1 / 22

A Participatory Consultation Process Model Reflection on, Description of;

A Participatory Consultation Process Model Reflection on, Description of;. The European University Association, Quality Review of the Dublin Institute of Technology 2005 Prepared for the Irish Evaluation Network, TCD Policy Institute, June 2006. 1. Introduction. 2. Quality Review Context.

tiger-gonzales
Download Presentation

A Participatory Consultation Process Model Reflection on, Description of;

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. A Participatory Consultation Process ModelReflection on, Description of; The European University Association, Quality Review of the Dublin Institute of Technology 2005 Prepared for the Irish Evaluation Network, TCD Policy Institute, June 2006

  2. 1. Introduction 2. Quality Review Context 3. DIT emergent response Aims of presentation 4. The process and methodology 5. Utilisation

  3. Aidan Kenny BA (Hons) & MSc. DCU,student D.Ed. TCD DIT roles (96-06) Project Manager, Skills research Initiative. Qualifications Framework Development Officer. Quality Review, Consultation Process Facilitator. Lecturer, School of Construction faculty of the Built Environment. Staff representative on the Academic Council. TUI Branch Chair. TUI Branch Equality Officer Subject Matter Expert ITAC Chief Examiner NSC DoES 1. Introduction • Other roles (80-00) • Community Development Officer Clondalkin partnership. • Resource Teacher Youthreach • Partner Dublin In-depth Photography. • Partner All Surface Plastering Ltd. • Varity of voluntary community work, • CAFÉ, Belfast Exposed, Clondalkin Travellers Development Group, Pavee Point, Ballymun Co- op, SOAL drugs project etc.

  4. 1. Introduction • Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) • Origin 1887 – DIT Act 1992 • Awarding body (level 6-10 NFQ) • 4000 Major Awards annually, • 22,000 students, annual intake 9695 undergraduates, 1272 postgraduates 4000 apprenticeship, remaining part time & short courses. • 2100 staff, 1500 academic, 500 non academic, 100 management & other. • Six Faculty’s, Applied Arts, Business, Engineering, Built Environment, Science, Tourism and Food. • 35 locations in Dublin City Centre • 250 undergraduate programmes, 30 taught postgraduate programmes, MPhil & PhD researchers (353), apprenticeship programmes (20/25 Designated Trades), junior music and a variety of part time courses.

  5. 2. Quality Review Context • Macro • European Commission • Sorbonne 1998 • Harmonisation of the European HE system • Bologna 1999 • European Higher Education Area • Comparable degrees, Two cycles, ECTS, Mobility, Quality Assurance co-operation, European dimensions. • Prague 2001 • European Network of Quality Assurance in HE (ENQA) • Berlin 2003 • ENQA & European University Association (EUA)

  6. 2. Quality Review Context • Mesco • National • 1997 Universities Act, • Conference of Heads of Irish Universities CHIU (now called the Irish University Association IUA) carried out research on Quality assurance procedures for the universities. • The Act required quality review to be undertaken on a 5-7 year cycle (EUA carried out this work from 2004-2005) • 1999 Qualifications (Education & Training) Act, • Required the DIT and the two awards councils FETAC & HETAC to Quality Review on a 5-7 year cycle. Reports to be sent to the NQAI for consideration and made public.

  7. 2. Quality Review Context • Micro • 1992 DIT Act, required an annual report on the functioning of the Institute • 1996-98 Academic Council developed and implemented DIT Quality Assurance • Procedures, based on the concept of subsidiary (Programme teams – Faculty Boards – Academic Council – Governing Body) • Note student involvement in all levels. • 2004 DIT & NQAI agree to request the EUA to carry out a Quality Review of the Institute.

  8. 2. Quality Review Context • EUA approach • Questions for the Quality review; • What is the Institute trying to do? • How is the Institute trying to do it? • How does the Institute know it works? • How does the Institute change in order to improve? • Focus; • Quality Assurance Procedures • Mission & Strategic Plan • Learning & Teaching • Research • Organisational Structures • Resources & Facilities

  9. 2. Quality Review Context • Quality Review team • Four international academic experts, one student (ESU) • Process • Quality review guideline document • Establish a Steering Committee • Produce a Critical Self Evaluation Report • First Visit of Review team (3 days) • Additional information • Second visit of Review team (4 days) • Oral feedback • Final report 12months

  10. 3. DIT emergent response • Governing Body, President and Directorate agree to establish a Steering Committee (SC) • SC composition, • 10 members, Chair Director of Academic Affairs, Secretary Academic Registrar, member for each faculty (different grades, academic and non academic), Research and enterprise representative and student DITSU representative. • Supported by, Consultation Process Facilitator, 2 Quality Assurance Officers and administrative staff. • SC was responsible for, information dissemination, gathering data and compiling the Self Evaluation Report (full autonomy).

  11. 3. DIT emergent response • SC considerations; • Complexity (of the task) • Politics (inherent in large organisations) • Trust (needed to be established) • Collaborative participation (SC, staff, students) • Stakeholders participation (trade unions, DITSU) • Ethics (social research) • EU Consultation Directive (in draft form at the time) • Time frame (project management) • Communications (effective channels) • Truth (enquiry and reporting)

  12. 4. The process and methodology • My approach: • Paradigm; • Interpretative some cross over with Critical theory • Naturalistic informed (Guba, Lincoln 89) 4th Generation Evaluation • Methodology; • Informed by Yin 93, Stake 95, Hamel 93, Guba & Lincoln 89, academic disciplines of sociology, psychology, management and education practice and theory, • Case study type, Descriptive (Yin 93) Intrinsic study (Stake 95), • Applications (Yin 93) Explain complex, real-life, intervention, explore situations. • Unit of analysis DIT communities (staff, student, stakeholders). • Research design; • ‘Multi method’ (Morgan 97)- qualitative (focus groups x 10, submissions x6)-quantitative (online surveys x2), link with Guba & Lincoln (89, p 44) 4th Generation Evaluation. • Data analysis • Triangulation (Denzin 84, Yin 84). • Procedure; • Develop protocol, • Conduct study, • Analyse evidence, • Develop conclusions/recommendations.

  13. 4. The process and methodology • Initial three stage process Analysis Preparation Organisation Readiness Information Engagement Listening Refine Data gathering Analysis Feedback Reporting

  14. 4. The process and methodology Mixed method social research Focus groups 6 thematic 3 stakeholder Faculty Board submissions Online surveys Student Staff Personal submission

  15. 4. The process and methodology Staff Focus sample profile. Mixed group method. , Six thematic focus groups. Excluded members of Faculty Board’s N=68.

  16. Stakeholder Focus Group N=24 Presentations made to Faculty Board's N=121

  17. Student Response rate N=942 (3 days) Staff response rate N=479 (5 days)

  18. 4. The process and methodology • Analysis • Data (qualitative & quantitative) • Processed • Coded • Clustered • Triangulated Emerging themes priority order Human resource management Research Teaching Standards QA procedures Committees Faculty structures Power/partnership External contact Accommodation

  19. 5. Utilisation • Findings from the Self-evaluation process were used for; • The Self-evaluation Report • The construction of an action plan to address issues and concerns that emerged, see below example of one stream of action.

  20. Thank you • In particular, • Dr Gerry McNamara DCU • The Irish Evaluation Network • TCD Policy Institute • Further information • Aidan Kenny, 01 402 3312, aidan.kenny@dit.ie • Article by A. Kenny on consultation process ‘case study’ available http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue3/kenny/kenny_abstract.html • DIT EUA webpage (includes final EUA Report) available http://intranet.dit.ie/academicaffairs/EUA/documents.html

More Related