Transcript Click to add title - Dublin City University | DCU

A Participatory Consultation
Process Model
Reflection on, Description of;
The European University Association,
Quality Review of the
Dublin Institute of Technology
2005
Prepared for the Irish Evaluation Network,
TCD Policy Institute, June 2006
Aims of presentation
1. Introduction
2. Quality Review Context
3. DIT emergent response
4. The process and methodology
5. Utilisation
1. Introduction
• Aidan Kenny BA (Hons) & MSc. DCU, student D.Ed. TCD
• DIT roles (96-06)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Manager, Skills research
Initiative.
Qualifications Framework
Development Officer.
Quality Review, Consultation
Process Facilitator.
Lecturer, School of Construction
faculty of the Built Environment.
Staff representative on the
Academic Council.
TUI Branch Chair.
TUI Branch Equality Officer
Subject Matter Expert ITAC
Chief Examiner NSC DoES
• Other roles (80-00)
•
•
•
•
•
Community Development Officer
Clondalkin partnership.
Resource Teacher Youthreach
Partner Dublin In-depth
Photography.
Partner All Surface Plastering Ltd.
Varity of voluntary community
work,
– CAFÉ,
Belfast Exposed, Clondalkin
Travellers Development Group,
Pavee Point,
Ballymun Co- op,
SOAL drugs project etc.
1. Introduction
• Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Origin 1887 – DIT Act 1992
Awarding body (level 6-10 NFQ)
4000 Major Awards annually,
22,000 students, annual intake 9695 undergraduates, 1272
postgraduates 4000 apprenticeship, remaining part time & short
courses.
2100 staff, 1500 academic, 500 non academic, 100 management
& other.
Six Faculty’s, Applied Arts, Business, Engineering, Built
Environment, Science, Tourism and Food.
35 locations in Dublin City Centre
250 undergraduate programmes, 30 taught postgraduate
programmes, MPhil & PhD researchers (353), apprenticeship
programmes (20/25 Designated Trades), junior music and a
variety of part time courses.
2. Quality Review Context
• Macro
• European Commission
– Sorbonne 1998
• Harmonisation of the European HE system
– Bologna 1999
• European Higher Education Area
– Comparable degrees, Two cycles, ECTS, Mobility, Quality
Assurance co-operation, European dimensions.
– Prague 2001
• European Network of Quality Assurance in HE (ENQA)
– Berlin 2003
• ENQA & European University Association (EUA)
2. Quality Review Context
• Mesco
• National
• 1997 Universities Act,
– Conference of Heads of Irish Universities CHIU (now called the
Irish University Association IUA) carried out research on Quality
assurance procedures for the universities.
– The Act required quality review to be undertaken on a 5-7 year
cycle (EUA carried out this work from 2004-2005)
• 1999 Qualifications (Education & Training) Act,
– Required the DIT and the two awards councils FETAC & HETAC
to Quality Review on a 5-7 year cycle. Reports to be sent to the
NQAI for consideration and made public.
2. Quality Review Context
• Micro
• 1992 DIT Act, required an annual report on the
functioning of the Institute
• 1996-98 Academic Council developed and
implemented DIT Quality Assurance
– Procedures, based on the concept of subsidiary
(Programme teams – Faculty Boards – Academic
Council – Governing Body)
– Note student involvement in all levels.
• 2004 DIT & NQAI agree to request the EUA to
carry out a Quality Review of the Institute.
2. Quality Review Context
• EUA approach
– Questions for the Quality review;
•
•
•
•
What is the Institute trying to do?
How is the Institute trying to do it?
How does the Institute know it works?
How does the Institute change in order to improve?
– Focus;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quality Assurance Procedures
Mission & Strategic Plan
Learning & Teaching
Research
Organisational Structures
Resources & Facilities
2. Quality Review Context
– Quality Review team
• Four international academic experts, one student (ESU)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quality review guideline document
Establish a Steering Committee
Produce a Critical Self Evaluation Report
First Visit of Review team (3 days)
Additional information
Second visit of Review team (4 days)
Oral feedback
Final report
12 months
– Process
3. DIT emergent response
• Governing Body, President and Directorate
agree to establish a Steering Committee (SC)
• SC composition,
– 10 members, Chair Director of Academic Affairs,
Secretary Academic Registrar, member for each
faculty (different grades, academic and non
academic), Research and enterprise representative
and student DITSU representative.
– Supported by, Consultation Process Facilitator, 2
Quality Assurance Officers and administrative staff.
• SC was responsible for, information
dissemination, gathering data and compiling the
Self Evaluation Report (full autonomy).
3. DIT emergent response
– SC considerations;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Complexity (of the task)
Politics (inherent in large organisations)
Trust (needed to be established)
Collaborative participation (SC, staff, students)
Stakeholders participation (trade unions, DITSU)
Ethics (social research)
EU Consultation Directive (in draft form at the time)
Time frame (project management)
Communications (effective channels)
Truth (enquiry and reporting)
4. The process and methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
My approach:
Paradigm;
– Interpretative some cross over with Critical theory
– Naturalistic informed (Guba, Lincoln 89) 4th Generation Evaluation
Methodology;
– Informed by Yin 93, Stake 95, Hamel 93, Guba & Lincoln 89, academic
disciplines of sociology, psychology, management and education practice and
theory,
– Case study type, Descriptive (Yin 93) Intrinsic study (Stake 95),
– Applications (Yin 93) Explain complex, real-life, intervention, explore situations.
– Unit of analysis DIT communities (staff, student, stakeholders).
Research design;
– ‘Multi method’ (Morgan 97)- qualitative (focus groups x 10, submissions x6)quantitative (online surveys x2), link with Guba & Lincoln (89, p 44) 4th
Generation Evaluation.
Data analysis
– Triangulation (Denzin 84, Yin 84).
Procedure;
– Develop protocol,
– Conduct study,
– Analyse evidence,
– Develop conclusions/recommendations.
4. The process and methodology
• Initial three stage process
Analysis
Preparation
Organisation
Readiness
Information
Engagement
Listening
Refine
Data gathering
Analysis
Feedback
Reporting
Consultation process
Aims
And
objectives
Consultation
Team
Develop
process,
Tools,
Strategy
Evaluate
and refine
tools and
process
Run
Pilot
Evaluate
outcome
against
aims and
objectives
Readiness
for
Consultation
Consultation
Evaluate data
May need to
adapt tools or
process
Collect data
Collate data
Draft data
Feedback to target
group.
Recommendations
are feed back.
A plan of action is
moved forward
May need
to reengage
process
4. The process and methodology
Mixed method social research
Focus groups
6 thematic
3 stakeholder
Faculty
Online surveys Personal
Board
Student
submission
submissions
Staff
4. The process and methodology
Staff Focus groups sample profile,
1%
1%1%1%
1%
3%
12%
4%
9%
3%
4%
Built Environment
8
Tourism & Food
6
Business
10
Science
10
Engineering
8
Applied Arts
8
Researcher
3
Research students 3
4%
Administration
12%
16%
12%
16%
Staff Focus
sample profile.
Mixed group
method.
,
Six thematic
focus groups.
2
Technicians
3
Library
2
Porters
1
ICT
1
HR
1
Careers
1
LTC
1
Excluded
members of
Faculty Board’s
N=68.
Stakeholder
Venue
TUI
Bolton St.
3.00
6
1
15/12/04
2
DITSU
Aungier St.
12.00
6
1
13/1/05
2
Amicus
Pembroke St.
11.00
4
1
17/1/05
2
IMPACT/SIPTU
Aungier St.
2.30
5
0
19/1/05
2
Presentations
made to
Faculty
Board's
N=121
Time
Male
Female
Date
Moderator
Faculty Boards
Venue
Built Environment
Linenhall
2.30
18
3
17/11/04
2
Applied Arts
Mountjoy Square
2.30
14
9
23/11/04
2
Engineering
Kevin St.,
3.30
16
2
23/11/04
2
Tourism and Food
Cathal Brugha St.,
3.00
6
6
25/11/04
2
Business
Aungier St
12.00
13
4
02/12/04
2
Science
Kevin St.
2.30
21
9
02/12/04
2
88
33
N=121
Total number of staff at presentations
Time
Stakeholder
Focus Group
N=24
M
F
Date
Presenters
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
807(86%)
Student
Response rate
N=942
(3 days)
59(6%)
46(5%)
12(1%)
2(0%)
16(2%)
1
Category, total number of responses 942
Full time u/g
Full time p/g
Part time ug/pg
Short courses
Apprenticeship
No category
Reponses rate per faculty
400
351(38%)
350
300
Staff response
rate N=479
(5 days)
Actual number
Actual numbers
Student response rate
250
200
150
135(14%)
136(14%)
151(16%)
80(8%)
100
73(8%)
50
16(2%)
0
1
F. Applied Arts
F. Business
F. Built Environment
F. Science
F. Tourism and Food
No faculty
F. Engineering
4. The process and methodology
• Analysis
• Data (qualitative & quantitative)
– Processed
– Coded
– Clustered
– Triangulated
Emerging themes priority order
Human resource management
Research
Teaching
Standards
QA procedures
Committees
Faculty structures
Power/partnership
External contact
Accommodation
5. Utilisation
• Findings from the Self-evaluation process were used for;
– The Self-evaluation Report
– The construction of an action plan to address issues and
concerns that emerged, see below example of one stream of
action.
THEME
Mission, strategic plan
and positioning
ACTION
President/Directorate to establish
working party representative of the
Institute’s stakeholders to:
ACTION PLAN
Carry out a review and updating of the Strategic Plan, in the
context of the planning for Grangegorman, and goals should be
prioritised;
Address the positioning of the Institute, especially in the context
of changing demographics and competition from other HE
institutions in Ireland; and,
Take cognisance of this self-evaluation report and the
recommendations of the EUA that will emerge from the current
process; and,
Consider whether there should be a re-application for university
designation.
Thank you
• In particular,
– Dr Gerry McNamara DCU
– The Irish Evaluation Network
– TCD Policy Institute
– Further information
– Aidan Kenny, 01 402 3312, [email protected]
• Article by A. Kenny on consultation process ‘case study’ available
http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue3/kenny/kenny_abstract.html
• DIT EUA webpage (includes final EUA Report) available
http://intranet.dit.ie/academicaffairs/EUA/documents.html