Notes of meeting held on 27 June 2002 - copied to:
SSRU RSAC members; SSRU Secretary (Joanna Seecharan); Dean of Doctoral School (Prof Ingrid Lunt); IoE Registry (Wendy Barber); and (in edited form) Research Students registered at SSRU;
PRESENT: Priscilla Alderson, Chris Bonell, George Ellison (SSRU Research Tutor and Chair), Ann Oakley, Sandy Oliver and Sandra Stone.
1 RSAC Governance
George reported that the Institute now requires every school/unit to have a
Research Student Advisory Committee, and that the following policy had been
adopted by SSRU's UMC and PRC (excerpt from SSRU's staff handbook):
"In 2002 the Sub Board for Research Degrees endorsed the recommendation that the Institute should re-instigate the arrangement whereby MPhil/PhD students have an appointed advisory committee to oversee their progress during their studies. This practice was already operating in some parts of the Institute and had also been endorsed by the ESRC and QAA. The aim of establishing advisory committees for all MPhil/PhD is to ensure consistency across all Schools/Units and to help support supervisors by providing more opportunities for students to obtain feedback and assistance. The composition of the advisory committees will be left to each School's Research Committee. Until such time as the numbers of MPhil/PhD students increase and make the arrangement unwieldy, SSRU will have a single combined advisory committee (called the Research Students Advisory Committee - RSAC) to address the needs of all its students, each of whom is supervised by one or more of the committee's members. The committee may in the future appoint staff from elsewhere in the Institute, or exceptionally (and where no expertise is available within the Institute), staff from another college of the University of London. The composition of the committee will be:
Chair: SSRU Research Tutor (GE)
Secretary: SSRU Research Administrator (SS) - maintain student records, including
copies of students' training plans, annual reviews, upgrading statements and
associated correspondence (including correspondence with external examiners);
draft, circulate and disseminate minutes to SSRU RSAC members, the Dean of Doctoral
School, IoE Registy and (edited as necessary to withhold any closed business,
such as the assessment of annual review or upgrading statements) to all SSRU
research students.
Members: SSRU Research Student supervisors (PA, CB, GE, AO & SO)
SSRU's research students should know the names of members of SSRU's RSAC and will receive a copy of the minutes of RSAC meetings (edited as necessary to withhold any closed business, such as the assessment of annual review or upgrading statements). SSRU's research students will not normally meet with or consult the RSAC unless this is arranged through their supervisor, although they are encouraged to do so (by contacting either the Unit's Research Tutor [GE] or the Unit Director [AO]) if they are unable to resolve a disagreement with their supervisor(s).
SSRU's RSAC will communicate by email throughout the year but will ordinarily meet in person only once a year, 4 weeks before the deadline for the submission of annual review report forms (in 2002 this deadline was 31st July). At this meeting the RSAC will act on the following list of responsibilities (a list that is intended to act as a standard agenda for the RSAC's annual meeting, as highlighted in bold below ):
(i) to review and update RSAC Governance and for the Research Tutor to feedback
to the committee any changes to the administration of research students approved
by the Research Degrees Programme Board during the preceding year. Any changes
to RSAC Governance which need to be included in SSRU's Staff Handbook should
be minuted as such and highlighted in the copy forwarded to SSRU's Unit Secretary
(Joanna Seecharan), who is responsible for updating the handbook.
(ii) to check and update the SSRU and IoE Student Databases held by the RSAC
Secretary (SS) and IoE Registry (Wendy Barber) respectively - making sure that:
details of new students who register are included and are accurate; the status
of supervisors (main and second) are accurately recorded; and periods of full-
and part-time registration are correct (as well as periods during which registration
was suspended - all of which are critical for monitoring successful progression
to completion within the recommended time period, and for establishing what
fees are due). The RSAC should also consider and approve any changes in supervision,
particularly when supervisors go on study leave, leave the Institute or become
long-term sick.
(iii) to coordinate the Annual Review process - the RSAC Secretary (SS) soliciting
draft annual review forms from students and supervisors at least 2 weeks before
the committee meets, so that these forms can be passed on for review by the
Research Tutor to one* other RSAC academic member (who is NOT one of the student's
supervisor) before the RSAC meeting, where either any concerns can be raised
for discussion and action (by the Research Tutor or other reviewer) or, in the
absence of any concerns, the forms can be approved, copied and forwarded to
Registry. *For those students for whom the Research Tutor is a supervisor, TWO
other RSAC academic members should review the annual report forms and provide
feedback at the meeting.
(iv) to assist with the review and approval of Upgrading statements - usually
by appointing two RSAC academic members, but occasionally appointing one RSAC
academic member and another member of academic staff at SSRU, (NEITHER of whom
should be one of the students' supervisors) to read and provide constructive
feedback on the student's upgrading statement. Within SSRU the RSAC will favour
upgrading statements which include a plan of future work* and two draft, work-in-progress
'chapters' which lend themselves for later inclusion in the thesis (rather than
a separate/discrete document that might not readily contribute to the thesis,
and might therefore deflect attention/time/effort). Ordinarily these two 'chapters'
would comprise one based on background (i.e. methods/data collection/review),
the other on findings (i.e. analysis/interpretation/discussion). *The plan of
future work should comprise a detailed outline of any future data collection
and analyses, as well as a draft structure for the thesis as a whole. Since
students are only permitted two attempts at upgrading, SSRU's RSAC encourage
students and their supervisors to submit draft upgrading statements for review
and feedback by two independent members of the RSAC prior to the formal submission
of their upgrading statement. Ordinarily students would then revise their upgrading
statements before formally re-submitting these and presenting an upgrading seminar
to colleagues within the Institute organized at SSRU.
(v) to assist in the nomination of suitable Internal and External Examiners
- who should be qualified to comment on methods and/or substance of the student's
work, and should through by way of their academic reputation help accredit the
quality of the student's work. The appointment of examiners is formally a responsibility
of the University of London which is coordinated by IoE's registry following
recommendations from each student's supervisor(s) and their RSAC.
(vi) to provide support to the supervisor and student, and to deal with Any
Other Business that might affect research students or their supervision within
SSRU or the Institute as a whole."
ACTION: SS to notify all students about the formation of the RSAC, and to forward a copy of the Institute's Code of Practice for Research Degrees (asking them to take particular attention to the timeframes outlined on pages 2 and 3).
2 SSRU Staff Handbook (RSAC Updates)
The principles/guidelines presented under 1 above were briefly discussed and approved by RSAC members.
ACTION: GE to pass these on to SSRU's Unit Secretary (Joanna Seecharan) for inclusion in the Unit's staff handbook.
3 SSRU and IoE Research Student Databases
SSRU staff currently supervise 6 research students:
Deborah Chinn supervised jointly by Priscilla (60%) and Dr Phil Salmon (40%)
(Psychology and Human Development)
James Thomas supervised by Ann (50%) and Susan Williams (50%) (Educational Foundations
and Policy Studies)
Angela Harden supervised by Ann (50%) and Sandy (50%)
Michelle Kelly supervised by George (90%) and Chris (10%)
Ruth Stewart supervised by Sandy (100%)
Vicki Strange supervised by Ann (100%)
SSRU needs to maintain copies of initial registration forms (including their "Personal Training Plan), annual review forms, upgrading documents and associated correspondence for each research student. SS reported that she did not have copies of all these materials for every student.
ACTION: All main supervisors forward copies of relevant forms, documents and correspondence to SS for inclusion in the SSRU Student files and database.
SSRU's RSAC had received three separate printouts from IoE's Research Student database, containing information on: main and second supervisors; mode of study (full- and/or part-time); periods during which registration had been suspended; assignments successfully completed (and dates); and contact addresses. Some errors were identified.
ACTION: SS to check and correct all details on IoE research students database and forward these to Wendy Barber at Registry
GE and CB are both leaving SSRU shortly, but Michelle Kelly had expressed a preference for continuing her registration at IoE/University of London. Since GE and CB plan to be visiting fellows of SSRU they will be able to continue to play a central role in supervising Michelle Kelly's MPhil/PhD, while AO had offered to take on the formal role of supervisor from 31st August 2002 onwards.
ACTION: SS to inform Registry that for her third year of registration as a part-time MPhil/PhD student (i.e. from October 2002) Michelle Kelly would be supervised by AO (45%M), GE (45%S) and CB(10%S).
No other supervisors raised any other changes to the registration status of their research student(s).
4 Annual Review
All research students and their (main) supervisors are required to complete an annual review form describing/monitoring progress during the preceding year. Ordinarily these would have been solicited by the RSAC Secretary 2 weeks before the meeting, and forwarded to the Research Tutor for distribution to other RSAC academic members to review before reporting their concerns or approval.
While this approach should be adopted in future years, it was agreed that the following RSAC academic members would review annual statements (in addition to supervisors and the Research Tutor) and report back to the Research Tutor their concerns/approval in time to allow submission to Registry before 31st July deadline:
Deborah Chinn - CB, PA & GE
Michelle Kelly - CB, AO & GE
Angela Harden - CB, SO/AO & GE
James Thomas - PA, AO & GE
Ruth Stewart - AO, SO & GE
ACTION: supervisors to forward supervisor and student annual review forms to the RSAC academic members allocated to review these, who should forward these forms, together with their concerns/approval to the Research Tutor (GE) before 31st July 2001.
ACTION: in the event that concerns are raised - GE to circulate any concerns raised by email to RSAC members for discussion before approving the annual review forms of the research students concerned.
5 Upgrading
AO reported that Vicki Strange planned to upgrade in September 2002. Readers for her draft upgrading statement would be CB and Meg Wiggins.
ACTION: AO to approach Meg Wiggins.
AO reported that James Thomas had been through an unsuccessful upgrading procedure
in the Educational Foundations and Policy Studies Department (previously the
History and Philosophy Department) where his other supervisor (Susan Williams).
As AO is currently listed as James Thomas' main supervisor, it was proposed
that his application should be reprocessed through SSRU's RSAC. Readers for
his draft upgrading statement would be GE and Berry Mayall.
ACTION: AO to inform Susan Williams of this proposal, and to approach Berry Mayall.
AO reported that Angela Harden intended to upgrade in September 2002. Readers for her draft upgrading statement would be GE and David Gough.
ACTION: AO to approach David Gough.
PA reported that Deborah Chin hopes to upgrade in September 2002. Readers for her draft upgrading statement would be SO and Vicki Strange.
ACTION: PA to approach Vicki Strange
GE reported that Michelle hopes to be in a position to upgrade in January 2003. Readers for her draft upgrading statement would be AO and Meg Wiggins.
ACTION: GE to approach Meg Wiggins
6 Internal and External Examiners
No supervisors reported that they needed/hoped to appoint examiners during the coming year.
7 Any Other Business
The time and date for the next meeting is provisionally set for 2-3pm Tuesday 1st July 2003 (on the assumption that the deadline for the submission of annual review forms will be 31st July 2003). The RSAC secretary will notify all supervisors a month beforehand that annual review forms need to be completed by students and their main supervisor at least two weeks before the meeting so that they can be forwarded to the Research Tutor for distribution and review before the meeting.
Note added to minutes after meeting
Since both GE and SS will be leaving their current posts at SSRU before the next RSAC meeting, the contents of these minutes will need to be carefully read by whoever takes up these positions at SSRU.
SS & GE 3rd July 2002
APPENDIX - Standard SSRU RSAC Agenda
1. Apologies
2. Minutes of the previous meeting
3. Matters arising
4. RSAC Governance
5. SSRU Staff Handbook (RSAC updates)
6. SSRU and IoE Student Databases
7. Annual Review
8. Upgrading
9. Internal and External Examiners
10. Any Other Business