1 / 8

UK GRAD Programme Good Practice Workshop 8 – 9 January 2003

UK GRAD Programme Good Practice Workshop 8 – 9 January 2003 . Burleigh Court Conference Centre Loughborough University. Putting it in Context: Response from the Research Councils. Phil Sooben, Director of Postgraduate Training, ESRC Chair, Research Councils’ Postgraduate Training Group.

cicada
Download Presentation

UK GRAD Programme Good Practice Workshop 8 – 9 January 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UK GRAD ProgrammeGood Practice Workshop8 – 9 January 2003 Burleigh Court Conference Centre Loughborough University

  2. Putting it in Context: Response from the Research Councils Phil Sooben, Director of Postgraduate Training, ESRC Chair, Research Councils’ Postgraduate Training Group

  3. Research Councils’ Response to the Roberts Review • Welcome the additional funding for stipends,salaries and training • Specifically endorse greater emphasis on training • Support flexibility re duration of funding with increase in average length of support

  4. Recommendation 4.2 • RCUK supports the principle of strengthening the training element of the PhD, building on the work already done by the Councils such as the increasing emphasis on transferable, employment-related skills and their incorporation within doctoral programmes. This is exemplified by the joint research councils/AHRB statement on skills training requirements for research students which was published last year and the participation of all the research councils and the AHRB in the graduate schools programme. The provision of training should meet certain, nationally agreed minimum standards and actual provision should reflect stated provision on the part of individual institutions. The current funding councils' project on good practice in research training addresses these concerns and should help in identifying mechanisms for dealing with them.

  5. Recommendation 4.3 • RCUK supports the proposed increase in the average length for which research training is supported from 3 to 3½ years. This should be applied flexibly, depending on the needs of the subject area and the student, so there should be no expectation that 3½ years is the new norm; some PhDs will continue to be funded for 3 years and some will be funded for 4, or for an intermediate duration. Where Councils already fund for 1+3 years by funding a research training based masters this should be treated as 4 years of support for a PhD. The fundamental rationale for any change should be that it will lead to an improvement in the quality of the outputs of the PhD both in terms of trained personnel and research outputs. RCUK also believes that it is important to retain the 4 year target for submission of a PhD thesis, and that HEIs should be encouraged to manage the change so that there is no increase in the time it takes to complete a PhD.

  6. Review of Research Training • Research Councils involved in the funding councils’ project through membership of steering group and meetings/consultation between research councils and funding councils • Research Councils support principles set out in Framework

  7. Review of ResearchTraining • Proposed core standards developed in consultation between RCs and FCs • Core standards largely reflect pre-existing requirements of individual research councils; joint RCs/AHRB statement; and QAA Code of Practice

  8. To be resolved • Collection of information and method of assessment and monitoring in relation to compliance with the framework. Desire to avoid duplication of effort - to be resolved between the RCs and FCs • Use of such information re the future distribution of funds. This is a matter of Funding Council policy. Part of the wider review of the RAE and outside the remit of the RCs.

More Related