Skip navigation

Higher Education Quality Council

University of Leeds
Quality Audit Report
January 1994

ISBN 1 85824 141 3

FOREWORD

1 The Division of Quality Audit of the Higher Education Quality Council was invited by the University of Leeds to undertake a quality audit of the University. The Division is grateful to the University for the willing cooperation provided to the members of the audit team.

THE REMIT

2 The Division of Quality Audit works to the following terms of reference:

(i) to consider and review the mechanisms and structures used by those institutions in membership of the owner bodies of the Higher Education Quality Council to monitor, assure, promote and enhance their academic quality and standards, in the light of their stated aims and objectives; and to undertake a similar consideration and review in respect of other institutions of higher education, at their request;

(ii) to comment on the extent to which such procedures in place in individual institutions reflect appropriate good practice in maintaining and enhancing quality, and are applied effectively;

(iii) to prepare and publish a report on each institutional audit;

(iv) to prepare and submit to the Higher Education Quality Council, through the Steering Council, an annual report;

(v) to liaise with the other divisions of the Higher Education Quality Council, drawing their attention to such matters and findings which the Division considers may be of interest to the higher education system and which may merit further research and development; likewise receiving benefit from the work of the other divisions.

THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

3 The University of Leeds has its origins in the Leeds School of Medicine, founded in 1831, and the Yorkshire College of Science and Technology, founded in 1874. These combined in 1884, and in 1887 joined with Owens College, Manchester and University College, Liverpool, to form the federal Victoria University. The University of Leeds received its own Charter as an independent University in 1904.

4 The University is now principally sited on a 130-acre precinct just north of Leeds city centre. At the time of the audit visit, it comprised over 50 departments, grouped into seven faculties: Arts; Economic and Social Studies; Law; Education; Science; Engineering; and Medicine and Dentistry. In the academic year 1992-93, the University had a total of 12,242 undergraduates, including 198 part-time students, and 3,323 postgraduates, of whom 1,098 were part-time. Within these totals there were 1,651 overseas students. The University also had more than 1,600 full-time equivalent (fte) students registered on its substantial programme of continuing education short courses. In 1992-93 the academic staff numbered about 1~65O.

5 It should also be recorded that the University's student numbers increased from some 11,000 ftes in 1988-89 to 15,101 ftes in 1992-93. At the time of the audit visit, the University envisaged a further major increase in student numbers, to reach 17,000 in 1994-95, and over 20,000 by the end of the decade. This expansion of the student population is being achieved partly in conjunction with a major review of the University's teaching strategy. A significant element in this is the introduction, from 1993-94, of a modular framework for the University's degree structures, which will facilitate more flexible patterns of teaching and offer wider student choice.

6 During the four years preceding the audit visit, the University's academic organisation had undergone a number of changes. Among these were: the merger of nineteen departments in the Medical School to form a single Department of Clinical Medicine; the creation of the Leeds Dental Institute, a unit fully integrated with the NHS-funded Leeds Dental Hospital; and the creation of Schools of Biological Sciences and of Modem Languages, designed to foster greater academic collaboration between cognate subjects. The University also established new interdisciplinary units: the Institute of Communication Studies, the Leeds Environment Centre and the Institute for International Studies.

7 The University's principal aims, as articulated in its Corporate Plan of June 1992, are:

  • 'commitment to a leading role in the national expansion of higher education, taking advantage of the existing large-scale infrastructure to deliver increased levels of activity, in a cost-effective manner, in undergraduate teaching, postgraduate teaching, continuing education and research;
  • continuing enhancement of international standing in both teaching and research and achievement of recognition as a leading European University;
  • achievement of high standards of quality of teaching, notwithstanding the pressures on the unit of resource, providing students with a fulfilling education and ensuring that on graduation they can play key roles in an environment of rapid social and economic change;
  • extension of the present research base, and strengthening of research quality, to secure a sustained and enhanced position as a major research University;
  • further development of close relationships with associated Colleges;
  • commitment to give service to a broad range of audiences and constituencies -social, commercial and industrial - in the region, the nation and beyond.'

8 Among the related objectives which the University has identified to support these aims are:

  • 'to incorporate a most rigorous system of academic audit;
  • to foster student welfare;
  • to strengthen our staff development programme and safeguard staff welfare'.

9 A statement, prepared by the University, outlining its constitutional and management arrangements, is attached as an appendix to this report.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

10 In response to the Division of Quality Audit's standard request for briefing documentation, the audit team received an extensive and well-organised range of material, including discussion documents, operational circulars and examples of policies and procedures in action as well as policy documents and factual descriptions. The material provided for the team was particularly thorough in the areas of teaching and learning innovation and in relation to staff development and review. The briefing documentation was prefaced by a commentary placing key papers m context. On the evidence of the documents the University had clearly prepared carefully for the whole process of academic audit. It did not appear to the audit team that such preparation had been undertaken other than in the context of work which the University was in any case carrying out in the course of its normal range of activities.

11 After reviewing the briefing documentation the audit team requested certain supplementary material. The information sought was mainly in one of three areas: clarification of aspects of the current managerial and committee structures; examples of minutes of key committees; and the full 'life history' of certain sample proposals.

12 The University's long-standing role as a major validating body is being extended and diversified. These aspects of the University's quality assurance systems will be the subject of a separate visit.

13 The audit visit itself took place over three working days on 11-13 May 1993. The programme included meetings with:

  • the Vice-Chancellor and the four pro vice-chancellors;
  • the Registrar and members of the senior administrative staff;
  • a number of deans, chairmen of schools, heads of departments and directors of institutes;
  • a selection of departmental staff;
  • staff with recent experience of probation and promotion procedures;
  • the Academic Audit Group;
  • members of certain faculty taught courses committees; the Senate Research Degrees Committee;
  • members of the Teaching and Learning Support Group, staff from the Staff and Departmental Development Unit and staff involved in Enterprise in Higher Education;
  • staff in the main academic services;
  • officers of the University Union;
  • undergraduate, taught course postgraduate and research students from a range of subject areas.

In all the audit team met approximately 190 staff and students.

14 Members of the audit team were Ms A C Brook, Mr R Gilmour and Professor P D Lines, auditors and Mr P Probyn, audit secretary.

OUTLINE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS

15 At the most senior level, the University has the traditional committee structure of an English civic university, namely Court, Council and Senate. Below that the Planning and Resources Committee, a joint committee of Council and Senate, plays a central part in the co­ordination and integration of the University's wide range of activities. This includes a 'co-ordinating responsibility [for the] maintenance of quality', reflecting the commitment in the Corporate Plan to the 'development of a unified framework for quality assurance which embraces all departments of the University - academic, academic-related, non-academic' and to the 'harmonisation of related Committee procedures'.

16 The remainder of the central committee structure has been subject to a number of recent changes. The nature of the exact groupings, the reporting lines and the balance between formal committees and less formal groups remains a matter for further discussion and development in some areas. At the time of the visit, the committees most centrally concerned with quality assurance were:

  • the Academic Development Committee and its associated sub­committees and groups, including those relating to academic audit, central academic services, staff and departmental support and Enterprise in Higher Education;
  • the Committee on Applications in respect of its role of dealing with appeals from students on taught courses;
  • the Research Degrees Committee; and
  • the Staff Committee and the other Council and Senate committees concerned with various aspects of staffing.

Of obvious interest to the audit team was the work of the Group on Academic Audit, which reports to the Academic Development Committee and which has a very wide ranging brief 'to consider the University's procedures and practices in relation to quality assurance' and to prepare the University for audit by the Higher Education Quality Council and for assessment by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

17 At the faculty level, the different sizes of the seven faculties are reflected in different organisational structures. For example, the substructure of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry is divided according to the two separate subject strands. In contrast, the Faculties of Law and of Economic and Social Studies share a single Board of Faculty and all their main subcommittees are joint committees with the Faculty of Arts. Similarly the Faculties of Engineering and of Science share a Joint Committee on Referred Students. In each faculty, or group of faculties, it is a body such as the Faculty of Arts Taught Courses Committee which has responsibility for the approval and review of all aspects of modules and programmes and which is seen as the focus for academic quality assurance. In the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry the equivalent responsibilities are separate for medicine and dentistry and are further divided into undergraduate and postgraduate provision, with overviews provided by academic audit groups in medicine and in dentistry.

18 The academic officer structure of the University is headed by the Vice-Chancellor, who is assisted by pro vice-chancellors who are seconded from academic departments on a full or part-time basis. There are currently four such posts, each carrying special responsibility for a particular area: resources, including staffing; research; teaching; and information strategy. The Vice-Chancellor chairs the Planning and Resources Committee and the Academic Development Committee and all the pro vice-chancellors are ex officio members of, or have rights of attendance at, both those committees. The Group on Academic Audit is chaired by the pro vice-chancellor with special responsibility for teaching.

19 There is a complex formal structure of academic officers at faculty level, but for practical purposes each board of faculty has a chief officer, variously titled, who is an ex officio member of the Academic Development Committee. Similarly, the chairs of the taught courses committees and of the Audit Committee (Medicine) and the Audit Committee (Dentistry) are members of the Group on Academic Audit.

20 The chief administrative officer of the University is the Registrar and the management of the support structures for quality assurance at central and faculty level are primarily his responsibility.

21 In the commentary submitted with the University's briefing documentation for the visit the following paragraph describes very well the balance which the University is seeking to achieve:

'The University's organisational strength derives to a large extent from the departmental structure. The fifty+ departments and centres in the University are given a considerable degree of autonomy in implementing policies which are agreed at Faculty level or centrally. The developed structure has much to recommend it in terms of empowering the academic community to organise its own affairs. This element of subsidiarity also applies to quality matters. Student learning is essentially a process of interchange between staff and students and the University sees it as entirely appropriate for quality control in respect of teaching to be located primarily in the departments. Quality assurance, however, demands that centrally, the University intervene more than previously has been its practice in order to ensure that departmental procedures meet an acceptable standard. Readjusting the balance between the centre and departments represents a considerable change in the Leeds culture.'

The University is placing emphasis on the consolidation and further development of a culture in which traditional managerial and hierarchical structures are becoming subordinated to a more dynamic and interactive organisational model. It sees as an important element in such a model regular formal and informal contact between staff in departments and the academic officers of the University. Two examples of such contact are the Vice-Chancellor's own weekly informal visits to different departments and an annual cycle of formal discussions undertaken by the chief officer of the relevant board of faculty and the Vice-Chancellor or pro vice-chancellor on behalf of the Academic Development Committee.

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE PROVISION AND DESIGN OF PROGRAMMES OF STUDY

New course approval procedures

22 In May 1992, Senate approved the introduction of new procedures for the approval of new degree programmes. Outline proposals are considered at University level by the Academic Development Committee to ensure that they are consistent with the University's academic development plans. Issues addressed at this stage include the place of the proposed programme in the University's strategy and its relation to provision nationally, recruitment prospects, departmental staffing and resource needs, the implications for non-teaching services and the allocation of funded student places. It was evident to the audit team that this was not simply a formal exercise. For example, the team noted a number of instances where proposals had been referred back or deferred because of difficulties identified by the Academic Development Committee; to this extent the procedures appeared to be operating satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the team detected some weaknesses in the arrangements for properly identifying and communicating the implications of new course developments for central academic services such as the library and computing service.

23 In January 1993, only shortly before the audit visit, the Academic Development Committee had issued a substantially revised pro forma for the presentation of new programmes of study. This can be expected to achieve a more common and consistent examination of outline proposals. At the same time, it was agreed that outline proposals would be vetted by the appropriate taught courses committee at faculty level, prior to submission to Academic Development Committee. It was noted that this procedure would come into operation no later than the beginning of the 1993-94 session and the audit team considered this to be a helpful development.

24 The fully developed, detailed programme proposals are subsequently submitted for approval to the taught courses committee of the appropriate faculty. This committee has the remit of ensuring that the programme is academically acceptable, and it is enjoined, subsequently, to review course delivery. In considering new proposals, it is required to address matters such as the aims and objectives, the relationship between these and curriculum content, and the appropriateness of the proposed teaching and assessment methods, together with a range of other issues. Proposals are submitted as far as possible in a standard way using pro formas devised by the relevant taught courses committee. in addition, heads of departments are invited to include the comments of an external assessor or external examiner, or to state why such comments have not been sought. A fee can be paid to an external consultant for such advice. However, the intended scope and purpose of such comments was unclear to the audit team who further noted that no external advice is normally sought by the taught courses committees themselves. The University may wish to consider whether it would be useful to develop a greater commonality of criteria on such matters as the use of -external advice, and of the approval systems and procedures between all the taught courses committees (including the equivalent committees in Medicine and Dentistry).

25 Proposals for the approval of new modules in existing programmes are considered entirely at the faculty level and the information required is identical to that for individual modules in new programmes of study. Programmes and modules offered outside the award-bearing framework in a continuing education context are not, at present, part of the programme and module approval system.

26 In the period since the introduction of the new procedures, the majority of the work of the taught courses committees has been concerned with the modularisation of all existing programmes of study. The procedures followed have been those for new programmes, but omitting the Academic Development Committee stage. This has had the very useful effect of familiarising almost all staff with the new procedures but may also have somewhat obscured for many a clear view of the intended systems for the approval of new programmes and new modules beyond the period of transition to a modular framework. The University is to be commended for its thorough approach to the revalidation of all existing programmes in the context of modularisation. However, until that process is complete and the longer term procedures have been fully tested, it is not possible to make a firm judgement on their effectiveness. Nevertheless, the audit team noted with interest the introduction of the new procedures and believes that they form the basis for an effective quality assurance system.

Programme reviews

27 The University's first review procedure was a quinquennial review process initiated in 1990-91 in which a range of departments was required to submit a detailed account of their own scrutiny of undergraduate programmes, in line with a checklist of issues. A review panel would then visit the department to meet both staff and students before producing a confidential report for the faculty taught courses committee. The process was suspended in 1991-92 while the University concentrated its efforts on modularisation. New procedures introduced in April 1992 have retained the quinquennial review, but have also added a requirement that departments should review 25 per cent of individual modules each year. The quinquennial review will then provide the opportunity for a strategic oversight of the entirety of a department's teaching.

28 In the light of experience of the first round of module reviews, new guidelines have been developed for the 1992-93 session, these seeking to give greater ownership of the review process to the departments. Departments have been asked to devise their own review procedures, agreeing them with the relevant taught courses committee which has then sampled the ensuing reviews. The guidelines for quinquennial review were rewritten at the same time, and are only now coming into full operation. The concept of linked module and quinquennial review was supported by many staff whom the audit team met as providing a useful framework for quality assurance.

29 The audit team noted the attention the University had given to its dual system of programme review, but was unable to judge the effectiveness of the new procedures which are only now being introduced. However, it does seem that there is no formal requirement for the monitoring and evaluation of any individual module more frequently than once every four years, and at least one faculty had agreed that biennial reviews should be introduced. The University may wish to consider whether more frequent monitoring and evaluation (as opposed to fundamental review) of its modules and programmes might form a mandatory part of its quality assurance arrangements.

Modularisation

30 From the autumn term of 1993, all undergraduate programmes in the University, other than the MBChB and BChD courses, will operate on a modular basis in respect of their first and second levels. The upper levels of undergraduate degree programmes and postgraduate programmes will be modularised in 1994-95. In the Leeds context, modularisation has not involved any significant change to the overall structure of degree programmes but has formalised and harmonised their component structures in such a way that the potential for the development of flexible degree programme structures is now much greater. The modularisation process has also provided opportunities for reconsidering other aspects of University quality assurance policy and, where appropriate, these are mentioned elsewhere in this report.

Overall approach to approval and review

31 Looking at the approval and review processes as a whole, and looking forward to the potential benefits of modularisation, the audit team was not convinced that sufficiently clear distinctions were yet being made between processes which related to individual modules, those which related to award-bearing programmes of study and those which referred to subject or departmental development. In a University with a strong departmental and single honours tradition, such distinctions would not have been particularly significant in the past. However, notwithstanding the University's already well-established programme of combined and joint honours programmes, the team would suggest that the growth of cross-disciplinary organisational groupings, and the development of multi- or interdisciplinary programmes of study, are creating a climate in which a greater emphasis on those distinctions would be likely to be profitable in assisting the incisiveness of programme approval and review policies and procedures.

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN TEACHING, LEARNING AND COMMUNICATION

Undergraduate and taught postgraduate students' progress

32 The arrangements for induction, in which the University Union has played a significant role, were considered a reasonable introduction to the University by the students whom the audit team met. Students were less satisfied about the extent of assistance offered in the area of study skills development, although the Union issued a helpful series of guides. The audit team noted a student initiative in the setting up of a self-help study group and considered that the structured development of study skills was an area that could usefully receive further attention.

33 Students obtain feedback on their progress in a number of ways. Formal assessment and examination is one of the main means of determining progress, and some departments have additional systems such as the use of interim informal examinations. Students were concerned about the variability between departments in relation to the availability and quality of information on assessment issues. These concerns related particularly to how different elements of assessment contributed to decisions on progress from year to year and on degree classification; to the criteria by which performance was judged in individual elements, and to a student's individual profile of strengths and weaknesses relative to those criteria. The University may wish to give further consideration to the provision of clear information for students in these areas.

34 In the case of unsatisfactory academic performance, the University has a set of formal procedures covering both poor work during the year and bad examination performance. These are enshrined respectively in formal 'Unsatisfactory Students and Referred Students' procedures, and together with arrangements for appeals against examination results seem, on the evidence available to the auditors, to be clearly documented and to operate satisfactorily. In another area of student monitoring, however, that of attendance at classes, the audit team noted an example where students whose attendance had been poor had not apparently incurred penalties. Perhaps this is a rare case but the University may wish to review its procedures.

35 The University does not require departments to operate a personal tutorial system, although it appeared that most did so either separately or as an adjunct to the departmental arrangements for academic tutorial support. In one instance, students, with the collaboration of most staff in the School, had set up their own personal tutorial system, having failed to change official School policy on the issue. It was clear to the audit team that students valued highly the availability of academic and personal tutorial support. The University may wish to review the appropriateness of its policy that academic and personal tutorial support systems are a matter for individual departments.

Postgraduate research degree students' progress

36 With its remit recently extended to include research degrees in medicine and dentistry, the Senate Research Degrees Committee has overall responsibility for postgraduate research training in the University. Details concerning entry, progression, examination and appeals relating to research degrees are contained in a booklet, Arrangements for Research Degrees, which also includes advice to supervisors and students in its appendices and is intended to be made available to both groups of people. In addition, the Senate has recently approved a Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures which will be incorporated into the next edition of the booklet. The Code sets out, on a University-wide basis, minimum standards for departmental operation, but allows scope for flexibility and variability in some matters such as management structure, admission, and complaints channels. Departments have been invited to submit statements of their own procedures to the Research Degrees Committee to check their conformity to the principles of the University Code and many departments appear to have largely adopted that Code with some additional elaboration. Were a department to supplement the Code, the audit team would suggest that both the Code and the departmental supplement should appear within a single cover, so that students could be sure of having all relevant material in one place. While the move towards commonly-based codes of practice is to be welcomed, there appears to be no mechanism for monitoring their subsequent implementation at departmental level, the Research Degrees Committee having declared its intention of relying on departments. The University may wish to reconsider this approach as the new systems become established.

37 The Code requires there to be a clear mechanism within departments for handling postgraduate matters, including a postgraduate tutor appointed by the Research Degrees Committee on the recommendation of the head of department. The postgraduate tutor has general responsibility for admissions and monitoring students' progress and for providing advice to students. Some departments, additionally, operate their own postgraduate committee to oversee research student activities. Guidance is also given in the Code on the nature of supervision and monitoring. Reports on students' progress are required to go to students and departments at least twice during a student's first year, and annually after that.

38 The question of research training for students as part of their induction is currently under discussion and this has been informed by the various research council initiatives and by the continuing national debate about the nature of the PhD. The University is attempting to rationalise training provision, without necessarily producing a standard template for all areas of work. A variety of practice exists across the institution at present, some areas such as economic and social studies being more developed in research training provision than others. The University may wish to encourage a clearer and more evenly implemented system of formal training for research students.

39 Departmental training for staff undertaking supervisory responsibilities has recently been supplemented by the provision of the Staff and Departmental Development Unit (SDDU) courses on supervision, a welcome development, though not perhaps as widely known and utilised as it might be. The audit team would suggest that there may be benefit for the University in giving these courses more publicity to increase take-up.

40 Postgraduate students whom the audit team met were generally satisfied with their experience in terms of induction and feedback on progress, though not all had received a full set of information from their departments when they registered and some students had only recently received copies of codes of practice. Supervision arrangements were generally thought to be very satisfactory and the audit team commends the supporting work of the Research Degrees Committee in this respect. Most students understood the complaints and appeals system as it affected them.

41 A number of postgraduate students are engaged in demonstrating and teaching and appear to welcome the experience and the opportunity to supplement their income. However, in discussion it emerged that conditions varied and there was not always a clear understanding about how far a contract existed and how carefully the workload was specified. Training for the teaching role also was variable. Some departments provided their own training for postgraduate tutors, and the SDDU ran training workshops on which students reported favourably. The University may wish to consider how best to establish the uniform implementation of a common framework for research students acting as tutors, and a full understanding of this on the part of staff and students, both in terms of the contractual and financial basis and in relation to training for teaching and assessment.

Overseas students

42 The University has a departmental network of advisors for international students as well as a central support office. In addition, the University contacts all new overseas students and, through the Office of the Adviser for International Studies, runs an introduction programme for them, jointly with the Union. International students whom the auditors met were generally satisfied with the provision made for them and with the information they had been given.

Support services

43 The University has an extensive and active welfare and support system which includes offices providing support for part-time students, disabled students, international students, careers, health and an independently-contracted counselling service. In addition the University Union offers a particularly wide range of information and advice, including a substantial involvement with the University in the administration of Access funds. Individual services appear to operate effectively, and the audit team noted with interest the fact that they also showed a concern for quality assurance in eliciting consumer feedback and monitoring performance. Welfare services seemed to integrate well with each other, to have effective working networks in the community and to operate with awareness of national and international as well as local contexts. As good examples of the quality of support available, the audit team noted the production of a dyslexia pack for staff and students, the active commitment to disabled access, and the current attempt to monitor non-completing students in some detail. The audit team would place a high value on the quality and range of service given by the University Union and the way it has developed these activities in a complementary fashion so that the Union and the University effectively work in partnership.

Non-traditional entrants

44 Responsibility for encouraging non-traditional entrants and supporting their studies was originally located in departments and schools, some of which have been very active. This has been supplemented in the past five years by a number of different initiatives at University level aimed at increasing access. In that period, the University has set up offices for part-time degrees and for school liaison, and has created a mature student entry scheme and a foundation year scheme for overseas students. The University now intends to establish a co-ordinated office for recruitment and access, to take over responsibility for the development of recruitment and support activities for non-standard entrants. The audit team would commend this development.

Teaching innovation and quality enhancement

45 The importance of teaching in the total portfolio of University activities has been signalled by the recent designation of one of the pro vice-chancellor posts as having a leadership role in the development of the quality of teaching. He chairs a Teaching and Learning Support Group comprising the chairs of the taught courses committees (and similar office-holders in medicine and dentistry) and the Education Secretary of the University Union. The Group, which first met in early 1993, is also able to call on the resources of specialist groupings such as the SDDU, the EHE Unit and the Computer-Based Learning Multi-Media Support Unit. The Group is able to build on earlier initiatives, such as the provision of funding for teaching and learning-based development projects, totalling £556,000 in 1992-93, and the publication of some interesting and widely-distributed discussion papers such as those on Evaluating Teaching for Career Development and Progression, October 1992, and Student Learning in the 1990s, February 1993. The University has also been active in sponsoring successful bids to outside bodies for teaching and learning-related projects.

46 The audit team wished to commend the level of enthusiasm and range of ideas and projects being generated. The establishment of the Teaching and Learning Support Group should contribute to the process of ensuring that, in the longer term, there are structures in place to maximise the benefits of these activities for students and staff in all departments throughout the University.

Equal opportunities policy

47 Like other institutions, the University has a commitment to equality of opportunity embedded in its Charter. Systematic and comprehensive procedures to underpin that commitment, though, are still in the process of emerging. An Equal Opportunities Committee has recently been established, and there were welcome signs elsewhere of good practice, for instance in the support offered to disabled students, in the auditing of selection processes for staff appointments and in the distribution of gender breakdown data for the last round of staff promotions to senior lecturer. However, the audit team felt that there was considerable room for further development as the new committee established its position and began to influence departmental practice, perhaps in encouraging the systematic gathering and promulgating of a wider range of data on student and staff issues and in promoting the University's policy through staff development events.

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RELATION TO ACADEMIC STAFF

Staff appointment procedures

48 The University has comprehensive and effective procedures for staff appointment, which are informed by its equal opportunities policies. Staff who met the audit team were generally complimentary about the information they had been sent prior to interview and the way in which the appointment procedures had operated. Most, but not all, had been asked to give a seminar as part of the selection process. The team would commend this practice and the University may wish to consider whether it should be required in all cases as a means of assessing presentational skills as well as subject expertise.

Induction and probation

49 At the time of the audit the induction programme for new staff was not compulsory, but staff were strongly encouraged to attend. It was expected that a revised and certificated induction programme for all new staff, which was thought at that time to be likely to be made compulsory, was to be introduced with effect from the 1993-94 session. [It is understood that a subsequent decision did not, in fact, make attendance at the course compulsory]. The audit team would commend this development and noted that staff who had attended the previous induction course had found it a helpful introduction to the University, to the process of teaching and learning and to the development of research skills. Some whom the audit team met had regretted the loss of the network of new staff built up during the induction course, but many had attended subsequent staff development events. The audit team noted that the induction programme was tailored heavily to the needs of full-time staff joining the University in September and shared the concern of some staff that part-time appointees and those joining at other times of the year may be disadvantaged.

50 All new staff who met the audit team had an appointed adviser/mentor and spoke highly of the encouragement and support given by colleagues in their departments. Advisers had not always been trained for the role, and, in the new induction programmer will not be required to attend a briefing seminar. Mentors, however, will be required to attend one. It may be helpful to clarify further the role and responsibilities of mentors and advisers and to ensure that those placed in such a key role are appropriately selected and briefed in all cases.

51 It was reported by probationary staff that they used student feedback data to inform the development of their teaching. However, in common with other student feedback procedures deployed across the University (as mentioned in paragraph 62), there seemed to be no consistency in the means or actuality of disseminating feedback results. In some cases the student evaluation forms remained confidential to the individual concerned; in others they were routinely copied to the mentor/adviser or head of department. While some new staff had had their teaching observed by colleagues or by their mentor/adviser, this was not universally the case. Similarly, a number had had the opportunity to observe the teaching of experienced colleagues but others had not been offered this opportunity and had felt inhibited from asking for it. The audit team noted these points and would bring them to the attention of the University, underlining at the same time the need for workload planning and assistance in the development of teaching skills in respect of short-term contract or part-time staff.

Staff development and training

52 The SDDU offers a substantial range of staff development courses covering virtually every area of the University's operation, and staff who had attended these courses spoke very positively about their benefits. Others were disappointed that they had been unable to attend because of their commitments. There may be a need for more support from senior staff for those who wish to attend such courses. Similarly, many staff spoke highly of the developments which had taken place under the University's Enterprise in Higher Education (EHE) initiative. The influence of EHE now extends to the majority of departments in the University, and there is an established network of 'Enterprise Co­ordinators' and a strong record of activity.

Staff appraisal

53 A staff review and development scheme was introduced for all academic and academic-related staff in 1989. Each member of staff is reviewed by the head of department or other senior colleague in a process which is confidential to those concerned and not linked to formal decisions on promotions and salaries. The head of department is responsible for collating the resulting staff development needs and transmitting that information to the SDDU. A similar system operates for staff at head of department level and above with the addition of a compulsory requirement that departmental staff opinion be sought and sent directly to the reviewer. Many staff to whom the audit team spoke said that they had initially viewed the scheme with considerable suspicion, but were now convinced of its benefits, entering the caveat that it was uncertain whether sufficient resources would be available to meet the developmental needs identified. The scheme is now operating on a biennial basis and, although not able to judge how reasonable the reservation about resources might be, the audit team found that the scheme appeared to be making a useful contribution to staff development.

Promotion

54 The University has recently introduced new procedures for promotion from lecturer A to lecturer B and for promotion to senior lecturer, which strengthen the consideration given to teaching and learning as one of the criteria; promotion to reader posts remains understandably based on research grounds alone. Amongst the staff met by the audit team, there was widespread acceptance that teaching quality is both appropriate to and an important criterion for promotion. That evidence of student feedback should be an element in the process was a proposition which found equal support. It is clear, however, that procedures across the University vary substantially in this respect. In some areas of work, for example in the case of Law, teaching quality is assessed by peer evaluation and student feedback and evidence is routinely taken into account at promotion committees. In other areas, evaluation is much less developed. The audit team would encourage the University to continue to develop procedures and criteria for the evaluation of the teaching and learning process to contribute to staff review and promotion. The University might wish to use the procedures in the Faculty of Law as one model of good practice.

55 The criteria for the completion of probation and for promotion were generally well understood. However, the feedback to staff following success or failure in the promotion process appeared to the audit team, on the evidence, to be inadequate in several areas of the University. Some staff were also unsure how their prospects for promotion might be affected by secondment to other activities such as an interdisciplinary research centre. The audit team noted some concern amongst staff that the scope of the appeals procedure for those who wished to request a reconsideration of a decision on judgemental rather than procedural grounds was limited, with the normal grievance procedure as the only channel in some cases. The University may wish to consider whether the current balance of procedures in this area remains appropriate.

Overall strategy for staffing policies

56 The University has a Staff Committee with fairly broad terms of reference which co-ordinates the work of a number of specialist committees, although those concerned with individual readership and chair proposals have a reporting route directly to Senate and Council. Although there is no single University document which speaks of an overall approach to staffing policies, the audit team nonetheless detected that, behind the individual improvements in staffing policies, there lay a level of strategic thinking about what was centrally important to the University's future mission and how staffing policies could support this. The relationship between staffing strategies and the area of teaching innovation and enhancement mentioned in paragraph 45 above is but one example of the commendable underlying co-ordination of the University's approach.

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT AND CLASSIFICATION PRACTICES

Assessment and classification schemes

57 The assessment requirements for individual modules and for programmes of study are scrutinised as part of the course approvals mechanisms by the taught courses committees or their equivalent and are published in summary form in faculty calendars. The assessment and classification processes and the treatment of individual student cases are overseen by the examinations committees of the appropriate faculties. Reports of external examiners and departmental responses are seen by the chairs of both the taught courses committees and the examinations committees. Opinions varied amongst staff on the extent to which the different roles of the two types of committees in this area were clear and the resulting oversight as effective as it might be. Traditionally efforts had been made to ensure comparability of treatment in respect of assessment, progression and classification between students in the same faculty or groups of faculties but the number of areas where University-wide rules applied had been few. However the University had recognised that, if placing its existing programmes of study on a modular basis was to provide scope for more flexible programmes in the future, a greater degree of commonality, and demonstrable equity of treatment of students, was necessary. At the time of the audit, discussion papers were being considered which would have the effect of establishing a common framework of assessment and classification for all modular-based programmes and which would also revise and formalise the framework for the operation of boards of examiners and for the role of external examiners in a modular context.

58 The audit team would commend the moves now taking place to achieve a greater degree of clarity and consistency about the main aspects of assessment. The University's first priority has necessarily been the programmes of study being placed on a modular basis in autumn 1993. It will presumably then wish to look at postgraduate programmes and the range of work in the Faculties of Education and of Medicine and Dentistry. As mentioned in paragraph 33, a number of students whom the auditors met were uncertain about the significance of individual assessments both in terms of their progress from one stage of a programme to another and in relation to their final degree classification. The University may wish to review the nature of the current written information given to students.

External examiners

59 The University accepts the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) Code of Practice on the External Examiner System as guiding its policies and procedures and issues the Code to all external examiners, with a University commentary, at the time of appointment. Thus the external examiner's role is seen in terms of providing peer review of courses to ensure maintenance of appropriate standards. To this end external examiners are required to act as full members of relevant boards of examiners, to approve draft examination papers and moderate internal assessments of material. In addition they are requested to comment on course structure, content, objectives, and teaching methods. The University also wishes external examiners to be more actively involved in the development of new degree proposals, though, from discussion with a number of departments, it emerged that practice varied considerably in this area, and departments were unsure about the circumstances under which external examiners should be consulted. The provision of central guidance in the form of clear criteria for the involvement of external examiners in course design and approval would seem helpful in furthering the University's intentions: this point connects with the team's suggestions made about the use of external advice in paragraph 67.

60 Departmental recommendations for appointment of external examiners are considered by the appropriate taught courses committee or its equivalent, with a brief curriculum vitae as background information. The University reminds departments and external examiners of the CVCP Code's provisions relating to multiple examinerships and reciprocal examinerships, but does not attempt any formal checks in those areas. From the limited evidence available to the auditors on arrangements in individual departments, the University's application of other aspects of good practice, such as the avoidance of two individuals from one institution in a small team of external examiners, did not appear entirely consistent. The University may wish to consider how the information available to the decision-making bodies might be improved to enable more effective monitoring of the implementation of the University's policies.

61 Reports from external examiners are submitted initially to the Vice-Chancellor and then sent on to the head of department concerned who is asked to respond directly to the external examiner. Reports and departmental responses are subsequently sent to the relevant taught courses committee (or equivalent) where they are usually scrutinised by a small sub-group. Copies are also sent to the Chair of the Examination Committee. Taught courses committees are able to feed issues upwards to the Academic Audit Group. External examiner reports and departmental responses will also be included in the quinquennial reviews. At present, discussion with departments suggested that the monitoring system beyond the department is not always clearly understood or strongly implemented. However the University now has available to it a potentially effective system for utilising external examiners' reports, provided the system is widely understood, and responsibility for ensuring appropriate action is clearly located at the various levels of operation.

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RELATION TO VERIFICATION, FEEDBACK AND ENHANCEMENT MECHANISMS

Student evaluation of programmes

62 Within the last year, the University has instituted a policy which requires departments to collect and use student feedback on courses as part of the annual and quinquennial review procedures and the opportunity now presents itself for the central evaluation of how effectively this is being discharged. While departments remain ultimately responsible for taking account of students' views, some central guidance is given on implementation in that the University expects that procedures should be systematic1 should, as a minimum, include the collection of questionnaire data, and that staff/student committees should play a central role in assembling and analysing information. In pursuit of this policy, the Staff and Departmental Development Unit (SDDU) has recently circulated a useful booklet of guidelines on good practice in evaluating teaching and learning, which helpfully covers a range of issues and practices, and encourages staff to explore a number of different ways of evaluating their teaching.

63 It appeared to the audit team that questionnaires were becoming more widely used at departmental level, but that the survey instruments differed in both form, quality and involvement of students across the University, so that the value of the resulting data was limited and appropriate comparisons could not readily be made. The team considered that a degree of further standardisation within departments and faculties would help the University, perhaps through taught courses committees, to monitor teaching and learning more effectively.

64 The audit team noted that there was occasional evidence of experimentation beyond the use of the student questionnaire, for example, the use of jury groups and log books for clinical work of medical students, but on the whole departments seemed not yet to have exploited fully the range of suggestions contained in the SDDU's guidelines booklet.

Staff/student liaison committees

65 As indicated, departmental staff/student committees have a central role in the evaluation of modules and programmes and, to facilitate this, their operation has been reviewed. In particular, departments are now required to have a staff/student panel for non-academic matters, leaving the staff/student committees free to concentrate on academic issues. The implementation of this policy is still being worked through and the audit team found that student experience of the procedures in action was variable. Some students thought they were a serious part of an active and effective departmental quality assurance process; others clearly viewed the staff/student committees as having a rather marginal role, for example in one instance where agendas were produced by the staff and not circulated in advance of the meeting. As the system evolves, departments will no doubt be encouraged to implement University policies more fully and consistently.

66 The audit team welcomed the initiatives taken by the University Union to develop student feedback mechanisms and a good working staff/student committee system. The Union had produced some excellent documentation to encourage students to become actively and knowledgeably involved as official committee/board representatives and had also instituted relevant training events. The enthusiasm and commitment of the Union and of its Education Secretary to promoting active and effective student involvement in academic affairs is very warmly commended.

Views of professional and other external bodies

67 A number of programmes in the University are subject to external accreditation by professional or statutory bodies. The reports of such bodies and departmental responses to them, which the audit team saw, did not appear to have been formally integrated into the annual and quinquennial review systems. Similarly, methods of obtaining employer feedback appeared to vary widely in their formality and integration into other quality assurance systems, even in departments with a vocational orientation. The University may wish to consider the benefits of a more structured approach in these areas, perhaps in relation to the closer integration of the work of external examiners within quality assurance systems mentioned in paragraph 59.

AUDIT OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

68 The University's briefing material included a range of promotional material in a variety of formats intended for prospective students, employers and the public more generally. The University has well established mechanisms for ensuring accuracy and consistency across the wide range of official University publications and is also developing means of encouraging departments to seek advice on the content of less formal leaflets and materials. The audit team found that students were generally satisfied with the accuracy of the information provided prior to entry.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

69 In the commentary on the briefing documentation provided for the visit the University referred to the institution as being 'in an unprecedented state of change'. A considerable expansion in student numbers, a substantial revision to the committee structure, a new internal resourcing model, a new focus on teaching and learning, the adoption of a modular structure, the impact of new national systems of audit and assessment, a new Vice-Chancellor, a new Registrar and a new administrative structure were by no means all of the factors creating that situation. It should be a matter of no little congratulation to the University that the majority of those whom the audit team met supported the general direction of change and felt themselves integral parts of the means by which change was determined and implemented. Their views tended to confirm the University's organisational philosophy, outlined in paragraph 21 above, as an operational reality. Against that background the audit team was confident that, despite the relatively limited evidence yet available on the full implementation of many individual policies and procedures, the University's general approach to quality assurance could and should be endorsed.

70 In reviewing its detailed findings, the audit team concluded that it was likely to be clearer, and of greater assistance to the University, if those findings were presented in thematic groups. The following points therefore mention areas in which the University should be commended as well as linked points to which the University may wish to give further consideration as it continues the development of its quality assurance policies and procedures.

71 The audit team would commend:

(i) the introduction of a comprehensive system for programme and module approval and its use as part of the process of modularisation to ensure that every existing programme was, in effect, revalidated (paragraph 26);

(ii) the introduction of a rolling system of module reviews (paragraph 29);

(iii) and linked to this, the introduction of a quinquennial review system based on departments (paragraph 29).

But, in connection with (i), (ii), and (iii) above, the audit team would ask the University further to consider:

  • are the staff of the academic service areas fully integrated into the approval and review systems? (paragraph 22);
  • does a sufficiently clear framework exist within which staff in departments understand when, how and from whom they should seek external advice in the development of new programmes and modules? Similarly, is it sufficiently clear in what circumstances a taught course committee may use external advice in considering proposals? (paragraphs 24, 59);
  • do staff at all levels sufficiently understand the rationale for each of the approval and review systems and the procedures involved? (paragraph 26);
  • is the external examiner system, and such other procedures as individual departments may wish to employ, effective and sufficient for the purposes of course review, or should the University consider requiring formal annual monitoring of every module and programme? (paragraph 29);
  • do the systems, as currently conceived, adequately differentiate between questions appropriate to individual modules, to award-bearing programmes of study, particularly those which are inter-or multidisciplinary, and to subject/departmental development? (paragraph 31);
  • are the means by which students participate in the systems sufficiently well-coordinated and varied to ensure that their perspectives are fully exploited? (paragraphs 62, 65 and those intervening);
  • how are the reports and visits of professional statutory and accreditation bodies formally integrated into the systems?( paragraph 67).

The audit team would commend:

(i) the enhancement of the status of teaching and learning activities, as reflected in leadership at pro-vice chancellor level, the creation of a substantial development fund, the establishment of the Teaching and Learning SupportGroup amongst many other activities (paragraph 46);

(ii) the levels of activity, acceptance and integration achieved by the Staff and Departmental Development Unit and the Enterprise in Higher Education Unit (paragraphs 46-52).

But, in connection with (iv) and (v) above, the audit team would ask the University further to consider:

  • is the perceived level of variability between departments acceptable in respect of student induction, assistance with the acquisition of appropriate learning skills, information about assessment requirements and their consequences and of feedback about individual progress? (paragraphs 32, 33);
  • does the optional nature of departmental provision of tutorial support for students continue to be an appropriate strategy, and is it consonant with the strong welfare support provided by the University? (paragraph 35).

The audit team would commend:

(iv) evidence of the effectiveness of the work of the Research Degrees Committee in terms of the general level of student satisfaction with research degree supervision (paragraph 40).

But, in connection with (vi) above, the audit team would ask the University further to consider:

  • whether the monitoring of the implementation of codes of practice for research degree students and their supervisors should remain a matter exclusively for departments? (paragraph 36);
  • are policies on the provision of formal education and training programmes for research students sufficiently clear and sufficiently evenly implemented? (paragraph 38).

The audit team would commend:

(v) the careful attention being given to staffing policies in relation to the University's overall strategy and the results of this on, for example, the induction of academic staff, the place of teaching as an element in promotions criteria and the operation of the promotions system more generally (paragraphs 49, 56 and those intervening).

But, in connection with (vii) above, the audit team would ask the University further to consider:

  • whether policies on the formal employment framework for postgraduate students acting as part-time teachers is sufficiently well understood in departments? (paragraph 41);
  • and, in association with this, whether the training of research students for teaching duties is adequate? (paragraph 41);
  • whether a higher priority now needs to be given to implementing the intention to integrate the evaluation of teaching into all aspects of staffing policies? (paragraphs 51, 54).

The audit team would commend:

(vi) the extensive work of the University Union in the provision of welfare services (paragraph 43);

(vii) the effective interplay between the providers of individual welfare services, whether University or Union-based, their internal and external networking and their professional approach to self-evaluation (paragraphs 43, 44);

(viii) the strength and breadth of the contribution made by the University Union to the development of the academic policies and procedures of the University, particularly in the area of mechanisms for student feedback (paragraph 66).

APPENDIX

THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Constitution and Management Structure

1. The University has its antecedents in the Leeds School of Medicine (1831) and the Yorkshire College of Science (1874); these two combined in 1883, and four years later joined Owens College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool, to form the federal Victoria University. Leeds received its own Royal Charter from Edward VII in 1904, and its constitution and management structure1 - within the framework of the Charter, Statutes and Ordinances - are the traditional ones for an English civic university of that generation.

Academic organisation

2. The University is organised into seven faculties (Arts; Economic and Social Studies; Law; Education; Science; Engineering; and Medicine and Dentistry). Although the academic structure of the University is currently going through a period of evolutionary change (becoming more flexible), the basic unit of academic organisation is still the department, of which there are currently fifty-four. There are significant variations in the size of departments. All of the core disciplines are represented in strength, and the University supports a number of specialist departments (for example, Colour Chemistry and Dyeing, Textiles Studies, and Fuel and Energy). Students arc normally registered in, and academic staff appointed to, one department or another. Each department has a head, who, though constitutionally bound to consult staff through the forum of the departmental meeting, is himself or herself responsible to the Council and the Senate for the work of the department.

3. In some areas, departments are conjoined to form federal schools (for example, Mathematics, Biological Sciences, Modem Languages), which provide a common organisational and administrative infrastructure and thereby facilitate inter­departmental collaboration in teaching and research and permit economies of scale.

4. The University is committed to promoting interdisciplinary study, and to that end has established some two dozen centres of study. These are flexible entities, which transcend the departmental structure, and which bring together staff and students who, though usually remaining based in one parent department or another, share academic interests which cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. Centres often have a research emphasis.

5. In addition, the University has three interdisciplinary institutes (Transport Studies, Communications Studies and International Studies). These are more permanent entities than centres; staff can be appointed to, and students registered in, institutes.

6. Sixteen independent institutions are affiliated to the University which offer courses approved by the University. Four of these, which offer degree courses, are designated colleges of the University.

Authorities and principal committees

7. The Court, which has a membership of nearly 200 (the majority lay), is the ultimate governing body of the University. In practice, however, it plays little or no part in the management of the University.

8. For practical purposes, therefore, the Senate and the Council may be regarded as the University's governing bodies. The Council - with about filly members (the majority lay) - is usually described as the University's executive governing body. It has an overview of (and ultimate responsibility for) corporate strategy and integrated planning, and takes a particular interest in financial matters, in the University's buildings and estate, and (as the employing authority) in staffing policies. Perhaps atypically, the Council is responsible for approving (on the advice of the Senate) all changes to the curriculum and all matters relating to the academic structure of the University, though in practice its role in these respects is largely formal.

9. The Senate, which consists of some seventy ex-officio members, some fifty elected members and fourteen student members, is the principal academic authority. Inevitably it concentrates on major issues of principle and strategy, and in particular academic priorities: in brief, it might be said to have an overview of the academic management of the University, including the curriculum and the maintenance of academic standards. Despite its academic focus, the Senate has a constitutional right to comment on any matter whatsoever relating to the University; and its remit is therefore wide.

10. The Senate and the Council (which both meet twice a term, the former reporting to the latter) are supported by a network of committees, which between them undertake much of the detailed work. The most significant committee is a joint committee of the Senate and the Council, the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC), which has both lay and academic members. This is the principal planning and executive committee of the University, in which the academic, financial and physical strands are brought together: the Committee has a co-ordinating responsibility for the University's objectives and plans in their entirety, including academic objectives, planning and performance; income, expenditure and resource allocation between the major heads; financial control and the planning of budgets; and the maintenance of quality. It has an explicitly pivotal role in the University's committee structure, with other key committees (see below) reporting to the Senate and the Council through the PRC.

11. The Academic Development Committee (ADC) - a committee of the Senate, but with close links with the PRC - has oversight of all academic resources and responsibility for integrated academic management. It is responsible for the allocation of resources to academic departments (see below) and academic services, being supported in this role by (inter alia) a Committee on Central Academic Services, a Committee on Information Strategy and a Teaching and Learning Support Group. The University's central academic audit group is a sub-committee of the ADC.

12. Other key committees include the House and Estates Committee (which is responsible to the Council through the PRC for the effective management of the University's physical property), the Staff Committee (which is concerned with terms and conditions of service for all categories of staff and with matters relating to promotion, progression and probation), the Senate Research Degrees Committee (which is responsible across the University for all matters relating to research degrees, including authority for their award) and the Committee on Applications (a Senate committee which, inter alia, deals with all appeals from students on taught courses and adjudicates on all cases of alleged cheating and plagiarism. The University's formal committee structure is complemented by a range of ad hoc project teams which undertake developmental work on particular issues.

13. The boards of faculty (of which there are six, the Faculties of Economic and Social Studies and of Law having a joint board) are in essence responsible for the curriculum, for the assessment of undergraduate and taught postgraduate students, and for the award of degrees accordingly. Although the structure is somewhat different in Medicine and Dentistry, the boards each have three principal committees - a general policy committee, an examinations committee and a taught courses committee. This latter is responsible for scrutinising all proposed changes to the curriculum, and has the prime responsibility for academic audit. The boards themselves play no part in the resource-allocation process.

Resource allocation

14. The University introduced a new resource-allocation system in 1989, under which resources are allocated direct to resource centres (usually individual departments, in some cases groups - or schools - of departments) according to a formula which determines allocations according to the actual work departments are doing - in particular, the student loads they are carrying, the quality and volume of their research and the cost of their respective disciplines. The model thus broadly reflects the way in which the Funding Council itself distributes funds to universities. Departments have considerable delegated authority over the management of their budgets, though within a framework of accountability.

Principal officers

15. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal academic and administrative officer of the University, the chairman of the Senate, the PRC and the ADC, and an ex-officio member of the Council and other principal bodies. He is supported by a number of pro-vice-chancellors, who are also academic officers (seconded from their departments). There are currently four pro-vice-chancellors, who between them have responsibility for resources (including staff), teaching, research and information technology. The Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors constitute, with the Registrar and some of his senior colleagues, a Senior Management Team, which meets weekly and which serves as an informal forum for the discussion of strategic issues. The other senior academic officers are the chief officers of the faculty boards, who make an important contribution to the planning process through the ADC in particular.

16. The Chancellor is formally Head of the University, but in practice is not involved in the management of the institution. For practical purposes, the chief lay officer is the Pro-Chancellor, who chairs the Court and Council and who might be regarded as fulfilling the role of the non-executive chairman of a company.

Administration

17. The Registrar is the head of the Central Administration. His office is divided into eight divisions (Academic Administration and Student Services; Academic Development; Corporate Affairs; Finance; Residential and Catering Services; Personnel; Planning and Management Information Systems; and Works and Services), each headed by a director. The administrative divisions undertake both service and developmental tasks, and in the latter connection in particular make a contribution to the management of the University, working with academic officers and committees.

11 May 1993

1 This account describes the position in May 1993. when the HEQC audit visit took place. It does not reflect the changes which have taken place between the visit and the publication of the audit report (though none of these changes is material).


Committee structure

TopTop