MINUTE of the SCHOOL MEETING

MINUTE of the SCHOOL MEETING held in the Fore Hall, Gilbert Scott Building on 8th May 2013

PRESENT: see attached APOLOGIES: Simon Taylor, Nyree Finlay, Iain Banks, Tony Pollard, Martin MacGregor, Michelle Nicholl, Matthew Strickland, Bill Hanson, Ann Gow, Dauvit Broun, Sam Cohn, Callum Brown, John Davies, Marilyn Dunn, Sheila Kidd

ROM also offered a warm welcome to all in attendance, particularly David Wheeler and Sara Manavian. Action:

1. Minute of previous meeting held 13th February 2013 The minute of the previous meeting was approved, subject to amendments. 2. Matters Arising Will be discussed under agenda items. 3. Head of School update ROM welcomed new members of staff in attendance: Daniel Scroop and Mike Rapport and reported on forthcoming academic and MPA appointments in the School: Maria Economou (HATII); Hugh Lazenby (Philosophy), Sim Innes (Celtic & Gaelic) and Kenny Hutton (School Administration). ScMG minutes are circulated regularly with School news and developments. 4. Breaking Down Walls: The School of Humanities Interdisciplinary Festival David Wheeler and Sara Manavian reported on the Breaking Down Walls event which will be held on the 18th May 2013 in the Hunterian and the Gilchrist Postgraduate Club. The aim of the event is to create relationships and promote interdisciplinary activities within SoH. A schedule for the day was circulated which included details of a scavenger hunt in the Hunterian. Taster sessions across the disciplines, e.g. tables and booths with fun activities to highlight subject areas are planned. An invitation will be issued to participate in a seminar on “musings”. The invite is extended to all School colleagues and everyone is very welcome to participate. The day will finish with a pub quiz with interdisciplinary teams from the SoH. The aim of the event is to encourage:  Openness  Staff and students to converse with each other  To encourage fun  To enhance the community feeling within the SoH Marina Moskowitz (MMz) queried whether it is open to PG applicants. DW confirmed that it is and that Elaine Wilson had circulated the information to applicants. DW suggested that it be used a community builder to establish ties and promote what we can learn from each other. SM hopes other Schools can develop similar activities, make connections across disciplines and that this event could be used as a model for other Schools 5. School of Humanities: The future, Discipline+, etc ROM is keen that we are proactive rather than reactive about the future direction and shape of the School. ROM invited views and comments. Thomas Munck (TM) queried Subject collaboration; suggesting that it may be possible with an interdisciplinary level 3 course and wondered whether we could initiate a proposal. Stuart Airlie (SA) reported that the School Learning and Teaching Committee would like to consider common teaching on a School course. There is currently a proposal from Adele Redhead in HATII at proposal stage and discussion so far has been fruitful. The proposal may go D:\Docs\2018-04-28\0ecaca112073d3c4aa566e1114a1d3e6.docx - 1 - to Board of Studies soon. However, there are possible problems such as  It could involve duplication of effort  It could involve additional work challenges  Placements may be easier for some subjects than others Some of the ideas of the level 3 proposal could be extended to other curriculum developments. Donald Spaeth (DS) queried whether there would be a possible proposal for a Humanities designated degree and whether changes could be made to regulations to allow this. Linda Knox (LK) reported that this could be possible. There are about 60 students on designated Level 3 degrees across the College. It is mainly an exit degree, and there had been an increase in queries from students who have graduated with designated degree wishing to return to complete Honours. LK reported that designated degrees are not attractive to employers. There are two distinct groups – those who fail to enter Honours and those who intend to undertake a designated degree. The designation is decided at the end of second year. Any proposal would have to incorporate course make-up at Levels 1 and 2. Jeremy Huggett (JWH) reported that he does not have a good knowledge of the existing School collaborations and suggested perhaps a light touch information gathering exercise to identify current collaborations and gaps. Michael Murray (MM) reported that a quick analysis had been conducted and it was agreed to circulate this information at all levels including Honours and MM PGT. Joy Davidson (JD) reported that she had not seen the HATII proposal and suggested that other staff could feed into it. SA reported that it had gone to a School L&T meeting and L&T convenors had been asked to discuss it further with colleagues and HoSubs. It is a HATII proposal with input from Archives, but it could be used as a common vehicle for school input.

TM queried whether the existing Level 3 provision should be reviewed including problems with SA regulations and issues surrounding student non-attendance. He would welcome seeing the HATII proposal and a review of the existing provision. LK suggested that Subjects demanding higher entry for Honours may result in a higher demand for Level 3. ROM queried whether this had been discussed at College. LK confirmed that it had SA been mooted. There are currently 9 varieties of designated degree, so there is a case for rationalisation. DS queried PGR supervision variances across the school e.g. PGR panels and how to share these and implement best practice. MM reported that a series of process reviews had recently been conducted to review the top ten academic and administrative processes. These had included consultation with admin staff, L&T convenors and HoSubs. It is hoped to establish L&T best practices across the School. Karin Bowie (KB) queried how we can find out what we each do and suggested a School research seminar on a Wednesday afternoon to make connections with others. Colleagues would be TC supportive of this, but Simon Newman (SN) suggested that events should be made more social in nature. Geraldine Parson (GP) suggested “Research Introductions” followed by a social gathering. TC SA suggested that it has to come from within and put forward the idea of intellectual “speed dating” e.g. small groups of 6-8 meeting on a Wednesday afternoon for two hours, to sit down TC and provide introductions to each other. It may create other collaborations outwith the group. ROM reminded colleagues that the School Strategic Plan contains reference to the creation of a register of research interests – something that we should return to post-REF, but it was agreed to take a research speed dating session forward for next session. ROM asked whether colleagues were supportive of the Discipline+ strategy and then sought comments from colleagues. TM agreed that it was useful and suggested that it requires more substance built into it. ROM It was agreed in principle to incentivise this activity. Daniel Scroop (DMS) reported that as holder of a School post, he is interested in developing and enhancing our understanding of who we are as a community and what Humanities means to us.

2 MM suggested that we consider outside engagement in addition to internal engagement, for example, taking public humanities further. TM suggested book groups or an Enlightenment day. We could start with something interdisciplinary and see where it goes. ROM agreed that this was an excellent idea and also relates to Kelvin Hall Developments. TM queried teaching facilities at the proposed site. He currently uses both collections in the Hunterian Art Gallery and Museum. ROM confirmed that teaching facilities will be incorporated in order for the collections to be utilised in teaching. 6. Staff Survey Actions ROM queried action on the issues identified; suggestions provisionally included increased peer support. TM suggested that the issues are not strictly within the School, but within the University and the governance process. He reported that it would be discussed at the June meeting of Senate. TM stressed the School and each individual has to be involved and suggested that the School must also get involved. TM encouraged everyone to engage in this process and positively contribute. ROM ROM agreed to circulate the Scottish Code of Good HE Governance (April 2013). Lynn Abrams (LA) suggested that peer to peer support is a problem with the School, but queried what we can do for ourselves. ROM agreed that peer to peer support is an issue within the College of Arts. DS suggested that some of the problems relate to sociability. The loss of the staff dining room was very important. It provided more opportunity for informal interaction. ROM queried whether it was felt that focus groups would help. SA suggested that they would. We are a large school, with large numbers of staff and buildings, therefore anything we can do, it is in our interests to make it work. ROM queried whether any colleagues had experience of organising focus groups. KB had and was happy to be involved. It KB/ROM was agreed to take this forward. 7. PDR 2012-13 ROM reported that the 2012-2013 PDR cycle had commenced on 1st May 2013. Guidelines had not yet been published, but should go live on the University webpage today. SDS offers courses for reviewers and reviewees and the College of Arts are planning launch events for reviewers. Senior Lecturer/Reader (Grade 9) PDR forms will be moderated, previously only Professorial Grade 10 had been moderated. Three assessment levels will remain: Outstanding, High Quality and Improved Performance Required. ROM sought any views, concerns or comments he could take forward to the HR working group. MMz suggested that when PDR was introduced, it was about development, but now it is retrospective and is more concerned with tick-boxing. Frustrations arise as many of the activities undertaken cannot be reflected on the form. SN agreed that it is not an encouraging process ROM had suggested to the HR Working Group that the development section be shifted within the form in order to underline the importance of development within the PDR process. Jeremy Huggett (JWH) suggested that reviewers should guide and support activity during reviews to produce SMART objectives. TM reported that who your reviewer is, can impact on the balance of the review. 8. AOB 6.1 Industry Day 31st May 2013 ROM reminded colleagues that this event will be held at the end of May 2013 with approximately 80 external contributors. JWH had been nominated as Heritage lead from the College. A number of case studies (100/200 words) were required and JWH sought colleagues’ assistance in producing these.

D:\Docs\2018-04-28\0ecaca112073d3c4aa566e1114a1d3e6.docx - 3 - 4