Purpose and Operation of the Review

Each year, the Guidance Notes for the Graduate School Review 23/24 are reviewed and updated in consultation with the PGR Executive Committee (previously the Deans of Graduate Studies Committee). During 2018/19, the Review process itself was reviewed and the following changes were implemented:

  • The documentation provided for the Review would consist of a short narrative submission answering five reflective questions, a SWOT analysis, supplementary documentation (such as a training manual, programme handbooks, or strategy documents), and a comprehensive student data pack produced centrally by Research and Innovation Services.
  • Reviews will now take place on a four-yearly cycle with one Graduate School reviewed every year. There will be no longer be a gap year or consolidation year in the process as this is deemed to be ongoing.
  • In future reviews, an external panel member with a professional services role will be invited to be an external panel member in addition to a panel member with an academic remit.

The purpose and benefits of an internal graduate school review are:

  • to provide an opportunity for the University to evaluate its provision, the processes it uses to support its students, and the resources available to ensure that provision is of consistently high quality across the institution;
  • to build the case for investment and institutional change to support postgraduate research; and
  • to enable the University to provide evidence of the high quality of its postgraduate research provision when required.

The operation of a system of institutional self-evaluation and review demonstrates the University’s commitment to quality to students, external reviewers, and other relevant stakeholders. 

Reviews are conducted by a Panel that examines a self-evaluation questionnaire and any supporting materials submitted by the Graduate School and interviews groups of staff and students prior to producing a report and recommendations.  The Panel generally comprises:

  • the Vice-Principal (Research) (Convenor);
  • a Senate Assessor;
  • a Dean of Graduate Studies, or similar, from a cognate discipline;
  • one external academic;
  • one external professional services colleague;
  • a student representative nominated by the Students’ Representative Council (normally from a cognate discipline); and
  • the PGR Strategy Manager (Research and Innovation Services) as Clerk to the Panel.

The Review process culminates in a report from the Panel meetings.  The Graduate School being reviewed is offered the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the Report prior to the Report being submitted to the Head of College.  The Head of College is asked to provide an official comment from the College which is submitted, along with the Report, to the PGR Executive and the Research Planning and Strategy Committee (RPSC).  A one-year follow-on Report is then also submitted to RPSC.