QUALITY ASSURANCE AND STANDARDS OF RESEARCH
-
Upload
central-university-of-tamilnadu-thiruvarur -
Category
Education
-
view
57 -
download
1
description
Transcript of QUALITY ASSURANCE AND STANDARDS OF RESEARCH
1
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND STANDARDS OF RESEARCH
K.Thiyagu, Assistant Professor in Mathematics,
Tamilnadu.
[email protected], [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of higher education is to pave the way for students to
move from the known to unknown by application of knowledge, through
innovative thinking and creative practices. The universities serve this purpose
by providing the platform for generation and dissemination of knowledge.
Generation of new knowledge essentially involves research. Research, the
scientific investigations aimed at discovering and applying new facts, new
techniques and natural laws involves the use of existing tools and equipment
in nonconventional ways, or designing new tools in the effort to unearth
information from hitherto unexplored areas of knowledge. This activity
requires two disciplined approaches. Firstly, the tools need to be used
effectively with predetermined good practices to generate reliable data. This
brings in the need to assure quality in all data generation practices. Secondly,
the researcher needs to evaluate the generated data exploring new links and
associations, through exercise of the mind. The higher education systems
provide the background necessary for the students to learn through their own
research experiences. Schemes to assure quality in research and mechanisms
to assess the research quality form an important component in making the
higher education more meaningful and globally competitive.
2
DESIGN OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM
In our approach to design a quality assurance system for research in
India, the sequence of events in research was divided into the following three
major areas.
1. Quality of research proposals and grant applications
2. Research process
3. Dissemination and utilization of research findings and cost benefits of
research
Of the three areas, the first get reviewed externally by peers in
recommending the grant applications for funding. The second area, the
research process requires internal attention to minimize the risk of research
output being compromised by poor research practices. The quality in the third
area is assessed through external peer reviews in accepting research results for
publication and patenting or success in commercialization of research findings
generating an impact in the society directly or indirectly. The key elements
necessary to be addressed in the three areas to assure quality were identified
and a ranking system for each of the elements based on their effect on quality
were established. The marks obtained in the ranking system are proposed to be
used to establish a star grading system applicable to research groups or
departments in the universities.
Quality of Research Proposals and Grant Applications
Many scientists owe their greatness to their wisdom in choosing the
research problems and development of a hypothesis through inductive logic.
3
Research proposals provide information on background leading to selection of
the problem, the use of formulated
methods providing the opportunity for the reviewers to critically examine the
merit of the proposal and suggest means to improve the quality, including
other related aspects such as ethics, national relevance, the competency of the
applicants and cost benefits. To evaluate the quality of research in a research
team in relation to proposals or grant applications the following four success
criteria were used.
Funds secured by researchers during the last three years from external
agencies and within the university
The extent of utilization of the secured funds to achieve the purpose
proposed in the grant application effectively
Entry in to agreements with external organizations and industries to
generate demand driven research
The Research Process
The practice of research at all levels carries inherently with it a certain
amount of chaotic activities, resulting in frequent back-tracking and repetition
steps. While these events form an essential part of innovations at times, they
need to be kept under checks and controls with maintaining traceability for the
research results to be repeatable, and meaningful. This needs application of
quality assurance techniques right along the research process. The quality
assurance requires a combined effort of the researchers and the research
management system in the universities. The responsibilities and related
4
activities in a progressive research system could be identified under two broad
areas as management responsibilities and technical responsibilities. The extent
to which a research group and a university fulfill the responsibilities reflects
the presence of mechanisms to assure quality.
The requirements for successful implementation of management
responsibilities in research were identified under the following elements.
Freedom for the research group to handle research data with no
external influence
Commitment of the senior management and research staff to operate a
quality management system effectively
Well defined and documented responsibilities for members of research
group and management in line with the qualifications of persons
Planned regular discussions and meetings among the researchers and
with managers and application of preventive and corrective measures
to ensure quality in generation of data
Application of measures and guidelines in relation to publication policy,
patenting and intellectual property rights and ethics.
The plan for a research management system in the universities with
responsibilities identified broadly at each level is given in below diagram.
PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR
RESEARCH MANAGEMENT IN THE UNIVERSITIES
University Council
5
[Policy]
Vice Chancellor and Director, Research & Development
[Implementation of Research Policy]
Senate
[Academic Standards & Recognition]
Senate Research Committee
[Overall Quality of Research & Support Services]
Dean and Faculty Research Committee
[Quality Assurance in Research]
Head & Department Research Groups
[Relevance, Academic Standards, Support Services]
Research Scientists & Students
The technical responsibilities in assuring quality of research were
identified under four major areas. The areas and the related elements are as
follows.
a) Environmental control (to ensure the equipment used are maintained
under required conditions to generate reliable data with records of
environmental conditions and actions taken when the system goes out
of compliance)
b) Measurement traceability (To ensure that the results generated are
linked to the international system of measurements through calibration
6
of equipment, software and use of standard reference materials so that
the generated results could be compared globally with findings of other
researchers)
c) Sampling and sample handling (To ensure no errors are introduced in
generation of information due to biases arising due to non homogenous
nature of analyses or differences in behavior or nature of human
subjects used in research; transport and storage are done to retain the
characteristics of samples; the disposal of test samples are done with
concern on possible environmental effects)
d) Document control and documentation (To ensure internationally
validated data generation systems and test methods are used with
appropriate checks and controls, and all records of the methods used
and results obtained are available providing traceability allowing
review and re-examining the data. This information need to be
adequate for repeat performance of data generation under similar
conditions).
Dissemination and utilization of research findings and cost benefits of
research
7
This aspect of research gets reviewed externally through a series of
activities. The proposed quality assurance system examines the following
aspects.
a) Publications of recognized standing during the a period of three years
by the research groups
b) Patents and other activities that have resulted in commercial
exploitation of the results
c) Social benefits resulting from research findings
d) Strengthening of the higher education and research systems through
award of PhD degrees.
e) Recognitions gained in the form of national or international awards for
research by the research groups
This study has established a mechanism to create a dialogue between the
researchers and the assessors during assessment, and introduce a scheme that
would permit gradual improvements in quality as the research teams move up
in the star grading system progressively. The checklist developed for the
purpose will be discussed in length during the presentation.
WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STANDARDS OF RESEARCH
Selection, admission and induction of students
Admissions procedures will be clear, consistently applied and will
demonstrate equality of opportunity: Institutions will make clear and accurate
admissions information readily available to applicants and staff involved in the
admissions process. Institutions are advised to make this information available
8
on their web site and in printed form. Institutions should also make provision
for staff responsible for admissions to be aware of and understand legal
requirements relating to the processes and the need to conform to such
legislation.
Only appropriately qualified and prepared students will be admitted to
research programmes: Students will be expected to have a sufficient level of
English language competence. This should be identified by a process that is
consistently applied by the institution. Evidence of prior professional practice
or learning that meets the institution’s criteria and good practice guidelines for
the accreditation of prior experiential and/or certificated learning
The entitlements and responsibilities of a research student undertaking
a postgraduate research programme will be defined and communicated clearly:
The institution's offer to successful candidates for research degrees will
normally be expressed in a formal letter that is specific to the individual
applicant. This constitutes a contract between the student and the institution.
The terms of the letter are binding on the institution and, upon acceptance, on
the student. The letter will normally refer to or enclose other information, for
example references to institutional web pages, supplemented by printed
information where necessary.
Institutions will provide research students with sufficient information
to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic
and social environment in which they will be working: Institutions will ensure
that an induction programme, the timing and content of which reflects the
9
diversity of needs of specific groups of research students (including part-time
and newly arriving international students), is delivered at the most appropriate
levels (institution/faculty/school/department, or a combination).
Supervision
It is important to establish systematic and clear supervision
arrangements. These include: the need to provide students with opportunities
for access to regular and appropriate supervisory support; encouragement to
interact with other researchers; advice from one or more independent source
(internal or external); and arrangements that protect the student in the event of
the loss of a supervisor. These four principles are covered in more detail by
the following precepts. They provide a framework for the minimum standards
required by institutions in providing supervisory arrangements for research
students.
Institutions will appoint supervisors who have the appropriate skills
and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students
effectively: All supervisors need appropriate expertise for their role. They will
wish, and institutions will require them, to engage in development of various
kinds to equip them to supervise students. New supervisors will participate in
specified development activities, arranged through their institutions, to assure
their competence in the role. Institutions will expect existing supervisors to
demonstrate their continuing professional development through participation
in a range of activities designed to support their work as supervisors.
Supervisors should take the initiative in updating their knowledge and skills,
10
supported by institutional arrangements that define and enable sharing of good
practice and provide advice on effective support for different types of student.
Mentoring relationships are one example of how support can be provided for
supervisors. To assure consistency of supervision, institutions will wish to
encourage supervisors working in industry or professional practice to
participate as appropriate in any developmental activities offered by the
institution.
Feedback mechanisms
Collecting and acting upon feedback from students, staff, examiners
and others involved in research programmes is a fundamental part of the
quality assurance process, at institutional and subject levels. Institutions will
put in place mechanisms to collect, review and, where appropriate, respond to
feedback from all concerned with postgraduate research programmes. They
will make arrangements for feedback to be considered openly and
constructively and for the results to be communicated appropriately.
Institutions will wish to establish and operate constructive feedback
procedures that are as representative as possible of the views of all those
involved.
Assessment
Assessment processes for research qualifications are quite different
from those for taught awards and usually include some kind of oral
examination. The following three precepts and explanations address the most
important elements of assessment for research students and qualifications.
11
Institutions will use criteria for assessing research degrees that enable them to
define the academic standards of different research programmes and the
achievements of their graduates. The criteria used to assess research degrees
must be clear and readily available to students, staff and external examiners.
Student representations
It is in the interests of students and institutions to resolve problems at
an early stage. To facilitate this, institutions should ensure that students and
staff know the difference between informal ways of making representations
and routes they can use to make formal complaints or appeals. It is also
important to distinguish between complaints, which are defined as being
representations about general matters (including conduct), and appeals, which
are against specific outcomes or decisions. Institutions are advised to develop
their own definitions of complaints and appeals, and generally to assure
themselves that staff and students are aware of the different types of
representations and procedures. Institutions will put in place and publicise
procedures for dealing with student representations that are fair, clear to all
concerned, robust and applied consistently.
Conclusion
Application of the star grading system is expected to assist in gradual
improvements of the quality of research in the institutes of higher education
contributing to enhancement of the capabilities of the graduates through a
healthy interactive process. We joined together to maintain and develop the
research in higher education in the future perspectives.
12
References
Augusti, G., 2006, ‘Trans-national recognition and accreditation of
engineering educational programmes in Europe: perspectives in a
global framework’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(3),
pp. 249-260.
Becher, T and Trowler, P (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories:
Intellectual Enquiry and The Culture of Disciplines, Buckingham,
Open University Press/SRHE, 2nd. Ed.
Boele, E. B., 2007, Handbook on Internal Quality Assurance for
Conservatoires (Utrecht, AEC Publications).
Capano,G., 2007, ‘Looking for serendipity: the problematical reform
of government within Italy’s Universities’, Higher Education,
forthcoming.
Cavanagh, R. R., 1996, ‘Formative and Summative Evaluation in the
Faculty Peer Review of Teaching’, Innovative Higher Education, 20,
4, pp. 225-240.
Conrad, C. F., Johnson, J. & Gupta, D. M., 2007, ‘Teaching-for-
Learning (TFL): A Model for Faculty to Advance Student Learning’.
Innovative Higher Education, 32, 2, pp. 153-165.
Darling-Hammond, L., 1986, ‘Teacher Evaluation in the
Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature’, in House, E.R.,
(Ed.) New Directions in Educational Evaluation (London, Taylor &
Francis).
Darling-Hammond, L., 2006, ‘Assessing Teacher Education: The
Usefulness of Multiple Measures for Assessing Program Outcomes’,
Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 2, pp. 120-138.
Harvey, L., 1995, ‘Editorial: The quality agenda’, Quality in Higher
Education, 1(1), pp. 5–12.
Harvey, L. & Newton, J., 2004, ‘Transforming Quality Evaluation’, in
Quality in Higher Education, 10 (2), pp. 149-65.
13
Hutchings, P., 1996, ‘The Peer Review of Teaching: Progress, Issues
and Prospects’, in Innovative Higher Education, 20, 4, pp. 221-234.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B., 1991), ‘Complex,
performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria’,
Educational Researcher, 20(8).
Malik, D. J., 1996, ‘Peer Review of Teaching: External Review of
Course Content’, Innovative Higher Education, 20, 4, 277-286.