Strategic  Planning  Committee  [SPC  NNNN]  whilst  we  classify  postgraduate  research  students  as  full  or  part  time  and  set  fees  and  completion  deadlines  accordingly,  the  patterns  of  study  involved  in  undertaking  a  research  degree  differ  significantly  from  those  of  a  taught  programme,  with  important  differences  between  students  undertaking  a  defined  project,  typically  in  a  lab  environment  or  as  a  part  of  a  wider  research  team/programme  in  the  social  sciences  and  humanities,  and  the  more  self-­‐directed  style  of  study  which  is  typical  of  many  disciplines  in  which  we  have  significant  concentrations  of  research  students.  The  review  will  develop  a  fuller  understanding  of  our  current  research  student  population,  its  patterns  of  study  (mode  of  study  and  incidence  of  Break  in  Studies/Writing  Up  status)  and  differences  by  discipline,  and  by  mode  of  funding  (self-­‐funded  vs  scholarship).  It  will  further  consider  how  Birkbeck  may  wish  to  distinguish  its  PhD  programme  in  the  light  of  developments  elsewhere  (in  particular  the  limiting  of  PhD  places  to  international  students  or  funded  programmes,  and  the  corresponding  decline  in  part-­‐time  self-­‐funded  PhDs,  at  some  major  players),  and  the  possibilities  of  prioritising  distinctions  between  defined  projects  and  guided  research,  and/or  between  funded  and  self-­‐funding  modes  of  study,  rather  than  the  sometimes  artificial  full-­‐time  vs  part-­‐time,  as  a  means  of  articulating  our  distinctive  mission.    

5) Widening  portfolio:  in  the  light  of  4)  we  may  consider  the  current  diversifying  of  the  PGR  portfolio,  including  professional  qualifications,  practice-­‐based  research,  MFAs.  What  is  the  role  of  the  M.Phil,  distance  learning  PhDs  and  PhDs  by  publication.  How  is  the  PGR  environment  informed  by  the  diverse  platform  of  Birkbeck  MA/MScs.  

6) Student  administration.  Once  again,  whilst  acknowledging  that  departments  will  continue  to  be  the  primary  academic  ‘home’  for  research  students,  the  review  will  wish  to  clarify  the  role  of  School  and  College  Research  Student  Committees  and  Birkbeck  Graduate  Research  School  in  monitoring  progression  and  completion.  How  does  the  College  measure  and  monitor    submission  rates  in  the  light  of  HEFCE  norms.  There  are  also  issues  around  cross-­‐School  and  interdisciplinary  supervision  that  urgently  need  exploring.    

7) Supervision:  how  does  the  College  support  supervisory  practice  and  training.  

8) Management  structures.  Following  from  its  other  recommendations,  the  review  will  need  to  consider  what  management  structures  for  PGR  students  should  be  developed.  In  the  recent  past,  the  primary  responsibility  for  research  students  has  sat  with  the  Head  of  the  Graduate  Research  School,  whose  role  has  at  times  been  close  to  that  of  a  deputy  for  the  PVM  for  Research,  or  the  basis  for  a  separate  PVM  portfolio:  the  review  should  scope  the  academic  leadership  requirements,  and  also  consider  the  administrative  and  committee  structure  needed  to  support  that  management  function.  

9) Financial  models  and  incentives.  The  review  may  also  wish  to  consider  the  extent  to  which  the  income  streams  and  costs  generated  by  postgraduate  research  students  differ  from  those  on  taught  programme,  

  99  

what  implications  this  has  for  our  internal  financial  and  resource  allocation  models,  and  whether  incentives  (for  example  recycling  a  part  of  the  income  from  externally  funded  studentships  to  create  additional  studentships)  could  be  developed.  

10) Future  strategic  planning  issues:  what  are  the  pressures  on  PGR  development  in  the  current  research  environment  (employability  via  placements  and  internships,  public  engagement,  impact,  postdoctoral  opportunities;  DTCs  and  international  research  networks  and  PGR  training);  where  do  Schools  want  to  be  in  5-­‐10  years  and  how  does  the  College  incentivise  and  support  desired  initiatives.  

                                                                             

  100  

A2:  Graduate  Research  School  Pages    Kent    

                     

  101  

KCL    

                       

  102  

York    

                       

  103  

 Birkbeck    

   

  104  

                                     

  105  

A3:  Example  of  TNA  form  (Sussex)    

Doctoral Researcher Training Needs Analysis (2014-2015)

Name……………………………………..……….. School…………………… This form will help you to structure and record the formal training needs analysis that you conduct with your supervisor(s) at the start of the academic year and to formulate a strategy to meet these needs. In doing this you will need to consider:

• what will help you in working towards the successful completion of your thesis project

• the advanced training needed to give the required broader base to your knowledge and skills as a researcher beyond the requirements of your immediate project

• other professional, personal and career development skills (as included in the Researcher Development Framework).

Please complete the form electronically and return it to ahrcbgp@sussex.ac.uk 1. Main objectives for the year ahead:

Date

2. What knowledge and skills do you need to develop in order to meet these objectives? Please use the Researcher Development Framework to help you identify your needs.

 Domain  A:  Knowledge  &  intellectual  abilities  Includes  PhD  project  and  other  research  methods  training      

Domain ref (A1,etc)

 Domain  B:  Personal  effectiveness  

Domain ref (B1,etc)

  106  

 

 Domain  C:  Research  governance  and  organisation    

Domain ref (C1,etc)

Domain  D:  Engagement,  influence  and  impact    

Domain ref (D1,etc)

 

 3. What activities are planned to meet these training needs (i.e. what training will you undertake in order to develop these skills)? Here are some places that may help your planning:

• Sussex Doctoral School Researcher Development Programme • Departmental and School based seminars and events (including those outside

your own school) • CHASE run training and events www.chase.ac.uk

 Training planned

Domain ref

4. Unmet needs If you have research training needs which you are unable to meet from the sources available above please contact ahrcbgp@sussex.ac.uk 5. Training Plan agreed

  107  

Supervisor…………………………………………………………….. Date…………………….. Researcher……………………………………………………………. Date…………………….. Please return to ahrcbgp@sussex.ac.uk                                                                                

  108  

A4  Transferable  Skills  and  Monitoring  Form  (ISMB/Biological  Sciences)