Table of Contents In Full
Introduction – Page 2 Background – Page 3 Overview of the Review – Page 5 Recommendations o Executive Summary - Page 7 o Recommendations in Full – Page 8
1 of 12
Introduction In December 2015, the Union Council’s Education & Representation Board, on the recommendation of the Deputy President (Education), voted to endorse a review of the Union’s academic representation services for doctoral students. The review – the first of its kind by Imperial College Union – aims to identify and resolve weaknesses in the PhD Rep system. It supports our vision to deliver an effective service that tailors to the growing needs and voice of our PhD members, and to continue our strong partnership with the College to improve the Imperial education experience via student feedback and leadership.
Academic Representation Network Imperial College Union operates a Network of over 500 elected Academic Representatives across all Postgraduate Taught, Postgraduate Research and Undergraduate programs and groups, managed by the Deputy President (Education) and supported by the Union’s Education & Welfare staff team. The Reps are responsible for identifying issues affecting students’ learning experience. They work with staff to come up with student-centric solutions, resulting in positive change for the students that they represent. For more information about the Rep Network, please consult Overview of the Academic Representation Network.
Departmental Representatives
Campus Representatives
Group/Research Representatives
Group/Research Representatives
Group/Research Representatives
Year Representatives Figure 1 A basic snapshot of the variation in representation structures between Departments, and sometimes even within Departments
2 of 12
Background Issues An internal review of the Academic Representation Network conducted in Summer 2015 identified ‘Postgraduate Engagement’ as a key strategic risk to the Network: “The majority of Reps are Postgraduates, but so are almost all Rep vacancies, and courses that have no SSC or Rep positions at all. Postgraduate-specific challenges such as supervision quality and Business School plagiarism will give Postgraduates reasons to engage with us; this is reliant on having active Reps within those student groups. We have not yet successfully engaged with at least one member of staff on each Master’s course. This complicates the process of gathering Rep details, and is an example of the weakness of staff understanding of the Rep Network.” Outgoing student officers of 2014/15, such as the Graduate Students Union President and Faculty Representatives, expanded on the evaluation. They expressed concern about how many Rep positions were being filled through staff appointments, and commented on how organically Reps were being organised, limiting collaboration which is a key strength in the Undergraduate provision. College and Faculty staff have also provided helpful comments, noting how the lack of an engaged Rep per Department made it difficult to organise Staff-Student Committees, or to have ad hoc conversations about pressing issues (Figure 1). A key concern for us comes from how Reps are being appointed and registered. Currently, virtually all doctoral Reps are being elected (or selected) within Departments, with timelines, communications and procedures that are uncoordinated. Not only is it a risk to the quality of service and the Union’s democratic principles to have students appointed (possibly reluctantly) into volunteering positions, the randomness of the process also means substantial manpower is needed to register all the Reps. In 2014/15, it took the Deputy President (Education) and the Representation Coordinator around 6 months to identify 60-70% of doctoral Reps. A streamlined process in 2015/16 allowed us to identify 80% of doctoral Reps in 6 weeks, though several positions remain unidentified. This represents a significant opportunity cost, with time and resources that could have been otherwise deployed to coordinate training, and to engage the Reps in highlevel conversations, that can best fulfil their potential and develop them as reliable partners for staff. Solutions may include simply drawing up a framework to organise student Reps consistently, and to fill all positions via our e-voting platform. However, we recognize that additional challenges to do with Postgraduate engagement compound the issue; without taking on these challenges also, the effectiveness of the solutions is likely to be limited. As such, we are keen to capitalize on this opportunity to try and make in-roads to a broader set of issues that has perplexed Students Union’s around the country. Our review is therefore divided into the following areas:
Roles and Expectations – Doctoral students, especially those from an international background, may not fully understand what student Reps are, and the responsibilities (and how we communicate them) may not be of appeal to PhD students College Engagement – There may not be sufficient collaboration and communication between Departments and the Union to ensure students are given clear information before elections, and are identified and recorded in a coordinated manner. The presence of an environment where Reps and staff can work constructively together (e.g. regular Staff-Student Committees) may also be lacking Representation Structure – The ways that Reps are organised currently may mean they don’t have enough support and oversight from other volunteers, work in isolation instead with other Reps in their Department as seen in the Undergraduate system
3 of 12
Selection – Rep positions may be ‘appointed’ and held by people who are not motivated, and through processes that are not transparent to other students and which helps them understand the significance of the roles Tools and Resources – Reps may require access to more tools and resources to be fully effective in their aims Union Support – Reps may be better supported by the Union’s professional staff team, such as in terms of recognizing personal development and transformation Meetings – Reps may be expected to go to too many meetings that goes beyond the expectations of a volunteer position (Specifically for senior positions such as Academic Officers (Faculty Representatives) and Departmental Representatives)
Despite these weaknesses, it is important to keep in mind our strengths. Postgraduate Research engagement levels at Imperial College Union remain one of the highest in the UK – our recent Leadership Elections saw 25% of doctoral students participating, which is higher than the overall election turnout at many Students’ Unions. In addition, we are likely to be leaders in having dedicated representation services for PhD students, and we have consistently seen significant and increasing levels of Postgraduate Research engagement throughout the year. It is hoped that the outcomes of our work will allow us to act as standard-bearers for doctoral representation at other Students’ Unions and HE institutions. Elsewhere in the College, staff-student engagement on the PhD level continue to strengthen. Initiatives from the Graduate School, namely the PG SSC initiative, the World-Class Research Supervision project, and the upcoming series of Task & Finish groups, is a testament to this, and we look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the College to improve PhD students’ experience at Imperial.
Expected benefits to Departments
Strategy: Enhancing the student experience is a priority for the College – in the Strategy 20152020, the College, in partnership with Imperial College Union, committed to “enhancing the student experience” and “engage students at all points of their time at Imperial” through “[recognizing] students as key stakeholders”. Engaging with the Rep Network has long been recognized by College and Faculty leadership, past and present, as a key way to deliver this commitment Better conversations: Department staff have commented how student Reps tends to feedback about microwaves and other minor issues, instead of giving input into more high-level topics such as Departmental strategy and research directions. We attribute this, in part, to Reps not being fully trained and having a solid understanding of what’s expected when they stood for the roles Less work: Simple communications, straightforward guidelines and more coordination during election cycles will make it easier and fairer for Reps to be selected, and free up more time for us to support Departments with vexing problems (e.g. re-opening nominations and ensuring Reps are fully trained & supported). Likewise, more consistent structures will make it easier for staff across the College to organise meetings with student Reps
Expected benefits to students
Personal development: The experience of being Academic Representatives is an educational experience in itself. Generations of Reps have highlighted the transformative nature of the positions; our current cohort of Reps tells us how being a Rep has given them insight and motivation to pursue an academic career, and helped them develop a host of skills in people management and authentic leadership that would make them better researchers Personal fulfillment: Our Reps tell us that being able to help others and support them during times of difficulty is incredibly gratifying – and in some cases have even inspired career shifts Networking: Not only with College staff, but also with other Reps as part of an inclusive and wellsupported community 4 of 12
Overview of the Review Working group The review project was steered by a working group composing of current and former PhD representatives, chaired by the Deputy President (Education):
Ethan Butler, Chemical Engineering Departmental Representative & GSU Academic & Welfare Officer (Engineering) 2014/15 Ingrid Funie, Acting GSU Academic & Welfare Officer (Engineering) & GSU Deputy President (Representation) Rosalind O’Driscoll, Centre for Environmental Policy Research Representative Anwar Sayed, GSU Academic & Welfare Officer (Medicine)
Work-streams There was a total of four (4) work-streams to the review.
Roles and Expectations – Understanding the appeal of a Rep position, the responsibilities of a PhD Rep, and workload expectations College Engagement – Evaluating how PhD Reps interact with College staff and what we need from the Union-College partnership to ensure PhD student representation is effective Representation Structure – Reviewing how the PhD Rep system is organised, and developing new structures that is consistent to a Faculty-level Selection – Reviewing how PhD Reps are selected or elected, and identifying consistent approaches guided by our democratic values
Consultation with stake-holders Academic Reps Current Academic Reps were key stakeholders in this review, and their input is essential to the quality of the review’s output. Three methods were employed to engage them in the process:
Focus groups – Organised by the working group; test ideas and propositions created by working group members; general platform for comments and reflections Questionnaires & interactive exercises – Gather feedback & comments about experience; test ideas and propositions created by working group members Staff-Student Committees – Limited to the Faculty of Medicine only; gather feedback & comments about experience
In addition, views from former officers have been taken into account via exit interviews and research into past comments. Union Staff Support from the Union’s professional staff team was essential to successful implementation of the review’s output. The following divisions (alongside Education & Welfare and Student Development) were consulted as part of the project:
Activities – To explore provision of cohort-building support Advice Centre – To explore provision of advice & welfare training
5 of 12
Governance – Give insights into governance structures; scrutiny into compliance with Union constitution Marketing & Communications – Deliver communications, including promotion of roles and promotion of elections Systems – Organisation of records and Rep listings
College Staff Support from staff throughout the College was essential to the implementation of the review’s output. A broad overview of groups consulted include:
Graduate School – Seek guidance on College Engagement issues, cohort-building support, and adjusting meeting expectations Departments – Selected Departments will be our partners for delivery/implementation and communications
External Bodies Imperial College Union is involved in the TSEP/NUS Postgraduate Research Engagement Project, and we will be seeking advice from other participants in the project. In addition, we have also sought views and input from other Students’ Union in England.
6 of 12
Recommendations Executive Summary 1. Revise the role descriptions of Research Academic Representatives Research Representatives should be supported to take on cohort-building responsibilities, in order to help Reps more easily gather feedback from, and support, their constituents. Handover arrangements should be clarified. Better marketing of Rep positions is essential. 2. Design and deliver a robust training programme for Research Academic Representatives A proper Rep training programme should be developed that clearly sets out expectations for skills development. Training sessions should be kept to a minimum, but will support Reps in developing key skills needed to be successful in their roles. 3. Implement a fair, transparent and equitable election process for Research Academic Representatives that reflects the current unique needs of PhD students The election process for Research Reps urgently needs to be revised. This is important not only due to democratic principles, but also to meet obligations of our Faculty partnerships. Ideally, this process should be centrally coordinated by the Union and delivered within a certain timeframe. Central to this is building a culture of representation, and new relationships with Departmental staff. 4. Revise the governance structures for the Academic Representation Network, to ensure equitable representation of Research students in Academic Representation Affairs Concrete steps should be taken to give Research students an equal voice in Union affairs as for Taught students. The Education & Representation Board should be replaced with two forums: Taught Education Forum and Research Education Forum. Chairing of these Forums will be linked with Faculty SSCs, and become leadership opportunities within the Rep Network. 5. Introduce Departmental Representatives for Research students Research Dep Rep positions should be introduced as new leadership opportunities, to help to strengthen student voice at the Departmental level, and to better coordinate student representation. 6. Revise the operational structure of Research Academic Representatives A new operational structure for Research Reps should be introduced, improving consistency and leadership in student representation across Departments, whilst ensuring flexibility based on local needs and situations. 7. Work with Faculties and Departments to introduce PhD Staff-Student Committees The Union should continue to engage with our College partners to encourage the development of Staff-Student Committees throughout the University, especially ones dedicated to hearing Research students’ voice and which promote student-staff partnerships on the Research-level. 8-9. General commitments for continued engagement with our Faculty partners
7 of 12
Recommendations in Full Role descriptions, expectations and training 1. Revise the role descriptions of Research Academic Representatives a. The role descriptions of Research Academic Representatives shall be based on the following principles: i. Gathering and communicating feedback ii. Helping others get the right help and information in times of need iii. Bringing people in the Department together b. The Deputy President (Education) shall, with the support of the Representation Coordinator and the Marketing & Communications team, communicate the Research Academic Representatives opportunities to all Research students i. The Deputy President (Education) shall, with the support of the Representation Coordinator, ensure that coordinated information is also distributed to Research students in collaboration with the Graduate School and Departments of the College c.
Incoming Research Representative is entitled to a handover period, the length of which is to be negotiated between the outgoing and incoming Representatives i. In the handover period, the outgoing Representative should impart necessary knowledge such as key developments and contacts in the Department i. If the outgoing Research Representative’s studies in the College ends (e.g. due to graduation or entering write-up stage) before the start of their successor’s term in office, they are encouraged nonetheless to handover in a face-to-face setting with their successor, for example over video call or instant messaging ii. All outgoing Research Representatives should compose a short handover document for their successor. The format of the handover document shall be designed by the Representation Coordinator, in consultation with the Deputy President (Education) and the Central Rep Team
d. The terms ‘Research Academic Representative’ and ‘Research Representative’ encompass PhD Representatives, Centre for Doctoral Training/1+3 Representatives, and MRes Representatives 2. Design and deliver a robust training programme for Research Academic Representatives e. The Union shall provide Research Academic Representatives with small-group, skillsbased induction training sessions f.
The Union shall collaborate with the Graduate School to design and co-deliver sessions on the topics of: i. Chairing meetings (Dep Reps only) – Graduate School ii. Doctoral student well-being and providing advice to fellow students – Union’s Advice Center and Graduate School iii. Cohort-building – Graduate School iv. Other sessions deemed appropriate by the Deputy President (Education) in consultation with the Education & Welfare team and the Graduate School
Governance and selection
8 of 12
3. Implement a fair, transparent and equitable election process for Research Academic Representatives that reflects the current unique needs of PhD students a. The Union, through the Head of Student Voice and Communication and Representation Coordinator, shall prioritize building a culture of Research Representation, including ensuring that Research Representatives opportunities and their value are widely and effectively communicated to students b. The exact process and timeline for election of Research Representatives in each Department shall be negotiated and agreed upon by the Representation Coordinator and an appropriate member of Departmental staff (preferably the Head of Department or Director of Postgraduate Studies), in consultation with the Deputy President (Education) and the Central Rep Team i. The election process shall aspire to meet the following principles, as agreed with the Graduate School and Faculties of the College: 1. Research Representatives across the College shall be elected within a two-week timeframe at the start of October each year 2. The names of Research Representatives across the College shall be communicated to Imperial College Union, and recorded, by early November each year 3. The method of election of Research Representatives shall be by democratic vote, and should take place via Imperial College Union’s eVoting platform c. The Deputy President (Education) shall, with support of the Representation Coordinator, seek the support and collaboration of College and Faculties of the College to implement this revised election process, in order to improve the quality of Research student representation. This includes: i. Distributing communications and key information about Research Academic Representatives opportunities to students in the Department ii. Distributing positive and motivational messages to students in the Department to take on the roles of Research Academic Representatives iii. Implementing a coordinated election process (see Draft Recommendations) 4. Revise the governance structures for the Academic Representation Network, to ensure equitable representation of Research students in Academic Representation Affairs a. The Deputy President (Education) shall propose the following to the Research Reps Review Working Group, Education & Representation Board, and Union Council i. The establishment of a Research Education Board as a sub-committee of the Education & Representation Board, that shall be populated by Research Dep Reps ii. The establishment of the roles of Chairs of the Research Education Board, which shall be selected by members of the Research Education Board and of which there shall be one from each Faculty 1. The Chair of the Research Education Board from each Faculty shall also be the Chair of their respective Faculty Staff-Student Committee 2. The Chairs of the Research Education Board shall be the main point of contact for their respective Faculties of the College regarding Research student affairs
9 of 12
3. The Chairs of the Research Education Board shall hold no formal powers or responsibilities, and shall be supervised and accountable to the ICU Deputy President (Education) Representation structures 5. Introduce Departmental Representatives for Research students a. The Departmental Representatives, or Dep Reps for short, shall be the leading figures for Research Academic Representatives in the Department b. The Dep Reps shall: i. Supervise the Academic Representatives in their Department in the form of a Rep Team, and represent their students at instruments that governs the Union’s Academic Representation Network, at Departmental Staff-Student Committees, and at Faculty Staff-Student Committees ii. In accordance to policy held jointly by Imperial College Union and Imperial College London, Chair their Department’s Staff-Student Committees or equivalent forums iii. Engage in partnership with staff and managers in their Department, inputting into student life matters, giving student perspectives to Departmental decisions, and helping to shape the Department’s research strategy c.
The Dep Reps shall attend training designed by the Union, in collaboration with the Graduate School, at the start of their term of office
d. The Dep Reps, as officers and volunteers of the Union, shall be accountable to the ICU Deputy President (Education) 6. Revise the operational structure of Research Academic Representatives a. The following operational structure & hierarchy shall be adopted for the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Faculty of Engineering: iii. Overview of the Research system:
Deputy President (Education) GSU Academic & Welfare Officers
Departmental Representatives
PhD Research Representatives MRes Programme Representatives
iv. Local, Departmental view:
Departmental Representatives MRes Programme Representatives
PhD Region/Research Theme/Year Representatives 10 of 12
1. The choice of having Region/Research Theme Representatives shall be at the discretion of the Departmental Representative from 2017/18 2. Year Representatives model should be primarily reserved for Centres for Doctoral Training b. The following operational structure & hierarchy shall be adopted for the Faculty of Medicine v. Overview of the Research system:
Deputy President (Education)
GSU Academic & Welfare Officers
Campus Departmental Representatives
PhD Research Representatives
MRes Programme Representatives
vi. Local, Departmental view:
Campus Departmental Representatives PhD Region/Research Theme Representatives
MRes Programme Representatives
1. There shall be one Departmental Representative per campus. Where the number of Research students in a Department in a campus is less than 20, or where there is only one MRes progamme in a Department in a campus, there shall be no Departmental Representative and the Representatives in that Department shall be directly accountable to the Deputy President (Education) 2. The choice of having PhD Region or Research Theme Representatives shall be at the discretion of the Departmental Representative from 2017/18 c.
Due to the small number of Research students in the Imperial College Business School and the Centre for Languages, Culture & Communication (CLCC), no Departmental Representatives shall be elected, and Research representatives shall be directly accountable to the Deputy President (Education) vii. This shall be reviewed on an annual basis, or in-line with discussion and collaborations with the Business School and CLCC surrounding the Academic Representation Network
Recommendations for work with Faculties and Departments 7. Work with Faculties and Departments to introduce PhD Staff-Student Committees a. The purpose of Staff-Student Committees will be as previously discussed between the College and the Union
11 of 12
i.
In Departments, the Staff-Student Committees shall be an equitable forum for constructive and regular dialogue between students and staff, and be (co-)chaired by the Dep Rep(s)
b. The Union shall support the co-delivery of Faculty-level Staff-Student Committees by identifying a student Chair and facilitating communication & attendance of the meeting 8. Work with Faculties to distribute information about Research Academic Representatives opportunities to Research students in the Faculty 9. Seek the support of Faculties to identify clear points of contact in each Department to deliver the introduction of Dep Reps and a fair and transparent election process
12 of 12