Is ‘Quality’ a Beleaguered Concept? The Place of Quality Audits in a PBRF Environment

1. Is ‘Quality’ a Beleaguered Concept? The Place of Quality Audits in a PBRF Environment Gareth Jones

2. Introduction Striking contrasts Quality audit on teaching and teaching programs no repercussions for individual staff emphasis on processes and claims of the institution PBRF evidence of research status of institution significant financial implications for institution ranking of individual academic staff emphasis on outcomes

3. Introduction Uneven battle Why bother about quality in teaching? Doesn’t research bring status and recognition?

4. Introduction Effects of RAE in UK - chasm between research and teaching Asymmetry between teaching and research institutionalised by external reward systems If we downgrade teaching, are we negating a basic tenet of research-led universities?

5. The centrality of quality Used ‘quality’ in very narrow sense - to apply to teaching alone and teaching-related activities Concept of quality applies to everything we do: research as much as teaching Speak another language in research area

6. The centrality of quality Link between all teaching and research should be provided by quality Should never be content with first-rate research and mediocre teaching, or with first-rate teaching and mediocre research Hallmark of illustrious universities is that they are outstanding in teaching and research

7. The centrality of quality 2006 Guardian table assessing teaching quality, staff-student ratios and graduate job prospects Top 10 places: • Oxford • Cambridge • LSE • UCL • Imperial College • SOAS • KCL • Warwick • Bath • Bristol

8. Living with asymmetry Status and financial rewards are far greater in case of research than teaching How do we take quality seriously in the relatively poorly rewarded area of teaching? Major distinction between RAE and PBRF

9. Living with asymmetry In PBRF research rewards are outcome driven In academic audits teaching rewards are process driven

10. Living with asymmetry What one wants to see are good processes that lead to good outcomes On the surface, neither quality audits nor PBRF encourage both parts A dual emphasis upon teaching and research will not be driven by externally imposed reward mechanisms: institution has to establish its own ethos

11. Role of processes • Confirmation (individual; T+R) • Promotion (individual; T+R) • Departmental reviews (academic unit; T+R) • Professional accreditation (course; T+R) • Student Opinion Surveys and Graduate Opinion Surveys (academic unit; T) • Postgraduate supervision (individual; T+R) • Whole institution academic audit (institution; T+R)

12. Role of processes • PBRF (individual and unit: R)

13. Role of processes What rewards accompany these processes? • Confirmation (individual enhancement) • Promotion (individual enhancement and status) • Departmental reviews (feedback and self-improvement) • Professional accreditation (continued existence of professional course) • Student Opinion Surveys and Graduate Opinion Surveys (feedback and self-improvement) • Postgraduate supervision (feedback and self-improvement) • PBRF (status; financial rewards)

14. Role of processes Imagine an institution that decided to place little store by internal processes and placed all its emphasis on research and PBRF Would the institution’s reputation be enhanced by its research emphases to such an extent that it could get away with what might be very poor quality teaching?

15. Role of processes Cannot get away with poor quality teaching: 1 an institution’s standing in the eyes of quality agencies is far from insignificant 2 accreditation of professional courses is crucial to those courses and the students in them 3 students wield considerable influence; student dissatisfaction with teaching and courses will result in long-term loss of EFTS and a drift from those areas

16. Why have processes that link teaching and research? Our processes take account of both teaching and research Teaching alone, in the absence of any research component, including research into teaching, is untenable at a university that aspires to research-led teaching. Conversely, research alone, in the absence of any teaching, has major limitations for staff employed to interact with students

17. Why have processes that link teaching and research? Outcomes are critical in all cases Congruence between high quality research and high quality teaching: the research-teaching nexus is crucial Quality is not a beleaguered concept, even in a PBRF environment, because it is common to both teaching and research

18. 2006 academic audit Focus is entirely on teaching-related matters; teaching quality, program delivery, and the achievement of learning outcomes

19. 2006 Quality Audit Improvement initiatives (central to teaching) 1 Induction and support of HODs (RES) 2 Development of a best practice data base (RES) 3 More effective use of data from student and graduate opinion surveys (RES) 4 Foster formative methods of evaluating courses 5 Celebrating success in supporting Mäori students 6 Ensuring primary supervisors are research active (RES) 7 Development of generic workload models (RES)

20. 2006 Quality Audit Improvement initiatives (central to teaching) 8 Integrate Graduating Year Reviews into the University’s review processes 9Undertake strategic benchmarking activities (RES) 10Integrate external accreditation and internal review processes more closely 11 Formalisation of mentoring for junior supervisors (RES) 12 Review the PhD progress reporting system and confirmation processes (RES) 13 Support more students to be awarded top external scholarships (RES) 14 Rationalisation of the graduate attributes

21. 2006 academic audit “By rewarding research excellence … PBRF reinforces collegiality within an institution, and strengthens teaching. PBRF encourages research productivity, as well as quality, which in turn allows frequent peer review and public presentation and further promotes collegiality.” Geoff White

22. 2006 Academic Audit Collegiality is central This is a problem with the academic unit and also with PBRF. A teaching-driven academic audit tends to drive a wedge between teaching and research, while PBRF can become far too individualistic.