Senate 20 May 2015

Report from Senate Review task group

1. Introduction and background

In December 2014 recommendations arising from a review of Senate and its committees (the “Arnold report”) were broadly endorsed by Senate and a task group was established to develop detailed proposals. The task group comprised the Acting Vice Chancellor (Chair), the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), the Deputy Registrar, the Head of the Quality and Enhancement Office and two members of Senate (Dr Jacqueline Leigh and Professor Nigel Linge) and it reported to Senate in February 2015. Its proposals at that point included an increase the number of Senate members drawn from the academic community; putting the focus of Senate on strategy and enhancement; the establishment of five sub-committees of Senate and committees at School level to link with these; and the establishment of PGR award boards at School level.

Following the February Senate meeting the task group was asked to develop further the proposals and to respond to points raised in discussion. The task group has sought feedback from Schools and their responses are reflected below.

This report covers the outcomes of the consultation following the February Senate meeting (section 2, below), a diagram of the revised structure, (appendix 1) and proposed dates for Senate meetings in 2015/16 (appendix 2). The amended constitution for Senate and the constitutions and terms of reference for its senior committees (ASQAC, REC, SELTEC and EC) have previously been presented to Senate but are re-presented here for completeness, alongside the proposed terms of reference of sub-committees and School committees (appendices 3, 4, 5).

2. Outcome of consultation following February Senate meeting

2.1 Whether there should be a Senate committee focusing on International Priorities sub-strategy

Respondents agreed that international activity (direct inward FTE, distance learning, TNE, as well as internationally collaborative research) should sit, from the perspective of academic governance, alongside the equivalent non-international activity, and that a separate international committee of Senate was not warranted. The International Priorities strategy will be reported on at Senate as Senate’s prime focus will be on achievement of the academic strategies but, as for the Academic Growth and Diversity strategy, this will not require a dedicated committee. There is support for there being a management group which brings together those involved with international activity to have oversight of all activities, develop the strategy and disseminate good practice. The group would report in to University Management Team as required and would refer any matters needing committee approval to the relevant committee.

1

2.2 Process for appointing elected members to Senate and its committees The proposal supported by Senate was that an election would be held for the overall grouping of Senate and its committees who would then then allocated to Senate or one of its committees. To do this, as part of the election process colleagues will be invited to express a preference as to the committee they would like to serve on. This will be taken into account when officers and Chairs consider the balance needed on each committee in terms of academic area, skills, experience, gender etc. The process will include discussions with the appointed members. It should be noted that the committees have much greater delegated power under the new model and that the right skills and experience on these committees are therefore even more important than previously. Respondents supported this approach. A further point made in the consultation was that Associate Heads/Deans should be ex officio members of relevant committees. The task group has, however ,taken the approach that there should be fewer ex officio members of committees in order to open up membership more widely, but that for the ‘two members per School nominated by Heads of School’ on Senate committees Heads of School, in looking at the experience needed for the particular committee and the linkage with the related School committee and functions, may well nominate Associate Heads/Deans

2.3 School ethics committees to include a chair independent of the School

Respondents supported the principle of an independent Chair but there was feedback also from one School on the appropriateness of ethical approval being delegated to Schools. Taking the balance of feedback into account, the task group proposes that ethical approval for taught and research programmes is situated within Schools. It further proposes that the independent chair is drawn from a pool of suitably experienced academic staff nominated by Heads of School.

2.4 Director of PG Research should be ex officio on University Ethics committee Supported.

2.5 ‘How elected members will be able to help shape the agenda of the proposed committees of Senate’

Respondents supported the position that members will be able to propose items for discussion to the Chair but that agendas for all committees will be ultimately driven by their terms of reference. They will receive input which is both top down (from the parent committee) and bottom up (from School level committees). The role of the elected members is to ensure that the committees consider matters appropriately within the ToRs and bring to the discussion their experience from within different parts of the University and elsewhere.

2

2.6 Consider nature of upward reporting to Senate (minutes or report) and clarity on where approval is taking place (boundaries of authority)

Respondents supported the proposal that the committees and the Senate should use an objective-oriented style for presentation of business with clear direction as to whether an item is being recommended for approval (ie the junior committee does not have it in its power to make that decision) or is for information. The nature of the assurance report will develop as the planning processes and the strategies develop. In the first stage it is anticipated that extracts from minutes will go as a report to the Senate.

2.7 Differentiation between roles of School v Senate level ethics committees

The differentiation is that the School is giving ethical approval for specific activities; the University is determining principles and has oversight (for consistency) of School ethics committees. One School expressed the view that it is not necessary to have a University Ethics Committee as codes of ethics are set down by PSRBs and research councils, but the function of the University Ethics Committee would be to determine ethical positions at a higher level for the University, for example as to whether it should work with particular industries or partner with particular organisations.

2.8 Draft models of combined School-level committees where separate committees are not

appropriate

Respondents agreed that some flexibility is required to meet the needs of different sizes and shapes of Schools and that there should be a combined ASQAC/SELTEC at School level. The view was expressed by one School that Postgraduate Awards Boards should be located at University level rather than School. The task group noted that previous concerns regarding a possible delay in PGR completion occasioned by the ratification of awards at University level had been obviated due to clarification that the point of completion is deemed to be submission of the research thesis rather than the ratification of the award. On reflection the task group agreed with the feedback received and proposes a single, University-level postgraduate research awards board.

The following models for School committees were supported:

2.8.1 three committees

Quality and Student Experience Committee (SQSEC) Research and Enterprise Committee (SREC) Ethical Approval Committee (SEAC)

2.8.2 two committees

Quality and Student Experience Committee Research and Enterprise Committee/Ethical Approval Committee (with distinct parts of the agenda to cover the business)

3

2.8.3 three committees with the Ethical Approval Committee shared with other school/schools

Quality and Student Experience Committee Research and Enterprise Committee Ethical Approval Committee (shared)

2.9 Draft ToRs and constitutions for School level committees

Respondents suggested some (minor) changes to the Terms of Reference for School level committees and these have been taken into account. It was further suggested that the SOM be a member of the School committee and in line with the approach for other professional services staff the SOM has been added as ‘in attendance’.

2.10 Draft ToRs and constitutions for sub-committees

No adverse comments were received on the following proposals for sub-committees of Senate committees:

• University Standing Panel

It is proposed that the overall pool of staff eligible to serve on the panel be expanded and that the title be amended better to reflect its activity. Rename as Programme Approval and Review Panel

• Collaborative Provision and Partnerships Sub-Committee (and two existing Sub-committees for accredited partners The Manchester College and Blackpool and the Fylde College) This sub-committee recommends to ASQAC the processes for managing CP, proposals for new institutional partners and specific collaborative links. It is proposed that there is additionally a partnership forum for affiliated partners, but not as a decision making body.

• Student Evaluation Strategy Group Although this was included in the recommendations of the “Arnold report” the task group proposes not to have this as a sub-committee but to continue to work as a task and finish group on NSS and other survey (eg PTES, DLHE), with the embedded work then going on in Schools

• An Academic Regulations sub-committee, reporting to ASQAC and REC, has been added

4

2.11 Request for a Postgraduate Research sub-committee of Research and Enterprise Committee

The task group sought views on whether the work of the PGR sub-committee is distinct from that of its parent body, the Research and Enterprise Committee, in that both provide University level oversight of PGR provision. Only one respondent expressed a view- that the proposed PGR sub-committee of REC appeared to be the equivalent of an SSC for PGR students. The view of the task group is that the parent committee should not delegate PGR student matters to a sub-committee as REC should consider the interests of PGR students fully alongside research and enterprise matters. In addition, the task group noted that the existing PGR forum will continue as a relatively informal group to review practice and generate new ideas to inform PGR strategy and operation.

APPENDICES

1. A diagram of the Senate committee structure 2. Proposed dates of Senate and its committees in 2015/16 3. Constitution of Senate and constitutions and terms of reference for ASQAC, SELTEC, REC,

EC, PRAB 4. Constitutions and Terms of reference of sub-committees (PARP, CPPC, ARSC) 5. Constitutions and Terms of reference of School level committees

5

Appendix 1

6

Appendix 2 Proposed dates of Senate and its committees 2015/16

Committee Reports to

SENATE 2 December 2015 Council 3

2 March 2016 Council 4

18 May 2016 Council 6

ASQAC

7 October 2015 Sen1

13 January 2016 Sen2

13 April 2016 Sen3

1 June 2016 Sen1, 2016/17

SELTEC 21 October 2015 Sen1

27 January 2016 Sen2

20 April 2016 Sen3

15 June 2016 Sen1, 2016/17

REC 4 November 2015 Sen1

10 February 2016 Sen2

27 April 2016 Sen3

29 June 2016 Sen1, 2016/17

7

Appendix 3

Constitution of Senate

1. Current Senate constitution:

Ex officio (16) Vice Chancellor (Chair) 1 Chair of Academic Audit and Governance Committee (Deputy Chair) 1 Deputy Vice-Chancellor 1 Pro Vice Chancellors 4 Heads of School 7 Dean of Students 1 Director of Salford Languages 1 University Staff (12) Staff appointed 6 Staff elected by and from the academic staff 6 Students (2) Nominees of the Students' Union Trustee Board 2 (Normally one Undergraduate and one Postgraduate student) Total (30)

2. Revised Senate constitution:

Ex officio (13) Vice Chancellor (Chair) 1 Deputy and Pro Vice Chancellors 4 Heads of School 7 Dean of Students 1 University Staff (18) Staff appointed 6 Staff elected by and from the academic staff 12 Students (3) Nominees of the Students' Union Trustee Board from amongst the sabbatical officers 3 Total (34)

[Note: A change to the ordinances will be required to effect this, via Council]

8

Committee ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE (ASQAC)

Reports to SENATE

Purpose The Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Committee is responsible on behalf of Senate for policies, procedures, regulations and frameworks relating to:

• academic quality assurance and management • academic standards and the design and management of the curriculum • the admission of students

in relation to all taught programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) leading to University awards or credit, including those involving collaboration with partner organisations, and pre-sessional English programmes.

Terms of Reference i. To determine policy governing the admission of students, including general entry requirements and the recognition of prior learning and to oversee the approach to assuring the completeness, accuracy and reliability of information provided for applicants and students.

ii. To determine and keep under review the approach to the curriculum framework, the academic year and all associated academic regulations and procedures.

iii. To determine and oversee arrangements for the approval, amendment, review and withdrawal of taught provision, including programmes involving collaboration with partner organisations.

iv. To determine and oversee operation of effective arrangements for monitoring and assuring the quality and standards of all taught provision, including that involving partner organisations.

v. To determine and oversee arrangements for the assessment of students, including Assessment Boards, External Examining, invigilation and moderation.

vi. To guide and oversee preparations for relevant external reviews and engagements and to advise the Senate on the University’s response.

vii. To monitor the effectiveness of the processes for accreditation of programmes by PSRBs.

viii. To be responsible for the Academic Audit process.

ix. To consider and report to Senate on such matters as may be referred to the Committee.

ASQAC will make recommendations to the Senate on the following:

x. the approval of any new award to be offered by the University

xi. The approval of any major new policy in relation to academic standards and quality assurance

9

Membership

Ex officio (1) Deputy Vice Chancellor (Chair) 1 Appointed (16) Representatives from each School nominated by the Head of School 2 per School Student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board 2 Elected (2) Staff elected by and from the academic staff 2 Co-opted (upto 2) Members of staff co-opted by the Committee Total (21) In attendance Deputy Registrar 1 Head of the Quality and Enhancement Office 1 Head of UK Partnerships 1 Serviced by staff from the Quality and Enhancement Office

Frequency of Meetings

At least three times per year

Sub-committees/ Panels

Collaborative Provision and Partnerships Sub-committee School Quality and Student Experience Committees (reporting also to SELTEC for student experience matters) Programme Approval and Review Panel Academic Regulations sub-committee (reporting also to REC for postgraduate research degree regulations)

Further information

10

Committee STUDENT EXPERIENCE, LEARNING, TEACHING AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE (SELTEC)

Reports to SENATE

Purpose The Student Experience, Learning, Teaching and Enhancement Committee is responsible on behalf of Senate for the development, review and implementation of learning and teaching policies and the improvement of the student experience on taught programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) leading to University credit or qualifications and on pre- sessional English programmes.

Terms of Reference i. To determine policy and procedures and oversee arrangements for the quality of the student experience, including the delivery of curriculum, the provision of learning support and the development of the virtual learning environment

ii. To monitor student retention, progression, achievement and employability and to determine measures to improve them

iii. To determine policy and oversee arrangements for the systematic collection of student feedback and for the monitoring and improvement of student satisfaction with the learning experience

iv. To determine and have oversight of the effectiveness and enhancement of mechanisms for student engagement and representation.

v. To provide direction and promote the dissemination of innovation and best practice in learning and teaching

vi. To consider and report to Senate on such matters as may be referred to the Committee.

SELTEC will make recommendations to the Senate on the following.

vii. The approval of any major new policy in relations to student experience, learning, teaching and enhancement.

Membership

Ex officio (1) Dean of Students (Chair) 1 Appointed (16) Representatives from each School nominated by the Head of School 2 per School Student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board 2 Elected (2) Staff elected by and from the academic staff 2 Co-opted (2) Members of staff co-opted by the Committee Total (21) In attendance

11

Deputy Registrar or nominee University Librarian Head of the Quality and Enhancement Office Director of Student Life Serviced by staff from the Quality and Enhancement Office

Frequency of Meetings

At least three times per year

Sub-committees/ Panels

School Quality and Student Experience Committees (reporting also to ASQAC for quality and standards issues)

Further information

12

Committee RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE (REC)

Reports to SENATE

Purpose The Research and Enterprise Committee is responsible on behalf of Senate for the development and enhancement of research and enterprise and the setting and maintenance of academic standards of research programmes leading to the University’s qualifications and for the quality of postgraduate research student experience.

Terms of Reference

i. To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the University

Research and Enterprise strategy

ii. To determine and oversee the development of the Research Award Regulations.

iii. To determine policy and procedures and oversee arrangements for the approval, amendment, review and withdrawal of research degree programmes, including those involving collaboration with partner institutions.

iv. To monitor admissions to research degree programmes within Schools and any conditions upon or discretions accorded to candidates and the annual student progression and achievement;

v. To oversee supervisory and assessment arrangements for candidates;

vi. To work in collaboration with other Senate committees to ensure a consistent approach to matters affecting students or research ethics.

vii. To monitor, analyse and disseminate outcomes from the postgraduate research student evaluation of their learning experience and to review the effectiveness and enhancement of mechanisms for collecting postgraduate research student feedback.

viii. To promote innovation and good practice in research and enterprise and to monitor and evaluate research initiatives across the University.

ix. To monitor and advise Senate on the development of staff research and enterprise activity and researcher development and the development of research leadership.

x. To advise Senate on ways in which research and innovation can influence teaching.

xi. To facilitate the dissemination of good practice.

13

xii. To assist in the identification and referral of academic staff development needs.

xiii. To consider and report to Senate on such matters as may be referred to the Committee. REC will make recommendations to the Senate on the following:

xiv. The approval of any major new policy in relation to research degree policies and regulations.

xv. The approval of any amendments to the University’s Research and Enterprise Strategy

Membership Ex officio (1) Pro Vice Chancellor Research and Enterprise (Chair) 1 Director of Postgraduate Research 1 Appointed (16) Representatives from each School nominated by the Head of School 2 per School Student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board 2 Elected (2) Staff elected by and from the academic staff 2 Co-opted (2) Members of staff co-opted by the Committee. Where a specific need can be identified against the business of the Committee the Chair may identify one co-opted member (of the two) who is external to the University.* Total (21) * where business relates to individual student or staff data the meeting may be restricted to University of Salford staff only In attendance Director of Research and Innovation University Librarian Serviced by staff from R&E

Frequency of Meetings

A minimum of three times per year

Sub-committees

School R&E Committees

Further information

14

Committee ETHICS COMMITTEE (EC)

Reports to SENATE AND COUNCIL

Purpose The Ethics Committee is responsible on behalf of Senate and Council for the University’s ethical framework and for development, implementation and monitoring of policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines in relation to ethical issues. The Committee also has oversight of the operation of ethical approval at School level.

Terms of Reference

1. To develop an ethical framework for the University, to be approved by Council

2. To ensure that institutional policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines take appropriate account of ethical issues and area consistent with the University’s ethical framework

3. To ensure the effective operation of School level ethical approval for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes, postgraduate research programmes, and academic staff research activity, in accordance with agreed institutional policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines.

4. To provide assurance annually to Senate on the effectiveness of the operation of School level ethical approval for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes, postgraduate research programmes, and academic staff research activity.

5. To promulgate awareness of institutional policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines including ensuring appropriate and adequate training and development.

6. To ensure institutional policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines take cognisance of and appropriately reflect ethical guidance provided by professional bodies, funding councils and other national bodies.

7. To formulate institutional responses to national and international developments relating to ethical issues.

8. To undertake the development, publication and review of criteria to be applied to research sponsorship.

9. To consider and report to Senate and Council on such matters that may be referred to the Committee in relation to ethical matters.

10. To ensure that Council, though Senate, is apprised of the effective operation of the above arrangements in support of Council’s overall responsibility for ethical governance.

15

Membership Chair: lay person, to be determined by the Chair of Council Ex officio (3) Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Enterprise 1 Deputy Vice-Chancellor 1 Director of Postgraduate Research 1 Appointed (2) Members of Council Appointed (9)

Representatives from each School nominated by the Head of School 1 per School Student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board 2 Elected (2) Staff elected by and from the academic staff 2 Co-opted up to 2 The Committee may co-opt up to two members from outside the University with relevant and appropriate expertise Total 19 In attendance Registrar or Deputy Registrar 1 Director of Research and Innovation 1 University Secretary 1 Serviced by staff from R&E

Frequency of Meetings

At least three times a year

Sub-committees/ Panels

School Ethical Approval Committees

Further information

16

Committee POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH AWARD BOARD (PRAB)

Reports to SENATE

Purpose

The Postgraduate Research Award Board approves the progression and conferment of the award of qualification for postgraduate research programmes, and monitors progression and completion rates on the same.

Terms of Reference

i. To confirm progression on postgraduate research programmes. ii. To confer awards on postgraduate research programmes.

iii. To confirm shortened full-time duration of candidature on doctoral level awards, other than Professional Doctorates.

iv. To confirm transfer to another research award or termination of candidature or progression on a research programme.

v. To make recommendations to Senate on the conferral of posthumous postgraduate research awards.

vi. To report to Senate on student progression and achievement, including completion rates, on postgraduate research programmes.

Membership

Ex-officio (1) Director of Postgraduate Research (chair) (1) Appointed (9) Representatives from each School nominated by the Head of School; 1 per School (7) Student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board (2) Total (10)

Panels

Board of Appeal Student Disciplinary and Student Disciplinary Appeal Panel Fitness to Practise Panel/Appeals Panel

Frequency of Meetings

At least four meetings per year, timed against student entry and exit points.

Further information

Serviced by Research and Enterprise

17

Appendix 5

Committee PROGRAMME APPROVAL AND REVIEW PANEL (PARP)

Reports to ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE (ASQAC)

Purpose The role of the PARP is to ensure that a threshold level of quality is achieved when a course is first approved and that the quality has been maintained and improved upon when the course is presented for re-approval at Periodic Programme review.

The Programme Approval and Review Panel approve the academic case for proposals for programme approval and major amendment after approval by a sub-group of the University Management Team of the business case.

Terms of Reference i. To approve the academic case for proposals for programme approval and major amendment.

ii) To consider Periodic Programme Review and Re-approval.

iii) To oversee the programme withdrawal process.

Membership The University PARP is a broad group of members from across the University selected from nominations made by Heads of School, with members normally serving for a number of years. The Panel includes a number of members appointed to the role of Chair.

Individual Approval and Review Panels will be drawn from the membership of the PARP and constituted in accordance with the University’s approved processes for programme approval and review.

Frequency of Meetings

The full PARP will meet at least once a year for briefing and discussion and to share practice.

As noted above, Panel members will be appointed for particular events (for the academic approval of programmes, major programme amendments and consideration of periodic programme reviews and re-approvals approval and review events) and will meet as required for these.

Panels None.

Further information

Serviced by the Quality and Enhancement Office.

Please refer to the Programme Design, Review, Approval, Amendment and Withdrawal Policy in the Academic Handbook.

18

Committee COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AND PARTNERSHIPS SUB-COMMITTEE (CPPSC)

Reports to ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE (ASQAC)

Purpose The Collaborative Provision and Partnerships Sub-Committee advises the Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Committee on the approval of partners and partnerships, both UK and international.

Terms of Reference i) To consider and recommend to the Academic Quality and Standards (ASQAC) procedures for the approval of new partners and for the management of collaborative provision taking cognisance of the QAA Quality Code.

ii) To consider and recommend to ASQAC proposals for new partnerships in the UK and overseas following outline approval of the same by [for discussion]

iii) To consider proposals for specific collaborative arrangements with approved UK and overseas partners.

Membership Nominee of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Chair) (1)

One Representative from each School (7)

In attendance:

Finance (1)

QEO (1)

Sub-committees/

standing groups

The Manchester College Accreditation sub-committee; Blackpool and the Fylde College Accreditation sub-committee

Panels None.

Further information Serviced by the Quality and Enhancement Office.

19

Committee ACADEMIC REGULATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE (ARSC)

Reports to ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE (ASQAC) and RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE (REC)

Purpose The Academic Regulations Standing Group advises Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Committee and the Research and Enterprise Committee on the approval and review of the Academic Regulations for Taught and Postgraduate research programmes respectively.

Terms of Reference i. To consider and consult on proposals for change to the Academic Regulations for Taught and Postgraduate Research Programmes, having regard to the maintenance of academic standards and the fulfilment of national sector and professional expectations.

ii. To recommend to ASQAC on an annual basis the Academic Regulations for Taught and Postgraduate Research Programmes for implementation during the following academic year.

iii. To make proposals to ASQAC for a review of the Academic Regulations for Taught and Postgraduate Research Programmes on a periodic basis.

Membership Nominee of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Chair) (1)

Dean of Students (1)

Director of Postgraduate Research (1)

1 academic representative from each School (7)

Student nominee of the Students’ Union Trustee Board (1)

In attendance:

Representatives of the Student and Academic Support Directorate (2)

Sub-committees/

standing groups

None

Panels None.

Further information Serviced by Quality and Enhancement Office

20

Appendix 6

Committee SCHOOL QUALITY AND STUDENT EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE (SQSEC)

Reports to University ASQAC and SELTEC as appropriate

Purpose

School Quality and Student Experience Committee oversees matters relating to academic quality, standards and enhancement of the student experience and of all taught programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) leading to University awards or credit, including those involving collaboration with partner organisations, and, where relevant, pre-sessional English programmes.

Terms of Reference

i. To monitor and manage the quality of the student experience, including the delivery of curriculum, the provision of learning support, the development of the virtual learning environment and the assessment of students.

ii. To monitor and manage the quality and standards of all taught provision, including that involving partner organisations.

iii. To monitor student retention, progression, achievement and employability and to determine measures to improve them.

iv. To consider reports from key postholders on External Examiner reports and Programme Monitoring and Enhancement Procedure (PMEP).

v. To ensure arrangements for the systematic collection of student feedback and for the monitoring and improvement of student satisfaction with the learning experience.

vi. To consider reports from staff/student committees and Joint Boards of Study. vii. To consider proposals for the approval, amendment, review and withdrawal of taught

provision, including programmes involving collaboration with partner organizations. viii. To ensure the effective operation of processes for (re)accreditation of programmes

by PSRBs and other bodies. ix. To foster development of interaction between teaching and learning, research and

innovation and academic engagement. x. To advise School Executive and to provide it, where appropriate, with management

information on pertinent issues relating to academic quality, standards and enhancement of taught programmes.

xi. To facilitate the dissemination of good practice within the School. xii. To report as appropriate to University Academic Standards and Quality Assurance

Committee (ASQAC) and University Student Experience, Learning, Teaching and Enhancement Committee (SELTEC) to ensure that the quality procedures within School are in accordance with the requirements of Senate.

xiii. To assist in the identification and referral of academic staff development needs.

Membership

Head of School or Nominee (Chair) (1)

Appointed No fewer than five members of academic staff to include at least one director or equivalent (5)

Nominated A representative of the University Library (1) A representative of IT Services (1) Two student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board (2)

Total (11)

21

In attendance

School Operations Manager

Frequency of Meetings

At least once a term.

Panels None

Further information

Serviced by the Quality and Enhancement Office.

Main Inputs/Documentation Received Source

Programme Monitoring and Enhancement Procedure summary reports (including issues raised by External Examiners)

Summary reports on Staff/Student Committees issues

Summary reports on Joint Boards of Study issues

Reviews of subject-specific marking criteria and their relationship to University grade descriptors

Matters referred by ASQAC and SELTEC

School Executive

School Executive

School Executive

School Executive

ASQAC and SELTEC

22

Committee SCHOOL RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE (SREC)

Reports to UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE (REC)

Purpose

School Research and Enterprise Committee is responsible on behalf of University Research and Enterprise Committee for the quality, standards and enhancement of postgraduate research programmes, and for the development and enhancement of research and enterprise with the School and relevant Research Centres.

Terms of Reference

i. To foster development of interaction between teaching and learning, and research and enterprise.

ii. To facilitate the dissemination of good practice in research and enterprise within the School.

iii. To report as appropriate to University Research and Enterprise Committee to ensure that quality procedures within the School are in accordance with the requirements of Senate.

iv. To assist in the identification and referral of academic staff development needs. v. To monitor admissions to research degree programmes within the School and

any conditions upon or discretions accorded to candidates. vi. To monitor supervisory arrangements for candidates.

vii. To monitor, analyse and disseminate outcomes from the postgraduate research student evaluation of their learning experience and to review the effectiveness and enhancement of mechanisms for collecting postgraduate research student feedback.

viii. To advise the School Executive and to provide it, where appropriate, with management information on pertinent issues relating to the academic quality, standards and enhancement of research programmes.

ix. To work in collaboration with other School committees to ensure a consistent approach to matters affecting students or research ethics.

x. To advise the School Executive on the strategic development of Research and Enterprise activity.

Membership

Head of School or nominee (Chair) (1) Appointed No fewer than five members of academic staff to include Research Centre Directors (variable) Nominated Two postgraduate research student nominees of the Students’ Union Trustee Board (2) In attendance School Operations Manager

Frequency of Meetings

At least once a term.

Panels None.

Further information

Serviced by Research and Enterprise

23

Main Inputs/Documentation Received Source

Admissions to Research Programmes including recommended conditions or discretions for approval Supervisory arrangements for admitted candidates for approval Annual progression reports (by both staff and candidate) Development of research and enterprise activity Matters referred by Research and Enterprise Committee

Head of School on the recommendation of the Associate Head (Research) Associate Head (Research) Postgraduate Research Awards Board Research Centres Research and Enterprise Committee

24

Committee SCHOOL ETHICAL APPROVAL COMMITTEE (SEAC)

Reports to ETHICS COMMITTEE (EC)

Purpose

School Ethical Approval Committee oversees the ethical approval of the School’s activities in learning and teaching, research, engagement and enterprise on behalf of Ethics Committee. School Ethical Approval Committee receives reports from the School Research, Enterprise and Engagement Ethical Approval Panel and the School Ethical Approval Panel for Taught Programmes.

Terms of Reference

i. To implement and monitor the effective operation of School-level ethical approval for undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes, postgraduate research programmes, and academic staff research, engagement and enterprise activity, in accordance with agreed institutional policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines.

ii. To advise UEC on the development of University policy and procedures on ethical approval.

iii. To advise School Executive and to provide it, where appropriate, with management information on pertinent issues relating to the governance and management of ethical approval.

iv. To determine individual applications for ethical approval exceptionally referred by School Research, Enterprise and Engagement Ethical Approval Panel, by School Ethical Approval Panel for Taught Programmes or by another School Ethical Approval Panel.

v. To provide a forum for the exchange of good practice and information between the School Ethical Approval Panel for Taught Programmes and the School Research, Enterprise and Engagement Ethical Approval Panel.

vi. To ensure the provision of training for staff and students on Ethical Approval.

Membership

Appointed Chair from other than the home School (1) (Chairs to be appointed from a pool of academic staff nominated by the Heads of School for their expertise and knowledge in matters relating to ethical approval) Chairs of the two School Ethical Approval Panels (2) No fewer than two members of academic staff from the home School (2) A student nominee of the Students’ Union Trustee Board (1) Total (7) In attendance School Operations Manager

Frequency of Meetings

At least twice a year

25

Panels School Ethical Approval Panel for Taught Programmes School Research, Enterprise and Engagement Ethical Approval Panel

Further information

Serviced by Research and Enterprise

26