Revised August 2015

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

SURVEY 2015 - REPORT RESULTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 2

2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 5

3. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1. RESPONSE RATE ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.3. OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ACADEMIC STRUCTURE ............................................................................................ 9

3.3.1. By School ...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.2. by Award .................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3. by Programme ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.4. OVERALL SATISFACTION BY POPULATION TYPE ................................................................................................ 12

3.4.1. Gender ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.4.2. Mode of study ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.4.3. Ethnic Group ............................................................................................................................... 13

3.4.4. Age Group ................................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.5. Disability ..................................................................................................................................... 14

3.5. OPPORTUNITIES/TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES SECTION ...................................................................................... 15

3.5.1. Teaching Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 16

3.6. RESEARCH CULTURE ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.7. PROFESIONAL DOCTORATES ............................................................................................................... 19

3.8. MOTIVATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX 1 SCHOOL LEVEL PROFILES ............................................................................................................ 20

APPENDIX 2 DETAILED RESULTS FOR CORE QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 21

Supervision .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Research Culture ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Progress and Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 22

Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................................... 23

Research Skills ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Professional Development .......................................................................................................................... 24

APPENDIX 3 CORE AREA DATA BREAKDOWN BY SCHOOL ................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX 4 OPEN TEXT QUESTIONS (EXTRACTED FROM BRISTOL ONLINE SURVEYS)

APPENDIX 5 DETAILED PROGRAMME LEVEL RESULTS (EXTRACTED FROM BRISTOL ONLINE SURVEYS)

APPENDIX 6 UEL PRES 2015 QUESTIONS

Prepared by

Emma Dawson (Strategic Planning) Ravinder Bassi (Quality Assurance & Enhancement)

2 | P a g e

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) is a biennial survey led by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) on postgraduate research students’ experiences at UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The survey serves two functions: to inform policy and decision making for the sector and provide information to institutions in order to improve the postgraduate research student experience. A total of 123 institutions participated in the PRES 2015. The University of East London (UEL) has participated in the PRES since 2007. UEL has been benchmarked against the Million Plus group (Million+). A total of 370 UEL research students completed the postgraduate research experience survey this year giving a response rate of 45.7%, which compares favourably against the national response rate of 40% (and the 2013 response rate of 36%). There was a large variation in response rate between schools, but at least 13 research students completed the survey for each school. Overall satisfaction for UEL research students was 73%, four percentage points lower than the Million+ group (excluding UEL) and lower than the 74% overall satisfaction achieved in 2013. The overall satisfaction for the sector has remained static at 82% since 2013. At school level, the School of Psychology had the highest percentage of students satisfied overall (84%) followed by the Cass School of Education and Communities (80%) and the School of Art and Digital Industries (78%). The School of Health, Sport and Bioscience achieved the lowest proportion of students (56%) satisfied overall. Significant improvements have been made with Resources as overall satisfaction for this section has increased from 60% in 2013 to 69% in 2015 (compared with 66% for the Million + group). There has been significant improvement in the percentage of postgraduate research students, of those who have taught, who consider that they had been well supported at UEL- up from 31% in 2013 to 50% this year, in line with the Million+ group. Finally UEL postgraduate research students are five times more likely than either the sector or the Million+ group to have taken part in a ‘placement or internship’.

The following recommendations have been identified for action following the conclusions from the report.

- The overall percentage of satisfied students is larger in those enrolled in a Professional Doctorate than those enrolled in an MPhil/PhD program. (refer to section 3.3.1)

Recommendation 1: to further investigate the reason why students enrolled in a Professional Doctorate programme are more satisfied than students enrolled in an MPhil/PhD programme. The Graduate School should set up a focus group formed by staff and students to analyse the reasons and to establish the differences on the delivery of the programme and to share best practice between programmes.

3 | P a g e

- Although the University has made significant advances in providing training of generic, teaching and research skills; Postgraduate Research Students do not always have the opportunity to practice those skills gained, especially for skills related to communication of the results of their own research. (refer to appendix 2)

Recommendation 2: the University, and especially Academic Schools, should better publicise and support students to expose them to those opportunities (e.g. presenting in conferences, writing a paper for a journal, etc.) which will enable them to enhance their communication skills related to their own research, especially those of publishing in journals and presenting in conferences.

- Not only at UEL but also across the sector, Postgraduate Research Students do not always feel that they are embedded in the Research culture of their School or the Institution. (refer to tables 1 & 2, figures 2a) & b) and section 3.6)

Recommendation 3: the University, and Schools should better involve students in their Research Community. Postgraduate Research Students could lead the organisation of Subject specific research events and organise research conferences or seminars at both the School and Institutional level.

The graph and tables below, provided by the Higher Education Academy shows the range of institutional scores in PRES for each measure, divided into quartiles. The quartile graph shows the range of institutional scores in PRES for each measure, divided into quartiles. For example, the lower quartile covers the range from the lowest scoring institution across a quarter of the lower scoring institutions. The diamond indicates where UEL is on the scale. The overall satisfaction graph shows the institution and benchmark scores for the overall question. The positive and negative statements are up to three statements (where an agree/disagree scale is used) with the largest positive and negative differences.

Summary for University of East London compared to the Sector benchmark.

Key: Top quartile Lower quartile University of East London

Upper quartile Bottom quartile

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Supervision Resources Researchculture

Progression Responsibilities

Researchskills

Professionaldevelopment

Teaching Overall

% a

gre

e

UEL compared to Sector quartiles

4 | P a g e

Table 1. Comparing UEL to the Sector benchmark, the most positive statements were:

% agree Difference Significance Effect size

1: Received appropriate support for English language needs. (n = 96) 94% 6.6% 0.03

2: I have increasingly managed my own professional development during my programme (n = 358) 84% 2.3% 0.01

Comparing UEL to the Sector benchmark, the most negative statements were:

1: I have opportunities to become involved in the wider research community, beyond my department (n = 339) 43% -17.6% p<0.001 0.19

2: I have access to the specialist resources necessary for my research (n = 349) 65% -13.1% p<0.001 0.15

3: My supervisor/s have the skills and subject knowledge to support my research (n = 363) 85% -6.3% p<0.001 0.08

Table 2. Comparing UEL to the Million+ Group benchmark, the most positive statements were:

% agree Difference Significance Effect size

1: Received appropriate support for English language needs. (n = 96) 94% 6.7% 0.18

2: The research ambience in my department or faculty stimulates my work (n = 344) 58% 3.3% 0.04

3: I have frequent opportunities to discuss my research with other research students (n = 351) 59% 2.9% 0.03

Comparing UEL to the Million+ Group benchmark, the most negative statements were:

1: I have opportunities to become involved in the wider research community, beyond my department (n = 339) 43% -10.2% p<0.001 0.36

2: The final assessment procedures for my degree are clear to me (n = 364) 71% -7.2% p<0.01 0.28

3: I understand the required standard for my thesis (n = 361) 77% -5.8% p<0.01 0.21

5 | P a g e

2. METHODOLOGY

The national survey was conducted online from 2nd March until 14th May 2015 and was administered by Bristol Online Surveys. All enrolled MRes (by research), MPhil, PhD and Professional Doctorate students (excluding 2015 starters) were eligible to complete the PRES 2015. The national survey was conducted online from 2nd March until 14th May 2015 and was administered by Bristol Online Surveys. The survey included students on relevant programmes from the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships (TCCR) and the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust (Tavistock) including those with the Northern School for Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy (NSCAP) and Human Development Scotland (HDS). The total sample size was 816 students and the HESA 2014 return was used to compile the sample. A couple of points should be noted with respect to the sample and respondents, firstly only one student responded from TCCR, therefore the results have not been reported as they are statistically insignificant. Secondly, the respective figures for student enrolment and so possible engagement in PRES were different on some programmes for UEL and for the Tavistock, therefore responses rates for the Tavistock, particularly at programme level need to be interpreted with caution. Finally, the survey does not fully capture the professional doctorate student experience as these programmes have two distinct stages - Stage One where students attend taught modules and/or complete a clinical professional qualification in addition to the academic requirements. During Stage Two, the student registers their research proposal and carries out their research and writing of the thesis. Students at stage one would not necessarily have been allocated a supervisor or be conducting research. It was not possible to exclude students at stage one from the survey sample. This was discussed at Research Degrees Sub-Committee and an optional section added to the survey to explore the professional doctorate student experience. The national survey was conducted online from 2nd March until 14th May 2015 and was administered by Bristol Online Surveys. The core questions and summary groups have remained the same for the PRES questionnaire since 2013. This means that data for these questions can be reasonably compared with that from the 2013 survey. However, UEL used a different set of optional questions included at institutional level for 2015, as detailed below. The PRES 2015 questionnaire consisted of core questions in the following 10 sections:

Supervision (4 questions)

Resources (4 questions)

Research Culture (4 questions)

Progress and Assessment (4 questions)

Responsibilities (4 questions)

Research Skills (4 questions)

Professional Development (4 questions)

Overall Experience (2 questions)

Opportunities (1 question)

Motivations (2 questions)

6 | P a g e

In addition to this, UEL opted for three optional sections:

Opportunities for Teaching (3 questions)

Professional Doctorates (5 questions)

Ethical Approval (1 question) Each section consisted of multiple questions. For each question, students were asked to tick one of five options ranging from definitely disagree (1) to definitely agree (5). Students were also given the option to answer ‘N/A’ to any question. With the exception of the overall experience section, the average score for each section was calculated and rounded to the nearest whole number. For all analysis, those who reported ‘N/A’ were not included in the total population. The 2013 figures this year differ from those given in the previous report due to a slight change in the method of calculating the average which we have adopted in order to match external methodology used by the Higher Education Academy. PRES data is confidential to each participating institution, with anonymised national comparative data available through the HEA. Our data has been benchmarked against the Million Plus group (Million+), which consists of the following institutions which partook in the PRES 2015:

Anglia Ruskin University

Bath Spa University

Canterbury Christ Church University

London Metropolitan University

London South Bank University

Middlesex University

Napier University Edinburgh

Staffordshire University

Southampton Solent University

University of Bedfordshire

University of Bolton

University of Cumbria

University of the Highlands and Islands

University of Sunderland

University of West of London

University of West of Scotland

3. RESULTS

3.1. RESPONSE RATE

A total of 370 UEL research students completed the postgraduate research experience survey giving a response rate of 45.7%. This represents a further improvement on the PRES 2013 UEL response rate of 35.9% (and 15% in 2011) and compares favourably with the Million+ response rate of 31.2%. The response rate for all institutions is 40.4%. As all questions were optional for completion, the response rate by school was determined from the number of students who completed the overall satisfaction question, “Overall, I am satisfied with the experience of my research degree programme”. Figure 1 shows the response rate for the overall satisfaction question by school. For reporting purposes the Tavistock is shown as a School. There was a large variability in the number of respondents at the school level, but all schools achieved at least 13 responses. The response rate for the Tavistock should be interpreted with caution as explained in the methodology section of this report.

Figure 1. Response rate (%) at school level.

3.2. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Figure 2a below shows the percentage of students agreeing with the core sections of the PRES survey. The overall experience and institutional questions were reported separately. 73% of respondents mostly or definitely agreed that they were satisfied with the overall experience on their programme compared with 77% for the Million+ group (excluding UEL). This represents a slight decrease from the 2013 UEL overall satisfaction score of 74%. There was a large variation between sections in the percentage of students who on average agreed with the statements. The sections on Supervision and Research Skills both achieved scores of more than 80%, whereas only 57% of respondents agreed on average in response to Research Culture.

8 | P a g e

Figure 2a. Percentage of UEL students agreeing on average for each section of the PRES survey 2015 compared with results for

the sector as a whole and the Million+ group.

Figure 2b below shows the results for UEL (only) from 2013 to 2015. The main change is a significant improvement score for Resources, from 60% to 69%. It is notable that scores in other areas have remained static.

Figure 2b. Percentage of UEL students agreeing on average for each section of the PRES survey 2015 compared with results for

2013.

Further profile analysis at School level is available at Appendix 1.

9 | P a g e

Pearson correlation was conducted for each section against overall satisfaction. Figure 3 shows the level of correlation for each section with overall satisfaction. All sections correlated moderately (r > 0.5) with overall satisfaction. However as in 2013, significant correlation (p < 0.001) was found only for the following sections: research skills, responsibilities, research culture and progress and assessment. The highest increase in satisfaction was with the Resources section, however the correlation shows that this has the least impact on against overall satisfaction. Focus should be concerted to developing research skills, research culture, responsibilities and improving progress and assessment.

Figure 3. Pearson correlation for each section against overall satisfaction.

3.3. OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ACADEMIC STRUCTURE

3.3.1. BY SCHOOL

Figure 4 shows the percentage of students that were mostly or definitely satisfied overall with the experience on their programme, by School. The School of Psychology had the highest percentage of satisfied students followed by the Cass School of Education and Communities and the School of Art and Digital Industries. The School of Health, Sport and Bioscience had the lowest percentage of satisfied students.

10 | P a g e

Figure 4. Percentage of UEL students satisfied overall by school.

3.3.2. BY AWARD

Figure 5 shows the percentage of students that were mostly or definitely satisfied overall with the experience on their programme, by award type. Students on Professional Doctorate programmes are typically most satisfied, while those on MPhil programmes, least so. Note that results are suppressed for MRes programmes as the numbers are too small to be statistically significant.

Figure 5. Percentage of UEL students satisfied overall by award type.

11 | P a g e

3.3.3. BY PROGRAMME

Figures 6a) and b) shows the percentage of students that were mostly or definitely satisfied overall with the experience on their programme, by programme. Note that these charts show only those programmes with 10 or more respondents. Of these programmes, the Professional Doctorate Educational and Child Psychology achieved the highest overall satisfaction rate at 97%, with both Professional Doctorates for Fine Art and Child Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy (M80N at NSCAP) also achieving rates above 90%. However, the Professional Doctorate Child Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy (M80) delivered at the Tavistock had a much lower satisfaction score of 63%. The results also highlight the differences in overall satisfaction with the experience of students on Professional Doctorate programmes and those on MPhil/PhD programmes, the latter tending to have lower satisfaction. The programmes with the three lowest scores were all MPhil/Phd programmes.

Figure 6. UEL students satisfied overall by programme.

Figure 6a) Chart showing PhD/MPhil as a group and Prof Docs separately where there

were 10 or more respondents

Programmes grouped by award aim: MPhil and PhD have been grouped as part of the same continuum and Professional Doctorates split out as being distinctive.

12 | P a g e

Figure 6b) Chart showing distinct programmes with n=10 or more respondents

3.4. OVERALL SATISFACTION BY POPULATION TYPE

3.4.1. GENDER

Figure 7 compares the percentage of students satisfied overall between male and female students, which are similar.

Figure 7. Percentage of students satisfied overall by gender.

13 | P a g e

3.4.2. MODE OF STUDY

Figure 8 compares the percentage of students satisfied overall between full-time and part-time students. Again, these were similar.

Figure 8. Percentage of UEL students satisfied overall by mode of study.

3.4.3. ETHNIC GROUP

Figure 9 compares the percentage of students satisfied overall between ethnic groups. White student were most likely to be satisfied overall, at 79%, with Asian students twenty percentage points lower at 59%.

Figure 9. Percentage of students satisfied overall by ethnic group.

14 | P a g e

3.4.4. AGE GROUP

Figure 10 compares the percentage of students satisfied overall between age groups. Students in the oldest age group (56 years or older) were significantly less satisfied (at 64%) than those in the mid-range (41-45 years) who were the most satisfied at 78%.

Figure 10. Percentage of students satisfied overall by age group.

3.4.5. DISABILITY

Figure 11 compares the percentage of students satisfied overall between those with and those without declared disabilities. These figures are broadly similar and this represents an equality improvement on the 2013 survey when there was a 20 percentage point disparity, with students with a declared disability scoring only 55% satisfied overall.

Figure 11. Percentage of students satisfied overall by disability.

15 | P a g e

3.5. OPPORTUNITIES/TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES

Detailed analysis of each question within the Opportunities section was conducted as this section had the lowest proportion of students who on average scored Mostly or Definitely Agree. This question set first asked students to identify which of a variety of opportunities they had experienced and then went on to establish, of those who had experienced teaching opportunities, whether they felt supported or had received formal training. It was these latter two questions which achieved low satisfaction rates from those undertaking teaching. Figure 12 shows the percentage of students who had experienced each type of opportunity, with 92% of all survey respondents indicating that they had experienced any of the opportunities listed. Figures for other categories are the percentage of respondents to question 16. There was a wide spread of experience of the different opportunities listed. The most common opportunity experienced was ‘Training to develop research skills’, which 75% of students had experienced. Least common were ‘Submitting a paper for publication in an academic journal or book’, at 21% and ‘Receiving advice on career options’ at 22%.

Figure 12. Percentage of students who had experienced each type of opportunity.

Figure 13 gives a comparison of opportunities against the sector and the Million+ group, the sector and UEL results for 2013. These comparisons are made on a slightly different basis from the results in Figure 12. Percentages given are of the total number of opportunities experienced (where an individual student may have experienced several different opportunities and was able to select all that applied). Figure 12 shows that opportunities experienced by UEL students are broadly in line with those for other parts of the sector. Exceptions are for ‘Presenting a paper or poster at an academic research conference’ where results for UEL are close to half those for the sector as a whole or for the Million+ group, and ‘Taking part in a placement or internship’ for which UEL students are five times more likely than either the sector or the Million+ group to have experienced. This may be explained by the requirement of many Professional Doctorate programmes to undertake placements. It should be noted that respondents may be in the early years of their programme and not yet have experienced opportunities that are available in later years.

16 | P a g e

Figure 13. Percentage of all opportunities experienced, by opportunity type.

3.5.1. TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES

Figure 14 shows the percentages of students who had experienced teaching opportunities during their programme and, of those, the percentage who agreed that they had been supported or received formal training in their teaching. The chart also shows a comparison for UEL with the 2013 survey and with the sector and Million+ group this year. (Note that the numbers of respondents to each part of the question are different for each group and are given separately in Table 1.) The percentage of respondents who had experienced teaching opportunities at UEL has remained almost constant from 2013 to2015 and is significantly lower than for either the Million+ group or the sector as a whole. Of those who have taught, there has been a great improvement in the percentage who consider that they have been well supported at UEL - up from 31% in 2013 to 50% this year, in line with the Million+ group. The same percentage of UEL students as in 2013 said that they had had formal training for their teaching, again in line with the Million+ group.

17 | P a g e

Figure 14. Teaching Opportunities

Table 1. Number

of respondents to Question 17

Question number

Question UEL

n=

Million+

n=

Sector

n=

17 Please indicate whether you have taught (or demonstrated) at your institution during your research degree programme.

368 1,639 52,581

17.a If yes, to what extent do you agree that you have been given appropriate support and guidance for your teaching?

133 822 27,889

17.b. Did you receive formal training for your teaching? 148 872 28,952

Figure 15 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about opportunities for teaching, which were additional questions for UEL in 2015 hence there is no comparative data available.

Figure 15. Opportunities for Teaching

18 | P a g e

3.6. RESEARCH CULTURE

Research Culture was a core section of the PRES survey and so results were compared against the Million+ group and the sector as a whole as well as with the previous UEL results. The section comprises of four questions, as listed below.

Question 6.1: My department provides a good seminar programme

Question 6.2: I have frequent opportunities to discuss my research with other research students

Question 6.3: The research ambience in my department or faculty stimulates my work

Question 6.4: I have opportunities to become involved in the wider research community, beyond my department

Figure 16 below shows the percentage of students that agreed with each question, for UEL and the Million+ group. Despite research culture having low average scores, for most questions the proportion agreeing was higher at UEL in 2015 than in the Million+ group. The only exception was in question 6.4, where only 43% of UEL students in 2015 ( a fall from 48% in 2013) agreed that they had opportunities for involvement in the wider research community, compared to 52% in the Million+ group. Results were higher in all cases for the wider sector.

Figure 16. Percentage of students agreeing for each research culture question

19 | P a g e

3.7. PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATES

Figure 17 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements for Professional Doctorate programmes. These were additional questions for UEL in 2015 hence there is no comparative data available. Figure 17. Professional Doctorates

3.8. MOTIVATIONS

Research students were asked to identify what their main motivation was for pursuing the research degree programme. Figure 18 shows the percentage of UEL, Million+ and wider sector students that agreed for each motivation. By far the highest proportion were motivated by their interest in the subject (44%) – higher than for the Million+ group (36%) or sector (39%). The biggest discrepancies between UEL and other sets of results were in terms of career improvement. At UEL, results were roughly equal between improving career prospects for an academic/research career and careers outside these areas (at 16% and 17% respectively). However, the results for academic careers are roughly half those for the sector, whereas results for other careers were roughly double those for the sector. Again, the high number of respondents on Professional Doctorate programmes who completed the UEL survey (77%) is likely to have a bearing on this.

Figure 18. Percentage of students citing their main motivation for pursuing their research programme.

20 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1 SCHOOL LEVEL PROFILES

Figure 19 gives the profile of summary responses by school. All schools are shown on one chart in order to demonstate similarlties and differnces most clearly. It can be seen that the profile for each of the schools is broadly in line with the others (and therefore with the overall UEL profile seen in Figure 2. The school with the most ‘highest scores’ across the summary sections is the School of Psychology, which scores the highest satisfaction rates in Progress and Assessment, Responsibilities, Research Skills and Professional Development and joint highest in Reaserch Culture (in line with the school’s Overall Satisfaction highest placement in Figure 4). Less clear from the chart (but discernable from the table) is the fact that the School of Architecture, Computing and Engineering has the most ‘lowest scores’ (in Supervision, Resources, Research Culture, Progress and Assessment and Professional Development ), although the highest score in Opportunities.

One other notable point is that School of Business and Law has a significantly higher satisfaction rating (at 98%) than the other schools in the Supervision category.

Figure 19: Summary profile by School.

21 | P a g e

APPENDIX 2 DETAILED RESULTS FOR ALL QUESTIONS

CORE QUESTIONS

SUPERVISION

Figure 20 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about supervision. In each case, results for

UEL are broadly in line with the previous survey and those for both the Million+ group and the sector more widely.

Figure 20. Supervision

RESOURCES

Figure 21 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about resources. For a detailed analysis, see

Resources in the main body of the report. This chart is given again here for completeness.

Figure 21. Resources.

22 | P a g e

RESEARCH CULTURE

Figure 22 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about research culture. For a detailed

analysis, see Research Culture in the main body of the report. This chart is given again here for completeness.

Figure 22. Research Culture.

PROGRESS AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 23 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about progress and assessment. In each case,

results for UEL are broadly in line with the previous survey and those for both the Million+ group and the sector more widely.

Figure 23. Progress and Assessment

23 | P a g e

RESPONSIBILITIES

Figure 24 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about responsibilities. In each case, results

for UEL are broadly in line with the previous survey and those for both the Million+ group and the sector more widely, although

there was a noticeable dip in the satisfaction of UEL students with both understanding their own responsibilities and in knowing

who to approach with concerns.

Figure 24. Responsibilities

RESEARCH SKILLS

Figure 25 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about research skills. In each case, results for

UEL are broadly in line with the previous survey and those for both the Million+ group and the sector more widely.

Figure 25. Research Skills

24 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Figure 26 shows the percentage of students who agreed with different statements about professional development. In each

case, results for UEL are broadly in line with the previous survey and those for both the Million+ group and the sector more

widely.

Figure 26. Professional Development

25 | P a g e

APPENDIX 3: PRES 2015 Core Area Data by School

% Agree by School for each core question ACE ADI Business and Law

Cass HSB Psychology Social Sciences

Tavistock

Supervision

2.1.a. My supervisor/s have the skills and subject knowledge to support my research

74% 84% 100% 86% 89% 87% 88% 85%

2.2.a. I have regular contact with my supervisor/s, appropriate for my needs

86% 78% 100% 91% 89% 83% 88% 82%

2.3.a. My supervisor/s provide feedback that helps me direct my research activities

79% 84% 100% 91% 83% 85% 94% 85%

2.4.a. My supervisor/s help me to identify my training and development needs as a researcher

70% 78% 92% 75% 67% 77% 82% 72%

Resources

4.1.a. I have a suitable working space 54% 50% 58% 77% 67% 76% 43% 74%

4.2.a. There is adequate provision of computing resources and facilities 62% 74% 62% 81% 83% 76% 47% 70%

4.3.a. There is adequate provision of library facilities (including physical and online resources)

60% 81% 92% 82% 67% 60% 59% 83%

4.4.a. I have access to the specialist resources necessary for my research 51% 79% 69% 72% 41% 58% 53% 77%

Research Culture

6.1.a. My department provides a good seminar programme 43% 66% 54% 77% 50% 69% 50% 79%

6.2.a. I have frequent opportunities to discuss my research with other research students

38% 53% 46% 52% 50% 71% 50% 63%

6.3.a. The research ambience in my department or faculty stimulates my work

51% 50% 38% 53% 28% 66% 44% 67%

6.4.a. I have opportunities to become involved in the wider research community, beyond my department

38% 45% 54% 38% 39% 44% 56% 41%

26 | P a g e

% Agree by School for each core question ACE ADI Business and Law

Cass HSB Psychology Social Sciences

Tavistock

Progress and Assessment

8.1.a. I received an appropriate induction to my research degree programme

60% 65% 77% 83% 61% 88% 65% 61%

8.2.a. I understand the requirements and deadlines for formal monitoring of my progress

72% 84% 77% 79% 83% 91% 88% 75%

8.3.a. I understand the required standard for my thesis 71% 87% 85% 77% 72% 85% 82% 67%

8.4.a. The final assessment procedures for my degree are clear to me 62% 84% 69% 69% 78% 77% 71% 65%

Responsibilities

10.1.a. My institution values and responds to feedback from research degree students

49% 48% 54% 65% 39% 70% 29% 59%

10.2.a. I understand my responsibilities as a research degree student 84% 81% 92% 89% 83% 91% 65% 70%

10.3.a. I am aware of my supervisors' responsibilities towards me as a research degree student

84% 83% 92% 91% 89% 89% 94% 79%

10.4.a. Other than my supervisor/s, I know who to approach if I am concerned about any aspect of my degree programme

53% 73% 85% 66% 61% 79% 65% 68%

Research Skills

12.1.a. My skills in applying appropriate research methodologies, tools and techniques have developed during my programme

86% 69% 92% 91% 83% 87% 76% 73%

12.2.a. My skills in critically analysing and evaluating findings and results have developed during my programme

86% 81% 92% 83% 83% 88% 76% 77%

12.3.a. My confidence to be creative or innovative has developed during my programme

65% 66% 92% 63% 83% 77% 82% 74%

12.4.a. My understanding of 'research integrity' (e.g. rigour, ethics, transparency, attributing the contribution of others) has developed during my programme

81% 73% 92% 86% 100% 94% 94% 76%

27 | P a g e

% Agree by School for each core question ACE ADI Business and Law

Cass HSB Psychology Social Sciences

Tavistock

Professional Development

14.1.a. My ability to manage projects has developed during my programme

67% 84% 92% 59% 83% 83% 69% 64%

14.2.a. My ability to communicate information effectively to diverse audiences has developed during my programme

58% 71% 100% 70% 78% 81% 71% 71%

14.3.a. I have developed contacts or professional networks during my programme

53% 67% 62% 47% 67% 72% 71% 73%

14.4.a. I have increasingly managed my own professional development during my programme

71% 76% 85% 82% 78% 91% 94% 84%