PRES Response 2015

PRES Response 2015

imperialcollegeunion.org

Contents 03

Introduction

05

Chapter 1: Providing safety nets to world-class research supervision

12

Chapter 2: Building a safe and professional work environment

11

Chapter 3: Growing our students and fostering vibrant communities

2

PRES Response 2015

Introduction In 2013, Imperial College Union published its first policy document focusing solely on issues concerning Postgraduate Research students, in response to the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) at the time. This year, we are renewing our commitment to our Postgraduate Research population, with this response setting out our latest policy recommendations on key issues affecting the experience of doctoral researchers at Imperial College London, and of which will form the basis to our Postgraduate Research agenda for the next two academic years.

The PRES is a national survey conducted every two years, coordinated internally by the University, that focuses on the experiences of students undertaking a PhD program. The most recent survey, conducted in June 2015, saw 1,148 responses (an increase of 978 in 2013) amounting to ~32% of the doctoral Research student population here at Imperial.

On the whole, the outcomes from the PRES 2015 reflects Imperial’s ability to produce researchers of the highest calibre and brilliance - and is evidenced by a majority of respondents agreeing “mostly” or “definitely” when asked to evaluate the statement “Overall, I am satisfied with the experience of my research degree programme”. However, nearly 10% of respondents indicated that they “mostly” or “definitely” disagreed with the statement, with a further 10% expressing neither satisfaction

Chun-Yin San Deputy President (Education) dpeducation@imperial.ac.uk nor dissatisfaction. This suggests that, for a significant amount of students, their doctoral programmes can still be improved, in order to attain the highest of standards in both academic excellence and student experience.

This document serves both as a response and reflections on the outcomes of the PRES 2015.

Through analysing the data and comments submitted by the survey participants, alongside consultation with our Postgraduate Research Academic Representatives, we have set out a series of policy and strategy recommendations on three topics: Providing safety nets to world-class research supervision, Building a safe and professional work environment, and Growing our students and fostering vibrant communities. We believe that these areas are foundational to the doctoral researcher’s

PRES Response 2015

3

time at Imperial, and realizing these recommendations will help reinforce Imperial’s

and former Academic Representatives in our Postgraduate Research representation

reputation as being home to a world-class research community. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to discuss and hopefully implement - many of these recommendations.

systems for scrutinizing these proposals on behalf of their constituents. Finally, my deepest appreciation to all the respondents to the survey; without their contributions, we would not be able to make these recommendations today for the benefit of current - and future - doctoral researchers at Imperial College London.

These reflections on the PRES are made possible through the work of Sky Yarlett, ICU Representation and Campaigns Coordinator, who spent countless hours pouring over the data and comments and authoring the document. I am also thankful to both present

For a digital copy of this report and accompanying information go online to

imperialcollegeunion.org/responses All information correct at the time of going to print January 2016.

4

PRES Response 2015

Chapter 1: Providing safety nets to world-class research supervision The supervisor and supervisee relationship The supervisor/supervisee relationship at Imperial is a combination of a variety of roles, including: • Academic mentor - Ensuring that the supervisee has the academic knowledge to carry out their research • Professional development - Ensuring, and supporting, the supervisee’s career development, for example making sure they have access to opportunities that might further their academic prospects • Personal and well-being support - Dealing with the general welfare of the supervisee, for example in helping the supervisee overcome imposter syndrome Through these different roles, supervisors support students through the process of completing a Postgraduate Research degree, ensuring that students transform into academics and researchers of great acumen.

Recommendation 1

Provide clear information about the role and responsibilities of research supervisors

Recommendation 2

Establish clear expectations to prospective PhD students in the pre-admissions process, for example through providing information about the average number of students per supervisor, and information about the role of supervisors in order to anticipate quality of supervision

Recommendation 3

Provide anonymous and constructive feedback opportunities for supervisors, for the purposes of continued professional development, for example through 360o performance reviews on an opt-in basis

Recommendation 4

Continue to celebrate brilliant supervisors, such as through the Imperial College Union Student Academic Choice Awards, HEA Fellowships and the President’s Award

PRES Response 2015

5

On the whole students are aware of the role of their supervisors, with just over 80% agreeing

The College should also consider implementing formal review processes, possibly derived

with the statement: “I am aware of my supervisors’ responsibilities towards me as a research degree student”. The question, however, has limited impact as it doesn’t shed light on whether the student feel the responsibilities have been met. Indeed, with just under 20% of students disagreeing with the statement “My supervisor/s help me to identify my training and development needs as a researcher”, it suggests that the quality of supervision can at times still leave much to be desired.

from the system of 360o performance reviews, which encourages a range of stakeholders working with the supervisor to provide anonymous feedback via a facilitator.

Proper review processes can foster a degree of dialogue, and support the supervisor in being more ‘in-tuned’ to the needs of their supervisees, thus being able to adapt and develop themselves in order to become better in their roles.

“It doesn’t seem to be taught, regulated or overseen. Supervisors need coaching, advice, support and guidance. A student can’t ask their supervisor to supervise them better.”

“The responsibilities of the supervisor have been unclear; these should be much better defined. Moreover, in the beginning of the PhD it is likely that the student does not have enough confidence to stand up to or confront their supervisor for a lack of proper supervision. What is the solution to this?”

As a starting point, there should be a review of existing guidance on the role of the supervisor.

This should preferably be done by College leadership and with Faculty buy-in, with the outcome of producing locally-relevant guidance within each Department, Section and research group based on common frameworks.

6

PRES Response 2015

Where supervisors, through their dedication and passion, have enthused and inspired the next generation of academics, their stories should be recognised and shared widely as an inspiration to other researchers. Avenues for this include the President’s Award, Higher Education Academy Fellowships, and the Union’s Student Academic Choice Awards.

“My supervisor, [Supervisor Name], is highly motivating and rewarding, with an outstanding attitude at teaching and supervising. He has the ability of exploiting every single student’s potential towards the best, which is essential to ensure his fellows’ intellectual and scientific progress.

Excitingly, [he] also cares of leadership progress, e.g. by gradually giving us more responsibilities in our own research and asking for mentoring new students and coordinating small lab ‘subteams’.”

Power dynamics Having said so, it is important to recognise the imbalance of power found in many supervisorsupervisee relationships. A significant number of students that we have come across are conscious - and perhaps even rightly worried that any critique made against their supervisor during the duration of their programme may be mistakened for impropriety and disrespect, resulting in consequences that would impede their career progression in a specialist field.

Power imbalances and the glorification of some researchers can shake confidence in support mechanisms that the College provides. A common concern and suspicion is that even if students reach out to senior figures in the Department or Faculty, or even Senior Tutors or College Tutors, they cannot be sure that their concerns will be treated confidentially.

Moreover, there is worry that reaching out to senior figures may ‘backfire’ on them, as the students may suffer consequences from ‘going over somebody’s head’. Finally, where confidential and independent mechanisms are available (e.g. the Union’s Advice Center), there may be doubts as to how effective these are in going up against established researchers.

“Feel more contact with my supervisor would be useful but don’t feel confident to ask for regular meetings”

Recommendation 5

Produce and publicize clear and transparent information on the processes that students can voice problems about their supervision

Recommendation 6

Organize campaigns with Imperial College Union at pressure points in PhD students’ academic life cycle, in order to create a safe space for students to speak up

Recommendation 7

Explore how to reduce the impact of power dynamics so that student concerns can be more easily heard and actioned on

“There is no guideline about what to do when the student believes their supervisor’s feedback is not suitable.

Very often, the student’s concerns are related to the supervisor and it is difficult to know who to talk to when this is the case. The system should be more transparent. Even if a student approaches a tutor or departmental academic due to some concerns, more often the solutions are dictated by internal politics rather than what’s best for the student.”

PRES Response 2015

7

The College and Faculties should take a lead in producing and publicizing clear guidance to students on the routes which students can voice problems about their supervision.

Such guidance should offer a high degree of transparency, noting clearly how these concerns may be resolved, which people are involved, and typical timeframes.

It would be particularly helpful for the college and Union to collaborate on joint campaigns at ‘pressure points’ in the programme lifecycle, that encourages doctoral students to speak up, in a way that mirrors examination stress and housing work targeted at Undergraduate students. Such campaigns do not need to be antagonistic against supervisors in their message, perhaps using slogans such as “Having troubles with your PhD? Talk with us!”.

“... I find it highly uncomfortable not to be able to express myself completely without fear of devastating consequences…”

8

PRES Response 2015

“...However, having said that, I know of several friends and colleagues who have suffered terrible neglect from the College and have either not had their concerns addressed or who have, in one form or another, been effectively ‘silenced’. I believe there is an underlying culture of intimidation and pressure at Imperial College that needs to be addressed for the sake of students and staff.”

These are not concerns that are isolated to Imperial, and instead perhaps a reflection of the broader culture of academic generally. Having said so, while a fully effective resolution may demand broader cultural change, we believe it is in the College’s interest to take the lead in tackling this issue.

Multiple Supervisors and Interdisciplinary PhD’s In the case of students who are multidisciplinary and find that they have more than one supervisor (sometimes up to 3), ensuring that the standards and expectations of supervisors are met can prove very difficult with inconsistent standards being applied.

Imperial’s ‘Code of Practice for Research Supervisors’ calls upon supervisors to maintain regular contact with students - this should apply to supervisors who are sharing a candidate - with agreements made, whether it’s having one main supervisor or equally distributing the contact time.

Recommendation 8

Ensure that in the case of multiple supervisors, the supervisors and supervisees interact with each other and have a clear idea of joint timeframes, milestones and expectations

Recommendation 9

Allocate a ‘Home Department’ to students undertaking an interdisciplinary PhD which will have the final say on expectations, timelines and coordination of support available to the student.

In a case such as this, we would ask that the relevant supervisors meet with the PhD candidates early on and together agree timeframes, milestones and expectations. This proactive approach should continue throughout the three or four years it takes to complete PhD.

PRES Response 2015

9

Multiple Supervisors and Interdisciplinary PhD’s Issues relating to the quality of supervision don’t always lie with the supervisors themselves. The quality of supervision will always be affected by the quantity of work and pressure placed upon the supervisor by Institutional expectations; a researcher with 10+ PhD candidates, alongside teaching commitments and research commitments, will almost definitely face difficulty in providing adequate support and guidance to their research students.

We encourage the College to actively assess the pressures placed on supervisors - a particular method would be to ensure that there is a maximum number of students receiving supervision.

“Although my supervisor can be an excellent supervisor, he often does not have time to dedicate to supervision.”

“Supervisors often end up too busy to regularly meet students, which in early stages of PhD leads to ‘aimless’ feel about work“ While few in numbers, there have been cases of students being seriously failed by their supervisors. Given the time and energy that a student invests in their program, alongside the specialist niche that they study in, students who find themselves in such situations can feel a profound sense of despair at their future prospects.

10

PRES Response 2015

Recommendation 10

Limit the number of students a supervisor can have

Recommendation 11

Conduct research into the role of supervisors, aiming to understand their burdens and pressures and the impact they have on the experience of PGR students

Recommendation 12

Prohibit consistently poor supervisors from taking on further supervisees

Where supervisors have clearly failed their students, we expect such supervisors to be put into disciplinary review and prohibited from taking on further supervisees.

“There seems to be no repercussions on academics for being terrible supervisors. As long as they bring in research money it seems like departments don’t really care how bad they are.”

Chapter 2: Building a safe and professional work environment Resources and Facilities refers to a wide range of items which support students throughout their time planning, conducting and reviewing their research subject. It includes but isn’t limited to: • Physical Office Space & equipment - a desk and computer within an office • Equipment / Lab Space to conduct experiments • Resources available for extracurricular activities / development.

These - or lack of these - will have an adverse effect on the experience of students both

The Imperial College “Code of Practice” states that before a student is admitted to take on a research programme that the department must be confident that “... the necessary facilities (e.g computing, laboratory) can be provided” - this seems like an absolute basic tenant of ensuring students are supported throughout their research and if not then the department is letting down students. It appears from the comments within the PRES that this does occur and when students are let down that it does have an impact on the experience of students - not just on their research but on their feelings of value and community.

through their research conducted, and on the feeling of value and worth within students’ department and college as a whole.

PRES Response 2015

11

Workstations Many of those conducting a PhD will find that over the course of their research they will spend more time in their office or labs than anywhere else and the physical space they inhabit must be conducive to a productive working environment.

82.9% of respondents agree with the statement: “I have a suitable working space”, with a significant minority (8.5%) disagreeing.

Imperial has expanded hugely over time, often faster that its ability to redevelop spaces to ensure that they are suitable to work in. The most common dispute relating to physical space was to do with the desk space afforded to researchers - which leads to a feeling of chaotic working environments.

“Our office is a little noisy and overcrowded.”

“The office is unbelievably crowded and I spend 10 hours/day in front of a 14’’ computer monitor.”

“Our bench and office space is very limited. We have 12 people sharing 6 bench spaces” Often working in an open plan environment can take some getting used to with noise levels and a lack of privacy being common issues.

However, supervisors should support students to take ownership over their office space and create a working environment with guidelines that all sign up to.

12

PRES Response 2015

Recommendation 1

Guarantee a desk and ample working space to each student that is in-line with occupational health guidelines and takes into account the student experience

Recommendation 2

Make clear to students what they can expect in terms of equipment (such as a desktop computer/laptop)

Recommendation 3

Ensure that PhD students’ workstations and work environments are a key area of consideration for the Operational Excellence project

In terms of limited space, it is worrying that crowding is a common theme that reoccurs - not only does this raise concerns around the safety of students, but anecdotally we know that researchers often feel undervalued and this would add to this, and taking into consideration the effect this might have and previous research into the mental health and wellbeing of students at Imperial.

“I have serious problems with the office environment, which I have spoken extensively about to my academic mentor and my supervisor.

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much that can be done about it.

I therefore work half days from home.”

One comment highlighted the absolute minimum that a PhD student should expect from a working space:

“Desks should be wide enough (front to back) to fit the screen, keyboard and an A4 sheet of paper!”

As part of Imperial College’s Operational Excellence: SPACE review, particular attention should be paid to reviewing and developing office space occupied by PGR students, supporting departments through advice and guidance from Occupational Health.

Some of the horror stories within the comments leave a lot to be desired:

“When I first joined Imperial, I was not assigned a desk. It took 1 months to get a computer and screen which was ordered by us the PhD students

ourselves, and was set-up onto the coffee table in the middle of the office on [X]th floor [X] building. After over 5 months of chasing after and talking to multiple people I managed to get a proper desk space in the same office, after the professor of the previous user of the desk agreed to allow me to use the desk. It is bad enough that we arrive without planning and providing desks, we are also asked to find quotes and buy our computers, and also given a coffee table as a desk, where other students in the office continue to use as a coffee table and place their excess food on! and we are left to fight to find a normal desk to do our research work.”

It is clear that situations like this while rare will have a huge impact on students, both in their academic time at Imperial but also their personal welfare.

PRES Response 2015

13

Work Space and Equipment As a world class research institution it is clear to see what attracts innovative and leading PhD candidates to Imperial College London.

The quality of the lab spaces and equipment will have both a positive and negative on the research conducted - in the rare cases of poor lab quality/equipment, the validity of the results of the experiments being carried out may be put into question.

“Our lab is very out of date and has many issues ranging from irregular air pressure to extremely poor temperature control - not only does this make working uncomfortable but it also directly impacts my experiments.“ “We have no storage space for materials/tooling or other equipment.

I am currently storing experimental samples underneath my desk.”

“Whilst there is some provision of specialist equipment much is missing - for the entire time I’ve been here we haven’t had a working UV-VIS machine

14

PRES Response 2015

Recommendation 4

Develop a mechanism for students within labs to raise concerns about issues which might affect the results or validity of experiments, and/or where working conditions are not up to standard

in the building (this is a must for a chemistry lab) furthermore there is no record of the equipment in college nor any record ofexpertise - knowledge transfer and training of most semispecialist equipment (that required fora number of projects in chemistry but perhaps not all) is left to postgraduates who happen to beusing them at the time. As postgraduates are prone to leave and move on this leaves thedepartment vulnerable to loss of knowledge regarding equipment.”

College should look at developing a mechanism for students within labs to raise concerns about issues which might affect the results or validity of experiments or where working conditions are not up to standard.

Overtime Work and Personal Safety Some students have voiced concerns that they feel expected - and even pressured - to work long hours, simply because it is the expected norm. This is worrying as students have the right to their own time, and poses safety concerns as they may be working in a state of fatigue and exhaustion. Involuntary, unpaid overtime work must be expressedly prohibited, and supervisors and research groups should be reminded of their commitment to protecting student well-being.

Recommendation 5

The College should take a strong line in backing students who do not want to do unwanted overtime work, and supervisors should recognise the importance of not overworking their students

Recommendation 6

Maintain a safe campus environment for students, especially those working at late-nights

Where students do work overtime, they may do so alone and in a secluded environment posing risks for personal safety especially at late-nights. The College should continue to maintain a high security presence on campus, provide clear and visible guidance, discourage unnecessary late-night work, and invest in additional resources such as ‘Safe Zone’ app so that students can have additional venues to report threats to their safety.

PRES Response 2015

15

Students’ Professional Development For many students, obtaining a doctoral degree at the end of their program is only part of what they hope to achieve over their years at Imperial. Along the way, they would look to develop professional networks through attending conferences and workshops, and obtain additional professional accreditations and fellowships that support the career paths they wish to take.

Many Departments support their students to take on such professional development opportunities, for instance by providing funding for conferences. However, there is significant variation in the amount of support that is provided, what sort of activities the student can be supported in, and transparency in how students can apply for and obtain support.

We encourage the College to take steps to addressing such variation. In particular, we would like each student to be made aware of the budget that they can access for the purposes of professional development. From there, we hope that students can access clear guidance that outlines to them what sort of developmental opportunities they can use the budget towards, and how they can make a case for additional funding if they so wish to.

We further encourage the College to set up funds to allow students to access additional funding.

16

PRES Response 2015

\

Recommendation 7

Address the variation in the levels of support that students can get in relation to their professional development across Departments

Recommendation 8

Ensure high levels of transparency when it comes to funding and support to PhD students in regards to their professional development, for example through giving each student a budget and having clear processes for applying to further funding

Chapter 3: Growing our students and fostering vibrant communities Collaborative Atmosphere Throughout the PRES, the highest area of dissatisfaction from doctoral students comes from the topic of ‘community’.

Many PhD students comment that they feel isolated during their time here at Imperial.

This is exacerbated by the nature of doctoral studies, with students tending to operate more independently than students at other levels of studies. Some students also find themselves in highly competitive research environments, where collaboration and discussion with other researchers and groups might be actively discouraged.

“My research group is a toxic and noncollaborative environment that made me disillusioned in academia and made me want to finish this painful PhD as soon as possible.”

“Being loosely associated with a dtc (sic) is very beneficial to my researchlots of interdisciplinary discussion which I benefit from a lot. My supervisor

Recommendation 1

Reduce the disparity in cohort experience between students in Doctoral Training Centers (DTCs) and those outside of DTCs

Recommendation 2

Consolidate cohort-building funds being made available around the College, and put in place a clear and transparent process by which students and student groups can apply for them

Recommendation 3

Explore a solution similar to the Hall Activities Fund, whereby the Union supports the College in administering cohort-building funds

Recommendation 4

Provide more space and resources for PhD students to execute interdisciplinary projects and events

PRES Response 2015

17

is not very keen on us sharing information or discussing results with other groups which really upsets me.”

Such problems are addressed to some extent by the establishment of Doctoral Training Centres (DTCs), which forms cohorts of students around common themes of research, with ample support for community-building opportunities. However, there remain a substantial amount of students who fall outside of DTCs, and we are hearing increasingly loud messages from our students that the College needs to address this disparity.

Currently, there is limited support from the College for students outside of DTCs to experience cohort-building. The Graduate School currently provides a cohort-building fund that students or Departments can apply to, though the amount of money available is limited, the process is not clear or well-publicized to students, and there is onus on the applicant to develop their own opportunities - when they may not have much understanding or confidence in such an area.

Some Departments also offer their own cohortbuilding funds - which may themselves be derived from the Graduate School’s offering but the availability of such funds varies, as does the transparency of the application processes.

We encourage the College to consider establishing a clear framework, and providing clear guidance, on how students and Departments outside of DTCs can access the funds to establish cohort-building opportunities. A possible solution is to consider a collaboration with Imperial College Union,

18

PRES Response 2015

allowing us to administer the cohort-building fund, and provide support alongside the fund that capitalizes on our expertise in building a student experience.

“There is virtually no cross-talk between my groups and others at IC. I feel this is not unique to my group and find it frustrating. I think in a STEM school like imperial people should be making efforts to make more crossdisciplinary work and I do not feel this is easy.”

“There isn’t much communication between the different research groups of the department, let alone different departments. I would love to meet the people working in Materials Science or Nuclear Engineering who work in the same building with us and share our research” Beyond cohort-building, the College should consider new and interesting ways to get PhD students from across the College to work and talk with each other. In the past, Imperial PhD students have founded initiatives such as ‘Pint of Science’, which drew together students from all across the University to practice public engagement of science in the community.

By creating the spaces and providing the resources that would encourage students to develop new project ideas like Pint of Science in the future, the College will be able to break down some of the barriers preventing collaboration with the added benefit of raising its profile nationally and internationally.

Feedback for Personal Development Feedback is vital to the learning experience - allowing for reflection and development.

Good quality feedback should be encouraging, identifying next steps for progress and be given in time to allow for development ahead of assessment and further progress.

As we have found within the undergraduate experience that formal feedback is often a key sticking point following the submission of coursework and exams, and that often the delay in students receiving feedback may have an impact on their future work. In the PGR experience, regular and informative feedback is key to developing the research project and the students career development.

Within the Postgraduate Research Survey, the specific question asked was “My Supervisor/s provide feedback that helps me direct my research activities” the majority of respondents agreed with this statement (81%) - but as stated throughout this reflection the students who disagree are a significant minority (11.8% / 135 students) who will have been greatly affected in their experience.

Recommendation 5

Using existing guidance on personal development and good feedback which often focuses on the experience of undergraduates, expand the Code of Practice for supervisors setting out clear expectations and guidance as to good practice for supporting personal development

Within the ‘Code of Practice’ for supervisors the guidance around feedback and personal development are as follows: 1.12 Supervisors will ensure that students are made aware when progress is inadequate or when standards of work fall below those generally expected…

1.15 Supervisors… will also approve and monitor attendance of the Graduate School’s Professional Skills Development Programme.

A revision of the code of practice for supervisors or the introduction of more detailed training and guidance for Supervisors in their roles both as academic support but also pastoral.

PRES Response 2015

19

Teaching Support Within the PRES survey it was identified that nearly 60% of respondents teach - this is a significant number - (over 600 respondents).

Those who teach were asked “To what extent do you agree that you have been given appropriate support and guidance for your teaching?� 57% of respondents believe that they had, though a quarter of respondents believed that they have not been given appropriate support and guidance. The effects of having PGRs who teach not having support and guidance will be felt throughout college, with undergraduates being felt that teaching quality is low, and the PGRs feeling taken advantage of and out of their depth.

PGRs who teach should be provided with the appropriate support needed - departments should ensure that there is access to training and guidance and that PGR students are paid for their time.

20

PRES Response 2015

\

Recommendation 6

Develop and support learning how to lecture. So that PGRs who teach can be identified to Educational Development Unit and be given support. This would help towards HEA Fellowship for many PGR candidates

Stress and Mental Health Student mental health and the effects of stress have been widely discussed across the Higher Education sector, and recognised as a national crisis. In an Imperial context - last academic year Mentality - a student-led campaign group - conducted a survey to identify the extent and causes of poor mental health.

Unfortunately, the causes and effects of poor mental health were not surprising and to find out more and read the report go here: https:// www.imperialcollegeunion.org/news/stressand-mental-health-imperial Since the release of the report it is heartening to see how seriously Imperial College has taken this issue - with the redevelopment of the wellbeing website and commitments to ensuring students mental health well-being in its 5 year strategy.

Recommendation 7

Identify PGR sources of stress, and develop methods to tackle this. Through the Advice Centre and the Counselling service

Recommendation 8

Expand Imperial College Union’s “StressLess� event to ensure that it engages Postgraduate Researchers during their periods of high stress and can be made applicable to the lab or office environment

Recommendation 9

Develop guidance on stress and mental well-being of PGR students to be circulated through the PGR handbooks by each department signposting to relevant services

In addition to this within its plan for worldclass research supervision the college has recognised that it will work alongside Imperial College Union to understand and address PGR mental health issues.

Recommendations in order to tackle poor PGR mental health are to encourage PGRs to be involved in social activities outside their lab, including joining sports clubs and societies. To create a wider understanding of postgraduate stress - the causes and roots and how supervisors can create a supportive environment. That Imperial College Union takes the StressLess initiative and targets it at postgraduates - both PGT and PGR.

PRES Response 2015

21

Recognising Life Beyond the Lab We believe that the most successful students are also ones who are well-rounded individuals, capable of excelling not only intellectually but also in the wider social context. Being able to take part in co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities is vital to this; from volunteering abroad to organising conferences, students will develop a wealth of insights that will broaden their horizons, and acquire skills such as that will allow them to be more capable in whatever they set out to do.

Unfortunately, the importance of life beyond the lab is not always recognised by supervisors and research groups, who may see cocurricular and extracurricular activities as a ‘distraction’ from the research at-hand. Along similar lines, students can be expected to carry out so much work that they find it difficult to explore additional opportunities, even if they recognise the added-value of outside activities.

We urge the College to recognise and emphasize that extra-lab opportunities are integral to the Imperial student experience, regardless of the student’s level of study.

In particular, it should be made clear to supervisors and research groups what benefits extra-lab opportunities can bring, potentially through highlighting successful stories in the past: • In 2012, a group of doctoral students led the Imagining the Future of Medicine conference at the Royal Albert Hall. Through this, the students would have developed personal and professional networks that can benefits the research groups that they belonged to

22

PRES Response 2015

Recommendation 10

Recognise that extracurricular activities, including volunteering and work experiences, are fundamental to the student experience at Imperial regardless of level of study, and all students must be allowed to have access to the range of opportunities open to them

Recommendation 11

Establish an initiative similar to Imperial Award that is tailored to the needs of doctoral students

Recommendation 12

Allow and support doctoral students in taking part in co-curricular courses, such as language courses found in the Undergraduate Imperial Horizons program

• Richard Symmonds, a PhD student in Materials, has been a longstanding volunteer with the Union. Since 2013, Symmonds had been working as a Student Trainer to deliver professional development workshops to other volunteers - an experience he later drew on obtain an Associate Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy • Effective organisation and team working skills are amongst the most basic of skills that a student can develop through extracurricular activities, and these are traits that would benefit the workings of any research group

To support this goal, we suggest that the College collaborate with the Union to establish a formal recognition and award scheme. Such a scheme could be similar to the Imperial Award, albeit tailored specifically to the needs and career paths of doctoral researchers.

Finally, there has been notable interest amongst PhD students to participate in a greater range of co-curricular courses, such as language courses. While currently PhD students can take part in evening classes, these are self-funded and can take place in unsociable hours. The College should consider allowing PhD students to access the course offerings in Imperial Horizons, or develop new courses through the Graduate School’s professional development program. Providing PhD students with such opportunities can have immense benefits, for instance enabling students to more confident in applying for research experiences abroad, thus facilitating the building of a robust research culture.

PRES Response 2015

23

Imperial College Union In recent years the Union has made concerted efforts to increase our service to our Postgraduate members. This is reflected in the significant levels of Postgraduate involvement throughout our decision-making structures, from representation on our Board of Trustees and Union Council, to active Postgraduate activity within our Academic Representation Network.

Our ambitions don’t stop there. In this academic year, we will be launching a review into our Postgraduate Research representation systems within our Academic Representation Network. Through the review, we aim to construct new representation structures for doctoral students that will be fully democratic, student-led and adapted to the needs of doctoral students. We look forward to working with staff and Departments across the College to implement the new structures following the outcomes of the review.

Meanwhile, we will continue to work with the Graduate School to ensure that all Departments have Student-Staff Committees, in order to facilitate effective student-staff dialogue at every part of the College.

Over the next few years, we aim to produce a robust strategy for the Postgraduate student experience. We will also continue to support our doctoral students in accessing Union activities, for instance in making more students aware of what we offer, and in creating new opportunities targeted specifically to doctoral students.

24

PRES Response 2015

Recommendation 13

Build top-of-the-game representation system(s) for Postgraduate Research students as part of our Academic Representation Network, that will be sustainable, democratic and fully student-led

Recommendation 14

Ensure robust student-staff dialogue and student-staff partnership through establishing Student-Staff Committees throughout the College

Recommendation 15

Increase equity of access to Union opportunities in the areas of volunteering, outreach and inspiring people, and innovation and entrepreneurship

PRES Response 2015

25

Imperial College Union Beit Quadrangle Prince Consort Road London SW7 2BB Registered Charity No: 1151241

Tel: 020 7594 8060 Fax: 020 7594 8065 Email: union@imperial.ac.uk Twitter: @icunion imperialcollegeunion.org