Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) 2015 Background: The University participated in the biennial PRES for the sixth time this year, allowing the institution to compare results over an eight-year period. PRES is primarily a benchmarking tool and national results obtained from the 130 participating Higher Education institutions, incorporating over 53,000 individual responses, provide robust benchmarking data for individual institutions. Aside from the benchmarking data and the statistical analysis, PRES also provides a high level of qualitative information via the open ended questions at the end of each section. Participation: All registered postgraduate research students were invited to complete the online survey, which was open from 2 March to 15 May 2015. Following on from the success in achieving high participation rates in the last survey, Research Graduate Schools were again provided with posters to promote the survey and the incentive scheme was again implemented whereby two iPads were offered as part of a prize draw for participation. The survey platform was updated this year by BOS (Bristol Online Surveys) to require students to access the survey by a unique survey URL, auto-generated by the system based on their unique user IDs. Students were therefore emailed personalised individual invites via mail merge and it would appear that this improved participation rates, with the response rate equalling last year’s rate within the first two days. This change, however, meant that the follow-up RGS emails were less effective as they were generic and did not include the unique survey URL. The participation rate increased from 41.5% in 2013 to 56% in 2015, which is well above the national average which remained fairly static at 40.4%. Individual Faculty participation rates, as shown in the table below, varied considerably which marked a change from the previous year when there was consistency across the faculties (with only 6% variance). As mentioned, this could be a result of the new survey distribution method, which meant that the emails from the RGS were not as effective. It was noticeable, for example, that a lower response rate was received from the Faculty of Arts, who do not have any students based on the campus from which the invitation emails were sent by Research Student Administration.

Faculty Participation Rate:

Number of

respondents Total Number of

Students % Faculty Participation Rate

Faculty of Art, Design and the Built Environment:

69 114 61%

Faculty of Arts: 33 82 40%

Faculty of Computing and Engineering:

83 124 67%

Faculty of Life and Health Sciences:

144 287 50%

Faculty of Social Sciences: 48 85 56%

Ulster Business School: 39 50 78%

Total: 416 742 56%

Findings – Scaled Questions: As with previous surveys, scaled questions have been used to provide more robust data on each particular area of interest. Groups of questions relating to similar subject areas have been combined to form seven scaled questions and the questions making up each scale have been reproduced in Annex 1. The questions making up the scales are identical to previous surveys, but the titles for some of the scales have changed. The table below shows the mean scores for each scaled question, along with a comparison against the national averages and the historic data from Ulster’s previous surveys.

As can be appreciated from the overall results, Ulster has either improved its performance or remained the same across all scales compared with the last set of results. Ulster’s results compare favourably with the national averages, although very slightly lower in the Supervision and Research Culture scales. The chart below shows the continuing upward trend across all indicators in graphical format.

Scale

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 15

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 13

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 11

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 09

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 08

Ulster Mean Rating PRES 07

UK Mean Rating PRES 2015

Supervision 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.4

Research Skills 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.3

Resources 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 4.1

Research Culture 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.8

Progress and Assessment

4.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.1

Professional Development

4.3 4.2 3.5 3.1 n/a n/a 4.1

Responsibilities 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.6 n/a n/a 4.1

Supervision Scale: Feedback from respondents in relation to the supervision scale, covering questions on supervisory skills in supporting students, satisfaction with level of contact and feedback and also support from supervisors in identifying development needs, continues to improve year on year. With a mean of 4.3, Ulster students are marginally less satisfied with supervision than the UK average student (mean of 4.4) but levels have increased steadily since the 2007 survey. Within this scale, the question with the lowest mean and which has brought down the average is the support provided by supervisors to identify training and development needs as a researcher (mean of 4.0). The vast majority of respondents felt well supported by their supervisors and were appreciative of the regular meetings and good quality feedback. One respondent commented that ‘my supervisor holds weekly PhD meetings and this greatly adds to a positive research experience.’ This was fairly typical of those satisfied students who felt that their supervisors provided excellent support while allowing them to develop as independent researchers. Where the situation was not so positive, students felt that meetings were too infrequent and in some cases felt that they would benefit from slightly more structure and guidance. In a few cases, there appeared to be poor management of supervisory changes, which led to delays and problems. A small number felt that feedback was less consistent than expected due to supervisors within the team have differing opinions and a few mentioned issues with the allocation of the supervisory team in terms of a lack of expertise in the student’s subject area. The following comment summarises the view of those students who did not feel that they were being given sufficient support:

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

P R E S 0 7 P R E S 0 8 P R E S 0 9 P R E S 1 1 P R E S 1 3 P R E S 1 5

MEA

N R

ATI

NG

YEAR OF SURVEY

MEAN RATINGS OF SCALED QUESTIONS

Supervision Research Skills Resources

Research Culture Progress and Assessment Professional Development

Responsibilities

‘I feel that tighter regulations should be in place to ensure that supervisors meet with their PhD students more regularly. I understand that many supervisors have very busy schedules however I think that more time should be made for PhD students so that a sufficient level of guidance/ advice is being provided to keep students on track and help with difficult decisions.’

Research Skills Scale: This is another area which has seen a steady increase in satisfaction rates over the years, with a mean of 4.4 compared to the national average of 4.3. This scale covers the extent to which students feel they have developed their skills in areas such as applying research methodologies, critical analysis, understanding research integrity and being creative and innovative. Students confirmed that their skills had developed in all the above areas, both through formal training provision and also through working with their supervisors through the research process. The comment below typifies the views of respondents:

‘My skills have developed immeasurably and I have really developed as a person with much more confidence in myself and my research area.’

Resources Scale: The results from this scale places Ulster slightly above the national average in terms of satisfaction with workspace, computing facilities, library facilities and access to specialist resources, with a mean of 4.2 compared to the national average of 4.1. Again, satisfaction in this area had been steadily increasing year on year and has now plateaued. Students were most satisfied with the provision of library facilities, including online services, and the qualitative comments suggest that the library staff are most helpful in ordering up any resources that are not in the library. A few students suggested that there should be more quiet space, noting that both their own study areas and the libraries can be very noisy most of the time. Some Arts students felt that the space on the Belfast campus was not appropriately secure and that there was limited access to studio space. A number of respondents felt that communal space for PhD students would be beneficial in encouraging the sharing of ideas. In terms of computing facilities, a number of students found that the lack of capacity of the computers, along with their age and speed, meant that they could not handle the datasets, resulting in delays and frustration. In some areas, equipment breakdown was a concern for students relying on particular equipment to carry out testing and was resulting in delays to projects. Research Culture Scale:

Students at Ulster feel that the research culture is improving, with satisfaction levels increasing year on year (up from a mean of 3.2 in 2007 to 3.7 in 2015). The results are now more in line with the national average (mean of 3.8), which is pleasing to note. The lowest scores in this area were recorded in the faculties of Arts and Art, Design and the Built Environment. The questions that make up this scale relate to satisfaction with the Faculty seminar programme, opportunities to discuss research with other students, satisfaction with the research ambience and whether there were opportunities to become involved in the wider research community. The means for each of the four questions were all very similar, ranging from 3.6 to 3.8. The qualitative feedback suggests that the provision of a seminar programme and the development of research culture is patchy across research groups within the various faculties. Some feel very positive about the culture, with journal groups being held regularly and opportunities to mix and discuss ideas with other students in common rooms and other areas:

‘My research group has meetings on a weekly basis where you have the opportunity to discuss recent research papers published or discuss your own lab work. It is good to get advice from other people and allows you to become more confident in talking about your own work.’

Others feel that their physical location impedes any mixing with other students, with the working conditions resulting in students working from home or in libraries with little interaction with others. Some part time students felt that more could be done to include them in the research environment, other than being invited to training and seminars during the working day when they were unavailable due to work commitments. A number of students pointed to the lack of a seminar programme or reading/journal groups as being a major issue that prevented the development of a research culture:

‘A regular seminar programme is definitely and conspicuously lacking, especially compared to other universities I have worked at. I tried to organise a regular journal club meeting for biomedical science research students to attend and participate in, but although there seemed to be sufficient interest, there was minimal participation on the part of the students and definitely no encouragement or support from senior academic staff or the research school. A journal club is usually an important component of research centres in other institutions and isn't something a PhD student should even have to organise.’

Progress and Assessment Scale: This scale, covering students’ understanding of induction, monitoring requirements, the standard expected for the thesis and final assessment procedures, is another area in which Ulster students rate their experience as being above the national average (mean of 4.2

against a national average of 4.1). This area is one which has also improved year on year, continuing the positive upward trend. Students were generally very content with the induction programme, although the comments show that those who did not commence their programmes with the main cohort in September felt that their induction was very much lacking. Similarly, students on the Belfast campus would have liked an induction or even a tour of the campus. While most students felt that the Research Studies Handbook provided a good source of information, a number of respondents felt that there was confusion over which aspects were prescribed centrally and which were faculty-specific, particularly in relation to guidance on the presentation of the thesis:

‘It is a bit confusing how the thesis should be presented. I think one document per department should be made up specific to their needs. E.g. some aspects are global across all subjects and some aspects are APA, it's a bit confusing.’

It was suggested that RGS Handbooks may be updated to provide better guidance on thesis expectations and standards for students. Professional Development Scale: Over the past six years, this area has seen the most dramatic increase in satisfaction, from being the lowest rating to one of the highest (mean of 3.1 to mean of 4.3). It also compares favourably against the national average of 4.1. The questions that make up this scale refer to whether the student has developed their abilities to manage projects, communicate to diverse audiences, establish contacts and professional networks and manage their own professional development. The qualitative responses from student suggest that Ulster students feel that their skills are improving through the process of undertaking a research degree programme. While a number of respondents felt that the training programmes were useful, many felt that the process of undertaking research and presenting at conferences had resulted in the development of these skills:

‘Again, this has happened naturally through the process of writing, attending conferences, teaching etc. rather than because the university has trained me.’

Responsibilities Scale: With a mean score of 4.1, the responses to the scaled questions in this area equal both last year’s response and also that of the national average. The questions relate to the extent to which student feedback is valued, whether students understand their responsibilities and those of their supervisors and also whether they know who to turn to for support, other than supervisors. From the scaled questions, the areas with the lowest mean scores were those related to whether the University valued and responded to student feedback and also whether the

students knew who to approach should they require further guidance. It was noted that the qualitative comments from students in the Faculty of Art, Design and the Built Environment were less sure about who to contact should issues arise than others and this may be due to the fact that there is neither an RGS nor Research Student Administration presence on the Belfast campus. In a few areas, outside of the student/supervisor relationship, there does not appear to be a strong understanding of other support systems available to students. Faculty Mean Scores by Scaled Question:

The table below provides further detail on the mean scores for each scale by Faculty.

Faculty Scale Arts

Art, Design and the Built Environment

Computing and

Engineering

Life and Health

Sciences Social

Sciences

Ulster Business School

Supervision 4.17 3.87 4.47 4.47 4.44 4.31

Research Skills 4.36 4.27 4.42 4.48 4.25 4.46

Resources 3.54 3.75 4.36 4.30 4.27 4.43

Research Culture 3.14 3.22 3.82 3.89 3.64 3.87

Progress and Assessment 4.19 3.91 4.21 4.33 4.22 4.53

Professional Development 4.24 4.05 4.25 4.37 4.29 4.37

Responsibilities 4.05 3.82 4.08 4.20 4.37 4.37

The table shows high levels of satisfaction across most of the scaled question areas across all faculties. The exception, as mentioned before and in line with national results, is the Research Culture scale, particularly within Arts and Art, Design and the Built Environment, and also to some extent, Resources, within the same two faculties. Average Means by Faculty:

Faculty Average Mean across

all scaled questions (PRES 2015)

Average Mean across all scaled questions

(PRES 2013)

Average Mean across all scaled questions (PRES

2011)

Arts 3.96 4.02 3.48

Art, Design and the Built Environment

3.84 3.96 3.81

Computing and Engineering 4.23 4.20 4.04

Life and Health Sciences 4.29 4.12 3.71

Social Sciences 4.21 4.13 4.08

Ulster Business School 4.33 4.02 3.78

The table above shows a slight increase in satisfaction levels across the scaled questions since the last survey in all faculties except the Faculties of Arts and Art, Design and the Built Environment, where the decrease was minimal. This year, an additional question was posed to the respondents, inviting them to rate their overall satisfaction levels with their experience at Ulster. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the results largely mirror the average means by Faculty as noted in the above table: Overall satisfaction with experience of research degree programme at Ulster

Faculty Mean Score

Arts 3.78

Art, Design and the Built Environment

3.78

Computing and Engineering 4.16

Life and Health Sciences 4.26

Social Sciences 4.33

Ulster Business School 4.38

Opportunities:

The PRES 2015 survey included more detail on the opportunities that students had been offered throughout their research degree programme. The following table identifies the volume and type of opportunities on offer at Ulster by Faculty:

Arts

Art,

Design

and the

Built

Environme

nt

Computin

g and

Engineerin

g

Life and

Health

Sciences

Social

Sciences

Ulster

University

Business

School

Agreeing a personal training or development

plan14 22 24 76 12 15 2 165

Receiving training to develop my research skills 28 58 72 132 37 38 5 370

Receiving training to develop my transferable

skills22 32 47 92 14 23 4 234

Receiving advice on career options 17 16 22 51 12 13 1 132

Taking part in a placement or internship 1 2 8 15 4 1 0 31

Attending an academic research conference 29 45 58 119 30 27 5 313

Presenting a paper or poster at an academic

research conference21 40 51 97 27 18 2 256

Submitting a paper for publication in an

academic journal or book13 24 43 67 15 14 1 177

Communicating your research to a non-

academic audience12 39 35 66 19 11 2 184

No answer 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 5

Totals 157 279 361 717 171 160 22 1867

Opportunities

Faculty

No

answerTotals

Students were then asked whether or not they had had the opportunity to undertake teaching or demonstrating while carrying out their research degree programmes and, for those who had, whether they felt appropriately supported in their teaching.

Faculty % respondents who have availed of

teaching opportunities

Satisfaction levels with support and

guidance provided to undertake these

duties (Mean Score)

Was formal training provided prior to teaching

opportunity?

Arts 50% 2.88 56%

Art, Design and the Built Environment

60% 3.68 49%

Computing and Engineering 72% 3.71 57%

Life and Health Sciences 66% 3.83 82%

Social Sciences 64% 3.69 50%

Ulster Business School 54% 3.67 75%

Total 63% 3.70 66%

Nationally, only 50.7% of respondents to the PRES 2015 had been offered teaching or

demonstrating opportunities (compared to 63% at Ulster) and the satisfaction with the

levels of support provided for doing so was slightly lower than the Ulster response (a mean

of 3.5 nationally against a mean of 3.7 for Ulster). Nationally, 64% of respondents had

received formal training for teaching, compared to 66% at Ulster.

Expectations and motivations:

For the first time this year, respondents were asked to consider their motivations for

undertaking research degree programme and their future career plans. The chart below

shows the motivating factors by Faculty and the pie chart summarises the responses at the

institutional level. It was also noted that the responses very closely matched the national

responses, with only one or two percent variation under each indicator.

Motivating factors by Faculty:

It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents were looking towards improving

their career prospects for an academic or research career, rather than outside of academia,

which is in line with the Destination of Leavers Survey which shows that almost two thirds of

graduates remain in academic or research roles on completion of their degree programme.

Following on from this question, respondents were invited to indicate their career plans.

The pie chart shows the findings in response to the question, ‘What type of career do you

have in mind for when you complete your research degree?’

39%

32%

7%

7%2%

12% 1%

Motivating factors influencing decision to undertake a research degree at Ulster

My interest in the subject

Improving my career prospects for anacademic/research career

Improving my career prospectsoutside of an academic/researchcareerI was encouraged by a formeracademic tutor/supervisor

The funding was available

It felt like a natural step for me

I felt inspired to work with a particularacademic

Faculty

of Arts

Faculty of Art,

Design and

the Built

Environment

Faculty of

Computing

and

Engineering

Faculty of

Life and

Health

Sciences

Faculty of

Social

Sciences

Ulster

University

Business

School

My interest in the subject 17 20 40 52 19 13

Improving my career prospects

for an academic/research career5 24 18 56 12 16

Improving my career prospects

outside of an academic/research

career

2 4 7 10 3 2

I was encouraged by a former

academic tutor/supervisor1 5 4 11 5 2

The funding was available 0 3 2 4 1 0

It felt like a natural step for me 6 10 8 13 5 6

I felt inspired to work with a

particular academic1 0 2 1 0 0

Again, the national statistics very closely mirrored the responses from Ulster students, with

a slightly higher number stating that they would be looking for other professional career

options rather than remaining in the education sector compared with Ulster students (3%

variance). The table below shows the career intentions by Faculty.

Career Intentions by Faculty:

Finally, students were invited to consider how likely it was that they would complete their

research degree programme within the institution’s timescales. The table below shows the

results by Faculty. With an overall mean rating of 4.0, Ulster students are slightly less

confident of completing within the institution’s timescales than those from other UK

50%

13%

17%

2%8%

3%1%

6%

Career intentionsAcademic career in higher education (eitherresearch and teaching, or teaching only)

Research career in higher education

Research career outside higher education (e.g.in a private research organisation, a charity orin an industrial environment)

Teaching (at a level below higher education)

Any other professional career

Self-employment (including setting up ownbusiness)

Returning to or remaining with employer whois sponsoring your degree

Other

Arts

Art, Design

and the Built

Environment

Computing

and

Engineering

Life and

Health

Sciences

Social

Sciences

Ulster

University

Business

School

Academic career in higher education (either

research and teaching, or teaching only)20 28 33 72 26 25

Research career in higher education 4 7 16 19 5 1

Research career outside higher education (e.g.

in a private research organisation, a charity or

in an industrial environment)

1 13 22 26 6 4

Teaching (at a level below higher education) 2 1 0 2 2 1

Any other professional career 2 4 6 17 0 4

Self-employment (including setting up own

business)0 6 3 4 0 0

Returning to or remaining with employer who is

sponsoring your degree1 2 0 2 0 1

Other 2 6 2 6 6 2

institutions (mean 4.14), although this could be down to variances in the duration of

research degree programmes.

Likelihood of completing on time:

Faculty Mean Score

Arts 4.06

Art, Design and the Built Environment

3.80

Computing and Engineering 3.85

Life and Health Sciences 4.06

Social Sciences 4.16

Ulster Business School 4.18

Conclusions and Recommendations:

The PRES is an extremely useful tool for identifying areas for improvement, particularly

given the rich qualitative feedback received from respondents and it is suggested that these

comments be further considered in detail in order to make enhancements to the student

experience at Ulster.

Faculty Responses to the Survey:

Faculty of Arts:

The response rate of 40%, despite posters and reminders from the HoRGS, is disappointing.

The HoRGS has raised this within the Faculty and planned actions for the coming year will

hopefully lead to greater engagement. It is expected that higher levels of engagement

would also elicit more positive feedback, since it is likely that students who were unhappy

with their experience were more motivated to reply. Meanwhile, feedback of all kinds

usefully raises issues that may otherwise be overlooked by the RGS and by supervisors.

A number of the issues raised in the qualitative feedback have already been addressed,

either through scheduled developments in the Faculty around the provision of resource, or

because they had been raised in the Progress forms.

Supervision:

The comments on supervision are largely positive, and the Faculty is working to improve this

further.

HoRGS phoned students who commented problems with supervision in their annual

progress forms, and supported them to ask their supervisors for the direction and

time that they need. So far, reports from the students concerned is positive.

The practice in one area of the Faculty of weekly meetings with all post-graduates in

addition to supervision, is under discussion with Cluster Coordinators as a means of

supporting students in small subject areas.

The work space in Coleraine is greatly improved with the move to the new building.

Students have a custom-built space with access to (admittedly ageing) computers

and printers, a meeting room, a seating area and a kitchen area. Reports on this

space, which became accessible in September, are positive.

Part of the recurrent budget is used to buy extra RAM and to upgrade equipment

wherever possible.

Research Culture:

The challenge for the Faculty of Arts is the wide range of subject areas operating in small

units. There is some variability in research culture by subject, and students in the

smallest subject areas who may be part of a cohort of only two or three, do have a more

limited experience. The faculty is investigating strategies to address this. These include:

The introduction of monthly ‘Work-in-Progress’ sessions on the Coleraine campus in

the past academic year, accessible by video conferencing, which give students an

opportunity to present their research alongside a member of academic staff.

Attendance and interest in these sessions has been very positive.

The practice of weekly meetings with all post-graduates, as noted above.

The HoRGS is gathering information on all research seminars in all subjects within

the Faculty, to circulate these around the full research student cohort.

The new spaces at Coleraine and Magee are large and designed for multiple

occupancy, which facilitate a group identity and mitigates somewhat against the

isolation students in Arts often experience.

Students have an annual stipend of £350 to support their research; this is one of the

lowest amounts in the University. However, the RGS does provide additional

financial support wherever possible, as do the RIs.

Progress and Assessment:

A significant number of those replying had attended an academic research conference, and

most who attended had also presented a paper or poster, with about half of these

submitting a paper for publication. [Arts publications are normally single-authored, so this is

significant.]

The HoRGS runs sessions each year, on both Coleraine and Magee campuses, in

advance of the scheduled initial and Confirmation of Registration vivas.

Supervisors organize mock vivas in advance of the final viva.

Supervisors provide information on the standard for the final submission and

students are encouraged to read examples from the library.

50% of the students take up the opportunity to gain teaching experience. The

Faculty runs an introduction to teaching and students are also alerted to the

centrally offered training by the HoRGS. The RGS pays for 12 hours teaching, and the

relevant HOS pays for any further hours.

The Faculty has regulations in place to ensure that the students are supported by the

HOS and their teaching supervisors, and that they do not work beyond the agreed

limited number of hours. Students are encouraged to reflect upon their teaching

experience in supervision.

Responsibilities:

The HoRGS has office hours on both Coleraine and Magee campuses, and this

information is circulated to students. Part of this time is drop-in time each week.

Students also have email and phone numbers for the HoRGS, and access to the part-

time administrative member of staff via phone and email.

The handbook, the orientation sessions, and the BlackBoard page all clarify who

should be contacted for particular issues, and the HoRGS response personally and

promptly (within 48 hours) to all inquiries received.

Dr Lisa Fitzpatrick

Head of RGS, Faculty of Arts

Faculty of Art, Design and the Built Environment:

PRES 2015 represented a high rate of response with 61% of the Faculty’s PhD cohort

participating in this year’s submission. The Faculty notes an overall drop in the PRES

average score from 3.96 to 3.84 and attributes much of this to the disruption occurring in

the Belfast campus. New measures such as a secure space for the PhD students have been

deployed in this academic year, but with the ongoing changes in the Belfast campus, it will

take time to see if such actions have improved the environment. This also challenges the

Head of RGS with no dedicated space to meet students when on campus. RGS

administration has been challenged within the Faculty given a long-term illness to the

dedicated administrator and part-time cover arranged within existing Faculty resources.

While this has been excellent, it has been a steep learning curve for all.

Supervision at 3.78 is the lowest in the University. The RGS Head organised two sessions in

the last academic year with staff (one in Belfast and one in Jordanstown) but both were

poorly attended despite being held over lunch time with lunch provided. This is supported

by student comments regarding staff awareness of student training availability for example.

Common themes are that supervisors are a) unavailable (typically because they are senior

staff) and b) uninterested. This reflects an overall relatively small research active base with

research supervision being stretched beyond capacities. However in addressing these

challenges, based on the comments received, there are positive elements of supervisory

practice.

Research Skills at 4.27 is in keeping with the rest of the University and approaches the

national average. Given the typically high level of competition for PhD places, it is to be

expected that quality students are selected for the positions. Specialist staff participation in

the interview stage is greatly appreciated in selecting the best students for the Faculty. The

breadth of the faculty raises challenges to finding the supporting seminar specialisms

necessary to address student needs. More support is required from academic staff in this

matter and this will be addressed by the RGS.

Resources at 3.75 is a major challenge. Non-STEM activities are supported at

£350/student/annum while STEM are supported at £1000/student/annum. The RGS assists

non-STEM by not rigidly keeping to these levels through supporting PhD students through

externally funded grant means. The challenges with the Belfast campus of aging computing,

lack of technical support for such activities and a PhD staff have been noted. The space

issue has been addressed with the construction of a new wall and security doors with a

number/keypad for PhD access fitted.

Research Culture is challenged by the diversity of the Faculty. The faculty strongly reflects

its two research institutes and students do not always appreciate other fields of endeavour.

However at a personal level, the Faculty student cohort interacts, encouraged by RGS

sponsored events such as the 1st year welcome and induction, the welcome evening and the

conference.

Progress and Assessment is somewhat contradictory. There is a combination of references

to the RGS manual providing all necessary information to supervisors providing different

information. This reflects the lack of attendance at staff training sessions. However further

inductions and sessions will be held on each campus.

Professional Development does suffer from a lack of a regular presence on the Belfast

Campus. However supervisors are better placed to advise on such matters given the

breadth of faculty activities. Conference attendance issues are reflected in the supporting

funding challenge reported earlier.

Overall comments reflect the challenges outlined above. There is a general dissatisfaction

with the Belfast campus space, which has been largely addressed. Information flow

between RGS and students needs to improve as the loss of space during construction does

not facilitate a common place of contact. However the RGS Head is grateful for the PRES

activity as it highlights the difficulties faced. These are not communicated by staff or

students to the RGS.

Professor Neil Hewitt

Head of RGS

Faculty of Computing and Engineering:

PRES was conducted across the Ulster University with a participation rate increase from 41.5% to 56%, with the UK average participation rate remaining at 40.4%. The Faculty of Computing and Engineering are pleased to report a participation rate of 67%, the second highest in the university and well above the Ulster and UK averages. The Faculty notes an overall increased mean rating for all categories within PRES across the university. Specifically within Computing and Engineering, for supervision we have received a mean score of 4.47 which is the highest in Ulster (joint with LHS) and just above the UK average of 4.4. This highlights that students are satisfied with their supervisors’ skills, contact and general feedback. This is supported by qualitative feedback such as “My supervisors are extremely helpful and good leaders” and “To date, I have learnt a great deal as a result of the supervision from my supervisor”. In all other categories, C+E also report a mean response higher than both the UK and Ulster’s averages, except for Professional Development where C+E is marginally below the university average (C+E received a mean score of 4.24, with the university average at 4.3) but still above the UK average (4.1). The professional development refers specifically to managing projects, effective communication, developing contacts and managing professional develop. PhD students are strongly encouraged to present their research at national and international conferences, hence improving they communication skills and offering networking opportunities. However, the average mean score for C+E over all categories is 4.23, which is a slight increase from 2013 (4.2) and 2011 (4.04) and also one of the highest scores in the university. These scores demonstrate an overall high level of satisfaction within the C+E PhD student cohort. The mean score of the satisfaction with the research degree programme in C+E is 4.16, which is slightly above the university average of 4.12. The students have indicated a number of opportunities that they have received during they research programme which is very encouraging. Within C+E, PhD students are strongly encouraged to participate in teaching or demonstrating and 72% have availed of this opportunity, which is well above both the Ulster and UK average, and in general the students are satisfied with the support provided for this. The response for the formal training is low (57%), however students are expected to attend staff development training prior to participating in teaching and demonstrating. It is interesting and encouraging to note that the majority of the C+E students have embarked on PhD research primarily due to their interest in the subject and also with the aim of improving their career prospects with a large proportion of the students intending to continue with a research career (either inside or outside of HE) or aim to have an academic career in HE. The student response to the likelihood of completing on time for C+E is disappointing. With a mean response of 3.85, this is well below the Ulster mean (4.0) and the UK mean (4.14) and indeed almost the lowest in the university. However, the completion rates for C+E are generally good. The qualitative responses provided by the students are limited. In the area of supervision, of the 8 responses, only 1 was negative, claiming that the PhD supervisors have no experience in the area of the PhD, this is highly unlikely as all projects are closely reviewed by RI Directors and the HoRGS prior to advertisement. Although Resources received a mean score of 4.36

(Ulster mean is 4.2), students have commented on the lack of necessary books and journals in the library, cramped work spaces, noisy working environments, broken equipment, limitations of software licenses etc. This is again disappointing, as students have never raised any such issues in any open forum such as the RGS school board. Under Responsibilities, there is a comment regarding quarterly payments, this has been discussed with and explained to the student representatives many times, and in general it is only a small number of students seeking more frequent payments. Overall, the majority of PhD students within C+E are very satisfied with the research degree programme within Ulster. Sonya Coleman Head of Research Graduate School

Faculty of Life and Health Sciences:

The Faculty welcomes the findings of the PRES 2015 report, not least as it reflects positively on the experiences of postgraduates students working in the fields of Life and Health Sciences. We note participation in the survey for the Faculty to be 50% (144/287), which is above the national average.

We recognise the particularly strong performance of research supervisors within the Faculty as it is evident that students appreciate the expertise and supportive environment fostered by their supervisory teams. This trend is set to continue as, upon recent review of the annual RS3 forms completed by students in the Faculty, the overwhelming number of comments in this field continue to prove both positive and complimentary. Specific mention should be made in this regard of practice and performance within both the Biomedical Sciences and INHR Research Institutes.

We appreciate the constructive comments contained within the report around a possible improved role for supervisors when seeking to identify training and development needs for postgraduate students and we will endeavour to emphasise this aspect during the 2015/16 academic year.

Equally we take on board the suggestion around facilitating a more constructive, communal environment for postgraduate students within the Faculty, with specific mention of ‘Journal Clubs’ being one appropriate methods of achieving this. We should point out that there are pockets of very good practice in this regard throughout the Faculty, the work of SESRI is a case in point, but we accept more can be done in this regard.

In terms of specific metrics around student supervision we were pleased to note that the Faculty scored highest across the University on fostering a strong research culture for postgraduate students, joint highest on student supervision and the development of research skills, whilst also performing well on the development of resources for postgraduate research students. That being said we remain cognoscente of a number of comments contained within the qualitative component of the survey that appear to indicate room for further enhancement around IT and Computer provision within the Faculty. It is of course not always possible to invest as widely as would be liked in computer support for postgraduate students, although all RIs have annual reviews of their computer stock and seek to retain as high a level of functionality as possible in all cases.

Within the Faculty we attach particular importance to developing the wider professional skills of aspiring academics and therefore we’re pleased to see this reflected in the PRES report for 2015. The Faculty scores highest across the University when providing opportunities for students to undertake teaching and demonstrating as part of their wider duties and its pleasing to see the role of supervisors and other academics in supporting these efforts is also profiled positively within the findings of this report.

As such, in an overall sense the Faculty welcomes the findings of the PRES 2015 report and looks forward to positively responding to those areas of possible enhancement during the forthcoming year whilst continuing its strong performance on the majority of the reported metrics.

Professor David Hassan Head of RGS, Life and Health Sciences

Faculty of Social Sciences:

The Faculty of Social Sciences participation rate of 56%, although in line with the average across the University, is disappointing. As noted this may well be a result of the newly introduced means of responding, given that reminder emails from the RGS had been effective in previous years. All mean satisfaction scores for the scaled questions are broadly in line with University averages, slightly above in the areas of supervision, resources, progress and assessment and responsibilities, slightly below in research skills, culture and professional development. Overall mean score for scaled questions increased from 4.13 in 2013 to 4.21. The response to the single overall satisfaction question was somewhat higher at 4.33, perhaps indicating that global satisfaction is rated more positively than when broken down into component parts. The qualitative comments provide some insight into the variation in research student experiences and also highlight some areas of note or for improvement. For example in relation to supervision, while most comments were extremely positive, some related to factors which are known to be problematic for research students and which the Faculty tries to avoid, for example supervisory changes. Where causes of these are predicable, for example a retirement or maternity leave, the Faculty arranges a replacement supervisor to be added to the team as soon as possible in order to facilitate a smooth handover, however this is not always possible. Isolated comments about frequency of meetings, consistency of feedback and managing supervisors from different disciplines do not seem to represent systematic or widespread problems. In relation to resources, the shared office environment clearly presents a few research students with difficulties and we facilitate working from home for these students, contingent on satisfactory progress. Several comments relate to computer facilities, which were in fact upgraded in the past year and the Faculty has a number of laptops available for loan to students requiring them. One issue which is consistently noted in PRES is the difficulty experienced by part time students in accessing resources and also research culture; recent consultations with students have not resolved the issue. The RGS already provides part time students with access to shared computers on a drop in basis and can also provide dedicated workspace for limited periods on request, but few avail of these facilities and while seminars etc are advertised to all, few part time students attend. In relation to progress and assessment, one comment was very reflective with the suggestion of a support group, dedicated individual training and external expert input, perhaps indicating unrealistic expectations which could be better managed. One student who had started late in the year thought lack of induction had hindered progress, although all research students have a face to face induction to the Faculty RGS and those entering outside the main intake have this on a one to one basis; in contrast, another student considered induction to have been largely irrelevant.

In terms of responsibilities, it is good to see recent Faculty initiatives noted and in terms of research skills, it was clear that a lot of skills training is not formalised, but ‘learning by doing’ and facilitated by reading, supervisors, library staff and peers. Similar comment was made about Professional Development, and specifically this was thought to be more useful than the Doctoral Innovation programme approach to project management. Some comments referred to lack of methods training and the Faculty will continue to expand this.

Dr Jackie Reilly

Head of RGS, Social Sciences

Ulster University Business School:

In overall terms I feel the results from the 2015 Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) for the Business School are strong, with our students highlighting very high satisfaction levels. The overall mean of 4.38 is above the UK average rating. The Faculty’s ratings across various categories have increased fairly significantly on previous surveys in 2013 (4.02 mean) and 2011 (3.78 mean). It is pleasing to see this progression in student satisfaction. The Faculty response rate for the survey is high at 78%, which gives us confidence that the results are broadly reflective of student views in the Faculty. It is worth noting that the national average response rate is much lower, at 40.4%. The one area which rates lower is research culture, at a mean of 3.87, in line with the national average of 3.8. This category though is relatively low across all the faculties. It should be noted that several initiatives have been set up in recent years to foster a stronger research culture and PhD community. I organised an initiative on the Jordanstown campus called a ‘PhD drop-in’, whereby on the first Wednesday of each month PhD students would meet up for a coffee and take the opportunity to discuss their progress with other PhD students. I felt that this would foster a stronger PhD community feel on the campus. Jordanstown students are spread across a number of rooms and blocks and compared to Coleraine and Magee may not have the same opportunities to develop a sense of community and peer support. A further initiative was the setting up of LinkedIn groups for part-time students. Many of our part-time students are located in the Republic of Ireland, England and further abroad, so it is difficult for them to meet other students face-to-face. This type of initiative is designed to alleviate any feelings of isolation. Last year I organised a research seminar series on the Jordanstown campus and invited all full-time and part-time PhD students to present at this, and to attend staff presentations. All of these activities have been very useful but there may be scope for organising more of these types of activities across the campuses. The number of students availing of teaching opportunities within the Faculty is 54%. This is slightly above the national average (50.7%). This figure could be improved upon and ideally all PhD students in the Faculty should have the opportunity to gain teaching experience. The majority of those who had taught were formally trained prior to teaching (75%). This indicates a strong engagement by our students in the University’s teaching development courses, such as First Steps to Teaching. All of our students are given the opportunity each year to record their areas of expertise for teaching and I circulate these details to Heads of School and ask them to give consideration to PhD students in their teaching allocations. Ultimately teaching allocation is a Head of School decision but they are continually reminded to be as fair and equitable as possible in their allocations in order to give as many of our students as possible some teaching experience. The qualitative responses indicate that part-time students would benefit from better timing of training and support around their work schedules. This is a bit of a challenge for the Faculty as much of this training is organised centrally and Faculty led training and events require the attendance of full-time students to make them viable and effective in terms of participant numbers. However, further consideration will be given to part-time needs when scheduling events.

In general, I feel that various initiatives introduced at Faculty and University levels over the last 3-4 years have impacted very positively on the PhD student experience.

Barry Quinn Head of the Graduate Research Centre Ulster University Business School

Annex 1 Scaled Questions: Supervision: My supervisor/s have the skills and subject knowledge to support my research I have regular contact with my supervisor/s, appropriate for my needs My supervisor/s provide feedback that helps me direct my research activities My supervisor/s help me to identify my training and development needs as a researcher Research Skills: My skills in applying appropriate research methodologies, tools and techniques have developed during my programme My skills in critically analysing and evaluating findings and results have developed during my programme My confidence to be creative or innovative has developed during my programme My understanding of 'research integrity' (e.g. rigour, ethics, transparency, attributing the contribution of others) has developed during my programme Resources: I have a suitable working space There is adequate provision of computing resources and facilities There is adequate provision of library facilities (including physical and online resources) I have access to the specialist resources necessary for my research Research Culture: My department provides a good seminar programme I have frequent opportunities to discuss my research with other research students The research ambience in my department or faculty stimulates my work I have opportunities to become involved in the wider research community, beyond my department Progress and Assessment: I received an appropriate induction to my research degree programme I understand the requirements and deadlines for formal monitoring of my progress I understand the required standard for my thesis The final assessment procedures for my degree are clear to me Professional Development: My ability to manage projects has developed during my programme My ability to communicate information effectively to diverse audiences has developed during my programme

I have developed contacts or professional networks during my programme I have increasingly managed my own professional development during my programme

Responsibilities: My institution values and responds to feedback from research degree students I understand my responsibilities as a research degree student I am aware of my supervisors' responsibilities towards me as a research degree student Other than my supervisor/s, I know who to approach if I am concerned about any aspect of my degree programme