Review of the
Panel members
Professor M J P Arthur, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences (MHLS) [Chair]
Dr J A Allen, Director of Education, School of Biological Sciences (SBS)
Dr I G Giles, Associate Dean for Education, Faculty of MHLS
Professor P J Gregson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Professor P A Nelson, Director of
Professor V H Perry, Director of Research, SBS
Dr D Shepherd, Head of SBS
Mrs M A Smith, School Manager, SBS
Professor J E Stevenson, Associate Dean for Research, Faculty of MHLS
Mr R M Tank, Faculty Executive Officer, MHLS (Secretary)
1 Background
Following the 2003/04 strategic planning cycle, the University’s Senior Management Group (now the University Executive Group) asked the Dean of MHLS to undertake a full review of the SBS, with the primary aim of improving the School’s national and international standing in both research and education. An important consideration would be to prepare the School for the next Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
The two main reasons for requesting a review were as follows:
· The importance of biosciences to other parts of the University, both within the Faculty of MHLS and in the Faculty of Engineering, Science and Mathematics
· Concerns about some of the School’s performance data, particularly relatively low “A” level entry scores and flat, or declining, research income in recent years
The review would consider all aspects of the School’s activities including: research activity, income and facilities; degree programmes; student numbers; teaching loads; administration, space and finances.
Full terms of reference for the review are included in Appendix A.
2 Review process
In preparation for the review, each of the School’s three Research Divisions held an awayday in December 2003 and reports of these meetings were made available to the panel. Discussion at these awaydays was focussed on a series of questions prepared by the Head of School (see Appendix B). In addition, the Head of School produced a summary of the main issues facing SBS, with supporting management information. Other documents seen by the panel included:
· Form RA5 from the 2001 RAE
·
Report of a meeting to review
the interactions between the Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
(SBS) and Chemical Biology (
· A list of academic staff
The main part of the review took place over three days in early January 2004. The leadership of each of the Research Divisions was asked to present a SWOT analysis, followed by discussion with the panel. Other members of each Division then met the panel to explore the issues further. Informal lunchtime meetings were held with the School’s technical, research and clerical staff. Members of the panel also met a number of academic staff individually to discuss particular issues and matters of concern.
3 Achievements of SBS
The panel wished to place on record the achievements of the School, in particular the score of 23 in the QAA subject review and a grade 5 in the 2001 RAE. The review process was designed to help the School build on its many strengths and ensure its successful future. The recommendations below should be seen in the context of significant changes that had already occurred within the School.
4 Current
structure of the School (from August 2003)
The SBS was currently organised into three Research Divisions:
· Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (BCMB)
·
Biodiversity and Ecology (
· Cell Sciences (Cell)
The three Heads of the Research Divisions were members of the School’s Policy and Resources Committee (PRC), which also included:
· Head of School (Chair)
· Director of Education
· Director of Research
· Two representative Degree Programme Managers
· School Manager
· School Accountant
Taught degree programmes were clustered into the following six groups, each with a Programme Manager who was a member of the School’s Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC):
· Biology
· Biochemistry
· Biomedical Sciences
· Medical and Paramedical
· Nutritional Science
· Pharmacology
The other members of ASQC were as follows:
· Director of Education (Chair)
· Head of School
·
Head of
· Head of Recruitment
· Associate Dean (Education)
· Teaching Administrator
A diagram showing the whole structure is included as Appendix D.
5 Recommendations
5.1 Culture
change
The panel believed that a change in culture was necessary for the School to fulfil its potential. The main aspects of the new culture were as follows:
The panel recommended that:
· The Head of School should be recognised to have the executive authority to act decisively where necessary.
Ø more equitable and transparent workloads for all staff.
There was overwhelming support from members
of the School for the principle of securing greater equity in workloads, though
there were concerns about how such a system would operate in practice. The
panel recommended that the Head of
School put in place a matrix model of workload management, taking account of
each academic’s teaching, research and administrative duties. The matrix would
be reviewed and refined each year and form part of an active and ongoing
management of workloads. The
The panel recognised that the advantages of closer managerial involvement had to be explained to staff. These included:
· Greater understanding of the work of individual members of staff
· The ability to offer support to colleagues where necessary
· The chance to represent the concerns of a group to more senior colleagues
· Better career development
· More efficient use of resources (staff time, space and equipment)
The School was currently devoting 19% of its total income (one third of its HEFCE income) to space charges – some £1.2m a year. This figure was considerably higher than for most other Schools in the University. Space was an important resource, which had to be balanced against other demands on the budget, notably staff costs.
The panel recommended that the School undertake a major space review to determine precisely who was responsible for each part of the building and what charges were attached to that space. The School should then establish a committee, chaired by the Head of School, to monitor and review the use of space. The School might also wish to devolve space budgets to Research Groups (see 5.2 below), though the administrative costs associated with such a move had to be taken into account.
The School was currently spending about £500k a year of HEFCE income on equipment. The panel recommended that, wherever possible, research equipment, maintenance and replacement costs should be funded from research grants and not HEFCE income, as was common practice elsewhere in the University. This would free up HEFCE recurrent income to invest in the future strategic direction of the School.
5.2 Integration
of research activities
The panel recommended that the School be re-structured into the following Research Groups:
· Developmental and Cell Biology
· Ecology
· Microbiology (an area for possible future growth, in collaboration with the School of Medicine and the School of Ocean and Earth Science)
· Neurosciences
· Plant Sciences
· Structural Biology (in its widest context)
Each academic would have a primary affiliation to one Group, but this did not preclude collaboration with colleagues in other Groups where appropriate.
The aim of the re-structuring was to encourage greater flexibility and inter-disciplinary research – in the School, across the Faculty of MHLS and with research groups elsewhere in the University. It would signal a departure from research organised according to specific disciplines, techniques or technologies, with the prime emphasis placed instead on solving scientific problems. It was expected that greater emphasis on inter-disciplinary research would lead to more successful research grant applications and thus create a virtuous cycle by securing increased funding.
The second advantage of smaller Groups was that they would be more manageable, in line with the recommendations in section 5.1.1 above.
5.2.1 Process for change
The School Management Committee would match all academic staff to a Research Group, on the recommendation of the Head of School. Staff who had concerns about their allocation to a particular Group would have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Head of School. However, final decisions about where staff would sit in the new structure would rest with the Head of School.
Each Research Group would be managed by a senior member of staff, appointed by the Head of School, following a process of consultation. A clearly defined job description for the role should be developed. Chairs of Research Groups would receive the necessary training and support for their roles and would be appointed for a limited period, with the possibility of one renewal.
The Chairs of Research Groups, with the Head of School and Director of Research, would form a new Research Committee, with responsibility for the following:
· Formulating the School’s research strategy
· Interactions with other Schools within the University, to promote major research initiatives (e.g. the Life Science Interface)
· Taking a view of research funding from outside bodies, including Research Councils, the UK government, the EU and major charities
· Having oversight of School-wide research facilities
The panel recommended that, as part of the re-structuring process, technical and clerical support for academic staff should be reviewed. In particular, it was felt that line management issues among technical staff must be addressed, to ensure equitable workloads and to create better career development opportunities.
5.2.2 Other ways of encouraging integration
The panel identified a number of other ways in which greater integration of staff across the School could be encouraged. These included:
· The creation of a coffee room
· A series of School-wide seminars
· School Awaydays, at least once a year
· Greater integration of post-doctoral research staff
· School-wide, cross-Group, research studentships
5.3 Educational
provision
5.3.1 Establishment of a separate Education Group
The panel debated the pros and cons of establishing a separate Education Group, alongside the Research Groups. This worked well in the School of Medicine and elsewhere in the Faculty of MHLS. Advantages included:
· Raising the profile of education and helping to ensure parity of esteem with research
· Giving interested staff the opportunity to specialise in educational issues and to become expert in current debates about quality assurance and enhancement
· The creation of alternative career paths for staff whose prime interest was in education rather than research
Disadvantages included:
· The danger of “education-led” staff losing touch with research and thus becoming disengaged from other key activities in the School
· The possibility that the Education Group would lack the focus and common purpose of the Research Groups
The panel concluded that, on balance, it would not be advantageous to form a separate Education Group at this time. Staff who were not research-active would join one of the Research Groups listed above and could take particular responsibility for educational initiatives within the School. Where possible, such staff would be supported to develop or enhance their research profile for the next RAE
5.3.2 Undergraduate curriculum
The panel recommended that the School undertake a fundamental review of its undergraduate curricula, with the aim of making the degree programmes more modern and distinctive, with a more streamlined programme delivery. It was expected that such a review would lead to a reduction in the total number of degree programmes – a process that the School had already begun.
The review should take account of the University’s commitment to student-centred, research-led education. The following questions should therefore inform the debate:
· What were the future growth areas for undergraduate education in the biological sciences?
· What were the expected impacts of developments within the 11-18 curriculum?
· How did the undergraduate curricula reflect and build on the principal research interests of the School?
· If an undergraduate programme did not reflect such an interest, what justification was there for continuing to teach it? (Cf. University’s corporate strategy)
· What would be distinctive about the biological science degree portfolio at Southampton?
· How would the introduction of variable tuition fees (assuming this happened) affect student expectations of a University education? How would the School position itself to meet these expectations?
· How well did the undergraduate curricula prepare students for employment afterwards? How marketable would SBS graduates be?
The review should also embrace:
· The future of the Nutritional Sciences degree (in consultation with the School of Medicine)
· Mechanisms for student support across the School, with the aim of unifying practice for pastoral support and tutorials, and ensuring a common regulatory framework for all undergraduate degree programmes.
The Director of Education would lead the process of review, in consultation with the Programme Directors and other colleagues within the School.
A curriculum plan should be produced by May 2004 and the School should work towards implementing the new curricula by the start of the 2005/06 session.
5.3.3 Postgraduate programmes
As longer-term objectives, the panel recommended that the School should:
· Aim to attract greater numbers of well-qualified postgraduate research students and ensure that they were integrated into a vibrant postgraduate community
· Consider the creation of a larger number of Masters level programmes
· Aim to recruit more international PGR and PGT students
5.3.4 Service teaching
The panel recommended that service teaching for other Schools should only be undertaken when there was a sound academic reason for doing so. Agreements should be reached through bilateral discussions with other Schools concerned, as part of a managed process and subject to the agreement of the Head of School. If it was not possible to reach agreement with another School, the matter should be referred to the Faculty Strategy and Policy Group for resolution.
6 Timetable and next steps
The panel recommended that the School should move as rapidly as possible to implement the proposals in this report. Key milestones included:
· Immediate allocation of staff to Research Groups (January 2004)
· The appointment of Chairs of Research Groups and the establishment of a Research Committee (January 2004)
· The creation of a new curriculum map (May 2004)
The School should also produce a detailed action plan with other target dates. Advice should be sought immediately from the Human Resources Department about contractual issues affecting staff, periods of consultation, and due process.
The panel also recommended that the School establish an Advisory Group, with representatives from employers and other universities, to review the full range of education, research and enterprise activities within the School. The Group would meet once or twice a year, once the new structure was in place.
The panel further recommended that the School review the new structure after two years of operation.
Appendix A: Terms of reference of the review
· In response to the outcome of the 2003/2004 strategic planning cycle, SMG (now UEG) requested that the Dean of MHLS undertakes a full review of the School of Biological Sciences with the primary aim of improving the school’s national and international standing in both research and education. An important consideration will be to prepare the School for the upcoming RAE.
· The Review will conducted by a Panel comprising the Dean of MHLS, Head of School, Director of Research, Director of Education, School Manager, the Associate Deans (MHLS) for Education and Research, Head of School from another Faculty (Prof. Phil Nelson, ISVR) and a DVC (Prof. Peter Gregson). The Panel will be chaired by the Dean of MHLS and supported by the Faculty Executive Officer.
· The Review will consider all aspects of the School’s activities including: research activity, research income, research facilities, degree programmes, student numbers, teaching loads, administration, space and finances. The review will take place during this session and will provide a written report for UEG by February/March 2004.
The aims of the Review are to:
· Define a clear focus for the School's activities, to identify areas and approaches that have been successful upon which to build and to identify failings and recommend a clear strategy to remedy them. This will ensure that the strengths and successes of the school are identified to provide the focus necessary to:
a) Improve the School’s research performance and raise both its profile and rating.
b) Develop the School’s profile in education, and raise its rating.
· Consider the School’s Divisional and/or management structures and, if necessary, to reconfigure them to achieve the focus and synergies required for improved performance in research and education
· Consider the Schools degree programmes to ensure that they are appropriately matched to delivering research-led, student-centred, education. Proposals to alter programmes or to start new ones will be considered in the light of an analysis of the market for such programmes and of the costs involved in delivery.
· To develop and advise on implementation (through the annual appraisal process) of agreed workload and performance criteria for all categories and grades of staff.
· To assess and improve the local implementation of the annual appraisal process so that it becomes the cornerstone of an equitable, effective and user-friendly process for individual career development.
Conduct of the Review
· The Review will be evidence based. A detailed analysis of management information relevant to the School’s activities will be conducted. The management information will include: research applications and awards, publication profile (best 4 publications from each member of staff since Jan 1st 2001), central research facilities, application and admission statistics, teaching loads, class sizes, administration loads, number and deployment of technical and clerical staff, and space usage. Where possible, the Review will be benchmarked by comparison with datasets from other Schools and HEIs.
· Data will be analysed by Division, Research Group and individual to provide a detailed image of research and teaching performance and to identify the areas of success and weakness within the school. This analysis will also identify where a balance or imbalance exists between teaching and research.
· The Review will use the benchmarked information in conjunction with the Career Pathway and Job family process to establish expected workload and performance norms for all grades and categories of staff in the School. Specifically, this will involve contextualisation of the Job Family Career Pathways Booklet for the School. This will set the expected workload and performance standards for all categories of staff in the School and provide the independent metrics needed for the fair and objective assessment of individual staff performance.
· The Review will audit central research facilities for annual turnover and usage as a prerequisite for a more managed approach to running and developing the research infrastructure. This will seek to optimise ease of use and to maximize their research effectiveness.
· Each Head of Division will receive a performance analysis and relevant management information for their Division from the Review Panel. To ensure full involvement of staff, Heads of Division will meet with their staff to discuss the performance analysis and to prepare a response. The Divisions will be asked to respond to questions arising from the Review Panel’s analysis, to perform SWOT or similar analyses and to present their view of the best strategy for their future.
· The Review Panel will hold a one-day meeting with each Division. Each meeting will also consider relevant cross-cutting issues that affect the entire School. The meeting will involve the Review Panel with appropriate involvement of any research groups and educational programs that are relevant to the Division. The aim will be to explore the results of the performance data and to discuss and develop strategic plans and conclusions.
· The Review Panel may wish to call further meetings to address cross-cutting School wide issues in further detail. The need for such meetings and their content will be formulated during the review process.
· The conclusions of the Review Panel will be formulated into a single report for the School. The report will summarise the results of the analysis and provide clear recommendations. Each Division will be asked to consult with all staff and to comment on the report.
· At the end of the Review and after consideration of the responses of each Division to the initial conclusions and recommendations, the Review Panel will provide a final report to UEG. This final report will be circulated to all members of the School.
· This report will provide the framework of the strategic plan for 2004/2005. The report will also include a recommended set of workload and performance criteria for all categories and grades of staff.
Joint developments with Chemistry
In the case of the Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology there will be a review of the specific interactions between it and Chemical Biology (School of Chemistry). The aim is to establish if there are areas of common interest and to explore ways of developing and sustaining a world class biochemistry/chemical biology activity at Southampton. The first phase of this aspect of the review has recently been completed and the Dean of MHLS is preparing a report that will be made available to the review panel once it has been seen and agreed by the participants from the Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Chemical Biology, both Heads of School and the Deans of ESM and MHLS.
Appendix B: Questions prepared by Head of School
for Awaydays in December 2003
