SSSccchhhoooooolll ooofff CCChhheeemmmiiissstttrrryyy
TTTrrriiinnniiitttyyy CCCooolllllleeegggeee DDDuuubbbllliiinnn,,, ttthhheee UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy ooofff DDDuuubbbllliiinnn
QQQuuuaaallliiitttyyy RRReeevvviiieeewww 111666ttthhh ––– 111888ttthhh NNNooovvveeemmmbbbeeerrr 222000111555
SSSeeelllfff AAAsssssseeessssssmmmeeennnttt
i
List of Common Acronyms
Acronym
ABC Annual Budgetary Cycle
ACS American Chemical Society
AMBER Advanced Materials & Bioengineering Research
AML Advanced Microscopy Laboratory
Academic Resource Allocation Model [a mechanism for distributing resources in TCD ARAM that was introduced in 2005 and replaced in 2010 with RGAM]
CAO Central Applications Office
CAPSL Centre for Academic Practice and Student Learning
CDA Career Development Award
CDP Career Development Programme
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CI Cancer Institute
CMM Chemistry with Molecular Modelling
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
COID Contract of Indefinite Duration
COO Chief Operating Officer
CPD Continuous Professional Development
CRANN Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices
Centre for Synthetic Chemical Biology [a consortium of chemical researchers from CSCB University College Dublin, TCD and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland]
CSET Centre for Science Engineering & Technology
DARE Disability Access Route to Education
DCU Dublin City University
DoR Director of Research
DTLPG Director of Teaching & Learning (Postgraduate)
DSC Differential Scanning Calorimetry
DubChem Dublin Chemistry Graduate Programme [a joint structured PhD programme between UCD and TCD]
DTLUG Director of Teaching & Learning (Undergraduate)
E3 Engineering/Energy/Environment Initiative
ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
EI Enterprise Ireland [a government‐funded agency tasked with assisting universities and
i
SME to commercialise research]
ENC Ecole Normale Supérieure
EO Executive Officer/Experimental Officer
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERC European Research Council
ETH Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
EU H2020 European Union Horizon 2020 programme
FEMS Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics & Science
FETAC Further Education and Training Awards Council
FIS Financial Information System
FTE Full‐Time Equivalent
FTSE Full‐Time Student Equivalent [1 FTSE equates to 60 ECTS]
Higher Education Authority [a government funding agency for universities and other HEA third‐level institutions. Similar in function to the UK’s HEFCE]
HEAR Higher Education Access Route
HoD Head of Discipline
HoS Head of School
HR Human Resources
HRB Health Research Board
IAESTE International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience
IIT Bangalore International Institute of Technology in Bangalore
Institute of Molecular Medicine [a centre of excellence focused on the rapid IMM translation of bioscience from the lab bench to the patient in the hospital bed]
INTEGER Institutional Transformation for Effecting Gender Equality in Research
IP Intellectual Property
Irish Research Council [a research council that funds research students and IRC postdoctoral researchers based on the quality of individual applicants, mentors and host institutions]
ISR Inorganic and Synthetic Materials
ITMO Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics
JF Junior Freshman [1st year undergraduate student]
JS Junior Sophister [3rd year undergraduate student]
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LEAD Living Equality and Diversity programme
MMI Molecular Medicine Ireland
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
ii
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Non‐EU Non‐European
N‐PCAM Nanoscience, Physics & Chemistry of Advanced Materials
OHs Overheads
OIP Overseas Immersion Programme
OMB Organic, Medicinal and Biological
PDR Postdoctoral researcher
PG Postgradaute
PI Principal Investigator
PIYRA President of Ireland Young Researcher Award
PMC Physical, Materials and Computational
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions [a HEA‐funded College‐based PRTLI research programme that had a strong infrastructural component. It began in the late 1990s and ended in 2010]
QQI Quality Qualifications Ireland
QS Quacquarelli Symonds
QUB Queens University Belfast
RCSI Royal College of Surgeons Ireland
Research Frontiers Programme [a basic research grant scheme operated by SFI and RFP replaced by PI programme awards]
RGAM Recurrent Grant Allocation Mechanism
RI Research Institute
RIA Royal Irish Academy
RM‐KIC Raw Materials Knowledge and Innovation Community
RPM Research Programme Manager
RPO Research Programme Officer
RSC Royal Society of Chemistry
SAR Self‐Assessment Report
SEO Senior Executive Officer/Senior Experimental Officer
SF Senior Freshman [2nd year undergraduate student]
Science Foundation Ireland [the primary funding source for research in Ireland with SFI focus on ICT and BioTech. Resourced through the Department of Trade and Industry. Established in 2002]
SFI SIRG Science Foundation Ireland Starting Investigator Research Grant
SFI TIDA Science Foundation Ireland Technology Innovation Development Award
iii
SFI ISCA SFI International Scientific Collaboration Award (India/China)
SITS Student Information and Timetabling System
SNIAM Sami Nasr Institute of Advanced Materials
SS Senior Sophister – 4th year undergraduate student
SSPC2 Synthesis & Solid State Pharmaceuticals Centre
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics
SURE Summer Undergraduate Research Experience
SWB Science Without Borders
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats
TAP Trinity Access Programme
TASSEP Trans‐Atlantic Science Student Exchange Program
TBSI Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute
Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing [a TCD unit that coordinated TCHPC multidisciplinary efforts in all aspects of high performance computing including infrastructure, technical expertise, code development, training etc.]
TCIN Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience
TCRAG Trinity Centre for Research in Advanced Geosciences
TO Technical Officer
TR071 CAO code indicating Trinity’s general science degree course
TTMI Trinity Translational Medicine Institute
TUM Technical Universität München
TY Transition Year (4th year, Secondary School)
UCC University College Cork
UCD University College Dublin
UG Undergraduate
URF University Research Fellowship
VPN Virtual Private Network
WISER Women in Science, Engineering & Research
iv
List of Appendices Appendix A1 Current staff in the School of Chemistry Full list of external‐reviewers’ recommendations and report from School of Chemistry Review 2007 SWOT Analysis Appendix A2 Curriculum proposal for the undergraduate moderatorship degree programme in Energy Science Appendix A3 2015/16 list of sta ff roles and responsibilities Template used for the School’s workload model Appendix A4 Module content of undergraduate programmes Institutes with which the School has exchange agreements Non‐EU student numbers by course and year Protocol for the deployment of module surveys List of External Examiners by discipline and degree course over the past five years International student satisfaction rates Exam results Revision of experimental chemistry laboratories Revision of practical labs Letter from RSC Appendix A5 Generic/transferable skills provision Listing of DubChem modules offered in 2014/15 Appendix A6 Listing of the School’s current equipment facilities by location Graphical abstracts of the preferred publication selected by each member of the academic staff Appendix A7 Recurrent public expenditure on education 2007‐2012 School of Chemistry’s 2015 Ussher Assistant Professor applications (Chemical Energy Systems and Chemical Education). School of Chemistry’s three‐year staffing submissions Space audit of the School of Chemistry and its PI occupancy Correspondence related to TBSI capital overrun Appendix A9 School representation on College committees Journals/networks for which members of the School are reviewers/editors or assessment panel members Outreach activities
v
Table of Contents List of Common Acronyms ...... i List of Appendices ...... v Section 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Set the context of the School at the time of the Review ...... 1 1.2 Implementation of recommendations from the previous review – closing the loop...... 2 1.3 Process undertaken to complete the SAR document ...... 4 1.4 Key areas the School would like the External Review Team to focus on in this review ...... 5 1.5 School‐led recommendations for consideration by the Review Team ...... 7 Section 2: Strategic Direction and Planning ...... 8 2.1 Outline the mission and strategy of the School as articulated in its Strategic Plan 2015‐2020 ...... 8 2.2 Evaluate whether the School is achieving the objectives outlined in its Strategic Plan and how these align with those in the College’s Strategic Plan ...... 8 2.3 Outline how College initiatives such as E3, the Strategy for Innovation & Entrepreneurship, the Global Relations Strategy, the On‐line Education Strategy etc. are impacting on the School’s strategic planning ...... 9 2.4 Impact on the School of College Initiatives ...... 10 2.5 Describe how the School identifies and acts upon emerging national and international trends/risks that may affect the future activities and operations of the School ...... 11 2.6 Development of the School Strategy in Teaching ...... 11 Section 3. Organisation and Management ...... 14 3.1 School Management Structure ...... 14 3.2 Evaluate whether the current organisational and management structures facilitate the optimum operation of the School and enable it to fulfil its mission ...... 15 3.3 Plans or recommendations for change in order to improve organisational structures and management in the future ...... 18 3.4 Staff Development ...... 18 Section 4. Assessment of Undergraduate Education ...... 26 4.1 Outline of undergraduate programmes offered by the School ...... 26 4.1.1 Summary of UG teaching offered by the School...... 26 4.1.2 Transnational dimension of the undergraduate experience ...... 34 4.2 Undergraduate recruitment, admissions process and internationalisation strategy ...... 36 4.3 Outline how the School revises and updates its undergraduate teaching programmes ...... 40
vi
4.3.1 Procedures for curriculum review and description of reviews that took place in 2008‐2015 ...... 40 4.3.2 Approach to the integration of frontier content into the curriculum ...... 43 4.3.3 External review and student feedback ...... 44 4.4 Describe how the School enhances the learning experience through innovation in teaching ...... 44 4.5 Mechanisms used by the School to evaluate its teaching provision ...... 47 4.6 Opportunities provided for professional development of teaching staff ...... 50 4.7 Supports and learning resources provided by the School to enhance the student experience ...... 51 4.8 Opportunities offered for involvement in the research and outreach activities of the School ...... 51 4.9 Provide an assessment of the outcomes of teaching & learning ...... 53 4.9.1 Exam results and completion rates ...... 53 4.9.2 Progression paths of students following graduation ...... 54 ...... 55 4.10 Challenges facing undergraduate teaching and learning and School strategy ...... 55 4.11 In what ways could undergraduate education in the School be improved? ...... 58 Section 5: Assessment of Postgraduate Education ...... 61 5.1 Postgraduate Programmes ...... 61 5.2 Postgraduate Recruitment and Admissions ...... 63 5.3 Supervision and monitoring ...... 64 5.4 Quality Assurance ...... 65 5.5 How are the School’s postgraduate programmes links to the School’s Research Strategy and College Research Themes? ...... 65 5.6 Development of generic and transferrable skills as part of the Postgraduate Education Experience ...... 66 5.7 What are the main challenges facing postgraduate education in the School and how are these challenges being addressed? ...... 67 5.8 In what ways could postgraduate education in the School be improved? ...... 67 Section 6. Assessment of Research Activity ...... 76 6.1 Research structure of the School ...... 76 6.2 Alignment of the School’s research strategy with the School’s and College’s Strategic Plans ...... 82 6.3 Connection between the School’s research and its teaching activities ...... 83 6.4 Evaluation of the School’s research performance and impact as well as dissemination activities (both within College and beyond) ...... 84 6.5 School’s innovation and entrepreneurship ...... 91
vii
6.6 Research funding ...... 92 6.7 School’s ethical practice ...... 95 6.8 Quality assurance procedures put in place in the School ...... 95 6.9 Main challenges facing research in the School and how they will be addressed to improve the School’s research performance/impact ...... 96 Section 7: Resources ...... 98 7.1 Finance & Funding: ...... 98 7.1.1 Notional Income for Undergraduate Students ...... 98 7.1.2 Notional Income for postgraduate students ...... 102 7.1.3 Research Overheads ...... 102 7.1.4 Non‐EU Income ...... 104 7.1.5 Income attributed to the School by the Faculty ...... 108 7.2 Staffing ...... 116 7.2.1 Outline the School’s current staffing levels ...... 116 7.2.2 Projected staff numbers as per the School’s 3‐year staffing plan...... 120 7.3 Infrastructure ...... 122 7.3.1 A brief Overview of Research Space in the School ...... 122 7.3.2 A brief Overview of Teaching Space in the School ...... 122 7.3.3 Equipment ...... 123 7.3.4 TBSI Capital Overrun ...... 125 7.3.5 Conclusion ...... 125 Section 8. Administration...... 126 8.0 Provide an assessment of the administrative structures in place in the School to support the following activities. Include information on the duties and roles of administrative staff ...... 126 8.1 Academic cycle/calendar of School administration ...... 126 8.2 Management of recruitment activities and events ‐ open days, school visitations ...... 129 8.3 Provision of module selection advice ...... 129 8.4 Examinations ...... 130 8.5 Court of First Appeal ...... 130 8.6 Systems to support School administration ...... 130 8.7 What are the main challenges facing the administration of the School and how are these challenges being addressed ...... 132 Section 9: Relationships and external engagement...... 133 9.1 Appointment of School staff to senior College positions ...... 133 9.2 Contributions to public debate and formulation of public policy...... 134 9.3 Engagement with the public though seminars and extra‐mural programmes ...... 135
viii
9.4 Local outreach activities of the School ...... 136 Section 10: Marketing and Communications ...... 138 10.1 School communication with staff and students in the School ...... 138 10.2 School communication with the wider College community and beyond ...... 138 10.3 Improvement of communication ...... 139 Conclusion ...... 138
ix
Section 1. Introduction
1.1 Set the context of the School at the time of the Review The teaching of Chemistry in Trinity College, the University of Dublin, has a rich heritage that dates back to 1711. The subject was formally recognised in the University on the introduction of an undergraduate moderatorship programme in experimental science in 1851 by Prof James Apjohn (1850‐1875)11. Today the School hosts one of the oldest established Chairs in the College and is one of the eight constituent Schools in the Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science (FEMS). Research and Teaching activities in the School of Chemistry (http://www.chemistry.tcd.ie/) are housed in several locations across the College, including the Main Chemistry Building (erected in 1887), which holds the main school administrative office, the Naughton (CRANN) Institute (Centre for Adaptive Nanomaterials and Nanodevices), the Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute (TBSI), the Lloyd Building, the Sami Nasr Institute of Advanced Materials (SNIAM) and the Cocker Teaching Laboratory. It also has a presence in the Institute of Molecular Medicine (IMM) in St. James hospital. The research of many members of the School is affiliated with Trinity Research Centres, such as the Advanced Materials and Bio‐Engineering Research Centre (AMBER) and the Chemical for Synthesis and Chemical Biology (the CSCB). The headcount of the academic staff in the School is currently 20 (including one joint appointment with Physics). There are 14.5 technical and attendant staff and 6 administrative staff posts (2 shared with Physics). In addition there are over 100 registered postgraduate students undertaking PhD degrees by research, approximately 50 postdoctoral research fellows (including research assistants) and 1100 undergraduate students studying Chemistry within the School. The School is currently ranked in the range 51‐100 in the QS world rankings by subject (http://www.topuniversities.com/university‐rankings/university‐subject‐ rankings/2015/chemistry#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=), with the university ranked in position 78. On a national level, a recent Thompson Reuters analysis of the citation impact of Chemical Science papers produced in Ireland and Northern Ireland shows that the TCD School of Chemistry leads the national research field. For the period covered by this review, staff in the School have co‐authored over 1000 publications (15 of these are Nature publications). These have attracted just under 25,000 citation and given rise to a collective H‐index (obtained from the Web of Science in Sept 2015) of 68 (see Section 6).
Chemistry principal investigators (PIs) have been very successful in competing for funds from National Funding Agencies, such as the Irish Research Council (IRC; http://www.research.ie/) and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI; http://www.sfi.ie/). A number have also attained funding as coordinators or consortia members in applications to the EU “Cooperation”, "Human Capital and Mobility" and "Training and Mobility of Researchers", FP7 (Framework) and H2020 programmes (http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/). Three members of staff currently hold major European Research Council (ERC; http://erc.europa.eu/) funding awards. The School is particularly successful in its engagement with industry and in the commercialisation of research e.g. through the SFI Translational Industry Development Award (TIDA) programme and Enterprise Ireland’s (EI; http://www.enterprise‐ireland.com/en/) commercialisation awards. Funding has also been obtained from other applied funding schemes and industrial companies (e.g. Dupont, Elan, Harris, Henkel, Schering‐Plough), from the Health Research Board (HRB; http://www.hrb.ie/)
1 After whom the mineral apjohnite [MnAl2(SO4)4.22H2O] is named.
1 and from charitable trusts such as the Cancer Research Campaign. In 2011/12 the total number of funding applications per academic staff FTE (full‐time equivalent) in Chemistry was the highest of any School in the College at 5.1. The total value of the contracts awarded to individual PIs for the period 1 October 2012 to 23 October 2014 was just over 28.5M€. Chemistry staff are engaged in vibrant, high‐impact teaching and research that embraces all aspects of modern Chemistry. This is framed within the three main disciplines: (i) Inorganic and Synthetic Materials (ISM), (ii) Organic, Medicinal and Biological (OMB) and (iii) Physical, Materials and Computational (PMC). Chemistry PIs are also driving strategic research and teaching missions across the College. Collectively the School has participated fully in successful College bids for support for major infrastructural and themed capital funding programmes e.g. the CSET SFI application in the establishment of CRANN 2007, the Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing (TCHPC) 2008, the HEA PRTLI5 (Higher Education Authority Prioritised Research in Third Level Institutions; http://www.hea.ie/) TBSI 2011 and the SFI AMBER centre award 2014. Research in the School underpins the current activity of four major research institutes in College (CRANN, IMM, TCIN (Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience) and TBSI) and will be a cornerstone in the College’s strategic future developments e.g. its Engineering/Energy/Environment (E3) initiative. The School has a very active outreach programme and runs a number of outreach and public activities, such as the Salters programme for 12‐14 year‐olds, an International Summer School and its very popular programme for transition‐year (TY) students (http://www.chemistry.tcd.ie/outreach/). In conjunction with University College Dublin, the School operates Dublin Chemistry (DubChem; http://www.dublinchemistry.ie/), which is the first Graduate School in Chemistry of its kind in the country and ensures a structured‐learning environment for its research graduates. The programme provides a framework for shared, mandatory and optional postgraduate modules, module assessment and student progression. The School provides Honours degree (Moderatorship) courses in Chemistry, in Medicinal Chemistry and in Chemistry with Molecular Modelling. The School also offers, jointly with the School of Physics, a Moderatorship in Nanoscience, Physics and Chemistry of Advanced Materials (N‐PCAM) ‐ a course specialising in the physics and chemistry of materials for electronic, optoelectronic and related applications. Graduates produced by the School are highly sought after. The majority enter directly into professional positions in academia or industry in Ireland or abroad. They are part of a strong and growing network of high‐value contributors to the national and global economy. Who are we? An overview (with dates on appointment to the College) of the current academic staff and their associated discipline and of the technical and the support staff in the School of Chemistry, Trinity College Dublin is given in Appendix A1 (Tables A1.1.1‐A1.1.3). 1.2 Implementation of recommendations from the previous review – closing the loop The School was last reviewed in 2007. The review covered the period 1999 to 2007. The stride of change (fuelled by the unexpected collapse of the national economy) since the last review has been unprecedented and many aspects of the previous review, e.g. funding models, the College and Faculty structures and the nature of College services, have changed considerably. Taking all the 2007 recommendations forward into 2015 is difficult, however, three concerns that were identified then are singled out here for comment. The full list of recommendations can be found in the appendices (A1.2). It is worth noting that the 3 senior staff holding the role of Head of School during the period 1999‐2007 have since retired. Three areas of concern expressed by the reviewers in 2007 were that
2
(i) space constraints would hamper the continuous expansion of the School and would impede it from retaining its national pre‐eminence and international competitiveness (ii) there was no coherent financial or organisational College strategy for developing Schools and Institutes in parallel (iii) there was an immediate need for strong leadership in Inorganic and Physical Chemistry where staff numbers were perceived to be below critical mass and/or delays in the appointment to Chair positions were having a deleterious effect on morale and output. The School has responded to these challenges within the context of increasing budgetary constraints, increased student numbers and the gravitational pull of major national investment away from core funding and toward multi‐disciplinary research institutes and centres.
Space constraints The School now occupies more space than it did at the time of the 2007 review (total meterage 6050m2). It currently spans eight different sites and buildings both on and off‐campus. The quality and suitability of this space is varied. Some is state‐of‐the‐art research space, some offers cramped conditions for our experimental teaching and some is simply not fit for purpose. In the case of the latter it is because this space has not been maintained due to an ill‐defined and evolving College strategy for the demolition and occupancy of the Main Chemistry Building and its site. Historically through the ARAM resource allocation model (2008‐11) the School was permitted to retain special skills funding that it had attracted through innovations in its degree offerings. It was therefore in a position to invest in the refurbishment of areas of the Main Chemistry Building, including those areas vacated by the move of the then embryonic CRANN to a dedicated site in 2007. In 2011 the School participated in the College’s strategic bid for PRTLI5 funding (55M€) to build a Trinity Biosciences Institute (TBSI). This was successful and became the newest of Trinity's flagship institutes in 2012. The School of Chemistry is one of its five constituent schools and the entirety of the Discipline of Organic, Medicinal and Biological Chemistry was relocated in the TBSI building in 2013 (a total of 6 academic staff, 44 postgraduate researchers and 12 postdoctoral fellows). As a requirement of the move, the space that was vacated was formally returned to the College. Gradually in the interim period and with permission from the Dean of the Faculty (FEMS) some of these areas/laboratories have been re‐occupied by Chemistry to house the expanding research needs of staff in the Physical and Inorganic Chemistry Sections. This activity (much of it industrially supported) remains while the College determines whether its new Environmental/Energy/Engineering E3 capital project will involve the demolition of these areas of the main Chemistry building (known as the Chemistry extension).
The governance and sustainability of research institutes and centres: College strategy for developing Schools and Institutes in parallel The continual decline in core funding for third‐level education has been perceived at governmental level to have been off‐set by significant large‐scale research and applied research funding to the Colleges. This has completely recalibrated the funding strategies in College. It has increased the impetus for application‐driven, industrially aligned research (both exchequer and non‐exchequer) and pushed the College and School to seek alternative sources of revenue involving major philanthropic initiatives and raising the levels of non‐EU fee income. It has also increased the pressure on generating and re‐investing research overheads.
3
The ARAM funding resource model was replaced by RGAM coupled with an Annual Budgetary Cycle in 2012. Schools became the financial centres and a complex set of metrics for determining the income generated by Schools was introduced (see Section 7), alongside a radical and on‐going implementation of a new Financial Information System and a Student Information System. Increasing financial control and oversight has been undertaken by the Vice‐Provost, Chief Financial Officer, the Faculty Deans and College’s Strategic Planning Group. Many of the issues relating to the distribution of financial resources between institutes and schools remain unresolved. These include the allocation of research overheads, instrumentation access and maintenance, and the governance/distinction between institutes and centres.
Leadership/Staffing The academic staff complement in the School of Chemistry in 2007 was 20, as it is today. The staff to student ratio however has declined. The College has been working under an HEA employment framework that restricts headcounts at all levels and in all areas of College, including Schools. The policy is enforced within College and where academic posts are approved they are filled at an entry level point only. Hence there have been just three senior appointments since the 2007 reviewers’ recommendations were made and in each case these were approved because the School has been able to fund them in part through external sources. (i) The Chair of Inorganic Chemistry (renamed from Chair of General Chemistry) was filled internally after external advertisement in 2014. Permission to recruit at this level was given because the School had secured philanthropic support from a private donor. The financial contribution to the Chair by the College was 20k€ and a commitment to the salary of the appointee. (ii) A CRANN‐initiated research professorship (joint between the Schools of Physics and Chemistry) was created in 2011 and has been funded through CRANN research overheads for the first 5 years of the appointment. The salary costs of the post will fall jointly to the core‐pay budgets of the two schools in 2016. The incumbent has a lead role in managing and directing the Advanced Microscopy Laboratory and its merger with the College Centre for Microscopy Analysis. (iii) The position of the Director of AMBER (an SFI‐funded research centre within the CRANN institute) was a key feature of the application for SFI funding for the AMBER centre. The post has been filled externally by a Chemistry Professor who will hold a personal chair appointment in the School from 1/10/15. The costs of the post will fall to the School’s pay budget in 2019.
1.3 Process undertaken to complete the SAR document The 7 year cycle and consequent process of triggering a School review is initiated by the College Quality Office [https://www.tcd.ie/teaching‐learning/quality/quality_reviews_academic.php]. In the case of the School of Chemistry a meeting of the review working group was held in August 2013 (Attendees: VP/CAO (Chair), Academic Secretary, Dean of FEMS, Quality Officer, HoS, Dr. Liz Donnellan). The first task was to nominate suitable candidates to act as external reviewers. Following their acceptance, dates for the review were set (November 16‐18th 2015) and circulated to all members of the School to ensure widespread notification and availability. The Head of School undertook to draft a SWOT analysis, which was circulated at several stages to the members of the School Committee, and discussed at the School Committee meeting in January 2015 where contributions/amendments were invited. In April 2015 the SWOT was further considered as a special item at the School Executive Committee meeting. It has acted as a starting point from which to generate this SAR, and to focus on the strengths of the School and its plans to transition its activities forward (Appendix A1.2).
4
The Quality Officer, Roisin Smith, met representatives of the School Executive Committee on July 31st to (i) discuss the timeline of the School review process (ii) the School’s ability to proceed given administrative‐staff shortages and (iii) to provide a hardcopy of the draft School Review guidelines. The latter had been significantly rewritten and updated to comply with the requirements of European Quality Regulations and Quality Qualifications Ireland (QQI). The decision was made at steering group level to proceed. Members of the Executive Committee were charged with drafting sections of the review. Once a first draft was available, a School Committee meeting was held to widen the level of input into each section, with members of staff being assigned to help in the drafting of given sections. The draft review was circulated to all staff for final feedback before submission. Chemistry is the first School to use the new SAR structure and guidelines (made official on 6 August). In general the Chemistry SAR conforms to the 10 section headings and multiple subsection headings of the Quality Office Guidelines. There are places throughout however where the content subsections have been moved to alternative sections in order to improve communication of information and the continuity of the report.
1.4 Key areas the School would like the External Review Team to focus on in this review The complete SWOT analysis is provided in the appendices (A1.4). Table 1.4 below is a summary of the focus points that arose from it and from consequent discussions. The table highlights the areas for consideration and briefly explains the reasons why the School considers these to be most relevant.
5
Table 1.4: Summary focus arising from the SWOT analysis highlighting the areas that the School recommends the external review team consider.
Key area Reasons Research This is probably the best asset of the School along with its long‐standing and high quality, national and international reputation. However there are a number of areas of concern that could threaten it. The difficulty in attaining funding for PhD students, the small number of PIs (by international comparison), the changing philosophy of national funding agencies (e.g. Centre grants in preference to single PI awards, applied over basic‐ research). The availability of resources to support equipment needs. Undergraduate The School of Chemistry is producing high quality graduates and delivering Teaching & popular and relevant degree moderatorship programmes. Learning However, some of our courses have not been adapted fully to the requirements of the new College structures (modularisation/harmonisation). Moreover, the consequences of new proposals such as ‘streaming’ the Science entry have yet to be understood. The increasing undergraduate (UG) numbers have caused overcrowding in the School’s UG labs. This, added to the lack of funds, has forced the School to significantly reduce the number of experimental contact hours. This threatens its prospects for RSC accreditation. The College emphasis on increasing non‐EU student numbers as a revenue source does not consider the impact on teaching in all areas of the School. Postgraduate The School of Chemistry has a good structured PhD programme (DubChem) with Teaching & the vast majority of students completing their PhD degrees within the 4 year Learning funding window. The structured postgraduate (PG) programme, offered jointly with UCD, adds to teaching and administrative loads in the School. Concerns have been expressed about the value and breadth of the modules offered within DubChem by both PG students and staff. Administrative During the last year the School of Chemistry has seen a critical decline in the Support level of administrative support and a significant increase in the number of activities that have been pushed onto Schools. This has made some dates/aspects of the administrative life‐cycle untenable. Through the implementation of new systems, the College has been progressively increasing the level of administrative duties required of academic staff. Staff Morale There is a decline in staff morale. This is exacerbated by the fragmented nature of the School teaching/research/admin activities (across eight sites), the large teaching/administrative burden on academic staff, with seemingly little reward and the impact of funding constraints on promotion prospects. Finances This is the School and College’s biggest challenge. It touches on all aspects of School life. There is an over‐reliance and continual drawdown on the School’s unspent balances to maintain operations, shifting mechanisms at College level for the management of financial income/expenditure at the School and historic capital debts at School level.
6
1.5 School‐led recommendations for consideration by the Review Team The School would like this review to provide (i) a detailed external assessment of the quality of its teaching and research, and proposals for raising the standard of both (ii) a validation and/or critique of its achievements and its potential to build on them (iii) an evaluation of the School's development within the context of the last review and its growing Institute involvement (iv) a vehicle for raising the internal recognition and international impact of the School The School will use this SAR to reflect on:
What risks can it afford to take, given that the research overheads generated by its PIs are responsible for underpinning the research activity and infrastructure of so many College Institutes and Centres? Whether it should take a business approach to re‐unifying the School, reducing its physical fragmentation and consolidating its collective equipment infrastructure? What should be the rate of expansion of the School in terms of its staff complement? How ambitious should these plans be given that there is a lack of security in terms of the provision of space and resource commitment to the School by the College. How to articulate a research strategy for the School and to create a narrative that is attractive to philanthropic/industrial buy‐in? How to maintain an appropriate balance between fundamental and applied research?
7
Section 2: Strategic Direction and Planning 2.1 Outline the mission and strategy of the School as articulated in its Strategic Plan 2015‐ 2020 ‘The vision of the School is to be a European hub for innovative research and teaching in the Chemical Sciences and a hotbed for nurturing Chemistry talent’ Its mission is ‘to shape a community of chemists who through their global interactions, technical knowledge and research skill, can spearhead scientific advances that impact positively on society and the environment’.
The School of Chemistry is small by international standards, however, it has successfully built an international reputation in the Chemical Sciences through the quality of its teaching and research. The School is outward looking. It sees itself as an actor on a global research stage and strives to produce a talented pool of graduates who are positioned to take a central role in spearheading future advances in synthetic chemistry and catalysis, in functional materials and devices, in process technologies and in therapeutic design. The School believes that to best enable its vision it should nurture each and all of its three core disciplines ‐ Inorganic and Synthetic Materials (ISM), Organic, Medicinal and Biological (OMB) and Physical, Materials and Computational (PMC). This approach has served the School well and is at the heart of its mission. Without losing sight of its core values, the School has helped drive many of the strategic initiatives in the University. It has a central role within the College and its PIs are key players in four of Trinity's research institutes (CRANN, IMM, TCIN, TBSI) and several of its new SFI Centres (AMBER, SSPC2 and TCRAG). In many respects the School is punching above its weight, in terms of research output (number and impact of research publications and citation record), in its application success rate, in the diversity of its funding and achievements (patents and spin‐outs, see Section 6) and in the delivery of attractive and progressive degree programmes (see sections 4 and 5). Many of these strengths are built upon self‐belief and an ability to adapt and innovate in the face of a rapidly changing financial landscape. In order to capitalise on its research strengths the 5‐year objectives of the School are to: (i) build its PI base to 27 academic researchers and further increase its capacity to grow (ii) establish Chemistry as the driving rather than the enabling School within the College (iii) grasp new funding opportunities that extend its research base and international profile
The aim is to work to ensure that the School continues to hold its pre‐eminent national position and that it achieves its ambition to be a European hub for innovative teaching and research in the Chemical Sciences. 2.2 Evaluate whether the School is achieving the objectives outlined in its Strategic Plan and how these align with those in the College’s Strategic Plan The School has continued to be very productive (e.g. increasing its student FTEs and research metrics) but it is now underfunded. To a large extent this outcome was outside of the control of the School. It was the result of the College’s evolving responses to a national financial backdrop in which government funding to 3rd level has dropped to an all‐time low (see Section 7). The School’s objectives are ambitious, however, and require that it recognises the new financial challenges and seeks to address them.
8
The modus operandi of the School and its cognate Research Institutes were traditionally very different however the resource model in College is slowly pushing Schools to operate in a manner similar to the Institutes and Centres e.g. teaching buy‐outs have become a common feature of many funding applications (e.g. H2020, ERC) and the salaries of support staff are now frequently derived from research overheads (see Section 7). This means that the School must simultaneously manage both a traditional (HEA core‐funded) evaluation of its teaching (income: expenditure model based on student FTEs) and a business‐led model for supplementing this activity and supporting new initiatives through the generation of additional non‐exchequer income. The question to address is what is the correct balance of these two approaches to ensure the School’s objectives in terms of quality, sustainability and growth? To best position itself to address this underlying challenge, the School took the radical step of rationalising its undergraduate laboratory teaching in 2015. This comes with a serious element of risk but it will enable it to capitalise on the planned increases in its undergraduate numbers as a result of initiatives in its international recruitment. These build on its relationships with Soochow (http://www.tcd.ie/globalrelations/news/20150711SoochowSEA.php), Thapar (http://www.tcd.ie/globalrelations/news/20150703ThaparSigning.php) and Malaysian Institutes and other initiatives.
Figure 2.2.1: Staff from the Schools of Chemistry, Physics, and Biochemistry & Immunology attending the first Trinity College‐Soochow University bilateral nanoscience workshop in China, 2015 The School has invested valuable overhead income to support a shared research programme officer to enable a greater level of participation in EU and ERC funding programmes and to increase the competitiveness of its funding applications. It has taken the necessary steps in the short‐term to future‐proof its major infrastructural equipment base to support new and existing staff. It has succeeded in attracting external and philanthropic funding to create three new academic posts in areas that align with the national prioritised research themes. Each one of these actions targets a potential new revenue stream to the School and demonstrates that the School has taken steps to align its activities in a way that complements those of the College’s Strategic Plan.
2.3 Outline how College initiatives such as E3, the Strategy for Innovation & Entrepreneurship, the Global Relations Strategy, the On‐line Education Strategy etc. are impacting on the School’s strategic planning The School wishes to expand but under its current financial and space constraints it intends to achieve this in a controlled and sustainable fashion growing to 27 staff members by 2020. This represents an addition of 4.5 academic staff to its 2016/17 complement of 22.5. The School has
9 secured philanthropic and external funding to enable it to expand its academic staff from current levels and it will strive to continue this trend. An increase in the academic staffing of each discipline is seen by the School to be critical to generating new teaching and research capacity. Such activity has to be in areas that can yield dividends for the School that can be reinvested to support its core functions (see Section 2.4). The School is pushing strongly for a review of the distribution of research overhead income across the College. Neither the Schools nor the Institutes that they underpin are in a position to reach sustainability without this issue being addressed. The Schools do not have an authoritative voice within the College Research Institutes. The latter, without the restraints of the teaching missions of the Schools, are out‐performing the School in terms of the level of PI support they can provide e.g. in the commercialisation of their research. The relationship between the PIs and their associated Schools/Institutes needs to be re‐balanced.
2.4 Impact on the School of College Initiatives Engineering/Energy and Environment E3 This initiative, which has been in gestation for several years, is only beginning to crystallise with any clarity at College level. The previous Dean of Research held several brain‐storming events with key members of cognate schools and institutes but the programme has evolved under the Provost from a virtual grouping to a planned centre. The picture emerging is of an institute that combines industry (energy providers and manufacturers) and research but not teaching. The site of the Main Chemistry Building was mooted from 2011 onwards as the physical location of this new entity but this appears less and less certain. The E3 College initiative (http://www.tcd.ie/E3/) has the potential to have a significant impact on the School. It threatens the existing research space in Physical and Inorganic Chemistry, the School’s administrative offices and its landmark site on the College campus. It also offers new opportunities. Mindful of the latter the School has taken action to combine its existing and new expertise in the energy research space (in ‘Inorganic Energy Materials’ and ‘Chemical Energy Systems’). This should assist the School in further capitalising on its role at the forefront of international developments in the field of raw materials (sustainable exploration, extraction, processing, recycling and substitution). Members of the School are actively engaged in fostering industrial collaboration in this area and the School is the lead Irish partner in a winning consortium (RM‐KIC) of over 100 core partners. The School has given considerable time to the development of a new undergraduate moderatorship in Energy Science with Physics and Geology, and a draft curriculum is in development (see Appendix A2.4). The evolution of these ideas however is very much dependent on the outcome of the TR071 streaming taskforce and the proposed changes to Faculty degree structures.
Strategy for Innovation and Entrepreneurship The School of Chemistry was the first in the College to create a cross‐institutional doctoral research programme (DubChem). It is now taking the lead in developing within College a new structure that supports the concept of an ‘Industrial PhD’. This is a framework that will enable a multi‐disciplinary research approach to industrially relevant questions. It requires that graduates be co‐supervised across multiple Schools and Faculties within College and it demands new flexibilities in terms of the structure of the School’s DubChem PG teaching programme. The students enrolled in this industrial
10
PhD programme from 2015 include company employees on secondment as well as the more traditional full‐time student.
The Global Relations Strategy The School has been very active in identifying opportunities in the non‐EU student recruitment area. It has tackled this aspect of its mission cautiously with the intention of building lasting relationships. These are ones in which there is mutual respect and gain on both sides from the interaction. Its three targeted engagements are with Soochow University (2+2 PhD programme and UG student exchange), Thapar University (exploring the possibility of a Thapar‐funded assistant professorship in the School for a fixed period) and with Kolej Mara Banting (Malaysian College of Technology; direct entry UG student placements in N‐PCAM from 2016/17). These activities are in addition to its contributions to the College Brazilian Science Without Borders programme, FEMS IIT Bangalore and SFI ISCA China/India programmes.
On‐line Education Strategy The School has a fundamental concern about the value of an on‐line course in the teaching of a practical skills‐based discipline such as Chemistry. Nevertheless it has led, under the banner of improved undergraduate laboratory safety, a Faculty‐wide ‘passport’ for practical safety training. It has also embraced Web‐CT and Blackboard as they were rolled out in College and these are an integral part of its UG teaching programmes for the submission of continual assessment work. The successful bid by the School to host an Irish RSC Education Coordinator has also meant that it is positioned to explore additional opportunities, e.g. the possibility of a CPD course in practical Chemistry for second‐level teachers.
2.5 Describe how the School identifies and acts upon emerging national and international trends/risks that may affect the future activities and operations of the School The School has always employed an understanding of national and international research trends in the management of its strategic development. Small influxes of staff e.g. through the Ussher assistant professorship programme, have greatly enhanced the capacity of the School to deliver new impact and to change the direction and flavour of its research strengths. Each PI has a degree of ownership of their research niche that brings with it a level of individual research leadership and autonomy. The School’s international research stars (see Section 6) are in areas that are complementary, not competitive. The high level of funding applications in the School mean that the School community is aware of opportunities to drive new frontier research through collaboration with colleagues within and without the School. School members actively engage in research workshops e.g. the annual SFI summit, and share their experiences and knowledge of funding programmes e.g. through their work on evaluating panels, RSC Ireland and UK committees. All staff of this School are active and vigilant members of the national and international Chemistry community.
2.6 Development of the School Strategy in Teaching
The School aims at maintaining the moderatorships (4) that have been rewarded with a high demand for places and that carry “brand value” e.g. Medicinal Chemistry and Nanoscience‐Physics
11 and Chemistry of Advanced Materials. These are key to securing the entry of top‐performing UG students into Chemistry. Similarly, the Science TR071 entry remains a source of good and competent students at UG level, and eventually, at PG level. We will continue to recruit 3rd and 4th year students with strong backgrounds in both the Physical and Biological Sciences for the Moderatorship in Chemistry. We will adapt to the changing environment and are cognisant of the possible introduction of “streaming” and “blending”.
The solid platform of the traditional entries will be complemented by the development of at least one (+1) new degree offering. A first potential target is a new moderatorship in the area of Energy Science and Chemical Energy Conversion, which maps well onto research and industrial trends, as well as onto prospective College Strategy. A second or alternative target is in the PG education arena. Work is underway to develop an academic/industrial postgraduate programme of joint MSc degrees at disciplinary boundaries (chemistry/geology/metallurgy/business). The first cohort of students on the industrial PhD programme begin in 2015/16 and this pilot programme will be expanded as know‐how develops on how to adapt the College’s academic organisation to industry requirements for professional development (CPD). Finally, the School has been invited to contribute to some of the newly developed courses for science secondary school teachers that were recently recognised by the Department of Education as for‐credit CPD courses. Our engagement with these initiatives will be cultivated as it is strategic to the understanding of chemistry by the general public and the taxpayer.
Student Make‐up Expansion of course offerings will progress in tandem with initiatives in remote learning, eLearning and non‐traditional curriculum delivery methods. Teaching initiatives will leverage existing links with industry and participation in EU‐funded projects (e.g. KIC). Similarly, planned recruitment strategies will strive to map effectively onto planned expansion areas. Current proposals have been developed while keeping in mind the importance of diversifying the student body, first by increasing non‐EU student numbers to diversify the School and College’s funding sources. We have identified China (Soochow University) as one of the major target markets that can be effectively tapped into by Chemistry. We are developing links with Latin America (Chile, Brazil) that have been mapped onto both UG and PG degrees. There are plans to receive students from Malaysia. In total we expect numbers by 2020 of approximately 150, which constitute 9‐10% of our total number of students. Diversification of the student body will also be achieved by the inclusion of under‐represented students and our contribution and commitment to College programmes such as the Trinity Access Programme (TAP) will be continued. Gender balance in the student body and retention of female students in the Sciences is also at the forefront of the School Strategy. We have in fact been leaders in this area and were recently awarded the first Athena Swan award in Ireland, for a Chemistry department. The Action plan of the Athena Swan charter will guide our equality strategy.
Curriculum and its delivery The School has responded to the challenges of modularisation and semesterisation swiftly and comprehensively through continuous curriculum review. We already incorporate significant optional components and a system of project placements and of internships for selected student cohorts. A
12 strong transnational component is included in all of our moderatorships and we do not envisage further improvements to what is an excellent model. Further fine‐tuning of content packaging might be required in the near future in order to respond to the introduction of harmonised College regulations, which have negatively impacted student progression. There is an action plan in place to tackle this specific problem and a task force comprising the DTLUG, co‐DTLUG and three discipline representatives has been put in place to discuss a comprehensive solution to be implemented in 2017/18. The School is also discussing contingency plans for prospective changes in College regulations, course structures and year structure. However, clarity from College on future plans will have to be sought prior to any further restructuring of the current modular content organisation. The implementation of eLearning in various forms is part of the School’s strategy to improve student engagement and the student experience. We will expand the use of eLearning tools; e.g. Blackboard use will be expanded from 36 to 60% before 2020. We will also introduce forms of online assessment and student self‐assessment in order to tackle the challenge of providing performance feedback to large student numbers. Clicker use and peer‐to‐peer learning are also a component of our strategy to diversify delivery in freshman (first and second) years; we will deploy their use with a target of 10% uptake by 2017 and 50% uptake by 2020. This aligns well with the College strategy for diversification of the student body by allowing multiple methods for content delivery that could suit working students and remote access. Flipped‐classroom initiatives are better suited for sophister (third and fourth) years and there are already lecturers who implement them. Further expansion of the use of flipped‐classrooms together with software assisted learning will be beneficial for diversification, improved student experience and remote learning. These targets come in parallel with staffing plans to ensure resources for implementation. Our recruitment strategy will also strive to align prospective staff to objectives in the area of curriculum delivery and new course development offerings.
13
Section 3. Organisation and Management 3.1 School Management Structure The College regulations govern the School management structure. The terms of reference, roles and responsibilities, duration of roles and processes of appointment/election can be found at http://www.tcd.ie/Secretary/academic‐governance/. Heads of School are appointed by, and are formally accountable to, the Board of the College. They are elected by the members of the School (including academic, contract, administrative and technical support staff).
Head of School
Figure 3.1: Schematic illustrating the School’s Management Structure Prof. Sylvia Draper is the current Head of School, having taken up office in January 2013 for a period of 3.5 years. The Head must exercise his/her authority in consultation with the School Executive, and with the consensus of the School Committee. The Head of School with consultation from the Heads of Discipline nominates the three directors (DTLUG, DTLPG and Director of Research (DoR)) who are on the School Executive Committee. Under normal circumstances the directors serve for a period of 2 years. The nominations to the Directorship roles in the School are approved by Council. The Heads of Discipline are elected by the academic staff in their discipline. They serve for a period of 3 years. The current membership of the School Executive is provided in the appendices along with the identities of all the holders of positions of responsibility in the School (see A3.1.1). The Head of School is responsible for the effective general management of the School, for ensuring the provision of academic leadership and strategic vision, and for the quality of the student
14 experience. The Head of School is the budget holder, following devolved authority, and is financially accountable to the Faculty Dean (in the first instance) for the School. The main decision‐making committee in the School is the Executive Committee. It meets monthly. The make‐up of this is prescribed by the College and includes two student representatives (one undergraduate and one postgraduate). Decisions made at executive level are communicated to the School by the relevant representatives and via email. All members of the committee are empowered with bringing items forward for discussion via inclusion on the agenda. All minutes, once approved, are published on the School’s local website.
Head of School (Chair)
School Heads of Administrator School Discipline (Secretary) Executive Committee
Chief Technical Officer Directors UG School Convenor Postgraduate Representative
Figure 3.2: Composition of the School Executive Committee The School Committee meets quarterly on average but also meets on request where further discussion is required. In the past year the School Committee met to discuss and coordinate the School’s response to (i) the Provost’s School address and the College’s strategic plan, (ii) the radical revision of the laboratory teaching, (iii) the consequences of the faculty non‐pay budget cuts to the School and (iv) as part of this SAR process. The Director’s chair meetings of the research and teaching committees. Both comprise student and technical‐staff representatives (see Appendix A3.1). The Heads of Discipline call meetings as need demands and when contributions from discipline members are specifically called upon by the HoS or Executive.
3.2 Evaluate whether the current organisational and management structures facilitate the optimum operation of the School and enable it to fulfil its mission The role of the HoS is critical to keeping the School’s vision at the forefront and headlining and steering its success. The School and College need to review the workload of the HoS and rethink how this position/individual can supply strategic leadership and effective dialogue as well as facilitate communication between the College, School and Institutes.
15
The number of meetings attended by the HoS is unsustainable at current levels. As the School’s representative on e.g. Faculty Executive, Head of School, CRANN Executive, all ad hoc working groups (e.g. the TR071 taskforce) and the CRANN board, he/she is engaged in meetings that, in combination, total two or three working days a week. The College structures also decree that the HoS is the end sign‐off point on every document or submission made by the School or its PIs, including staffing submissions to the Faculty Executive, all contracts (funding, graduate proposals, nomination forms for appointment), all funding applications (e.g. via endorsement or recommendation letters). As a consequence, at certain periods e.g. for fellowship or promotion rounds or for application deadlines, the HoS may be inundated with requests for letters of endorsement. This is in addition to being the approver on FIS for any hospitality expenses from staff members, any purchases of amounts in excess of €12,500 and all purchases from the School general ledger. The HoS is also the hiring lead on all support staff appointments, is responsible for instigating College applications (e.g. Ussher appointments), adhering to College regulations (e.g. plagiarism offences, Health and Safety) and for all aspects of staff mentoring. He or she is also the direct line manager for experimental‐officers in the School and monitors their leave requests. The official structures in College for the make‐up of the School Executive are restrictive e.g. this year the School executive made a decision to make a joint appointment to the DTLUG role. This was challenged by the Vice Provost/Provost’s Office because of the need for one individual only to sit on and to be the representative of the School on the College UG teaching committee. The requirement that Staff on the School executive must be at a senior level (unless special dispensation is granted) is also problematic and causes administrative overload for more senior staff, who are asked to take on official School positions (e.g. DTLUG, DTLPG and DoR) with some frequency. The two‐year rotation of directorship roles also causes a discontinuity in the delivery, and burnout because of the steep‐ learning curve and associated workloads. The contracts of junior staff stipulating that ‘there is an expectation that significant administrative duties will not be allocated to junior staff’ also means that a small number of contract and junior staff have declined to take up administrative roles, preferring instead to concentrate on those areas that are vital to their promotional prospects. Many junior academic staff do participate actively in the administration of the school, however, and have occupied a number of important roles including International Coordinator, JS Year Coordinator and Director of Medicinal Chemistry. In order to address any sense of unfairness in the assignment of administrative roles within the School, a comprehensive and updated list of administrative duties is drawn up and shared with all members of academic staff in the School. This provides some clarity regarding the appointment of personnel to administrative roles and helps facilitate a rolling relief period for staff between roles where possible.
What has been done within the School to address some of the recommendations of the last review 2007? (i) The School Executive meets more regularly (now monthly) and the minutes are posted on the internal network and are accessible to staff members. (ii) The School seizes opportunities to make its voice heard (e.g. Provost’s address, ABC meetings, invitations to College Officers) but recognises that it should do more. (iii) Updates are sent via email to School staff notifying them of important School‐led achievements, challenges and funding opportunities. (iv) Considerable effort is made to promote internal transparency and to provide face‐to‐face support. This is despite the challenges presented by the rapid changes within College e.g. in teaching (College modularisation, laboratory teaching review and revision) and in research (emphasis on applied research and its commercialisation).
16
(v) Senior staff have put themselves forward or been selected as advocates for the School on significant decision‐making bodies in College (TG – research think‐tank, MEGL – PI representative on CRANN exec, VN – director of AML, GWW – course director and Council, SMD – TCD Board, standing committee of fellows; see Table A9.1.1 in Appendix). (vi) Attendance at School meetings is now a factor in the School’s workload model (see Section 3.4 and Appendix A3.4) (vii) The HoS operates an Open‐Door policy.
External recommendations 2 and 3 from the 2007 review relate to this section i.e. to management structure and organisation: Recommendation 2: Develop a financial and organisational strategy for College to develop Schools and Institutes that resolves recruitment, appointment and budget conflicts Regrettably having exercised the attention of many there are still ongoing discussions in College in relation to this issue. These were fuelled by changes from the ARAM to RPM to RGAM resource allocations in College. They were also precipitated by the realisation of College’s Financial Planning Group that a policy must be generated that ensures that the Institutes are financially sustainable in the absence of dedicated and ring‐fenced strategic resources from College. The policy must take into account the 30% overhead provision of the major national funding agency SFI, and the growing numbers of support staff within College (e.g. in the Financial Services Division) and the aging infrastructural facilities of the institutes. Tentative agreement was reached with the former Dean of Research on a distribution of Overheads between Schools and the CRANN Institute. An analysis of the indirect costs (overheads) earned by CRANN PIs from the Schools of Chemistry and Physics in 2013/14 revealed that the distribution of the overheads between the Schools and CRANN were very different. In the case of the School of Chemistry and CRANN it was 47%:53% and in the case of the School of Physics and CRANN it was 71%:24%. This mismatch was highlighted and the proposal was that on all future research proposals there would be a 60:40 Schools: CRANN split of overheads. Chemistry has adopted this policy. A different agreement was made in relation to the distribution of overheads between TBSI and the School. The College (at the Dunboyne accord in 2012) agreed the following split. The College would take 50 % of the overheads (OHs) arising from PIs housed in TBSI, the School(s) would see 34% and the TBSI central services would see 16% of the OHs. This agreement has been in operation for the first 3 years of the TBSI but is considered unworkable by the new Director of TBSI (Orla Hardiman). Her sense of this is that the OH portion to the Institute is too small to be strategic.
Recommendation 3: Appoint a representative from chemistry and CRANN to each other’s decision‐making (not overview) body The former Head of Discipline of Physical, Materials and Computational Chemistry was the Director of CRANN and therefore on the School Executive Committee. The HoS from both Physics and Chemistry sit on the CRANN Executive Committee and Board, but are not on the AMBER executive or board. The Head of Discipline of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry and the HoS sit on the Strategic Management Group of the Trinity Biosciences Institute. The latter is also on the Cancer Institute steering group.
17
3.3 Plans or recommendations for change in order to improve organisational structures and management in the future The School made a successful Bronze Athena Swan application in April 2015. This actions several changes to its organisational and management structures. It is planning to implement these and is recommending others, some of which require a significant re‐think at College level. These are that: (i) the School further explores the redistribution of staff duties and the creation of new roles. (ii) the School gives a voice to under‐represented groups on the School Executive Committee (e.g. postdoctoral researchers (PDRs), junior academic staff). As a first step in this process there is a proposal to appoint a junior academic to the School Executive Committee. It is hoped that this might facilitate the integration of junior staff more effectively into the decision‐making processes in the School (Athena Swan action). [Note in the last academic year the proposal to introduce the positions of financial director and outreach coordinator in the School were blocked by the School Executive, so this needs effective buy‐in and agreement.] (iii) more time be devoted to all‐school meetings to increase the channel of communication from the School Executive to the rest of the School. The sense of isolation felt by some staff is exacerbated by the geographical spread of the School across multiple sites. The HoDs and CTO1 in particular have a role in disseminating information to the staff they represent and in empowering them with greater opportunities to contribute meaningfully to School discussions. (iv) the School invests in improvements in communication via the School webpages and by utilising the Faculty marketing director more effectively. (v) the School uses the 2015/16 recruitment of new academic staff (one in each discipline) and an additional Technical Officer (self‐financed) to facilitate changes in experimental chemistry, to enable curricula revision and to offer relief to those in positions of administrative responsibility (such as the HoS and DTLUG). This would hopefully generate greater opportunities for senior staff in such roles to remain research active and to make the roles more attractive to research‐active staff. (vi) the School uses some of its unspent balances/income to provide additional support to research‐active staff who take on significant administrative roles. To date the School’s unspent balances have been used to provide the resources necessary to carry out some of the service teaching remits of the disciplines, to provide additional laboratory teaching cover as required by the expanding numbers of undergraduates and to give teaching relief to the DTLUG. [note: reserves are also funding emergency Office cover and other longer term support‐staff salaries (see resources Section 7)]. (vii) the College reflects on the need (within the confines of Union agreements and HR policies) to evaluate specific job descriptions in parallel with new Chemistry appointments. These might affect posts in the technical, attendant and support arena. (viii) the College reflects holistically on its promotion policies for all staff on all salary grades.
3.4 Staff Development Recruitment University policy (https://www.tcd.ie/hr/assets/pdf/procedure07‐recruitmentprocedures.pdf) requires the active involvement of HR during the advertising, selection and interview processes of academic and support staff. The make‐up of search and interview committees is prescribed by HR policy. They must have representation from both genders. All selection committee members that are internal to TCD must complete the LEAD Programme on Living Equality and Diversity to ensure
18 compliance with selection techniques, equality legislation and University policy. All junior academic staff appointed in the School of Chemistry since 2007 have been provided with a start‐up package comprising a fully funded 4‐year PG studentship and start‐up funding (on average 30k€). In addition the College has limited internal funding calls e.g. 2015 Pathfinders Programme. A negotiated support package accompanied the appointment to the Chair of Inorganic Chemistry.
Induction At the University level: TCD provides induction materials and courses for all new staff members. Induction days are run every year and provide an opportunity to meet other new staff as well as senior University personnel. Induction is particularly useful for staff who are new to Ireland or Dublin, providing excellent information on employment in Ireland, tax, and getting settled in the city. New staff members receive an invitation to attend after they take up an appointment. TCD HR also has a ‘New to University’ information webpage (https://www.tcd.ie/hr/new/) with introductory presentations on the structure of the University, as well as introductions to support services, HR, staff development, library, teaching, and safety practices in the University. This year the College organised a series of 3 half‐day training sessions for Heads of School to make them fully aware of the contractual, legal, financial and leadership responsibilities of the role. This is to be rolled out on a more regular basis. The current Head of School attended.
At the School level: The School has developed policies to ensure that new staff feel welcome and are well integrated. The School Induction document (see A3.4.1) provides new staff with relevant information on: Arrival in the School of Chemistry; Safety Training; Equality Training; Undergraduate Teaching; Postgraduate Teaching and Research; Research in the School of Chemistry; Mentoring Procedures; Other Training; Administrative Information; School Facilities/Instrumentation and Technical Information and Staff Directory. The School of Chemistry’s digital map has been developed to allow new staff members to learn the locations of all its staff and facilities. The School induction document provides access to all critical aspects of the School’s function and enables new staff to quickly integrate into the School.
Probation The University delegates to the School the performance reviews of staff. These occur during the initial probationary period of a post (e.g. at 6 monthly intervals in the first year for support staff and at yearly intervals for academic staff on contract). Staff reviews require the completion of a probationary review document. These are very comprehensive and can be followed up by face‐to‐ face discussion with the line manager (CTO, HoS or HoD) on the agreement of both parties. In the case of academic appointments the ‘approved’ probation documents are submitted to the Faculty Dean for sign‐off.
Staff Mentoring The University provides mentoring schemes and leadership training courses to give guidance to academic staff charged with conducting reviews. The College has just introduced yearly reviews for all research staff (e.g. PDRs). Since 2011, the University has provided early career mentoring for newly appointed academics (https://www.tcd.ie/hr/development/staff/mentoring_early_career.php). A separate programme
19
(‘Momentum’) is directed at established academics who wish to progress to senior positions in the University (https://www.tcd.ie/hr/development/staff/mentoring.php). Both programmes provide an overview to the mentoring process for mentors and mentees, with an ultimate goal of partnering junior staff with a senior academic mentor. The early career scheme focuses on academic and personal development, whereas Momentum focuses on the development of leadership skills. There was also a separate exclusively female mentorship program run by WiSER that specifically targeted early stage academics (PDR and academics, 20 participants dating back to 2008). At a School level an INTEGER‐EU funded programme on gender equality has led to a new local mentoring initiative; leading to the development of a document and philosophy for postdoctoral researchers and early career academics. The document provides the basis for a mentoring relationship between postdoc and supervisor (mentor), or early career academic and established academic mentor. Mentors are assigned by the Head of School in consultation with senior academic staff. Recent academic staff appointees in the School have been either formally assigned an appropriate named mentor(s) in their contract or are participating in informal mentorship within the School. The College also offers mentors to academic staff from outside the School. An academic workload model was introduced in all Schools at the end of 2012. The scoring system is not proportional to the number of hours allocated to each task. The model is designed to track activities in the three main work areas: Teaching, Research and Administration/Outreach Activities. Scores are capped for the Research category. The workload template is filled out by academic staff on the understanding that individual scores will not be made public but only average, minimum and maximum scores per category are distributed. Where an individual is aware that their scores are significantly out‐of‐line with the averages they are encouraged to speak to their HoD or HoS. As currently implemented in the School, the workload model is not used to make decisions about task allocations. It is a self‐assessment exercise and a tool for discussing performance with Head of Discipline and Head of School who assign teaching and administrative duties, respectively. As a School policy early‐career academics are provided with a reduced administrative and teaching load during the first 3 years of their appointment. A reduction in the teaching load is also provided to ERC Award holders. The assignment of teaching loads is undertaken by the relevant HoD and then agreed with the HoS on a yearly basis. Where possible the contact hours of staff are moderated to take account of significant individual administrative burdens or research activity. There is no formal policy in place. The College has laid down a particular set of annual criteria for marking academic staff ‘research active’. The percentage of research‐active staff forms one of many School Key Performance Indicators (KPIs; See Section 7). Where academic staff members are considered by College to be ‘underperforming in research’ the HoS has informed the individual and a collective HoS/HoD supportive response has been initiated with a view to helping to address any underlying difficulties.
Career Development The University’s ‘Staff Development Policy’ provides a number of useful personal development schemes. Under three broad headings (Induction, Supervisory/Management Development, Personal Effectiveness) the University provides academic staff (including PDRs) with the resources and training to climb the academic ladder. HR courses on Communication Skills, Personal Effectiveness, Professional Development, and Leadership Development are run on a regular basis (~2‐3 times per annum).
20
Additional training opportunities are offered by the University to all staff: Online equality and diversity training (LEAD; https://www.leadequalitynetwork.com/).
Epigeum ‐ Professional Skills for Research Leaders programme – an online programme for independent researchers, academics, high‐talent doctoral candidates and PDRs to develop skills required for an academic career. Leadership for women – WiSER funded 20 places (in 2014 and 17 in 2015) on the Aurora programme, a women‐only leadership development programme that combines education, mentoring and on‐line resources to provide learning. All participants are allocated to a trained Mentor. Three Chemistry staff (academic and support) have attended this programme.
Tutor training for academics Staff development courses provided by Human Resources e.g. CAPSL teaching courses
Project management
IT classes
Promotion Applicants are encouraged to seek promotion by line‐managers, mentors and colleagues. All academic applications are endorsed by the Head of Discipline and Head of School, who provide support letters covering all aspects of the application. External referees provide comments on research. Support staff probation applications also require letters of endorsement/support from the HoS. There is no mechanism for prioritising applications within the School and no hiring/firing control is at School level. The School can put forward submissions (replacement, new, self‐financed or core) to the Dean of the Faculty but these must have his/her approval and that of the Faculty Executive Committee before they are reviewed (in some cases) by the Strategic Staffing Subgroup. For many junior academic staff the process of career advancement starts with the College confirmation in post process and subsequently an application to fellowship. Fellows are privileged members of the community, with a significant role in University governance. All academic staff with three or more years’ service may apply. It is considered a mark of research standing to achieve fellowship. Currently, 15 academic staff members in the School of Chemistry are Fellows. At 77% this is one of the highest percentages of fellows in any School in the College. It shows a longstanding respect for this tradition. Within the Employment Control Framework only limited promotion opportunities have been permitted. In those years where a promotion call was made, strict rules and fixed quotas were applied. Since 2008, 17 promotions have been sought in the School, of which 8 (2 Female, 6 Male) were successful (see Table 3.3.1). Our success rate (44%) is better than the Faculty average (27%). In Chemistry, however, a lower percentage of successfully promoted staff are female, compared with the Faculty as a whole.
21
Table 3.1: Number of applications and success rate for promotion to the academic grades of Professor, Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer by year. Professor Associate Professor Senior Lecturer Successful Successful Successful Applied Applied Applied Year (%) (%) (%) 2014 2 0 0 0 2 50 2012 2 0 2 50 1 100 2009 2 100 0 0 2 100 2008 2 50 0 0 2 0 The ratio of junior to senior academic staff in the School is decreasing as staff are promoted to senior grades without the recruitment of new staff at more junior levels (Table 3.1.2).
Table 3.2: Ratio of junior (assistant professor) to senior (associate professor/professor, with and without title) academic staff Academic Year 2015/16 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 Ratio of junior:senior staff 7:13 7:13 7:13 10:13
A major concern expressed by many is the significant time invested in applying for promotion and the absence of clear promotion criteria. Although University promotion procedures are well documented the evaluation process is vague, particularly in the context of the quota system. A reasonable expectation is that promotion involves meeting a set of objective performance criteria rather than competing against colleagues in the School or across the Faculty. Moreover, addressing deficits identified in a past failed application does not guarantee future promotion. This is discouraging for staff. A more transparent system would encourage applications, and would create a fairer process to the benefit of all. Resolving this imbalance requires institutional action and is an Athena Swan Institutional Action.
Sabbatical Leave There are very rare opportunities to relieve staff between roles (even for one year) and no provision for sabbatical leave in the School. At the same time there is an obligation on the School to provide sabbatical leave for those staff members taking on administrative duties outside of the School (e.g. TR071 Course director, Dean of Research). It is also the School’s responsibility for ensuring the quality of provision for teaching buyouts (e.g. maternity cover, ERC buyouts, service teaching, demonstrating). The School has no role in the assignment of its staff to senior positions in the College and is given no authority to propose the continuing interaction of these staff with the School. As an example, although a HoS (either Physics or Chemistry) was on the interview panels for the Director of CRANN and Director of Amber posts, no discussion beyond the title of the Personal Chair in the latter case has been forthcoming. The HoS is not party even to the proposed start and end dates of such appointments. These are major matters of concern. In a pro‐active strategy the HoSs in Physics and Chemistry have proposed a series of meetings with the Director of CRANN in order to try to progress this issue.
22
Beyond the University maternity policy package the School adopts the following mechanism: The staff member informs her line manager or University HR (as required) who in turn provides the Head of School with the relevant information necessary to seek permission from the University to hire a replacement. In some cases this allows for a period of overlap prior to the start of the maternity leave. It also offers the staff member the opportunity to avail of flexible working hours during this period. The School enables staff members on leave to retain contact with either their line manager or the Head of School. Staff members on leave continue to receive all email communications from the School and, where necessary, informal contact is made regarding special events hosted by the School (e.g., external examiners lunch, Named lectures etc.). On a more informal and personal side, the School marks special occasions by sending flowers/sympathies and many staff opt to bring their new‐borns into the School at some stage during the maternity leave period to introduce them to colleagues. A hand‐over time at the end of the maternity leave is also instituted to allow for a smooth transition back to the workplace.
Working from home: Working from home requires the permission of the Head of School or the PI in the case of PDRs and requests are reviewed on a case‐by‐case basis and facilitated where possible. There is no formal policy in place. Three non‐academic staff members (all female) have availed of this scheme. The uptake has been limited but very effective for the individuals concerned and, in one case, the School provided technical support to enable this to happen e.g. VPN access. Academic staff frequently avail of this flexibility on an ad hoc basis, but the Head of School has to be informed of any routine or extended absence from University.
Working outside of normal hours: The normal working week is 37 hours for all non‐technical staff, and 39 hours for technical staff (resulting from the Haddington Road Agreement). Attendance outside of normal hours is required from time to time e.g. open days, outreach activities, in which cases the School allows staff to avail of time‐in‐lieu. Conversely, the School provides flexibility to some staff members to avail of annualised hours to help them manage particular situations, such as:
Child care
carer’s responsibility for elderly parents
partners with health issues
long commutes – avoidance of traffic
Safety Training The School has continued to develop safety education and training at all levels, and currently offers two one‐day workshops (with excellent student response), one to undergraduates at the start of year 3, and the other to postgraduates and final‐year undergraduates starting their research projects in the School. More recently, the School has cooperated with the College Safety Office in providing an annual, one day workshop in chemical safety that is open to all employees of the university. The School also took the lead role in developing an online safety presentation for all undergraduates taking laboratory courses in year 1 in Science and Engineering (this includes students from Health Sciences as well – probably about 900 students in all, making the workshop format impractical) and which includes an on‐line quiz and requires students to print out a “boarding pass”. This is required
23 before they can come into any lab class in the faculty. A similar exercise directed specifically at students taking Chemistry has been introduced for year 2 students in 2015/16. The purpose of these presentations is to raise awareness of safety with the students, to give greater certainty and clarity as to what the students have been told, and to take the first steps towards enabling them to take ownership of their own safety. These presentations and workshops are in addition to the normal provision of safety information, including hazard identification and risk reduction measures that are part of all of our laboratory courses. Recommendation no. 14 of the last School review read: “Establish consistent safety practice and standards throughout the School”. This arose from two concerns: the fact that the School operated on various sites, with varying safety regimes, and without a clear College policy defining the responsibility for safety management in these circumstances; and an uncertainty in the safety background of the students in the School. In addition there was a recommendation that consideration be given to the use of solvent purification systems to replace solvent stills. On the last matter, the School now has three solvent‐purification systems (2 purchased through research OHs), located in the TBSI, SNIAM and the Cocker Laboratory. They have substantially reduced the use of stills, and the Cocker Laboratory has been enabled to operate with a much smaller standing stock of solvent. Since the last review, safety practice within the School has developed towards a single safety policy in use throughout the School, except in CRANN (which has its own Safety Officer). Thus, the policy of safe practice in the School is the same in TBSI, SNIAM, the Cocker Laboratory and the Chemistry Building. The School Safety Officer sits on the Safety Committee of the TBSI (where the policies are in general close to those of the School) and on the SNIAM Building Committee. For members of the School, these do not invalidate School requirements in e.g. the matter of late/out‐of‐hours work etc. as the School’s policies, which continue to apply, are in general more stringent than those of the other schools in the building. There is a rigorous enforcement of the School and College safety procedures e.g. unattended reactions, sign‐out, the provision of fire‐bins in all labs, overnight policy (see School website). A safety audit is undertaken across the whole School (without warning) each summer. The School has a Safety Officer and a deputy Safety Officer. There have been three fires in the TBSI building originating in Chemistry, one resulting in the decanting of two research groups for a considerable period. The School has an annual safety audit, conducted by the Safety Officer and members of the School’s Safety Committee. Although all identified problems are notified to the PI/Lab supervisor concerned, this is not primarily a policing exercise, but is part of a process of assisting and facilitating all members of the School to work in safe and appropriate surroundings. Over the years the audit has developed in scope and effectiveness, and with the cooperation of all staff in the School, has contributed to a raising of awareness of safety issues, to increasing compliance with regulations, and improved safety in the School. This is not yet perfect, but there have been noticeable improvements in, for instance, the general state of tidiness of laboratories; a reduction in clutter; and in management issues involved in labelling, inventory and risk assessment. Most of the research laboratories are overcrowded or very close to capacity and in both research and undergraduate teaching the School is approaching the point where this overcrowding may impinge on safety. One matter of concern for the Safety Officer is the continuous, ongoing pressure on undergraduate numbers (pushed upwards) while the resources available for demonstrating are being whittled away. The School has several classes that are larger than the design capacity of the teaching laboratory concerned; under these circumstances, a higher level of supervision is required rather than a lower one. The School has had great difficulty in scheduling split laboratory classes but also in funding the demonstrators required and in recruiting the postgraduate students to do the
24 demonstrating. The changes to the lab classes are discussed elsewhere (see Section 4) – but our capacity to maintain the standards required is a safety matter as well as a matter of pedagogical concern.
25
Section 4. Assessment of Undergraduate Education 4.1 Outline of undergraduate programmes offered by the School 4.1.1 Summary of UG teaching offered by the School The School of Chemistry currently offers four moderatorships, namely: Chemistry, Medicinal Chemistry, Chemistry with Molecular Modelling (CMM), and Nanoscience, Physics and Chemistry of Advanced Materials (N‐PCAM), which is a joint degree programme with the School of Physics (see Table 4.1.1). These are 4‐year undergraduate courses which for the most part share module choices and structure during freshman years but require specialisation and dedicated teaching material in sophister years. The School graduates ca. 50 students/year over the four moderatorships, however, it annually teaches Chemistry to ca. 1100 students in College. The School provides modules in Chemistry for students in the general Science degree programme (~340 entrants) and for students enrolled in moderatorships of Engineering, Physiotherapy, Radiation Therapy, Human Health & Disease and Dental Sciences (see Table 4.1.2 and further details in Section 4.1.1e). This service teaching load represents an important commitment of resources as the majority of modules offered also have a practical component, thus requiring academic staff, technical staff and postgraduate support in the form of demonstrating and space allocation proportional to student enrolment.
Table 4.1.1: Summary of moderatorships offered by the School of Chemistry and number of graduates for each of the subjects over the past five years.
No. of Graduates Management of 2010‐ 2011‐ 2012‐ 2013‐ 2014‐ Moderatorship Code the 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 moderatorship
Chemistry TR071 11 11 16 15 10 Chemistry
Chemistry with Molecular Modelling TR074 2 1 3 1 3 Chemistry (CMM)
Medicinal Chemistry TR075 20 16 22 26 23 Chemistry (MedChem)
Nanoscience, Physics & Chemistry and Chemistry of Advanced TR076 7 13 13 8 16 Physics Materials (NPCAM)
Total Graduated 40 41 54 50 52
26
Table 4.1.2: Summary of Service teaching offered by staff in the School of Chemistry; contact hours indicate the total number of contact hours invested by the School in the delivery of teaching.* = practical component of a Dental Sciences module. Service Teaching Module ECTS Total Average Annual Code Contact Student Enrolment hours 2008‐2015 Freshman Engineering CH1E05 5 115 190 Physiotherapy CH1P01 5 40 42 Radiation Therapy, Human Health & Disease CH1100 10 76 59 Dental Sciences N/A 2 19 43
Undergraduate teaching delivered by the School and the structure of the moderatorships have undergone significant changes since the time of the last School Review (2007), with most changes driven by the restructuring of the academic year and of IT/administrative support for undergraduate teaching across College. We refer the reader to the past review document for a detailed description of the undergraduate teaching by the School up to 2007. Briefly, delivery was organised for the most part in 8‐9 h courses taught over terms, with three terms and end‐of‐year exams constituting a typical academic year. Since then, the following major changes have taken place across College: Modularisation: courses were reorganised into modules of 5 ECTS or multiples of 5. ECTS weighting of courses commenced in 2007 but 2008 was the first year in which freshman chemistry modules appeared in their current form. Semesterisation: the traditional structure of the academic year (3 terms for a total of 24 teaching weeks) was reorganised into two semesters (S1 and S2) of 11 teaching weeks each. This led to an effective loss of two teaching weeks and the need to map content onto semesters. Student Information and Timetabling System (SITS): College implemented a new IT system for the integrated management and storage of student information, including admissions, registration and examinations. Harmonisation: College implemented harmonised academic rules for the assessment and progression of students as a substitute for course‐specific regulations that had developed organically alongside the modular structure. Reorganisation of Academic Registry: administrative units dedicated to admissions, registration, fees and examinations were consolidated into the Academic Registry, leading to changes in contact points and lines of management on the administrative side of student affairs. These changes have taken place against the backdrop of (a) an increase in the total number of undergraduate students taught by the School over all modules, from 850 to ca. 1100 over the period 2007‐2015, (b) a decrease in the number of academic staff and (c) no change in the capacity of teaching facilities. Figure 4.1.1 shows a timeline associated with the changes introduced, the trend in the number of students taught annually over all chemistry modules and the number of academic staff in the School. The challenges resulting from the above changes are discussed as part of the analysis of our undergraduate teaching provision.
27
Figure 4.1.1: Total number of undergraduate students taught by the School of Chemistry and the number of academic staff members since 2008. A timeline of the implementation of major changes in the structure of undergraduate teaching is also included in the graph.
A description of the teaching delivered in each of the moderatorships follows in Sections 4.1.1a‐d; a summary and overview of modules taught by staff in the School is presented in Section 4.1.1e; the structure described in Sections 4.1.1a‐e reflects the teaching as delivered in the 2014‐15 academic year.
4.1.1a Moderatorship in Chemistry (TR071) The Moderatorship in Chemistry provides a broad foundation in the core chemical disciplines with approximately equal time devoted to each of Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry disciplines. Students enter through the Science Degree programme TR071. The programme is structured so as to offer the student in the first two years a choice of routes to one of the sixteen distinct specialisations on offer by the different Schools in the Sciences area. Courses in the first and second (freshman) years are designed to provide a comprehensive training in the basic sciences enabling students to proceed in the third and fourth (sophister) years to achieve a high level of expertise in their chosen subject. The Science course is flexible in order to encourage students to exercise an element of choice in the freshman years. Teaching and learning is conducted via lectures, tutorials and laboratory classes, and full‐time study requires enrolment in modules for a total of 60 ECTS/year. First‐year students with the intention of pursuing a Chemistry degree must take at least one 10 ECTS module in Mathematics and both of the two 10 ECTS Chemistry modules offered. The remaining 30 ECTS can be satisfied with combinations of other subjects in the science area. A very popular subject combination is Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics whereas a smaller proportion would choose the combination of Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics. The majority of first‐year students in the Science degree opt to take the Chemistry modules since they are prerequisites for most biology‐ oriented moderatorships in the sophister years. Second‐year students with the intention of pursuing a Chemistry degree must take the two 10 ECTS Chemistry modules offered in 2nd year. The remaining 40 ECTS credits can be satisfied with a combination of other subjects in the science area. The majority of students combine the Chemistry modules with Biology ones whereas the subject combination of Chemistry, Physics and Maths is only
28 taken by a minority of freshman students. Hence, many of our Freshman Chemistry students are well versed in Biology, but only a few have a good grounding in Physics. Selection of a moderatorship takes place in year 2 and moderatorship studies start in year 3. As entry into the desired moderatorship is competitive, with each one having an intake quota, places are allocated on the basis of annual‐exam results and the fulfilment of module requirements. Third‐ year students in Chemistry take courses in organic, inorganic and physical chemistry that cover a variety of core topics. Lectures are complemented by practical classes that introduce advanced preparative methods and instrumental techniques. Fourth‐year core courses deal with advanced topics considered essential to a core chemical knowledge. Optional modules are also offered. The practical component in year 4 is an extended research project during semester 1, which may be carried out abroad (see Section 4.1.2). Students are required to submit a written thesis and are examined by two staff members in a viva voce examination. The overall degree mark is calculated by combining 3rd (35%) and 4th (65%) year marks.
4.1.1b Moderatorship in Chemistry with Molecular Modelling (CMM, TR074). The moderatorship in Chemistry with Molecular Modelling (TR074) allows students to obtain a core chemistry degree while specialising in theoretical and applied aspects of molecular modelling from materials chemistry to computational drug design. Freshman CMM students are taught primarily with the Science TR071 students, but their subject combinations are defined by the requirements of the moderatorship. In year 1, Chemistry, Mathematics and either Physics or Biology are studied, while special tutorials are given on molecular modelling. In year 2, Chemistry, Mathematics and either Physics or Biology are studied, again complemented by special tutorials on molecular modelling. Third‐year modules consist of the core chemistry coursework with specialist molecular modelling courses and laboratory work. Lectures are accompanied by tutorials and molecular modelling practical classes. In year 4, the core modules of the chemistry moderatorship must be taken as well as specialist CMM modules that develop topics introduced in 3rd year. The practical element consists of an extended research project during semester 1, which may be carried out within the School of Chemistry or abroad (see Section 4.1.2). Students are required to submit a written thesis and are examined by two staff members in a viva voce examination. The overall degree mark is calculated by combining 3rd (35%) and 4th (65%) year marks.
4.1.1c Moderatorship in Medicinal Chemistry (MedChem, TR075) The Medicinal Chemistry moderatorship aims at educating chemistry graduates with an understanding of current research problems in the medicinal and biological sciences. The degree provides a general grounding in chemistry but focuses on topics of relevance to the design, synthesis and biological evaluation of new medicinal compounds. Graduates are ideally suited for employment in either the pharmaceutical industry, a sector in which Ireland is a world leader, or in research at the interface between chemistry and biology. Freshman students are taught primarily with the Science TR071 students, but their subject combinations are defined by the requirements of the course. In 1st year students must take modules in Mathematics, Chemistry and Biology. In the 2nd year, students must take TR071 modules in Chemistry and Biology and attend additional special tutorials covering an introduction to the ideas and techniques of medicinal chemistry. In 3rd year, students share organic chemistry modules with TR071 students, and some relevant inorganic and physical chemistry modules. In addition, they take modules on the principles of
29 medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, microbiology, biochemistry and industrial chemistry. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the curriculum, core modules include teaching by staff from the Schools of Microbiology, Pharmacy and Biochemistry & Immunology. Notably a 3rd year module (CH3446) also includes lectures from industrial speakers; some of the companies that have contributed in the past are GSK, Almac, Ipsen, Gilead, Tomkins and Charles River. Practical work covers the areas of synthetic organic, inorganic, computational and physical chemistry. In 4th year students take prescribed organic chemistry units in conjunction with TR071 students and specialised modules on: drugs acting on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems, computational medicinal chemistry, case studies, site‐specific drug delivery and combinatorial chemistry. A special module (CH4402) provides elements of analytical methods specific to medicinal chemistry, taught by staff from Dublin City University, and of computational chemistry with specific examples in drug design. The practical element consists of an extended research project during semester 1, which may be carried out within the School of Chemistry or abroad in the same format as for students in the Chemistry moderatorship (see Section 4.1.2). Students are required to submit a written thesis and are examined by two staff members in a viva voce examination. The overall degree mark is calculated by combining 3rd (35%) and 4th (65%) year marks.
4.1.1d Moderatorship in Nanoscience, Physics and Chemistry of Advanced Materials (N‐PCAM, TR076) The course Nanoscience, Physics & Chemistry of Advanced Materials (N‐PCAM) allows students to specialise in materials science at an advanced level during their undergraduate careers due to the combination of modules offered by the Schools of Physics and Chemistry. The course was formerly known as Physics and Chemistry of Advanced Materials (PCAM), however, the emphasis of the curriculum on nanoscience topics prompted a change in the course name in 2011 to include the “Nanoscience” term explicitly in the title. Graduates are specialists in the design and synthesis of modern materials for applications in electronics, optoelectronics and related fields. The interdisciplinary nature of the moderatorship gives graduates a broadly based scientific education that is vital for careers in the information technology sector, an important industrial driver in the Irish economy, as well as an excellent starting point for postgraduate degrees in materials research. The course shares modules with the Chemistry and Physics moderatorships while also offering specialist modules and a specifically tailored practical course. The course has been extremely successful and it has seen an increase in the required entry points, indicating a high demand for places (see Section 4.2). It is currently the most competitive course in College that does not require an aptitude test/audition test/portfolio requirement. In 1st and 2nd year, students take modules in Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics. A seminar series given by academics from Chemistry and Physics gives N‐PCAM students early exposure to research‐ related topics in the field. In 3rd year the course includes modules in solid state physics and chemistry, quantum mechanics, lasers, thermodynamics, electrochemistry, macromolecules, spectroscopy, group theory, materials preparation and microelectronic technology. The practical course in 3rd year introduces students to a wide range of characterisation methods and investigative techniques, including a two‐day visit to the CRANN institute to participate in research projects. In 4th year, modules concentrate on specific topics including advanced solid state physics and chemistry, non‐linear optics, materials for electronic and optoelectronic devices, conducting and insulating polymers and metal oxides, superconductivity, surface and interface effects, computer simulation and advanced growth techniques. The practical component in year 4 is an extended research project during semester 1 that for the majority of students takes place in a laboratory abroad (see Section 4.2). Students must submit a written thesis and present a poster on their project, both of which are then examined by two academics of either the Chemistry or Physics Schools. The overall degree mark is calculated by combining 3rd (35%) and 4th (65%) year marks.
30
4.1.1e Undergraduate Modules taught by the School of Chemistry The School of Chemistry teaches a range of modules that contribute to the four main moderatorships and to moderatorships offered by other Schools within College. A summary of the main modules taught, enrolment and content covered follows. Year 1 and 2 undergraduate modules Table 4.1.3 shows a list of all modules taught by the School to 1st and 2nd year undergraduates; the table includes details of ECTS weighting, how modules are examined , what degree programmes use the module to cover the Chemistry content, and a breakdown of student contact hours in lectures, tutorials and practical classes. The core modules CH1101 and CH1102 are requirements for all Chemistry moderatorships and constitute the largest commitment of teaching hours and laboratory space among taught modules. The content covers all three disciplines of Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry and a breakdown along discipline‐specific topics is summarised in Appendix A4. The two core modules CH2201 and CH2202 are also required for all Chemistry moderatorships; the content covers all three disciplines of Inorganic, Organic and Physical Chemistry and a breakdown along discipline‐specific topics is summarised in Appendix A4.
The number of students taking CH1101, CH1102, CH2201 and CH2202 modules has risen steadily since the last review, as shown in Table 4.1.4. CH1101, CH1102, CH2201 and CH2202 are required or recommended modules for students who choose to moderate in many of the biology‐based sciences within TR071, as well as for other direct‐entry courses that share coursework in the freshman years with the Science degree programme. While the TR071 Science degree has not increased its quota of 340 since 2008, the direct entry courses have consistently increased their intake, which impacts on the laboratory and lecture spaces that must be allocated to these modules. Student numbers in these four modules therefore pose a significant challenge to the School in terms of providing teaching and demonstrating staff necessary to cover contact hours, as well as in terms of space resources and equipment in the teaching laboratory. As a result of student number increases we recently reviewed the practical component delivered in the freshman years; an overview of the review process and outcome is reported in Section 4.3.
31
Table 4.1.3: Chemistry modules for 1st and 2nd‐year undergraduates: ECTS weighting, contact hours per student, modes of assessment and the degree programmes to which students enrolled in the module belong [Note: while a student generally attends a 3‐h practical lab/week, 4 or 5 such labs are run each week to cater for all students taking a given module]. Contact hours Module ECTS L T P Examination Courses Chemistry 2 10 42 11 27 75% = 3h exam Science, CMM, MedChem, N‐PCAM, Human Genetics CH1102 25% = practical component Small Group 0 22 Optional for Science, Teaching CMM, MedChem, N‐ PCAM, Human Genetics, CH1006 Earth Sciences General 5 32 10 15 80% = 3h exam Engineering Chemistry 20% = practical CH1E05 component General 5 40 100% = 3h exam Physiotherapy Chemistry CH1P01 General 10 63 13 45% = 3h exam Radiation Therapy, Human Chemistry Health and Disease 40% = 3h MCQ CH1100 exam 15% = practical component
Chemistry 1 10 42 11 27 75% = 3h exam Science, CMM, MedChem, N‐PCAM, Human Genetics CH2201 25% = practical component
Chemistry 2 10 42 11 27 75% = 3h exam Science, CMM, MedChem, N‐PCAM, Human Genetics 25% = practical CH2202 (Optional) component
32
Table 4.1.4: Student numbers taking the main Chemistry modules in years 1 and 2 for 2008‐2015. * = 2nd year teaching was structured into three modules in the original term structure, thus the number represents the total number of students examined for 2nd year Chemistry in the Science TR071 degree.
Module 2008‐ 2009‐ 2010‐ 2011‐ 2012‐ 2013‐ 2014‐ code 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CH1101 322 362 371 396 382 401 402 CH1102 310 345 349 350 355 364 370 CH2201 161* 166 209 206 252 264 238 CH2202 161* 154 204 202 247 177 227
Year 3 undergraduate modules Year 3 modules are reported in Appendix A4, Table A4.3, which summarises content, ECTS weighting and moderatorships for which each module is relevant. The structure and content of the modules are the result of a curriculum review carried out in 2012 (see Section 4.3) in response to the restructuring of the Academic Year from a term structure (3 terms/year) to a semester structure (2 semesters/year). All third‐year modules are worth 5 ECTS and consist of 33 h of lectures and tutorials; for the purpose of examination, they are grouped into 5 annual papers of 3 h duration each, however, each module receives a separate mark after the examination. An exception to the 5‐ ECTS weighting is the practical component that is included in a single module (CH3080) delivered across semesters 1 and 2. Practical work is examined during the year through the submission of written reports (continuous assessment). The final mark for year 3 is calculated as: 45 ECTS from exams and 15 ECTS from the practical component.
The structure of 3rd year modules has significantly improved over the past three years after a concerted effort to make it compatible with the semester structure. There is a continuous process of reviewing and fine‐tuning within the School, as resources allow, in order to respond to changes in College regulation and academic year structure. Harmonisation rules have introduced a problem that is adversely impacting the progression of students in the sophister years in particular. Harmonisation rules limit the number of modules that can be passed by compensation; students can now achieve an average mark well above the passing threshold but still fail their final year without the possibility of repeat examinations. The staff are seriously concerned that lack of progression can now be a consequence of the manner in which material is grouped in modules, as the packaging of content should never impact academic outcomes.
Year 4 undergraduate modules Semester 1 of the 4th year is dedicated to the research project, identified as module CH4101 in the case of Chemistry, MedChem and CMM and worth 20 ECTS. For N‐PCAM students, the research project is combined with the problem‐solving paper in a 25‐ECTS module, PY4NP1. In all cases, the student spends 12 weeks of intensive work in a research laboratory within the School or abroad (see Section 4.1.2). All 4th‐year students submit a thesis that is reviewed by two academic staff. In the
33 case of students moderating in Chemistry, MedChem and CMM, the student presents his/her research project to the two staff members assigned for the thesis review: each examination comprises a 10‐minute talk, 15 minutes for questions and a further 5 minutes for discussion between the staff. Individual marks are submitted by each examiner and they are combined with those submitted by the external/internal supervisor of the project (33% weighting for the mark assigned by the external/internal supervisor and a 66% weighting for the mark from the two academic assessors). In the case of students moderating in N‐PCAM, the student presents his/her work at a poster session and discusses the project with the two examiners separately; both the theses and the poster discussion are given marks, which are then combined with those of the project supervisor. 5 of the 25 ECTS are allocated on the basis of the problem‐solving exam paper. Problems are based on chemistry (or chemistry and physics in the case of N‐PCAM) concepts covered during the degree programme and the required skills to answer these questions are developed by the student through self‐directed learning. Semester 2 of the 4th year consists of coursework modules worth 5 ECTS each and students enrol in 7 modules, equivalent to 35 ECTS; the core modules are defined for each moderatorship as shown in Appendix A4, Table A4.4, which summarises module titles, credits, content and exam organisation for the final year. An additional module comprising a series of topics (worth 5 ECTS for four topics) is predefined for MedChem students, but CMM and Chemistry students can choose either two or four of the topics to study, respectively; option topics for the module are often chosen from content that is core to the other moderatorhips. For the purpose of examination, 4th year modules are grouped into 5 annual papers, each of 3‐hours’ duration. It should, however, be noted that each module receives a separate mark after the examination.
The quality of the research project experience is excellent and the assessment mechanism is robust, resource‐ and time‐effective; furthermore it provides an excellent experience of an interview process, which is skill‐building for the professional development of students. The project also offers the opportunity to add a transnational dimension to the education of our undergraduates, as outlined in greater detail in Section 4.1.2. We do not foresee further improvements to the project experience, however, our successful model is currently challenged by the increasing student numbers in an environment of diminishing financial and staff resources (see Section 7.3.1). The student‐success rate of the problem‐solving modules is relatively low and this can create a problem with harmonised rules as currently implemented in College. Due to harmonisation, lack of progression can result as an artefact of the exact way in which the modules are structured in the sophister years. External examiners have stressed that this paper is an important one and should not be eliminated; the problem‐solving element in assessments should, if anything, be increased. Small group teaching would be clearly beneficial for supporting student learning and problem‐solving skills, however, significant resources are necessary to implement small group teaching in year 4. From 2015/16 the mark received for the problem‐solving paper will be combined with the student’s project mark as part of a 25‐ECTS module, as is currently the case for N‐PCAM students.
4.1.2 Transnational dimension of the undergraduate experience All four moderatorships offer the option to carry out part of the studies abroad, in the EU and beyond. Because of the logistics of arranging travel and of matching the teaching timetable of TCD to that of other institutions, the vast majority of the structured UG experiences abroad consist of 1‐ semester‐long research projects or summer internships. Many Chemistry, MedChem and N‐PCAM students opt to conduct their 4th‐year project abroad, with the proportion being typically 20‐30% for Chemistry/MedChem and much higher for N‐PCAM students, as shown in Table 4.1.5. Research work
34 abroad is a maturing experience for many of the students and the option to travel and study abroad for a period of time is encouraged by the School. Students travel under formal agreements between TCD and foreign Institutions (e.g. Erasmus) or as part of exchanges arranged via informal channels or personal contacts. The School has exchanged students with over 40 different foreign research institutions, of which 46% are outside the EU; a list of these institutions is reported in Appendix A4, Table A4.5. The School of Chemistry participates in the following formal exchange agreements:
Erasmus: EU area exchange programme mainly used for 4th‐year research project exchanges. Trans‐Atlantic Science Student Exchange Program (TASSEP): North American exchange programme mainly used for 4th‐year research project exchanges. The School was a founder of this programme. International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience (IAESTE): worldwide scheme mainly availed of for summer internships. Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE): Physics/Chemistry/CRANN summer internship programme, mainly for 2nd/3rd year students. Funded initially by Science Foundation Ireland for Physics and Chemistry, it is currently sustained through Physics and CRANN contributions. Table 4.1.5: Number of 4th‐year projects carried out in institutions abroad over the years 2010‐2015. Data are reported in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total 4th‐year student cohort. Course 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015 TR071/TR075 9 9 8 11 9 15 Chem/MedChem (29%) (33%) (20%) (26%) (24%) (29%) TR076 N‐PCAM 5 10 11 8 10 10 (Chemistry/Physics) (71%) (77%) (85%) (100%) (62%) (67%)
Support structures for both incoming and outgoing undergraduates are significant and have increased over the past five years. A dedicated academic staff member is appointed to the position of International Coordinator (Prof. Scanlan 2009‐2015 and Prof. Gounko 2015‐present). He/she acts as the first point of contact for incoming and outgoing students and reviews and liaises with students to ensure that the academic content and load of the internships/projects offered is high and consistent with the requirements of the programme the student is enrolled in. The International Coordinator is also in charge of evaluating project requests and allocating projects abroad where applicable. Finally, the International Coordinator is the official College coordinator for the TASSEP programme and is responsible for identifying and establishing new partnerships. Internationalisation efforts in College have also led to the appointment of a Global Officer (see Section 10.2) shared with the School of Physics; the Officer is in charge of creating and maintaining links with other Institutions and of ensuring that incoming students with diverse backgrounds and legal requirements (e.g. visa, language skills) have a positive and structured experience upon their arrival in TCD. One of the latest contributions of the Global Officer has been the creation of an induction package to facilitate the integration of incoming international students into the Irish academic system and to assist in navigating the transition to Ireland.
35
The international dimension of the undergraduate degree programmes offered by the School is an important and attractive feature of undergraduate studies in Chemistry. The School has active links with well over 40 institutions abroad, half of which are in non‐EU countries. Students consider their experience abroad as a highlight of their degree and the uptake of international placements is high. Students returning from their time abroad and foreign students visiting and registered with the School contribute very significantly to the intellectual life of the School and to the academic development of all students. The support structures and know‐how developed in the School over the past number of years are an important factor in ensuring success. The addition of a Global Officer has been a welcome development in order to further increase internationalisation efforts and build onto an existing successful platform.
4.2 Undergraduate recruitment, admissions process and internationalisation strategy Admission to the moderatorships offered by the School occurs via four different entry mechanisms that are defined and established by College regulations. The main entry route is via the Central Applications Office (CAO), which manages 3rd‐level admission for Ireland for students who are recent secondary‐school graduates. There are additional entry mechanisms that complement the CAO route and facilitate admission of students with non‐traditional backgrounds or who are underrepresented in the typical student population. Alternative admissions are categorised into three principal types: (a) students with a disability, (b) mature students applying for admission under the mature student dispensation scheme, and (c) socio‐economically disadvantaged students. In addition to applying through the CAO, applicants in these three groups are invited to submit separate applications to the university. A short description of the entry mechanisms follows:
Central Applications Office (CAO) route. Entry to degree programmes in Ireland is administered by the CAO for all 3rd‐level institutions in Ireland. CAO entry is a purely numerical process: students taking the school exit examinations are awarded points for 6 subjects based on their grades, with a maximum of 625 points (including the 25 bonus points awarded to those getting a D3 or above in higher level mathematics, which was introduced for the 2012/13 intake). Also, students are expected to meet the matriculation requirements of the College and any course‐specific entry requirements that may apply. Table 4.2.1 shows trends in CAO entry points over the past five years and quotas for the four moderatorships offered by the School (1st round of offers); the table also reports the percentage of Leaving Certificate students who scored above or at the CAO threshold in that year. Student numbers admitted can often exceed the quota.
36
Table 4.2.1: Entry points from Leaving Certificate examinations required for admission into the four degree programmes offered by the School of Chemistry (Source: TCD – 1st round of offers). The percentages indicate the percentage of secondary students who score above or at the relevant score bracket (Source: Central Applications Office).
Course Quota 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15
TR071 340 455 470 500 505 515 Science 18.2% 14.5% 9.9% 9.4% 8% TR074 CMM 5 400 430 490 470 505 30.6% 23.8% 11.7% 15.6% 9.7% TR075 28 475 500 535 535 525 MedChem 14% 8.9% 5.3% 5% 6.4% TR076 20 410 475 515 570 595 N‐PCAM 28% 14.5% 8.2% 1.5% 0.6%
All four degree programmes have become more selective over the past five years, albeit partly because of demographic pressures and trends in the national economy. Students who gain admission through CAO to Chemistry moderatorships are top performers in the Irish secondary education system.
Students with a Disability (DARE). The Disability Access Route to Education (DARE) is open to applicants who disclose a disability on the CAO application form. If eligible, applicants may be granted a concession on CAO points. Many applicants with a disability do not, however, disclose this information on the CAO form, but subsequently register with the Disability Service. Mature Student Dispensation Scheme. Applicants under this scheme must be over 23 years of age and are assessed on the basis of their complete academic profile, taking into account work and life experience. Mature students’ applications are assessed individually; for admission to TR071 recommendations are made based on an interview process by a panel of academic staff that includes a representative from Chemistry (Profs. Lyons in 2010, Colavita 2011‐2014, Evans 2015). Thus, Chemistry has been actively involved in increasing diversity in the undergraduate student body. Socio‐economically disadvantaged students (HEAR). Young adults who are assessed through the Higher Education Access Route (HEAR), and are deemed as socio‐economically disadvantaged, are eligible for a concession on points for entry to an undergraduate degree. Students admitted through HEAR also receive a range of personal, academic and social supports while studying at third level. Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC). The Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) is the statutory awarding body for further education and training in Ireland. The TR071 Science course accepts FETAC – Level 5 qualifications and modules with a minimum of distinctions in five appropriate modules since 2012.
37
Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 report non‐traditional student numbers in the four moderatorships offered by the School, over the last five years of available data. Data specific to the Chemistry moderatorship for TR071 is not currently accessible via the student information system. The College’s Strategic Plan is committed to increasing the number of students from under‐represented groups to undergraduate programmes. The latest published report from the Senior Lecturer’s Office (2013) indicates that students from underrepresented groups registered on undergraduate degree programmes represent 20% of the CAO intake. Chemistry’s proportion of non‐traditional undergraduates is difficult to calculate due to the lack of information on the numbers rising to sophister years from the TR071 degree. However, the direct entries appear to attract ca. 10% of non‐traditional students.
The Trinity Access Programme (TAP) is a central part of the College’s Strategic Plan to encourage students who come from socio‐economic groups under‐represented in higher education to go to university. TAP has been instrumental in increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in College and the School of Chemistry has collaborated closely with TAP and actively participated in TAP initiatives. In particular, we run a practical component for the TAP pre‐university course. We have also held interactive and demonstration shows for primary school students from schools associated with TAP. The School has provided from its own funding scholarships for secondary school students from TAP schools to attend the International Summer School Programme, the Transition Year Programme and the Summer Science Camps.
Table 4.2.2: Breakdown of non‐traditional student intake into TR071 Science for the last five years of available data. Data specific for the Chemistry moderatorship is not available via SITS. Percentages refer to the quota of TR071 of 340 for all years.
TR071 Science 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 HEAR 6 10 13 20 49 TAP Foundation Courses 5 3 2 2 4 FETAC ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 13
DARE No info No info 9 13 20 Mature 1 2 9 12 5 Total for TR071 33 59 91 (9.7%) (17.3%) (26.7%)
38
Table 4.2.3: Breakdown of non‐traditional student intake into direct entry courses TR074, TR075 and TR076 offered by the School for the last five years of available data. Percentages refer to the total quota of the three degree programmes in that year. TR074 CMM 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 HEAR 1 TR075 MedChem 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 HEAR 1 3 4 TAP Foundation Courses 2 2 1 TR076 N‐PCAM 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 HEAR: Reduced Points 1 9 2 1 TAP Foundation Courses 1 1 1
Total for TR074, TR075 & 4 4 7 6
TR076 (8.3%) (8.3%) (13.2%) (11.3%)
Diversity in the student population for Chemistry has also increased via internationalisation efforts, which have significantly increased as part of a concerted College initiative, which includes investment in local support staff. As outlined in Section 4.1.2 there are a dedicated International Coordinator and a Global Officer who support the recruitment and integration of international and more specifically non‐EU students into the undergraduate student body. Table 4.2.4 shows a summary of the total number of non‐EU students and the proportion of that number that is credited to the School of Chemistry based on the students’ module choices. In addition to the numbers in Table 4.2.4, the Schools of Chemistry and Physics have very actively engaged in the recruitment and enrolment of Brazilian undergraduate students under the Science Without Borders (SWB) Programme of the Brazilian government. These efforts have added to the numbers of non‐EU students in Chemistry, which has been credited with 1.5, 3.5 and 6.5 students from this programme in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. Several staff members are directly involved in the internationalisation of the School to attract students from China as well (funded through the SFI ISCA grant). Under this purview specific Memoranda of Understanding have been signed between the Schools of Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry & Immunology and Chinese universities. During visits to Soochow University undergraduate exchange programmes were implemented. Alongside joint postgraduate courses, collaborative undergraduate teaching initiatives were agreed in principle (see Section 5.2). However, discussions are still ongoing to overcome funding, accommodation and timetabling issues.
39
The College’s Strategic Plan is committed to increasing the number of non‐EU students. The number of non‐EU students credited to Chemistry has been significant in the last three years, particularly when compared with the total number of non‐EU students attracted by the four degree programmes to which the School contributes. For instance, for the year 2014‐15 Chemistry’s contribution accounts for more than a third of the total non‐EU intake, even without including SWB students. Whilst the research infrastructure significantly improved over the last number of years (i.e. through SFI Centre grants), undergraduate teaching is hampered by a lack of appropriate venues to accommodate students, reduced numbers of academic staff members and limited administrative support. This now constitutes a problem for further internationalisation initiatives as evidenced by some of the obstacles to implementation identified in our engagement with Soochow University. Meeting the above resource requirements is a sine qua non condition for meeting College’s targets for internationalisation.
Table 4.2.4: Total number of non‐EU undergraduate students enrolled in the degree programmes that teach chemistry and the total number that is credited to Chemistry based on module choices (* = provisional number). A more detailed breakdown by year is provided in Appendix A4. 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 Science TR071 7 9.5 9 13 17* CMM TR074 0 1 2 1 1 MedChem TR075 1 1 3 3 2 N‐PCAM TR076 0 0 2 3 4 Total Full Degree 8 11.5 16 20 24* Students
Contribution to 2.66 4.5 6.3 7.3 10.8 Chemistry
4.3 Outline how the School revises and updates its undergraduate teaching programmes 4.3.1 Procedures for curriculum review and description of reviews that took place in 2008‐2015 The School’s Teaching Committee, chaired by the Director of Teaching and Learning (Undergraduate), is the major forum where curriculum review takes place and currently has representatives from each of the three disciplines within the School, the Freshman coordinator, an undergraduate student representative, and technical staff representatives from the Cocker and Physical Chemistry Teaching Laboratories. The Teaching Committee’s remit allows it to either drive review proposals or discuss review proposals originating from the individual disciplines; discussion at the level of this Committee is a necessary step prior to the issuing of a recommendation that is escalated for approval by the School Executive Committee. Praxis within the School has seen the most recent reviews originating in the disciplines, mostly as a result of the changes required due to modularisation and semesterisation. However, since reorganisation in individual disciplines has consequences for the delivery of modules across all
40 disciplines, changes usually involve joint discussion and coordination across all disciplines. There have been curriculum reviews of content and delivery structure in the period 2008‐2015 as follows: Physical Chemistry Discipline: The latest review took place in 2012. The purpose of the review was to analyse content delivered, to avoid duplicate teaching over the four years and to reorganise content into semester‐long modules. This was considered an urgent undertaking in order to fully transition from the old term structure to the new semester structure. In particular, 3rd‐year modules were in need of review as they were the result of a mechanical mapping of one‐term long courses into the semester structure, thus resulting in module content that was often not cogent or was disconnected. Staff from the discipline were tasked with: (1) identifying core content required for accredited programmes (ACS, RSC), (2) comparing current content delivered by the discipline with that delivered by R1 universities in the US and by Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, and (3) reorganising the timing of the delivery of specific content in order to map satisfactorily onto the semester structure. The discipline revised 3rd‐year module content and annual exam papers, and defined what modules would be considered as core for each of the four moderatorships offered by the School. The discipline is currently also reviewing the delivery of the Quantum Chemistry content across years 2‐4 in order to respond to the challenges posed by staff retirements and existing teaching loads. This process is ongoing.
Organic Chemistry Discipline: The latest review took place in 2008. The main purpose of the review was to overhaul the existing curriculum and bring it into line with modern teaching topics in organic chemistry. The then anticipated move to modularisation, which took place in subsequent years, also mandated a streamlining and reorganization of individual lectures into semester‐long modules. The process proceeded bottom‐up, i.e. starting with 1st year as Organic Chemistry is a vertically integrated discipline, without knowledge of 1st year, 2nd‐year concepts are inaccessible, and so on. In order to incorporate new knowledge special attention was given to removing duplication and especially to introducing the more strategic concepts (curly arrows, retrosynthesis, FGI, etc.) in a more logical manner earlier. At the same time, contemporary research concepts and content were introduced more thoroughly to incorporate the concept of research‐led teaching and to give the curriculum a distinct TCD brand. The result was a completely overhauled Organic Chemistry syllabus with emphasis in the freshman years on the foundation for a broader appreciation of Organic Chemistry, where the majority of the core transformations, concepts and mechanisms are introduced. The sophister years are then used to introduce more advanced topics, allow for a deepening of the concepts from earlier years. More focus was given to theoretical concepts such as FMO, physical organic chemistry, modern coupling techniques and research examples, ultimately allowing the development of the knowledge and skills required to design and execute advanced syntheses. The most recent changes to the UG curriculum in the discipline came as a result of financial and logistical constraints and have imposed significant changes and cuts on the practical teaching in 2015 (see below). While implemented as a stop‐gap measure, the practical teaching will have to be revisited and reviewed soon as the present level is considered insufficient for modern organic chemistry teaching in a laboratory‐based discipline.
Inorganic Chemistry Discipline: The latest review took place in 2014. The purpose of the review was to update the 3rd‐ and 4th‐year syllabi. In the old syllabi there were a number of Organometallic Chemistry topic courses during the final year, and final‐year exam papers were overloaded with organometallic chemistry questions while there were not enough questions on materials chemistry
41 and spectroscopic techniques in inorganic chemistry. Also, 3rd‐year MedChem students were not exposed to main‐group organometallic chemistry, which is very important in organic synthetic chemistry. After the review of the syllabi it was decided to teach all organometallic chemistry (main group and transition metals) during the 3rd year. The organometallic content in the 4th year was replaced by two new topics, “Chemistry of Inorganic Biomaterials” and “Characterisation Techniques in Bioinorganic Chemistry”, whereas “Advanced Organometallic Chemistry” was offered as a topic in the optional module. These changes will be implemented for the 4th year class of 2016/17 and their reception will be reviewed via student surveys.
Review of the Practical Components: The latest review of the content and organisation of practical components was carried out in 2015 and it involved all modules delivered in years 1‐3 of all moderatorships and service‐teaching modules. The review was necessary in response to the increased student intakes and to cuts (ca. 60%) to the casual pay and non‐pay budget of the School (see Section 7). The laboratory capacity requirements and student throughput expected for 2016 reached levels such that were considered physically unsustainable and encroaching on safe laboratory practices. In the academic year 2014‐15 the throughput of students was 750 students/week in the Physical Chemistry Teaching Laboratory and 674 students/week in the Cocker Laboratory (Organic/Inorganic teaching). At its most severe “pinch‐point” there were 120 students in the 114‐capacity Physical Chemistry Laboratory and 153 students in the 136‐capacity Cocker Laboratory. From 2015/16 onwards a radical revision was deemed necessary, imposing changes on the (i) scheduling, (ii) content, (iii) practical teaching hours and (iv) division of the module classes. The review of the delivered practical component across years 1‐3 aimed at: A. Reducing the total number of experiments in each module; Table 4.3.1 shows a summary of the main changes in hours of laboratory work associated with freshman modules.
Table 4.3.1: Summary of cuts imposed on practical laboratory hours for students enrolled in freshman modules. Each undergraduate experiment typically requires 3‐hour‐long sessions. Laboratory Component (h/student) Course Module ECTS 2014‐15 2015‐16 Code credits
1st year Science, CMM, CH1101 10 27 15 N‐PCAM and MedChem CH1102 10 27 15 2nd year Science, CH2201 10 27 24 CMM, N‐PCAM and MedChem CH2202 10 27 24 1st year Engineering CH1E05 5 15 12 Dental Sciences 19 13 Radiation Therapy CH1100 10 13 9
B. Selecting freshman experiments so that experimental setups could be used for multiple freshman modules.
42
C. Reducing laboratory class sizes to ensure safe operation while maintaining adequate supervision of the classes and to preserve the students’ acquisition of hands‐on experience in the laboratory. During the review of the practical components (see Appendix A4) the following risks arising from a reduction of laboratory hours were identified: Loss of depth and breadth in laboratory teaching in the undergraduate degree programme. Reduction in total hours of practical work from 297 h to 246 h for the students who moderate in Chemistry and TR074, TR075 and TR076 entries; this also jeopardises the ability to apply for RSC accreditation of the main Chemistry degree (see letter in Appendix A4). The following benefits of the review were, however, found to outweigh the drawbacks: Pragmatic solutions for accommodating increasing student numbers without the need for increased teaching laboratory space or of the resources (i.e. technical/demonstrating staff and equipment) required to expand the provision to three laboratory sessions each day and/or introduction of weekend laboratory classes. Opportunity to rationalise laboratory teaching in Chemistry Opportunity to review the content of the laboratory classes in the first three years. The revised laboratory curriculum will be fully deployed in 2016/17 and we plan to assess the effect of these changes on student satisfaction. Surveying of the practical modules will ensure that we identify those changes that should be made permanent and distinguish them from those that are a stop‐gap measure but must be implemented as a result of space and staffing constraints.
The current number of practical hours resulting from these proposed changes does not provide sufficient hands‐on experience in chemical laboratories when benchmarked against modern and accredited courses in a practical discipline such as Chemistry. We aim at reversing the outlined cuts in the number of practical hours, however, key changes are needed for this to happen, namely: venues that are adequate for the student numbers currently taught in the laboratories, increased staff numbers to ensure safe supervision and to cope with the increased teaching loads, and appropriate administrative support.
4.3.2 Approach to the integration of frontier content into the curriculum The College prides itself on being a research‐led university and on integrating research into the undergraduate learning experience. The staff in the School subscribe to the teacher‐scholar model and all teaching material is research‐informed. Some of the ways in which the staff engage in research‐led teaching are:
Students are made aware of faculty research and its importance via participation to seminar series both in freshman and sophister years. The undergraduate curriculum includes elements on research skills and explicitly addresses these skills as part of a high quality final year project. The staff facilitates the engagement of students in research projects and summer internships in laboratories. The curriculum includes learning activities focused on research issues (e.g. Broad Curriculum experience discussed in Section 4.4, N‐PCAM practicals). Staff engages with the literature and practice of research on teaching and student learning as demonstrated by scholarship in the area of chemistry education.1
43
Further details on research/teaching interface activities in the School are provided in Section 4.4. 4.3.3 External review and student feedback The quality of the moderatorships offered by the School is annually reviewed through the College mechanism for external examination: three external examiners for the disciplines of Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry and three specialist examiners for MedChem, CMM and N‐PCAM, respectively, are invited every year to review and provide feedback on the quality of the examination process, the level and rigour of the curriculum and the quality of the graduates from each programme. A summary of the external examiners’ reports is presented in Section 4.5. All modules are also reviewed annually by students via a survey mechanism, as established by College regulations. The process adopted in the School of Chemistry is described in detail in Appendix A4.3.3. The Chemistry moderatorship is an approved degree course as determined by the Institute of Chemistry of Ireland (approved for GradICI). Graduates are entitled to apply for qualification as professional chemists upon satisfactory completion of their moderatorship course. The School will continue to ensure that the quality of its undergraduate programme continues to meet the demands of this accreditation. In addition the N‐PCAM degree program is fully accredited by the Institute of Physics.
4.4 Describe how the School enhances the learning experience through innovation in teaching Curriculum delivery methods The majority of the teaching delivered by the School is conducted via the traditional lecture method using, where appropriate, presentation software. Staff are adept in lecturing to classes of varying size ranging from ~300 in the freshman years to 40‐50 in 3rd/4th year. Class sizes for the option modules can in fact be very small, typically between 2 and 10 students. Many staff use Powerpoint but some rely on more traditional teaching tools varying from overhead projectors to blackboard and chalk. Supporting material is often provided in the form of handouts in class or electronic copies. Tutorials and problem‐solving classes are an essential component of the teaching strategy of the School. Regular tutorials are scheduled but several additional ones are offered closer to the exam period for students in all four years and beyond the hours prescribed by staff teaching loads. With Chemistry being a popular subject choice among freshmen it is important to have a mechanism in place to encourage students new to the area. One way in which the School has achieved this is through the Basic Chemistry Tutorial: a 0 ECTS module (CH1006) is offered in the format of small group lectures/tutorials by senior postgraduates and coordinated by a staff member (Dr. Scully). The module is primarily aimed at students who have not previously taken Chemistry through their secondary school. This initiative has also benefited postgraduate students involved in the initiative: one of the postgraduates in charge of the course was even the recipient of a College Teaching Award in 2014 (Shane Plunkett). The School staff also leverages, albeit to a lesser extent, other forms of delivery. For instance, self‐ directed learning is incorporated by some of the lecturers in their courses. Tutorial/discussion sessions are integrated by many within the lectures. Student‐led teaching is formally part of the Broad Curriculum (BC) component that all 2nd‐year students must register for. The BC course is held over semesters 1 and 2, with students split into groups and assigned topics that they have to research in detail. Topics can have a connection with recent news or be thought‐provoking, with some examples being: “The chemistry of aging”, “The chemistry of dreams”, “The chemistry of sports supplements”, etc. Each group is mentored by an academic member of staff in the School of
44
Chemistry and all groups receive the support of three postgraduates who coordinate activities and steer the process. In semester 1 the students have to write a group report whereas in semester 2 they are required to prepare a group presentation. A competition among groups is held and the final is attended by a large audience consisting of secondary school students (~100) and judged by a panel of researchers/industrial representatives or experts in science communication. Student outcomes and learning benefits have been reported in a recent publication in the Journal of Chemical Education.2
Integration of research and teaching activities School staff effectively integrates research as part of the lectures, in the form of topic choices and by using their research results as examples; sophister modules offer the most opportunities to integrate research, given the more specialised content and the greater flexibility that the smaller classes afford. In 2015 staff in the School (Prof. Southern) also contributed to the establishment and publication of the Trinity Student Scientific Review (http://trinityssr.com/), a journal that accepts submissions of scientific reviews from undergraduate students. The publication gives science undergraduates an opportunity to engage with the literature on a topic that interests them, practice academic writing, and foster a working relationship with academic advisors. It is also a platform for providing students with the opportunity to get published and to bridge the gap between their undergraduate degree and the research‐driven world of science. Students experience research in a real setting first hand during their research project in year 4. Students spend time working in the research laboratories of the academic staff and are given research problems to work on. Students get to experience research as it is really carried out in a team setting and academics have the opportunity to dedicate time to undergraduates in a mentorship relationship (typically fewer than 3 students are assigned to each staff member).
The model currently in place is highly successful as evidenced by examiners’ reports, however, there are concerns among staff that reductions in research funding will negatively impact the research‐ project experience: reduced research funding, lower numbers of postgraduate students and postdocs in the laboratories, reductions in the budget for departmental consumables and a concomitant increase in undergraduate numbers all pose threats to the quality of the research‐ project experience (see also Section 7.3.1 for details on funding).
Implementation of eLearning resources The School has begun to integrate computer‐based teaching, eLearning tools and online management systems into curriculum delivery:
Course management tools: Over the period 2008‐2015 the College availed of licenses first for WebCT and then Blackboard course management environments, supported by the College’s Centre for Academic Practice and Student Learning (CAPSL). Many of the modules delivered by the School have integrated the use of Blackboard software: in the year 2014‐15 36% of the Chemistry modules used Blackboard for content delivery. However, few modules exploit the full bandwidth of the Blackboard teaching/learning tools. The majority of lecturers who use Blackboard software do so for posting announcements about their material and lecture content in the form of notes or slides. Test capabilities are currently used only for required quizzes, such
2 Implementing a Multidisciplinary Program for Developing Learning, Communication, and Team-Working Skills in Second-Year Undergraduate Chemistry Students; N. B. Mc Goldrick, B. Marzec, P. N. Scully and S. M. Draper, J. Chem. Educ., 2013, 90, 338-344
45
as the safety quiz that is part of the laboratory induction for all students. Assignment capabilities have been increasingly used, starting with the management of laboratory report submissions for 2nd‐year students, which was first implemented in the Physical Chemistry laboratories and more recently in the Inorganic Chemistry laboratories and 3rd‐year Physical Chemistry laboratories. The use of electronic submission has facilitated record keeping and the logistics of storing and accessing reports for large classes. There is a plan to further deploy electronic submission for 2nd‐ and 3rd‐year laboratories. Software tools for plagiarism: The School has effectively adopted software tools for controlling plagiarism. A particular concern for several years was the potential for plagiarism in the writing of 4th‐year research project theses. In 2011‐12, electronic submission and originality check of all project theses using Turnitin software was introduced by the School; this resulted in an increased understanding by the students of what might constitute plagiarism and of the norms of scientific referencing. The introduction of robust checks has indeed been praised by the external examiners in their report. We expect that prevention of plagiarism will be made easier by a newly introduced College policy (2015) that dictates that all students must complete an online tutorial on plagiarism. Software for Chemistry: The School incorporates the use of software specific for Chemistry and molecular modelling in its undergraduate teaching. One of the moderatorships offered by the School specifically focuses on teaching computational methods with applications to Chemistry and the teaching of modules is complemented by practicals supported by chemistry software packages (e.g. Gaussian). Content developed for practicals of the CMM moderatorship is also used for the teaching of students in the Science, MedChem and N‐PCAM entries. A new room dedicated to computer‐based work was recently set up in the School premises to facilitate the running of practicals. Furthermore, the School invested in the purchase of a multiuser license for ChemDraw and the software has been installed on student computers in order to integrate this tool into the teaching of sophister modules. Clickers and clickers software: The Faculty of Science, Engineering and Mathematics recently agreed to support the introduction of clickers in the Science and Engineering degree programmes. This is a welcome development that will assist staff in delivering content, particularly to the large freshman classes. Four School staff members interested in implementing clicker use have been given a starter package and the majority of staff teaching freshman classes attended the training sessions with the intention of implementing their use in the classroom. The 2015/16 academic year will be the first year of clicker use for chemistry modules and we expect to review and extend clicker use as the freshman classes rise to sophister years.
Assessment methods Assessment is largely by end‐of‐year examination in the paper format. In first year the exam has a multiple choice component but it is administered in the same format as the annual paper. Continuous assessment and feedback takes place almost exclusively in the laboratories throughout years 1‐3. In the freshman years the laboratory mark is determined by an average of the laboratory reports that are graded and returned to the students within two‐three weeks. This mark contributes 25% to the overall module mark. In sophister years marks for practicals constitute entirely separate modules; this has caused problems under the new harmonised rules as mentioned in Section 4.1. Problem sheets are distributed throughout the freshman and sophister years but these are not formally assessed or counted for credit and it is therefore difficult to establish to what extent students attempt problems prior to tutorials. A remarkable exception to the paper format assessment is the evaluation of the research project which involves an element of oral/interview process for all of the moderatorships. The assessment process is described in detail in Section 4.1.
46
Since the last Review, the School has improved marking consistency; this requires constant monitoring as marking is done over four moderatorships, with different end‐of‐year paper structures and with module delivery by external providers. We have invested in improving model‐answer provision and marking schemes; progress in this area is highlighted by external examiners.
Marks of excellence in teaching Commitment to teaching and excellence in teaching innovation by staff in the School is well established and clearly demonstrated by the awards conferred on teaching staff. Since the time of the previous review, two members of the School have received the Provost Teaching Award, one has received a National award for excellence in the Integration of Research and Teaching (NAIRTL), one has received a Teaching Hero Award in Irish Higher Education and a postgraduate student was the recipient of the Trinity Teaching Award for Postgraduate Students.
There is clear evidence of teaching excellence and of innovation in teaching in the School. Large class sizes represent a challenge to the effective delivery of the curriculum. This challenge has traditionally been tackled by supplementing teaching with small group sessions. Due to staff and funding constraints further use of eLearning tools (online delivery/assessment) and supports might be recommended as a way of scaling up efforts in a cost and time effective manner. Increasing student numbers and diminishing research funding could also present a threat to the sustainability of 4th‐year research projects in their current format. The traditional lecture format remains the primary method of knowledge transmission and dissemination because of convenience and because the method effectively utilises staff time, which is a valuable commodity. This format is known to be limited in terms of its effectiveness and the potential for student engagement. Further implementation of eLearning tools complemented by student‐led, peer‐to‐peer and/or flipped‐classroom strategies might be avenues that the School can explore to help address this situation. There are informal initiatives aimed at integrating interactive components that allow students to receive feedback over the year via online or computer‐based tools (online quizzes, helpdesk) into modules; furthermore, there is scope to expand the use of eLearning tools for management of assignments and continuous assessment. However progress in this area is slow, in part due to the high teaching loads of staff over the past three years and the upfront investment of staff time that these initiatives require. Further acquisition of computer and software resources for students in Chemistry modules might be a requirement for expanding eLearning.
4.5 Mechanisms used by the School to evaluate its teaching provision Evaluation of teaching by external examiners Teaching provision is evaluated through a combination of internal and external review processes. The external examination mechanism provides a valuable route for obtaining feedback from peers in other universities. As mentioned in Section 4.3.3, three external examiners for the disciplines of Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry and three specialist examiners for MedChem, CMM and
47
N‐PCAM, respectively, are invited every year to review and provide feedback on the degree programmes (see Appendix A4, Table A4.7). Examiners almost uniformly comment on the high standard of the examination papers. We endeavour to take their comments on board where practicable, which often leads to improved procedures and higher standards. For instance, the current methodology for assessing 4th‐year projects (see Section 4.1) is the result of internal initiatives and feedback provided by external examiners. The combination of external and internal feedback has resulted in the 4th‐year projects much more accurately capturing the research skills of the students, the evaluation process being uniformly applied to students independently of whether they carry out their work in‐house or abroad, and in marks being extremely consistent. For the last two years the external examiners have been critical of harmonisation rules, introduced to align with the requirements of the Bologna Process (http://www.eua.be/policy‐representation/higher‐ education‐policies/the‐european‐higher‐education‐area‐and‐the‐bologna‐process). In this system, not only do students have to pass a year overall but they must gain a pass score in at least 40 of their 60 ECTS. A consequence of the harmonisation rules is that students are more likely to fail than ever before, without having an option to repeat modules. This, we would agree, is unfair, as the module structure as currently implemented has resulted in us having to fail students who would have passed under previous regulations.
The content of external‐examiner reports for the 2014‐2015 year can be summarised as follows:
Summary of ongoing concerns: The presence of modules that do not have associated coursework – e.g. the practical component of the final year, i.e. the 4th‐year project report, viva and supervisor assessment. The consequence of excessive module failures by a student on their overall degree grade and/or degree outcome as a result of harmonisation rules. Although significant improvement is acknowledged clarity and consistency in model answers and marking schemes across all modules should be improved. Better structuring of questions is also suggested: e.g. easy entry, final problem element. Evidence of question spotting/strategising by students. Issues that have been addressed: Clarity of information, module breakdown, course objectives, web links etc. 4th‐year project marking – process, consistency and transparency. Removal of communication element (draft publication) for final year project. Quality of model answers – further consistency still sought. Introduction of robust plagiarism checks. Suggestions for Improvement
A review of the course material in CMM (modernisation), N‐PCAM (nanobio component), MedChem (increase breadth). Redesign of communication exercise currently implemented in a 3rd year module. Greater feedback to students particularly in 3rd year
Evaluation of Teaching and Learning experience via student feedback and surveys A valuable mechanism for obtaining feedback is that offered by class representatives who are elected by the students for each year and for each moderatorship; their role is important particularly for the large freshman classes where it is challenging for teaching staff to liaise with students and obtain feedback in a timely manner. The “class rep” mechanism is well suited for addressing
48 problems related to teaching over the short term (e.g. request for tutorials, deadline negotiation). There are also undergraduate representatives who have a formal role in the School governance structures, being members of School Committees. A review of teaching provision in each module is carried out through a formal mechanism that collects annual feedback from students, according to quality guidelines in College. As can be seen from the rigour of the procedures and the oversight required by the DTLUG, we regard feedback from students on our modules very seriously. The methodology for evaluating modules based on feedback from students consists briefly of the following: (1) an online survey is sent out to students in week 10 of each semester, (2) the School administrator sends the anonymised feedback to the lecturers of each module, (3) lecturers complete a feedback form with responses to the main concerns raised and (4) the DTLUG reviews lecturers’ responses and circulates them to students thus closing the feedback loop. Written responses to students are provided only in cases where participation in the evaluation exercise exceeded 33%. Academics are required to identify, respond to and, if possible, alleviate the students’ main concerns. The full details of the survey methodology are reported in Appendix A4 (A4.3.3). The last round of module surveys saw 10 modules reviewed in semester 1 and 11 in semester two with an average response rate of 32% and 52%, respectively. The concerns raised by the students varied but most of the comments provided feedback on the clarity of the content and provision, and the availability of notes/learning material. A recurrent concern regards the timing of delivery of practicals and lectures, however, the logistics of practical classes, rather than teaching objectives, often determines the timing of the delivery and we currently have little flexibility in this respect. Finally, a review of the student experience via exit surveys is now planned. This is a relatively recent initiative (2015) introduced as a result of our successful application for an Athena Swan Award.
Evaluation of Teaching and Learning experience for the International Student Cohort The experience of international students is specifically reviewed via the International Student Barometer (ISB), which summarises the experiences and perceptions of international students enrolled in TCD and elsewhere in the EU. For the most recent report 1227 Trinity Students completed the ISB survey, of which 18 students specified the School of Chemistry as their main School of Study. The results are as follows: 81% of TCD international students rated their overall Trinity experience as positive and would recommend it to others (87% rate for those in the School of Chemistry). 88% of TCD international students were satisfied overall with their Trinity experience (94% satisfaction rate for those in the School of Chemistry). The students rated their overall satisfaction with Trinity in each area as summarised in Table 4.5.1.
49
Table 4.5.1: Summary of satisfaction rates among international students at Trinity in general and in the School of Chemistry in particular. Note: NSV indicates that the numbers of responses to the questions were less than 10 and therefore could not be captured. TCD‐ School of Chemistry‐ 18 1227 students students ARRIVAL OVERALL 87% NSV LEARNING OVERALL 84% 94% LIVING OVERALL 85% 94% SUPPORT OVERALL 86% 88%
Regarding the specific areas of the course, international students were asked to rate their learning satisfaction in different areas as shown in detail in Appendix A4, Table A4.8. Overall, students ranked their satisfaction in the School of Chemistry as equivalent to or higher than the comparable scores of the other cohorts in the survey. Performance feedback and marking criteria were identified as being notably lower than the overall Global ISB percentage score and therefore are areas to focus on before the next ISB survey is conducted. 100% satisfaction was achieved in the areas of expert lectures, research language support, physical library, multicultural environment and online library/resources. Course content, laboratories, learning spaces and academics’ English were also ranked highly.
4.6 Opportunities provided for professional development of teaching staff The School leverages the opportunities for continuous professional development (CPD) in the area of teaching offered by College. The main provider of courses on teaching skills, tools and methods is CAPSL, whose mission is to assist the College in developing a strong and integrated framework for supporting best academic practice and the highest quality of student learning. CAPSL offers targeted courses on various topics, typically lasting 2‐4 h, e.g. on integrating teaching and on research and technology enhanced learning in higher education. CAPSL also offers a formally recognised certificate, the Professional Special Purpose Certificate in Academic Practice. More recently the majority of staff teaching freshman years also attended training courses on the use of clickers and peer‐to‐peer learning. The results of a survey on the uptake of CAPSL courses among academics and postdoctoral researchers reveals that at least 13 attendants at the courses were from the School over the period 2012‐2015 (Source: Athena Swan application and CAPSL).
The School aims at encouraging professional development in the area of online course development, in line with the College’s strategy of internationalisation. Expansion on the effective use of online assessment and course management will also require professional development as well as College support for implementation. The School benefits from a very collaborative and collegiate approach to teaching delivery and informal mentoring networks often form to support the professional development of new staff. However, no structured mechanism for peer‐mentoring is currently in place; this could perhaps be addressed via periodical workshops on teaching internal to the School.
50
4.7 Supports and learning resources provided by the School to enhance the student experience There are a number of support structures in place for students learning in the School, some provided by College and some resulting from internal initiatives:
Induction package for International students: the Global Officer has put together an induction package with instructions for international students (UG and PG) on how to settle in Ireland, how to complete any legal visa requirements and useful information on the School, College and the city. The package collates what used to be a scattered collection of pointers and suggestions into a concise document. Preliminary Chemistry Course: for students entering 1st year who have not previously taken Chemistry in secondary school, the pace of 1st year Chemistry modules can be challenging and daunting. The Preliminary Course is one‐week long and is delivered two weeks before teaching starts. It covers the fundamentals of Chemistry to facilitate settling into the Chemistry modules. Orientation Freshers’ week: the first week of the year includes an orientation/induction week for 1st year students. School staff contribute to the orientation activities for TR071 and the direct‐entry courses. Small group tutorials: To support learning of Chemistry topics by students in 1st year without prior Chemistry knowledge, additional tutorials taught by postgraduate students have been put in place. Tutorial service: this service is confidential and available to all undergraduate students, and it offers student support in all aspects of College life. Participation in the tutorial service by School staff is exemplary: more than half of the academic staff is either an active tutor or has been a tutor in the recent past. The School currently has a staff: tutor ratio of 4.59, which is better than the expected ratio across FEMS. Handbooks and printed material: these are regularly updated and document regulations and course information; these are used effectively for student support.
There are, however, concerns among staff regarding the ability in the future to maintain student supports and to ensure a sense of community among undergraduates in the School. In particular, attention to the following areas is recommended:
Study spaces for students in the School: study/meeting rooms are scarce in the School and as a result there is limited space dedicated to hosting UGs and facilitating activities conducive to peer‐to‐peer learning such as study groups or computer rooms for problem‐ solving. Similarly there are no student amenities in the chemistry buildings, forcing students out of the School in order to find space for study activities and group project work. Increasing performance feedback in chemistry modules: the need to increase the level of performance feedback is highlighted in ISB surveys. Managing and updating of the School website: the content on the website that is relevant to undergraduates could improve to facilitate calendaring of events (social or scientific).
4.8 Opportunities offered for involvement in the research and outreach activities of the School UG involvement in research activities The School and the academic staff offer numerous opportunities for undergraduates to be involved
51 in research activities. First, the research project in the 4th year represents a structured research placement of 12 weeks within a laboratory in the School or in a university abroad. This was reviewed in detail in Sections 4.1.e, 4.1.2 and 4.4. The 4th‐year project is not the only framework under which undergraduates can become involved in research. Staff often host undergraduates from our degree programmes and from other universities in EU and non‐EU countries in their laboratories over the summer. It is not uncommon for staff to host 1 or 2 students each summer and a survey of summer internship placements in the School has been carried out as part of this Review exercise. Some of these placements are self‐funded by the students, some are funded by staff in the School through research grants and some are also funded via external bursaries (e.g. RSC Bursaries, IAESTE). The School of Chemistry has also contributed to the Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE), a programme that now runs as a locally funded joint Physics/CRANN programme of summer placements (see Section 4.1.2). Undergraduates carrying out summer research under SURE are involved in a series of activities ranging from social gatherings to workshops on different aspects of career development and a final poster session and award to report on their research findings. Involvement of undergraduates in research has a strong tradition in the School which is manifested also in the inclusion of undergraduates as co‐authors in numerous publications and conference presentations.
UG industrial placements There is a highly successful programme of industrial placements at Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) that is open to all Chemistry students but has traditionally been coordinated through the MedChem degree programme. The interaction with the GSK Industrial Placement Scheme has been in place since 2003. The School of Chemistry has sent students every year bar one when GSK were undergoing considerable restructuring. As recognition of a prolonged and consistently excellent interaction with the scheme we have been awarded LINK status. The industrial placement is based in the GSK Discovery Chemistry Section in Stevenage, UK, is one year in duration (students must take a year off‐books) and is paid. In a typical year 10‐12 students will apply in a competitive selection process that involves selection by CV analysis and an interview (GSK representatives come here). Typically two applicants will be successful but occasionally only one student or more than two students will be accommodated. The application process is now electronic, via the GSK website but the students are offered input to improve their CVs before application – this is an historical remnant from when the applications were handled by the MedChem Course Director and involved simple CV submission.
UG involvement in Outreach activities Undergraduates are involved in the outreach activities of the School wherever possible. The Broad Curriculum event in year 2 involves delivery of student‐led presentations to secondary school students (~100 every year). The final event is used as an opportunity for the School to create links with local secondary schools, in particular, feeder schools for the College. Similarly, during the Open Day activities to promote the College programmes, undergraduates are involved and act as ambassadors to the School and the degree programmes.
52
4.9 Provide an assessment of the outcomes of teaching & learning 4.9.1 Exam results and completion rates A full list of exam results, including mark breakdown for all years and moderatorships taught is included in Appendix A4 in table form (Table A4.9). Figure 4.9.1 shows a summary of pass rates for the four modules taught in year 1 and year 2 obtained at the annual exams (April/May); a higher overall pass rate is achieved after students are given a second attempt at the supplemental session (August/September). In general the pass rate is higher for modules taught in year 1 than in year 2; for the same year, the pass rate is higher for modules taught in semester 1 than in semester 2. In particular, the pass rate for CH2202 is low and in certain years has fallen below 50%; this perhaps can be attributed to the fact that the module covers the fundamentals of quantum chemistry and molecular modelling and the exam usually contains an element of problem‐solving that includes basic knowledge in mathematics. Plans are underway aimed at addressing the preparation of students for the content assessed in CH2202 via problem‐solving support exercises during the year.
Figure 4.9.1: Pass rates for the four modules taught in year 1 and year 2 by the School of Chemistry. The values do not include students absent or who withdrew from examinations.
Figures 4.9.2 and 4.9.3 summarise progression rates for year 3 and year 4 in all four moderatorships offered by the School over the past five years (no supplemental exams are offered in sophister years). In year 3 the Chemistry moderatorship is the one with the lowest average progression rate over five years (86%); this is likely due to the structure of the TR071 entry, since not all of the students entering year 3 had expressed a first preference for the Chemistry moderatorship but might be assigned to it due to place availability. MedChem and N‐PCAM moderatorships, which are separate entries, have higher progression rates in 3rd year. CMM values are calculated over very small student cohorts (<5), therefore, it is not possible to identify meaningful trends. A decrease in progression rates in the last two years is partly due to the implementation of harmonisation rules as discussed in previous sections. Results for year 4 show that students who progress to the last year are able to successfully graduate. Therefore, intervention in the form of additional student support or restructuring of module breakdowns is likely to be better targeted to year 3. The proportion of 1st class degrees awarded appears to be much higher for the direct entries (MedChem/N‐PCAM) than for the common Science entry (see Appendix A4, Table A4.9), likely due both to the higher entry qualifications and to the assignment mechanism of moderatorship preferences in the Science course. There is no evidence of grade inflation when examining trends in mark breakdowns thus
53 confirming our commitment to high academic standards of School graduates.
Figure 4.9.2: Pass rates in 3rd year for all four moderatorships offered by the School of Chemistry. The values do not include students who were absent, who withdrew from examinations or who deferred the year.
Figure 4.9.3: Graduation rates in 4th year for all four moderatorships offered by the School of Chemistry. Values do not include students who were absent, who withdrew from examinations or who deferred the year.
4.9.2 Progression paths of students following graduation Data on the career paths of graduates is collected by the College’s Careers Advisory Service via voluntary surveys. The School of Chemistry does not collect statistics on graduates and their career paths, however, as part of our successful Athena Swan application we have identified the need for improved tracking mechanisms of our graduates. There are now plans in place to survey graduates and obtain information about their first employment destination. Figure 4.9.4 shows a breakdown of first employment destination after graduation for the most recent year of available data. Results suggest that the majority of graduates progress to further studies although a proportion gain employment immediately afterwards.
54
2014 MedChem ‐ N =18 2014 Chemistry ‐ N =13
Figure 4.9.4: Career paths of graduates as reported in surveys run by the Trinity Careers Advisory Service. The Figure shows the latest year of available data; the sample size indicates response rates of 69% and 87% for MedChem and Chemistry cohorts, respectively (see Table IV.9 in appendix IV).
4.10 Challenges facing undergraduate teaching and learning and School strategy There are a variety of challenges that staff and the School are facing or will likely face in the short‐ and medium‐term. In response to some of these challenges we have already undertaken action or are developing strategies; a summary of challenges and actions is reported in Table 4.10.1.
Rising student numbers. Perhaps the most important challenge for the quality of teaching/learning is the rising student numbers at a time of diminishing staff, financial and space resources available to the School. The School has experienced a significant increase in student numbers since the last review (ca. 30%) while the number of permanent academic and technical staff, teaching assistants (demonstrators) and the budget for the delivery of teaching have decreased over the same period (see Section 7). At the same time, there has been little investment in fit‐for‐purpose teaching venues (classrooms and laboratories) to cater for larger classes. The impact of these trends is unequivocally negative on the quality of teaching and directly translates into a drop in international standing. Staff members have endeavoured to cope with higher numbers while maintaining quality but the current perception is that everything that could be achieved via rationalisation and “heroics” has been attempted. A tangible and evident result of rising numbers is the significant downward revision of practical teaching hours to take place in 2015/16, which steers our degree programmes away from quality guidelines issued by professional Chemistry bodies such as the RSC. This concern clearly materialised this year as plans for accreditation by the RSC were officially put on hold due to the gap that has opened between the practical component in the Chemistry degree from 2015 onwards, and accreditation requirements. There is also a concrete possibility that an increase in student numbers might affect unique features that distinguish and enrich the experience of undergraduates in the School of Chemistry. The existing model for research projects and international undergraduate experiences is excellent, embeds students in a real research environment and adds an element of mentorship and close supervision that is difficult to achieve in large freshman classes. This successful platform is under threat if an increase in student numbers is not accompanied by a simultaneous increase in research staff and research funding/infrastructure. Similarly, small group teaching specific to Chemistry in
55 freshman years is under threat for financial and staffing reasons; if anything, more small group teaching would be necessary to balance the increase in class sizes. Finally, to address the reduction of hours in practical teaching in the undergraduate laboratory a shortage of technical staff for manning laboratory sessions will have to be addressed. The School remains very proactive in its approach to the challenges posed by large student numbers. It has continued to apply and secure research funding to ensure that research teams provide a high quality, highly resourced and competitive environment for undergraduates to experience research in. It has also taken every available opportunity to secure bids for new academic and technical staff positions and will continue to do so in the future (see Section 3). Retired academic staff have been internally funded to deliver selected portions of undergraduate modules, thus relieving the overall teaching load. The School recently invited postdoctoral researchers to contribute to undergraduate teaching and has a system of School‐funded studentships that helps sustain demonstrator numbers. Finally, it has undertaken to liaise with alumni and donors to improve facilities (e.g. Schuler room) and support undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
Table 4.10.1: Summary of challenges facing the School grouped into three broad categories and of actions planned or underway. Challenges Facing Undergraduate Teaching & Learning Actions Increased student numbers Increased teaching loads Recruitment of academic Increased student/staff ratios staff Shortage of adequate laboratory and classroom venues Sustaining research funding Reduction in the provision of practical laboratory classes, and accreditation Sustaining postgraduate numbers Reduction in the provision of small group teaching Inviting postdoctoral Lack of student amenities/spaces e.g. lockers, toilets, researchers to contribute study rooms within School to teaching Sustaining quality of the research project: funds, space Alumni and philanthropy and staff strategy for the School Changes in academic regulations and year structure Full semesterisation of modules and prospect of semester Review of module exams structures and module Harmonisation of academic progression rules and their delivery impact on student progression Increasing performance Timetabling difficulties due to reduced staff, space feedback requirements and student numbers Feeding input into the Plans for the introduction of streamed entries within streaming consultation TR071 Blending of single entries into TR071 and loss of successful courses
56
Challenges Facing Undergraduate Teaching & Learning Actions Changes in administrative support units/services Problems in information updates on SITS, My.TCD Recruitment of Student Cases: timeline of decisions and updates on administrative staff My.TCD of case outcomes. Leveraging the Reduced local administrative support and its impact on international background exam processing and student experience in direct‐entry of staff courses. Non‐EU strategy for Internationalisation of student body and ensuring School administrative support to sustain the effort
Undergraduate developments and changes in academic regulations. The changing landscape remains a challenge to teaching delivery in the School. Since the last review there have been three major changes in College practice and academic year structure that were deemed necessary for aligning activities to strategic plans for the internationalisation of the student body and for modernising IT infrastructure. However, the adjustment and revision of course structures in Chemistry in response to the modularisation, semesterisation and harmonisation of regulations still requires attention. Much has changed in content and organisation but further review remains necessary. The most important issue because of its consequences for students’ experiences in the degree programmes, as highlighted also by external examiners, is the adverse impact of harmonisation rules on sophister progression. There is also the perception that College will transition to fully semesterised exams, which might demand complete semesterisation of those modules (a minority) that are still delivered over the full year. These challenges would need to be addressed by the School via the further revision of module structure, content allocation and delivery timelines, through coordinated efforts across all disciplines and degree programmes. Finally, there are plans to change the structure of the Science TR071 degree programme that will involve streaming of students into three different routes of specialisation from year 1 and that might require amalgamation of the single‐entry programmes of CMM, MedChem and N‐PCAM. This poses a significant challenge that ranges from the reorganisation of modules and content delivery to the loss of successful “brandname” courses such as MedChem and N‐PCAM that ensure an intake of top‐ performing secondary students for the School. The School will have to devise a teaching plan in response to these changes once streaming plans are officially in place. Administrative challenges to the provision of teaching. Administrative support associated with the provision of undergraduate teaching represents a challenge to maintaining quality in the undergraduate degrees. The transition to an integrated online system (SITS/My.TCD) is, in principle, a welcome development but has not occurred without disruption to workflows and delays within the School. In particular, the system chosen has proven to be inflexible and often not capable of coping with the requirements of our academic degrees, resulting in ad hoc workarounds or misinformation about students’ status/outcomes. At the same time, the activities of exam marking, script handling and data entry remain local to the School and labour intensive while student numbers have increased. A recent reduction of the administrative support within the School has therefore added to the pressures of delivering during periods of “crunch time” such as exams. The establishment of Academic Registry has also led to delays in the transfer of information and clarity on dataflow across various offices; these delays have had an impact on the student experience and on the workload of administrative staff at a local level. We expect, however, that some of these problems will subside as
57 the information system is further adapted to the requirements of College services and Schools. As administrative support within the School has had to respond to higher workloads due to the increased student numbers, so have many of the College offices that impact on the undergraduate experience. The Senior Lecturer’s office and Academic Registry have experienced high workloads associated with student academic and financial cases (e.g. grants, fees). Delays in the handling of these have repercussions for the time invested locally by the School in clarifying issues. Staff engaged in the tutorial service have also experienced additional workloads as correspondence and multiple checks are required to process cases; for a School where more than 30% of the academic staff are tutors, this has an impact on administrative workloads. In response to these challenges the School has been proactive in requesting additional administrative support and efforts are ongoing towards this end.
4.11 In what ways could undergraduate education in the School be improved? Updates on recommendations from the previous School Review The School has achieved improvements in several areas when current performance is examined against recommendations from the previous Review exercise. First, there was a general concern that the School might not be able to attract and retain top students and sustain good undergraduate numbers. This concern was the result of an analysis of admission trends of entries into Chemistry and of exam results. We believe that this concern is resolved since entry into MedChem and N‐ PCAM courses ensures a solid cohort of Chemistry‐focused students and entry has become more competitive over the past 8 years. The School strategy of designing degree courses that encompass subject areas appealing to students and of direct national priority has been very successful thus far. A high student/staff ratio had already been noted as a possible concern in 2007; although staff numbers increased after the Review took place, they later decreased to previous levels while student numbers increased steadily (see Figure 4.1.1). This problem has therefore not been addressed and has, in fact, been exacerbated by national economic conditions. Despite the above trends the School has maintained the high‐level taught content and the high standards of pastoral care that were commended in the previous report. It had been recommended that the level of feedback on student performance be increased; this remains unaddressed as indicated in the most recent comments from our external examiners. Finally, great strides have been made in the areas of eLearning implementation and of compliance with the Bologna agreement in sophister years, which the previous report indicated as areas requiring attention.
Strategy for undergraduate teaching & learning in the School of Chemistry The School has delivered consistently on its objective of maintaining a portfolio of degrees that offer students curriculum options and that deliver research‐informed content relevant to careers in industry and academia. There has been a significant review of syllabi and reorganisation, however, further efforts might be required in the near future to align content delivery to changes in academic year structure and College regulations. Full modularisation and semesterisation remain a challenge but one that must be met in order to improve the student experience in the sophister years and to deliver on the College’s and School’s strategy of internationalisation of the student body. The connection between teaching and research remains very strong in the School and staff are aware of the changes in research investment trends at national and international level. Staff have identified the development of a new degree course that focuses on the interface of materials,
58 chemistry and energy as likely to attract talented students and teacher‐scholars of high calibre to the School. Furthermore, it would open new links to industry and international academic partners, in line with the College’s objective of renewing the Trinity education. Plans for a new undergraduate degree have been drafted and we aim at best aligning these efforts with investment in the energy space outlined in the College Strategic Plan and with ongoing research at the basic research/commercial research interface in materials sciences (e.g. E3, KIC raw materials, AMBER/CRANN). The School has so far tackled successfully the challenge of rising student numbers. However, there are signs that infrastructure, resources and staffing are reaching their limit in terms of the safety and quality of the undergraduate hands‐on experience. The 2015/16 year will be the first in which the School will decrease the total number of practical hours since the time of the last Review. The staff regrets this development, which they believe is detrimental to the quality of the College’s graduates and their employment prospects, and to the student experience and their engagement with the courses. Furthermore, it has had an effect on morale in the School as this development has given expression to the concern that, without further investment, teaching in the School will be negatively affected by our diminishing resources. All staff agree in their intention of reversing the cuts on hours imposed this year; in order to do so we will aim at: recruiting academic staff to reduce student/staff ratios, recruiting technical officers to assist in the management of large laboratory classes and reviewing the selection of experiments and activities in order to deliver the most practical hours at the lowest possible cost of resources. Staffing bids have already been submitted to College and we envision recruitment to proceed in the near future. In response to large student numbers the School has also identified synergies between the research and teaching strategies. Recently, postgraduate studentships have been leveraged to partially address the availability of demonstrating staff. Also, after consultation with postdoctoral representatives, the School has created new channels to engage this cohort in the delivery of teaching, while cognisant of their research priorities.
Figure 4.11.1: Postgraduate‐student‐led laboratory teaching for undergraduate students. In tandem with the above efforts it is evident to staff that implementation of eLearning in various forms should be part of the School’s strategy to improve student engagement in response to large numbers. This might also address some of the concerns from students and examiners about providing sufficient performance feedback in a resource‐effective manner. Expansion of the use of eLearning tools (e.g. Blackboard) to leverage their full bandwidth and introduction of new initiatives will shape our approach in the medium‐term. However, this must also come with concomitant resource allocation as the already stretched capacity of the School leaves little margin for innovation in the current situation. Areas of improvement identified at this stage are: the integration of peer‐to‐
59 peer instruction (e.g. clickers) in freshman years, the development of online content for learning support, and deployment of online assessment tools. This aligns well with the College strategy for diversification of the student body by allowing multiple methods for content delivery that could suit working students and remote access. Our recruitment strategy will also strive to align prospective staff to these objectives. In summary, through constant review of our diverse degree portfolio, the School will strive to continue to produce highly sought graduates trained in the skills and methods necessary to thrive in both the dynamic Irish and international chemical industry and the rapidly developing and competitive research environment. We have responded to the challenges originating from extremely harsh funding conditions over the past eight years and we continuously endeavour to deliver a diverse and high quality teaching and learning experience. However, it is unclear whether a margin for further cuts in resources or new efficiencies exists: our undergraduate teaching and learning mission is at risk due to severe shortfalls, as outlined in Section 7. We have successfully responded with contingency planning to address the problems experienced since the time of our last Review. Importantly, we have a vision and a strategy for the future of our teaching that will position us to benefit from prospective improvements in allocation of resources and overall economic conditions.
60
Section 5: Assessment of Postgraduate Education
5.1 Postgraduate Programmes Programmes The School of Chemistry offers research programmes leading to Masters (MSc) and Doctoral (PhDs) degrees. Successful completion of these programmes requires that students make, in the course of their research, an original contribution to knowledge. In addition to this fundamental expectation, students pursue a taught component consisting of modules to a total value of 30 ECTS during the course of a PhD (or 15 for an MSc.). The modules span a wide range of topics of chemical interest ranging from surface physics to the advanced study of synthetic chemistry. Modules developing transferrable skills are also offered, such as Scientific Writing or Commercial Application. Modules are offered through Dublin Chemistry (DubChem) a pioneering graduate programme offered in collaboration with the School of Chemistry and Chemical Biology in UCD. The programme, the first of its kind in Ireland, was approved by Board and launched by the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor in September 2008. In addition to an MSc or PhD degree, students receive a separate transcript detailing the modules successfully completed, enhancing their employability. Research and study leading to a PhD is expected to take 4 years. The School hosts approximately 100 postgraduate students at any given time; as of September 2015, the School has 112 registered postgraduate students, with an average of 4.2 PhD students for each member of the academic staff in 2014/15 (see Table 7.1.5c).
Tuition and Awards Ussher Award: A small number of these prestigious awards are distributed through the three Faculties annually. Following an internal competition, each school nominates their preferred candidate and the decision on which candidates get the award is made by the Faculty. Two such awards were made in FEMS in 2015/16 but the School was not successful in getting one of these.
Trinity Awards and School Studentships: The School typically receives 3 or 4 Trinity Awards per annum, with the actual number being determined by the Faculty and based on the number of PhD students who graduated in the previous three‐year period compared with other schools in the Faculty. A Trinity Award covers a student’s fees (EU or non‐EU) and provides an annual stipend of €6,500. These awards can be made only to students who achieved a II‐1 or above in their primary degree (or equivalent). The School funds a number of studentships, which cover fees and provide the student with a stipend of €16K per annum. The School also tops up the stipend of Trinity‐Award recipients to €16K so that there is no disparity between the value of the awards. Studentships are distributed among academic staff according to an algorithm that ensures fairness. The number of studentships awarded in any given year depends on School finances; 11 studentships were allocated in 2014‐15, whereas no full studentships were awarded in 2015/16. In 2015/16, the School received four Trinity Awards and these were topped up to ’Studentship Level’. In addition, the School covered the costs of fees and a €16K stipend for students in their fourth year of a PhD who had previously been funded through a three‐year programmes. For tuition and related fees see Table 5.1.
61
Table 5.1: Fees charged by College for full‐time EU (non‐EU) students. Tuition fees for part‐time students are approximately one‐third less. Tuition Sports Commencement Total Fees USI (Non‐EU) Centre Levy Fee (Non‐EU) MSc F/T €6365 €120 €8 €135 €6628 (€12730) (€12933)
PhD F/T €6365 €120 €8 €135 €6628 (€12730) (€12933)
Schuler Postgraduate Studentship: Arising from a generous philanthropic donation, an additional studentship proved possible this year. This was awarded on the basis of an open‐competition.
Agency and Funding Sources Fig. 5.1 depicts the underlying funding sources of students currently in the School. Most funding derives from national and international agencies, with Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) supporting ca. 50% of the School’s studentships.
Figure 5.1: Funding of postgraduate studentships as of 2015
62
5.2 Postgraduate Recruitment and Admissions Recruitment Most students are recruited from the recently graduated cohorts in Chemistry, MedChem, CMM and N‐PCAM, from equivalent degrees external to College and from those with other degrees in science or engineering with a significant chemistry component. The College organises an annual recruitment fair (Postgraduate Open Day) that is widely advertised and, at which, each School is represented. Most graduates seeking a postgraduate position contact potential supervisors directly based on mutual research interests. The School of Chemistry’s high international standing attracts significant interest from international students. The School’s Global Officer supports international postgraduate recruitment by attending international student fairs (e.g. China Education Expo, Shanghai October 2015). She also facilitates international student applications and provides support to international scholarship providers such as Science Without Borders (Brazil) and the Chinese Scholarship Council. The Global Officer is available to all international postgraduate students to advise and assist with matters such as visas, permission to remain in the state, Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) registration, bank accounts and so forth.
Admissions Process Applicants may write directly to an individual member of the academic staff, to the School Office, or to the DTLPG. Applicants are invited to examine the research profiles of academic staff and approach potential supervisors directly. Where approved by potential supervisors, applicants are admitted to the College’s online application process. All applications are considered with respect to the equivalency of their qualifications to domestic level‐8 degrees, supported by advice from both the Academic Registry and the Global Office. In cases of doubt the syllabi of the courses undertaken by an applicant may be examined. The application process is online. In order to be offered a place an applicant must first be approved by their proposed supervisor and separately approved by the DTLPG with respect to educational background and suitability for the proposed project. Finally, applications are then independently and externally assessed by the Office of the Dean of Graduate Studies in association with the Academic Registry. Particular attention is paid to the comparability of an external applicant’s qualifications with domestic and EU qualifications, references, and English‐language competence, with non‐native speakers who have not undergone at least one year of instruction through the medium of English having to demonstrate proficiency through an English‐language exam before their place is confirmed. Applicants whose primary degree was not delivered through the medium of English can register for the postgraduate course on English for Academic Purposes in College’s Centre for English Language Training. College’s high international profile, recruitment strategy and related support services have resulted in an increasing diversity in the cultural and national backgrounds of the postgraduate community within the School (Figure 5.2).
63
Figure 5.2 (a) Nationality and (b) EU/non‐EU status of PG students in the School of Chemistry
5.3 Supervision and monitoring Monitoring Progress College provides detailed guidelines on Research Supervision and on the roles and responsibilities of both students and supervisors https://www.tcd.ie/Graduate_Studies/staff/supervision/guidelines/Supervision%20Guidelines.pdf
Confirmation on/Transfer onto the PhD register One of the more significant milestones in assessing research performance and progress is the stringent process of academic assessment for all PhD students to confirm their continuation on the PhD register or to transfer from the MSc register to the PhD register. This is normally done in the first 18 months. A confirmation report is prepared (a mini‐thesis) and the student attends a PhD confirmation interview with two members of the academic staff. The experience offers the student a foretaste of a PhD viva. The recommendations arising from the report/interview are as follows: (a) continuation on the PhD register, (b) continuation on the PhD register after some minor changes have been made to the PhD confirmation report, (c) continuation on the PhD not recommended at this time: a new report to be written and confirmation interview to be held again as soon as possible, (d) a recommendation to change to the general Masters register to submit a Masters thesis, or (e) not to continue as a postgraduate research student (see: http://www.tcd.ie/calendar/1415‐2/part‐3/2‐regulations‐for‐ higher‐degrees‐by‐research‐only/confirmation‐on‐phd‐register‐transfer‐to‐phd‐register/). In most cases only minor changes, if any, are required before a student is confirmed on the PhD register.
Table 5.2(a): Outcome of Transfer/Confirmation report submission and vivas in 2015 No Corrections 13%
Minor Corrections 83% Major Corrections 4%
To transfer or be confirmed on the PhD register a student must also have successfully passed 15 ECTS of postgraduate modules, i.e., half of the requirement for a PhD. The DubChem Committee reviews the progress of students with regard to modules undertaken/passed. The next meeting will
64 be in January 2016. A further meeting, scheduled for June 2016 serves as a Court of Examiners where the performance is formally recorded.
Confidential student feedback on the quality of research supervision Students are aware that they can approach the DTLPG, their Head of Discipline or the Head of School when difficulties arise. However, discussions with students indicate that some may find this prospect uncomfortable. College has recently launched a Postgraduate Advisory Service, analogous to the well‐established ‘Tutorial System’ for undergraduates (see: https://www.tcd.ie/Senior_Tutor/postgraduateadvisory/). A Postgraduate Student Support Officer is available to offer confidential advice and guidance on a wide range of pastoral matters, including, but not limited to, difficulties with supervision. Local support is also available from a Postgraduate Advisory Panel (three members in each faculty). For taught Postgraduate courses under the auspices of DubChem, individual lecturers may ask for feedback but unlike undergraduate courses, there is at present no formal collation and assessment of student feedback. This will be considered as part of the forthcoming DubChem (internal) review. Postgraduates are represented on various School committees including the Safety Committee, DubChem Committee, the Research Committee, the Postgraduate Committee, the School Committee and the School Executive Committee. Each forum provides opportunities for students to voice concerns of a more general nature.
5.4 Quality Assurance Quality of Postgraduate Education The quality of postgraduate education and benchmarking with other institutions is primarily achieved through the use of independent external examiners in PhD examinations. External examiners must be independent of both supervisor and student and must not have a history of collaboration. In as far as is practical, several years must pass before an external examiner is requested to examine another thesis in the School. Feedback mechanisms: As discussed above, feedback mechanisms are limited at present although confidential advice may be sought. There is a Postgraduate Committee that is expected to meet once per semester and there are postgraduate representatives on many School committees, as mentioned above. Ad hoc meetings with PG representatives are arranged as required or requested. Professional Accreditation: There is no professional accreditation for our research‐based Masters or Doctoral degrees. Curriculum Review: DubChem has been in operation for 7 years and the programme structure, the range of modules offered and the curriculum will shortly be reviewed. This process is expected to formally start in January 2016 at the next Dubchem committee meeting. There is, at present, no formal procedure other than this.
5.5 How are the School’s postgraduate programmes links to the School’s Research Strategy and College Research Themes? The postgraduate programme is delivered by academic staff in UCD and TCD. Clearly these advanced modules will be aligned with the individual staff members’ research areas. It follows that the taught component will align itself with the School’s research activity (See Section 6.2). College research
65 themes have been articulated in the recent College Strategic Plan (https://www.tcd.ie/strategy/); the main objectives are to (i) Build valuable partnerships, (ii) Research for impact, and (iii) Engage with the wider society. To an extent Dubchem addresses points (ii) and (iii) by offering the modules Chem Lab to Commercial Application and Chemistry Outreach: Development and Practice, respectively. It is worth stressing that the taught postgraduate element is aligned with staff’s research so it is implicit that this is aligned with the School and College research themes.
5.6 Development of generic and transferrable skills as part of the Postgraduate Education Experience DubChem, as discussed above, is a pioneering collaborative programme with UCD and provides a wide range of postgraduate modules (See Appendix A5.1). College, both independently and in collaboration with UCD, offers a variety of courses supporting generic skills development (see Appendix A5.2). Postgraduate students can apply to the Trinity Travel Trust for funding to attend conferences at which they plan to present their work. In addition, attendance of postgraduates at the Irish Universities Research Colloquium (an all‐Ireland Chemistry Colloquium) is encouraged (and registration fees are paid by the School/supervisor).
Demonstrating /Tutoring All postgraduate students are expected to demonstrate in undergraduate laboratories, with most demonstrating for 3 hours per week during the 22 weeks of undergraduate teaching. Where possible, postgraduates in their final year get a reduction in their demonstration duties. Students not in receipt of a School or College award are paid to demonstrate and efforts are made to align demonstrating with the broad area of interest of the postgraduate, e.g. those undertaking a PhD in organic chemistry would demonstrate in organic‐chemistry labs. Postgraduates benefit from this by learning how to teach in a relatively informal setting. They also have the opportunity of getting assistance in developing teaching skills and feedback on their progress by undertaking a 5‐ECTS demonstrating module. More senior postgraduates may, through a competitive process, be selected as teaching assistants to either run the broad‐curriculum course that forms part of 2nd‐year chemistry modules or to be a teaching‐assistant running small group tutorials for 1st‐year students.
Figure 5.6.1: Recent winners of the School’s postgraduate teaching awards
66
Conferences/Presentations Most students make presentations at one or more conferences during their PhD although this may vary from group to group. A number of opportunities to present are made available by the School. For example, with the help of a philanthropic donation, the School sponsors the Dorgan Prize, an annual competition open to all postgraduates whereby they submit a poster on their research with particular reference to its relevance to society. A panel of judges shortlists the three best posters and the selected postgraduates then give a short presentation on their work and its potential future impact on science and society. The Irish Universities Research Colloquium is an annual two‐day colloquium with oral and poster presentations from all Chemistry degree‐awarding institutions in Ireland. As part of DubChem, all third‐year postgraduate students from both institutions are expected to give an oral presentation on their work at a joint meeting. Prizes are awarded for the best presentations as determined by judges representing both institutions.
5.7 What are the main challenges facing postgraduate education in the School and how are these challenges being addressed? The diversity and sustainability of DubChem modules places strain on academic staff time and yet there is a perceived need for a greater range of courses. There is a degree of tension between the requirement to acquire 30 ECTS credits in Chemistry and the increasing emphasis on non‐Dubchem generic‐skills modules. The admissions process through SITS is problematic, being slow and inflexible; for example, only one person per school may be authorised to approve applications and if that person is away the application process is frozen until their return. The funding of postgraduate students is heavily reliant on SFI PI awards that contain funding for postgraduate students, with approximately 50% of postgraduate students funded in this way. If SFI shifts its policy from PI‐centred grants in favour of larger grants to Research Centres then the School is at risk of losing 25‐50% of its PG population. This would have a serious knock‐on effect on the delivery of UG basic tutorials and have a critical impact on the delivery of the experimental element of the entire undergraduate programme of the School. It would be prudent for College to reflect on the need for core funding to be put in place for postgraduate training in order to buffer against oscillations in external funding. Owing to inflexibility with the enrolment of non‐TCD students on modules in SITS, DubChem is currently administered using UCD’s student information system. While the School has limited access to this, some UCD regulations concerning the entering and correction of grades does not suit postgraduate requirements. Consequently, in addition to the formal centrally held records, independently compiled records at School level are also required. The current postgraduate programme (see Appendix A5.1) implicitly assumes postgraduate students to be on campus or in a position to travel easily to campus and does not easily accommodate students based off‐campus or part‐time, as will increasingly be the case for students undertaking an industrial PhD.
5.8 In what ways could postgraduate education in the School be improved? The variety and range of potential postgraduate modules should be expanded to include offerings from other related disciplines, such as physics and biochemistry, and contributions from other third‐
67 level institutions, such as DCU and NUIG. This issue will be explored during the Dubchem review in 2016. Some existing modules offered under DubChem may prove suitable for development as CPD courses. The operation and nature of DubChem is to be reviewed and it must evolve to meet our current needs. This may, for example, include some recognition for modules offered outside of the DubChem programme. The School may consider introducing other structured PhD programmes in addition to DubChem. Flexibility in the module requirements for students not based on campus, in particular, those undertaking industrial PhDs, should be developed. Within the next two years, student records (taught modules) for the School’s postgraduate students will transfer to College’s administrative system from UCD. This should address the current issues regarding data entry and editing. Finally, thought should be given to ways in which non‐EU postgraduate student population could be grown without further impacting on the resources of the School through the payment of non‐EU fees. One potential route is through the industrial PhD programme, with early signs of future industry‐funded students looking promising.
68
Section 6. Assessment of Research Activity
6.1 Research structure of the School The School of Chemistry is the top‐ranked Irish university for this discipline (78th QS World ranking by subject, 2015). The School has 19.5 academic staff (one member of staff has a joint appointment with the School of Physics), 14.5 technical staff including experimental officers, 4.8 administrative staff, including a freshman coordinator and two shared programme officers (with the School of Physics), one for research and one for global relations. Research laboratories of the School of Chemistry are located in six buildings: the Main School of Chemistry building, the SNIAM building, the Lloyd building, the Naughton Institute, the Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute (TBSI) and the Institute of Molecular Medicine (IMM), which is located in St. James’ hospital. In recent years the School of Chemistry has strategically acquired/improved NMR, mass spectrometry and high specification X‐ray diffraction research facilities, items of equipment that may be considered the workhorses of structural elucidation in synthetic chemistry. A list of the current School’s equipment facilities can be found in Appendix A6.1. Most of the School’s academic staff is research‐active. Even considering that the research carried out in the School has a strong multidisciplinary character, in general terms, research can be framed within the three main Chemistry disciplines of Inorganic and Synthetic Materials (ISM), Organic, Medicinal and Biological (OMB), and Physical, Materials and Computational (PMC) chemistry.
Research in the Discipline of Inorganic and Synthetic Materials Chemistry Despite being the smallest section in the School (with only 5 PIs), ISM has had excellent research performance in recent years. The members of the discipline have secured significant research funding and have excellent publication records. During the period 2007‐2015 the members of the ISM discipline have attracted over €16,602,000 in research funding. They provide a broad range of complimentary expertise including: organic and inorganic synthesis, organometallic chemistry, catalysis, coordination chemistry, supramolecular chemistry, materials for solar energy harvesting, nanomaterials and bioinorganic chemistry (for individual researchers’ details, see below). All of these research areas are very important and highly relevant to TCD’s strategic initiatives. The current ISM staff members are particularly strong in synthetic techniques and are capable of preparing and handling highly sophisticated compounds and materials. Over recent years the members of the discipline have made several important contributions to the development of inorganic and materials chemistry of great research impact. These include the following examples:
76
The development of new one‐dimensional magnetic nanoparticle assemblies, which could serve as novel MRI contrast agents and drug delivery vehicles. The preparation of new types of chiral quantum dot materials, which can serve as agents for cellular imaging, drug delivery agents and photocatalysts. Development of new carbon‐based materials for photovoltaic cell applications. Fixation and activation of carbon dioxide using supramolecular coordination complexes. Synthesis of new spin‐crossover metal‐organic frameworks for gas storage and catalysis. Development of new uranyl aryloxides catalysts for the ring opening polymerisation of epoxides and cyclic lactones. Preparation of new nitrogen‐heterosuperbenzenes and other carbon‐rich aromatic materials. Development of bioinorganic redox chemistry of superoxides. Development of novel approaches for functionalisation of 2‐D materials.
Some of the key research areas presented by ISM discipline staff members are: Prof. Sylvia Draper (SMD): Synthetic methodologies; organo‐ligand syntheses; polyfunctional materials; spectroscopy; polyimines; nitrogen heterosuperbenzenes; opto‐electronic materials; photophysical characterisation; single crystal x‐ray diffraction; transition metal complexes; coordination and supramolecular chemistry. Prof. Yurii Gun’ko (YG): Quantum dots for photonics and biomedical applications; magnetic nanoparticles; magnetic fluids for MRI; carbon nanomaterials for solar cell applications. Prof. Wolfgang Schmitt (WS): Coordination networks; metal‐organic frameworks; supramolecular chemistry; coordination chemistry; cluster chemistry; single molecule magnets; bio‐inorganic chemistry; nanochemistry; nanostructured materials; structural inorganic chemistry; solid state chemistry; thermolysis of hybrid organic‐inorganic materials; molecular switches on metal surfaces (STM); self‐assembly of single molecules. Prof. Robert Baker (BB): Organometallic chemistry of p‐, d‐ and f‐block metals; low oxidation state actinide chemistry; homogeneous catalysis for a variety of processes such as Fischer‐Tropsch production of alkanes, and methane activation. Prof. Aidan McDonald (AMcD): Research in the Bio‐inspired Inorganic Chemistry Group revolves around model compounds and catalysts that mimic the roles metals play in biology; design and synthesis of model complexes that mimic metalloprotein active sites and investigation of routes towards functionalised 2D nanomaterials. In terms of international collaborations, the members of the ISM discipline have established a very productive collaboration with the Schools of Physics, Medicine and Pharmacy at TCD as well as with other universities in Ireland (DCU, UCD, UCC) and abroad (Universities of Girona, Groningen, Mulheim, La Rioja, Cardiff, Zaragoza, Lancaster, Padova, Karlsruhe, Bath, CNRS‐Toulouse, PNNL, CNRS‐Bordeaux, Universita di Ferrara, Dalian University of Technology, ENC de Cachan, Delft University of Technology, Hyderabad Central University, Ohio University and ITMO University). It is also important to emphasise that the IMS discipline has developed industrial collaborations with various companies in Ireland such as Medronic, Creganna, Aerogen, Henkel, Tellabs, ReResearch Ltd., Johnson Matthey, Thomas Swan, Trinity Green Energies, and McGraths Limestone (Cong) Ltd. In addition, the ISM discipline is in the process of recruiting a new assistant professor in inorganic energy materials. This should open up an opportunity to develop activities in the strategically important area of advanced energy materials. This field is emerging very rapidly and will be of extreme importance in the near future and, moreover, offers rapidly increasing funding opportunities.
77
Research in the Discipline of Organic, Medicinal and Biological Chemistry The OMB discipline has six academic members who cover almost the full range of contemporary research topics in organic chemistry. All members of the OMB discipline are actively involved in interdisciplinary research and most publish frequently with collaborators from TCD, other Irish institutions, and institutions abroad. Several staff members are internationally recognized leaders in their field; notably in organocatalysis, supramolecular chemistry, porphyrins, sensing and medicinal chemistry. The main research areas are: Prof. Stephen Connon (SC): Synthetic organic chemistry; drug development; organocatalysis. Prof. Thorri Gunnlaugsson (TG): Supramolecular and nano‐chemistry; recognition and targeting of ions and molecules; self‐assembly structures using metal‐directed synthesis; development of DNA binding and RNA cleaving molecules; novel materials and structures. Prof. Isabel Rozas (IR): Medicinal chemistry; drug discovery and development; computational chemistry; design, synthesis and biological evaluation of DNA binding agents (anticancer, antiparasitic); kinase inhibitors and compounds aimed at treating brain conditions (antidepressant, antipsychotic). Prof. Eoin Scanlan (EMS): Organic synthesis; carbohydrate chemistry; glycoconjugates; free‐radical methodology; natural product synthesis. Prof. Mathias Senge (MOS): Organic chemistry; bioorganic chemistry; synthetic methods; hydrocarbon scaffolds; interface chemistry; tetrapyrroles; photobiology; photomedicine; cancer treatment; crystallography; optical materials; history of science; photosynthesis. Prof. J. Michael Southern (JMS): Chemistry of the brain; chemistry of addiction, anti‐ viral/cancer/anti‐bacterial chemistry; chemistry of life; synthetic organic chemistry; mechanistic organic chemistry. One new philanthropically funded appointment in Translational Organic Chemistry, with a focus on proteins and chemical biology, is currently pending with a start date of 1/1/2016. Since the last School review the OMB discipline has lost one permanent professor and two temporary assistant professors without replacement. In terms of future strategy, the OMB discipline recognises a lack of expertise in polymer and organic materials chemistry and total synthesis. For the former, a proposal for an Ussher Assistant Professorship was prepared, but did not find support at School level. Basic research in total synthesis is not part of current national funding strategies and thus cannot be supported locally.
Research in the Discipline of Physical, Materials and Computational Chemistry The PMC discipline consists of 9 academics (5 Professors, 2 Associate Professors and 2 Assistant Professors) and covers a wide range of modern physical chemistry including solid state chemistry, surface chemistry, electrochemistry, polymer chemistry, theoretical & computational chemistry (including bioinformatics), nanochemistry and materials chemistry. The majority of the staff within the section is research active, as determined by TCD’s criteria. All members of the PMC discipline are actively involved in interdisciplinary research and most publish frequently with collaborators from TCD, other Irish institutions, and institutions abroad. Several staff members are internationally recognised leaders in their field.
78
The main research areas within the PMC discipline are: Prof. John Boland (JB): electrical and mechanical properties of nanoscale materials; molecular recognition and assembly; nanoscale contact formation. Prof. Graeme W. Watson (GWW): development of approaches for, and performance of, high quality atomistic and quantum mechanics simulations in the fields of solid state materials, molecular and bio‐molecular chemistry. Prof. Mike Lyons (MEGL): electrode kinetics; metal & metal oxide electro‐catalysis (electrochemical water splitting; CO2 reduction; ethanol oxidation; oxygen reduction; borohydride oxidation and hydrolysis; fuel cell electrocatalysis; electroactive polymer electrochemistry; mathematical modelling of electrochemical systems; electrochemical biosensors; carbon nanotube electrochemistry; electrochemical treatment of raw materials; raw materials recycling. Prof. Georg Duesberg (GD): Nano materials science; electrochemical energy conversion; nano devices; sensors. Prof. Valeria Nicolosi (VN): Development of advanced processing and imaging techniques for layered nanomaterials with special emphasis on liquid phase exfoliation methods to produce 2D nanoflakes from bulk powders; electrochemical energy storage. Prof. Dónall Mac Dónaill (DMcD): Computational chemistry & bioinformatics. Prof. Paula Colavita (PEC): Carbon nanostructures; environmental chemistry; spectroscopy; electrochemistry; surface chemistry; analytical chemistry. Prof. Rachel Evans (RE): the design and characterisation of sophisticated functional organic‐inorganic hybrid materials exhibiting self‐organisation on the molecular through to microscopic length scales for applications ranging from optical sensing, to solar energy conversion to biomaterials. Prof. Mike Bridge (MB): Heterogeneous catalysis and surface chemistry. This discipline has experienced a considerable change over the period under review. Three experienced and senior staff retired, one further member of the discipline will retire in the near future and three new staff members have been appointed. The established Chair of Physical Chemistry has been vacant since the retirement of the previous incumbent in 2007. The section successfully submitted an application to College for an Ussher Assistant Professorship post, and intends to make a tenure‐track appointment in Chemical Energy Systems shortly. The appointee should be in post by mid‐2016. The current Head of Discipline (HOD) was elected in July 2015 when the previous HOD resigned his position to take become the Dean and Vice‐President of Research for TCD. The academic members of the section are all physical/materials/computational chemists by training and have expertise and significant experience across a broad spectrum of physical chemistry areas. Discipline members have been proactive in responding to the manifold opportunities offered in a very competitive and indeed challenging research environment over the past 7 years. It is especially encouraging that the three new hires have all been successful in developing significant and sustainable research programmes that are of demonstrable international impact. Research activity is distributed over four sites in TCD, including the Main Chemistry and SNIMA Buildings and the Naughton and Lloyd Institutes. The discipline is reasonably well equipped with a variety of electrochemical, spectroscopic and microscopic equipment. The section will benefit significantly on receipt of a powder XRD rig in the near future and upon the upgrading of a suite of high performance Raman Spectrometers that are in need of refurbishment. The discipline benefits from access to the microscopic and clean room facilities located within the Centre for Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN) and the Advanced Microscopy Laboratory (AML).
79
As mentioned, the School as a whole has an interdisciplinary research approach and collaborates with other Schools in TCD, mostly under the umbrella of two Trinity Research Institutes (TRIs), the Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN) and the the TBSI. The ISM discipline is closely associated with CRANN and the TBSI, as well as with the Advanced Materials and Bio‐Engineering Research (AMBER) Centre, all of which have research facilities of the highest international standards and state‐of‐the‐art equipment. This provides an excellent base for performing cutting‐edge research. Four members of the discipline are actively involved both in CRANN and AMBER centres. One member of the section is also located in the TBSI and actively involved in the relevant research in this institute. The participation in research centres helps the discipline members to attract relevant funding (e.g. via the AMBER Centre) and access the research infrastructure and high‐level facilities such as the AML, the nano‐bio‐laboratory or the 800 MHz NMR. Importantly, this high level of interdisciplinary collaboration within the different TRIs has already resulted in a number of high quality joint research publications. As one might expect, given the interests and expertise of the staff in the PCM discipline, there is a strong association with CRANN, a flagship institute for nanoscience. From its inception, discipline members have been associated with CRANN and have significantly contributed to its development and sustainability. The PCM discipline is fully engaged in CRANN activities, with the majority of its academics being CRANN PIs. Some are also AMBER PIs and Funded Investigators (FIs). CRANN was created in 2003 as an SFI Centre for Science Engineering and Technology (CSET). At the time it involved 5 PIs distributed between the Schools of Physics and Chemistry, two founding Industry partners (INTEL and Hewlett Packard) and a total annual budget in the region of €2M. It has since grown into a 6,000 m2 research facility, with the CRANN Advanced Microscopy Laboratory (AML; a 1,000 m2 facility), being added in 2010. Following its third expansion phase through the SFI‐funded AMBER Centre, in which CRANN partners with the Trinity Centre for Bio‐engineering and the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, the centre currently involves 40 PIs and 24 industry partners. Overall, in its 12‐year history, CRANN has attracted approximately €320M of competitive funding, of which about €70M has been invested in the physical infrastructure and about €80M has been used to run a research programme at the interface between Industry and Academia. The PI cohort in CRANN is complemented by ~200 postgraduate students and ~150 postdoctoral researchers at various levels of seniority. Fifteen technical staff and a similar number of administrative staff support CRANN. The administrative support covers many functions of the institute, including finance, project management, funding, industry and commercialisation development, outreach and communication, and education. The PMC discipline is heavily involved in AMBER’s research activity, most notably in the 2D nanomaterials programme, the materials for regenerative medicine stream, the photonics & photonic devices strand, the advanced materials & device modelling line, and the ultra‐high microscopy & nano‐fabrication programme. Furthermore, members of the discipline currently contribute to the CRANN Executive Management Committee and the previous Director of CRANN is a professor in the School of Chemistry. All members of the OMB discipline are recognized PIs in the TBSI. Additionally, one member is a PI in the Trinity Institute of Neuroscience (TCIN) and another member is a PI in the IMM. Several OMB discipline members also participate in local research groupings such as TCD Metals and the STEM Research Centre. In terms of future developments, the OMB discipline is involved in the transition of the IMM to a Trinity Translational Medicine Institute (TTMI), which forms part of the College’s strategy to develop an International Cancer Centre. In the past, the OMB discipline was a core
80 component of the Centre of Chemical Synthesis and Chemical Biology (CSCB), a PRTLI‐funded collaboration of TCD, RSCI and UCD. TBSI is the primary research institute of relevance for the OMB discipline. The whole unit moved to the TBSI in 2012 and occupies all of the 7th floor and part of the 6th and –2 levels. The facilities are generally excellent and, overall, the physical infrastructure is very good. It should be noted that 95% of the space allocated to the OMB discipline was occupied from the first day. Thus, the move did not increase the available space or the number of research work spaces and, as such, the assigned space offers no possibilities for expansion. It did, however, provide excellent laboratory and office spaces. Instrumentation in the TBSI is good, although the OMB discipline has had persistent problems with the 400 MHz NMR instrument, which urgently needs replacement. The OMB discipline cooperates significantly with other groupings in the TBSI. A good number of collaborative projects and publications point to significant interactions with medicine, pharmacy, biochemistry, bioengineering and immunology; i.e., with all other academic units in the TBSI. Many of these collaborations existed before the move to TBSI but, nevertheless, the day‐to‐day interaction has become much easier through the integration of the OMB discipline in the TBSI and notably the younger faculty members have become much more active in developing such in‐house collaborations. Primarily, the TBSI offers additional potential and adds to its impact, but it is not essential for the OMB discipline (physical infrastructure aside). With regard to research impact and output, the OMB discipline is a leader within the TBSI. Thus far, 284 publications (WoS) have been published with the TBSI address, of which 65 (23%) are from the OMB discipline. Despite the high contribution to publications, the OMB discipline (plus one bioinorganic group from the ISM Discipline) constitutes only 12% of the Institute’s PIs. In terms of citations in WoS, the OMB Discipline had 492 out of 2,773 citations, accounting for 18% of the citation total. To date, the TBSI has not reached its potential. Three years after the move, there are still no central services for purchasing and finances, a clear research strategy has not been developed, and the feel of being a coherent unit is absent. Initial attempts to develop subgroupings through centres for research were only successful for the Trinity Centre for Bioengineering. Minor frustrations such as problems with elevator access, cleaning, postal service, communal space for students, signage, emergency procedures, lack of information flow, and access to the Academic Director persist. Being in an institute adds to research‐administration workloads rather than reducing them as an additional layer of sign‐offs, approvers, etc. was added. As always, finances are a problem and the Institute has no ability to strategically support individual PIs. The Strategic Management Group met only once informally within the past 15 months and some of the Institute’s initial activities were developed unilaterally without taking the needs of the OMB discipline into account. Hopeful signs are more activities for all Institute members (postgraduate days, outreach, conferences, etc.), the emergence of Institute‐level courses, and an increasing number of collaborative and interdisciplinary publications. A strategic plan for the TBSI is currently in development. An open question is the relation of TBSI to the planned TTMI and Cancer Centre; many PIs are involved in all of them, which creates conflicts of interest. The Institute did provide the urgently needed modern space for the participating units, but logistically this necessitated the move of whole Schools or sections, limiting the Institute’s flexibility to achieve optimum synergies. Ultimately, the dichotomy of Institute versus School (which retains personnel, teaching and some financial authority over the PIs) must be resolved at the College level.
81
Strategically the OMB discipline is fully committed to the Institute. As mentioned, its research is highly collaborative and future planning of personnel is geared towards the optimum utilization and support of the Institute. For example, an Ussher Professorship in Chemical Biology (2012‐2013) was proposed, but could not be filled. The most recent hire in Translational Organic Chemistry (contract negotiations pending) also focused on thematic areas at the interface of the chemical and biological sciences and has found strong support in the TBSI.
Finally, it has to be mentioned that the research capacity of the School of Chemistry is enabled by 54 research assistants (RAs) and postdoctoral research fellows (PDRs). In Fig. 6.1.1 details are shown of the PDR/RA cohort over the 2007‐2015 period. Despite uneven funding at national level the numbers of research staff have grown over the past number of years.
Figure 6.1.1: Number of PDRs/RAs mentored in the School of Chemistry during the period 2007‐2015
The work of research staff is fundamental for the School’s research profile. Thanks to recent changes in SFI and EI policies (mostly in their joint TIDA programme), these investigators are now allowed to present their own research proposals which has increased their independence and facilitates their professional development into autonomous researchers.
6.2 Alignment of the School’s research strategy with the School’s and College’s Strategic Plans The research activities within the three disciplines in the School of Chemistry are perfectly aligned with the School’s strategic plan up to 2014, which involved priority research themes such as Materials and Intelligent systems; Biosciences and Translational Research; and Transport, Energy, and the Environment. With regards to the recently launched College Strategic Plan (https://www.tcd.ie/strategy/), the research carried out in the School is aligned with the main objectives: (i) Build valuable partnerships, by means of our national and international collaborations; (ii) Research for impact, by means of our interdisciplinary research, which falls within several of the 21 research themes proposed in the Plan such as ageing, cancer, creative technologies, genes and society, immunology, inflammation and infection, intelligent content and communications, nanoscience and materials, neuroscience, next generation medical devices, sustainable environment, and telecommunications; and (iii) Engage with the wider society, by means of our outreach activities.
82
6.3 Connection between the School’s research and its teaching activities The School’s research is directly linked to specific UG teaching activities by means of some of its direct‐entry degrees. Thus, researchers in the area of medicinal chemistry are heavily involved in teaching specialised modules closely aligned with their research that are part of the successful Medicinal Chemistry UG degree. Some examples of these modules are: Chemical Biology, Bioinorganic Chemistry, Computational Medicinal Chemistry, Central Nervous System Agents, Anti‐ Cancer Agents, Physical Organic Chemistry and Supramolecular Chemistry. Staff members who have specialised in computational chemistry are heavily involved in the teaching of the UG Chemistry with Molecular Modelling degree, with modules such as High Performance Computing and Molecular Informatics. Similarly, several of the modules of the N‐PCAM degree are taught by excellent researchers in the nanosciences and materials fields, with modules such as Inorganic Polymers, Solid State and Analytical Chemistry. Another important interface between research and teaching activities in the School of Chemistry occurs during the 4th‐year projects that all UG students undertake in their final year. During the first semester of their final year, the 4th‐year students work on an actual scientific project within the laboratory of a member of staff at the School or at research centres and Universities abroad. These projects allow the final year students to learn first‐hand the problems and joys associated with research; they work jointly with the corresponding research group, learning techniques and strategies that will allow them to confront and overcome experimental and other problems in their future careers. Every year, around 40‐50 students are located in research labs (mostly in the School of Chemistry; see also Section 4.4). The model in place is the result of many years of experience and is now working optimally; however, increased numbers of UGs combined with reduced funding (resulting in fewer PGs and PDRs/RAs in labs to support the students) could have a negative impact on the whole experience for the students. Over the past 10 years it has become very common to host UG and visiting UG students in research labs as summer internships. These have become more and more popular despite a lack of remuneration in many cases. When these internships are funded, stipends can come from a student’s home institution, from individual academic staff or through funding initiatives such as SFI‐ SURE (see Section 4.1.2). Another important example of teaching—research interaction is at PG level. All PG students are enrolled in the DubChem programme, where they take a number of postgraduate modules on specialised chemistry topics. A compulsory module is the one in which third‐year postgraduates give a presentation on their research project (see Section 5.6). The postgraduates are integrated in the laboratories of the School’s staff and they are the most important element of the research work in the School. A new and welcome development for PG students and PDRs has been the TCD Metals seminar series, which now provides a forum for all PG students and PDRs who work with metal complexes (in any discipline of the School) to present and discuss their work. During the period 2013‐2015 the School developed an innovative pilot Industrial PhD Programme on Raw Materials, funded initially by SFI in co‐operation with International Mining Companies such as
83
CODELCO (Chile). The first three students will enter TCD in autumn 2015. This activity is being generated in tandem with the participation of TCD as a core partner in the trans‐European project EIT‐Raw Materials, which was awarded in December 2014. Finally, the School runs a weekly seminar program during the academic year inviting internationally renowned researchers from Ireland and abroad to present their work both to UG/PG students and staff of the School. Attendance at these seminars is compulsory for 3rd and 4th year students as well as for PG students.
6.4 Evaluation of the School’s research performance and impact as well as dissemination activities (both within College and beyond) The academic‐staff’s CVs (to be provided) indicate that within the period 2007‐2015 ca. 45% of all staff members could be considered to be very research active (based on number of publications, income awarded and patents filed).
Research performance and impact The School of Chemistry’s academic staff has always been research active, as can be found using the Web of Science’s (WoS) publication record for current and former members of the School during its analysis period (1945 to the present). This is reflected in the corresponding number of publications and citations presented in Fig. 6.4.1a. An example of the calibre of the publications produced by the School’s PIs is presented in Appendix A6.2 and further details can be found in staff CVs (Appendix A6.3).
84
Total h‐index of the School (all years covered by the WoS) = 101 Total citations = 55,826 Citing articles = 37,193 Average citations per item = 34.44 The last 20 years only are shown in the graphs. 09/09/2015 (a)
Total h‐index of the School (2007‐2015, WoS) = 68 Total citations = 24,952 Citing articles = 17,413 Average citations per item = 26.96
09/09/2015 (b) Figure 6.4.1: (a) Published items per year and citations per year for the School of Chemistry for all years for which the WoS provides data. (b) Published items per year and citations per year for the School of Chemistry during the period 2007‐2015.
Since the last review in 2007, the productivity of the School has strongly increased as evidenced by the number of publications, citations and general h‐index of the School (Fig. 6.4.1b) as well as from the individual h‐indexes of the present members of the School (Fig. 6.4.2). Note: individual details can be found in the corresponding staff CVs
Figure 6.4.2: h‐Index intervals and frequency for all current members of the School according to the WoS (09/09/15)
85
Regarding the publication records for all current members of the School (Fig. 6.4.3), it is clear that this is a highly productive School with over 1,983 publications in total. Compared with the items published since the last review in 2007 (1,088 publications), individual researchers have increased their publication rate by between 40 and 90%.
Figure 6.4.3: Number of publications per staff member during the period 2007‐2015 as reported in their CVs
At Discipline level ISM chemistry: To date, discipline members have published over 450 peer‐reviewed publications, 273 of which were published during the period 2007‐2015, as were 14 book chapters and over 100 oral conference presentations, including many invited talks, were delivered. In order to benchmark the research outcomes from the ISM discipline, publication records of the discipline were compared to that of another Irish inorganic‐chemistry department (Inorganic Chemistry at UCD), that of an Irish neighbour (Inorganic Chemistry at QUB) and of two European institutions, the Technical Universität München (TUM) and the ETH Zürich (ETH). Results are shown in Table 6.4.1.
Table 6.4.1: Comparative analysis of data in WoS for the period 2008‐15 for the ISM Discipline.3
Institution # of PIs WoS entries #Citations Aggregate h‐index
TCD‐Inorganic 5 417 5358 33
UCD‐Inorganic 5 156 602 14
QUB‐Inorganic 7 410 3743 33
TUM‐Inorganic 7 594 7154 38
ETH‐Inorganic 8 884 9551 44
3 Methodology: Search for author names and date 2008-2015 and respective city/unit name; 20/09/2015.
86
The ISM Discipline at TCD compares favourably with our EU counterpart in TUM, having similar statistics despite having fewer PIs. From Table 6.4.1 it is clear that the ISM discipline at TCD leads the inorganic section in Ireland (both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland). Among recent publications, a number of papers have been published in highly reputable, very high impact factor journals such as Angewandte Chemie, Nano Letters, Nanoscale, Journal of American Chemical Society, Inorganic Chemistry, Chemical Communications, Chemistry: A European Journal, Advanced Materials, Small, Nature Nanotechology, or Nature Protocols. In addition, members of the ISM dicipline have filed 22 patents and received 5 licences, opened one start‐up company “Carbon Magnet” and are in the process of starting a second company (“Tiny Tool Kits”, TTK). Some of the research results obtained have been highlighted in popular magazines such as “New Scientist”, “Materials Today” and “Chemistry World” and on the TCD web site. All of the above is a clear indication of very high research standards both at national and international levels.
OMB chemistry: For the period 2008‐2015 the Web of Science lists 273 entries for the six current members of the OMB discipline with an aggregate of 4,459 citations and an overall h‐index of 33. For ranking a brief analysis of a comparable Irish unit (Organic Chemistry at UCD), a close geographic neighbour (Synthetic and Bioorganic Chemistry at QUB) and one European Leader in Organic Chemistry (the Technical Universität München) and one world‐class leader (the ETH Zürich) is provided in Table 6.4.2. The data indicate that the OMB discipline outclasses other institutions on the island by a wide margin. The unit also compares well, on a par in terms of impact, with the relevant section at the TUM despite the latter being larger (more faculty and average group sizes about 2‐3 times those at TCD) and situated in a country with a very different and more generous funding system (for example, the provision of guaranteed research, secretarial and technical positions to each group) that actively supports basic research. Thus, despite significantly less research funding, nationally mandated research priorities in areas not cognate to the OMB discipline, smaller group sizes and no local administration assistance, the unit ranks as a European leader.
Table 6.4.2: Comparative analysis of data in WoS for the period 2008‐15 for the OMB Discipline.4
Institution # of PIs WoS entries Citations Aggregate h‐index
TCD‐Organic 6 273 4459 33
UCD‐Organic 6 134 1617 18
QUB‐SynBio 7 122 1640 17
TUM‐Organic5 8 392 5131 37
ETH‐Organic 8 827 15777 54
The final step is comparing the OMB discipline to a unit recognized as a world class leader and of similar size, the Laboratorium für Organische Chemie at the ETH Zürich (note, institutions such as Oxford, Harvard or MIT, have 3‐6 times as many organic faculty members and a direct comparison is
4 Methodology: Search for author names and date 2008-2015 and respective city/unit name; 07/10/2015. 5 Overall unit size is 14 (organic chemistry and biochemistry). For comparison, only the 8 “organic” academics were used.
87 not possible). While numerically not in the same league, taking issues such as direct funding of research groups, the political climate with regard to science, quality of graduates or group sizes into account, the OMB discipline at TCD still compares favourably and clearly has an impact internationally. During the above‐mentioned time period, members of the OMB discipline have published in very high impact factor journals such as Nature Chemistry, Angewandte Chemie Int. Ed., Journal of American Chemical Society, Chemical Communications, Chemistry: A European Journal, or Advanced Materials.
PMC Chemistry: The PMC discipline is extremely research active with a first rate publication record in high impact international scientific journals as indicated by more than 36,000 total citations in peer‐reviewed journals and average and median staff h‐indices of 25.88 and 30, respectively. The average number of citations per article is 35, which is very high bearing in mind the wide range of research areas the articles represent. Attempting to benchmark the PMC discipline internationally is difficult since its size (nine PIs) is small by international standards. Thus, we have examined the publication metrics recorded for 2007‐2015 for the Physical Chemistry sections at our Dublin neighbour UCD (QS 2015‐Chem: 101‐ 150), Queen’s University Belfast (QUB; QS 2015‐Chem: 251‐300), the University of Bristol (UB; QS 2015‐Chem: 50‐100) and the Physical & Theoretical Department at the University of Oxford (OU; QS 2015‐Chem: 5), with Bristol and Oxford being representative of large world‐class institutions. The data analysis is presented in Table 6.4.3. In Table 6.4.3 the PCM‐TCD aggregate h‐index of 51 compares very well to the Physical & Theoretical Department at the University of Oxford, which has a staff complement of 26 and is ranked 5th in the world QS rankings in Chemistry. As would be expected, Oxford’s Physical & Theoretical Chemistry has the very high aggregate h‐index (89). In contrast, the Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Department at the University of Bristol has an aggregate h‐index of 67, for 26 academic staff. Bristol Chemistry is ranked in the same 51‐100 band as TCD in the QS rankings. Both Oxford and Bristol are nearly three times as large as TCD with respect to academic staff complement. Both TCD and our DubChem partners in UCD have very high citations per paper counts of 35.67 and 43.20, respectively and we outperform Oxford, Bristol and QUB with regards to average citation per paper (QUB: 21.23, UB: 21.57, OU: 26.59), which is a good measure of impact. This indicates that Dublin‐based research carries significant international impact when benchmarked against international leaders.
Table 6.4.3.‐ Comparative analysis of data in WoS for the period 2007‐15 for the PMC discipline.6
Institution # of PIs WoS entries Citations Aggregate h‐index
PMC‐TCD 9 437 14026 51
PC‐UCD 6 241 10413 46
PC‐QUB 9 505 10721 45
PCC‐UB 26 1269 27378 67
PTC‐OU 26 2098 55791 89
6 Methodology: Search for author names and date 2007-2015 and respective city/unit name; 21/09/2015.
88
Comparison of the School’s research activity/productivity with TCD’s Research Metrics (https://www.tcd.ie/research/dean/quality‐metrics/) Component 1‐ Academic Staff meeting criteria in research: “In the immediate past four‐year period, (the academic staff member should) have four outputs (e.g. articles, reviews, book chapters, patents, campus companies) of demonstrable high‐quality”. During the last 4 years 90% of the School’s staff has fulfilled this criterion in research. Component 2‐ Weighted competitive research expenditure: “The ability of an academic unit to secure competitive research income/expenditure is indicative of quality of the research.” During the last 4 years 90% of the School’s staff has fulfilled this criterion in research. Component 3‐ School research objectives: Some of these objectives are, for example, to keep a PhD supervision ratio above 2.5; for a specific target number of staff members to secure European Research Council or other prestigious funding awards; to increase the number of staff with h‐indices in the top percentile for the discipline; or the commercialization of the School’s research activity through spin‐out companies or licensing of patents. The School has fulfilled these and other research objectives during the reviewed period 2007‐2015.
Benchmarking of the School research against national and international comparators At local level, and based on the Annual Reports produced by the Dean of Research (TCD, https://www.tcd.ie/research/dean/annual‐reports/), during the years 2007 to 2013, the number of publications by the School of Chemistry represent between 7 and 9% of the total number of TCD peer‐reviewed papers (WoS). Moreover, in terms of number of applications, successful applications and value of award per FTE at TCD, the School of Chemistry very positively compares with other Schools at TCD, as can be seen in Fig. 6.4.4.
Figure 6.4.4: Modified from the data in the TCD Annual Report 2012‐13 of the Dean of Research Office
(https://www.tcd.ie/research/ dean/annual‐reports/)
At international level, the School of Chemistry at TCD is located in the 51‐100 band of the latest QS University Rankings 2015 by subject, based on academic reputation, employer reputation and research impact. Consequently, TCD Chemistry finds itself ranked with institutions such as the Universities of Edinburgh, Bristol, Durham, Nottingham and St. Andrews in the UK; Copenhagen, Stockholm, RKU Heidelberg, TU Denmark, Uppsala, UPMC, Université de Strasburg, Barcelona,
89
Bologna and TU Berlin in mainland Europe; and Rice, Perdue, Chicago, Washington, UCSB, Penn State and John Hopkins in the US. The Chemistry Schools/Departments in many of these institutions are of a considerably larger scale in terms of academic staff, and indeed, the total number of PIs within the School of Chemistry (19.5) is very small by international standards. Looking at the comparative Tables 6.4.1 to 6.4.3 relating the performance at discipline level with Irish‐national, Irish‐geographical, EU and world top‐level institutions, it is clear that our School is performing at a very good level but, obviously, more could and should be done. For example, more publications at high‐impact level could be produced considering the high quality of the research being performed. Additionally, more funds could be obtained but this depends on the funding agencies’ philosophy; the main Irish funding agency (SFI) has clearly shifted its interest towards research centres and applied research, making it difficult for researchers working in more basic areas to obtain funds. Similarly, H2020 calls in some areas (e.g. health) are too focused towards research not performed in the School (e.g. clinical research). In any case, collaborative projects can be considered with other groups within and outside TCD whose research is more in line with those topics preferred by SFI and European Commission programmes.
School’s research cultural, social and policy impacts Since 2013, the School has been involved in a College/EC‐FP7 initiative (Institutional Transformation for Effecting Gender Equality in Research: INTEGER, https://www.tcd.ie/wiser/integer/) to assess, develop and implement gender balance in all our activities. As a result of this exercise the School of Chemistry has been awarded a Bronze Athena Swan award for advancing gender equality. The Athena SWAN programme run by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and implemented by TCD aims to advance women’s careers in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine in higher education and research. Additionally, in 2014, female members of the School’s academic staff participated in the Women in Sciences talks that were organised by the students’ Gender Equality Society at TCD during Science Week.
Dissemination The School has been active in promoting chemistry through research seminars and by organising symposia and research meetings such as the Annual Symposium of Supramolecular Chemistry in Ireland; CSCB Annual Symposium (hosted in TCD in 2007, 2010 and 2013); The BA Festival of Science and the Annual Inorganic Chemistry Symposium (hosted in TCD in 2010, 2012 and 2014). In partnership with CRANN, the School hosted the 3rd International Conference on Nanomaterials and Nanomanufacturing (December 2007) and the XIV International Conference on Solid Films and Surfaces (June 2008). Academic staff have also been instrumental in the organisation of international conferences such as Flatlands beyond Graphene 2014 and CASE 2015 through the International Strategic Collaboration Programme for China/Ireland (pictured below ).
90
Figure 6.4.5: Academic staff from the School of Chemistry pictured with delegates of the CASE 2015 conference [supported through SFI’s ISCP programme, which promotes co‐operation between Ireland and China].
6.5 School’s innovation and entrepreneurship The School of Chemistry funnels its innovation and entrepreneurship activities as well as the management of intellectual property through the Trinity Research & Innovation (TR&I) office, which supports the capture, protection and exploitation of the innovative outputs from TCD’s research programmes. Dissemination activities of TR&I are already in place to promote commercialisation of research and technology transfer. The general commercialisation of technology is supported in the School through the assignment of dedicated research space for industry engagement activities (e.g. some of the School PIs have a test lab with Diageo, which is set up in the Main Chemistry building). The School also provides access to core facilities such as NMR, Mass Spec, IR, etc. for collaborative industry projects. It is anticipated that the School would assist in sourcing suitable space on campus (within Chemistry/TBSI) for any potential start‐up companies resulting from current industry engagements.
In order to commercialise patent applications that relate to the adsorption, release and transformation of CO2, a campus company, “Trinity Green Energies” was founded by WS and Ray Naughton (former CEO Siemens Nixdorf) and Vincent Browne (Powerclouds). “Trinity Green Energies” is a research company that is active in the areas of carbon capture, storage and transformation, focusing on the discipline of environmental engineering and management. The company is funded through venture capital and is part of the AMBER centre at TCD.
During the period 2007‐2015, one start‐up company (“Carbon Magnet”) has been opened and the opening of a second start‐up (“Tiny Tool Kits”, TTK) is currently in progress. As such, the School of Chemistry has facilitated and is facilitating the opening of those start‐up companies by providing premises and School facilities. Several School PIs have been able to assure research funds through the SFI/EI‐TIDA programme (Technology Innovation Development Award). These grants are designed to enable researchers to
91 focus on the first steps of an applied research project that may have a commercial benefit if further developed. In the last four years a total of 9 TIDA awards have been obtained by the School: 2011 (2 awards), 2012 (1 award), 2013 (5 awards) and 2014 (6 awards). This indicates the innovative spirit of the School’s researchers. Moreover, most of the current academic staff have been involved in patent activity during the last 8 years (see Fig. 6.5.1), indicating a good awareness of the need to protect intellectual property within the School.
Figure 6.5.1: Patents filed by current members of the School of Chemistry during the period 2007‐ 2015 as reported in the corresponding CVs.
6.6 Research funding Research Funding The School of Chemistry has obtained over €75,602,000 in research funds during the period 2007‐ 2014 (data from the Finance Office at TCD). These funds came not only from national sources (SFI, EI, HRB, EPA, HEA‐PRTLI, IRC) but also and more importantly from international agencies (EC). The different contributions by each PI during the period 2007‐2015 as reported in each of the corresponding CVs are presented in Fig. 6.6.1. This outstanding amount of income clearly reflects the excellence of the research pursued in the School.
92
Figure 6.6.1: Research funding awarded to current members of the School of Chemistry during the period 2007‐2015 as reported in the corresponding CVs.
The number of active grants (see Fig. 6.6.2) during the 2007‐14 period steadily increased until the year 2010 when it reached a plateau (>120 per year), despite the fact that the School has decreased the number of PIs with active grants, from 28 in 2010 to 18 in 2014. This decrease is partially due to retirements and the loss of several members of staff to other institutions (lack of retention because of the economic crisis).
Figure 6.6.2: Number of active research accounts and number of PIs from the School of Chemistry during the period 2007‐2014 as reported by the Financial Services Division at TCD.
The nature of these research grants ranges from small IRC/IRCSET (Irish Research Council formerly known as the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology) grants to large SFI and EC‐FP7 and Marie Curie grants but, in general, there is a heavy dependence on exchequer funds and in particular, SFI grants (38% of the total). In September 2013 the School recruited a Research Programme Officer (RPO), who is shared with the School of Physics. The post is a Research Development Office resource positioned locally who
93 works in partnership with the School through the School’s Director of Research to develop and manage an implementation plan for the School’s research strategy. Particular emphasis is placed on securing non‐exchequer research funding, particularly Horizon 2020 funding.
At Discipline level: As mentioned before, ISM discipline members have attracted over €16,602,000 in research funding as PIs. Currently, the main sources of research funding for the ISM discipline are SFI, EI, IRC and various EU grant schemes. The ISM discipline currently has one ERC consolidator award holder and three SFI‐PI grant holders. The members of the discipline are also involved in different Marie Curie and FP7 collaborative EU networks. The main challenges facing research in the ISM discipline are associated with potential difficulties in raising further research funding and in attracting and retaining young talented academics and researchers. It will also be important to improve the support provided by the Innovation Office in TCD to facilitate interactions with companies and provide an even better IP management and patenting service. Overall, innovation activities should be strongly encouraged and supported by TCD as these activities can generate a significant income in the future. The ISM discipline could improve its ability to attract more funding by enhancing the interaction with relevant industries in Ireland and abroad. For example, an area such as Materials and Compounds for Biomedical Applications would be of great interest and importance for biopharmaceutical industries and medical device manufacturers in Ireland. These sectors are the largest contributors to corporation tax in the country and these industries have also been the principal contributors to the growth of the Irish economy during the last decade. Therefore, it is highly important to establish links and collaborative research with these companies. In addition to the industrial funding above, staff members should continue applying to relevant national (SFI, Enterprise Ireland, EPA grants) and international (EC‐FP networks, H2020, ERS, Wellcome Trust) grant schemes to ensure adequate financial support. However, all of these grant schemes are highly competitive and, hence, joint grant applications between members of the discipline and with different disciplines in the School should be encouraged. For example, junior staff members could apply for research grants in collaboration with more experienced members of their or other disciplines within the school. This will also improve the research collaboration and synergy within the ISM discipline and within the School of Chemistry. The main sources of funding in the OMB Discipline are, in rough order of importance, SFI, IRC, ERC, Horizon 2020, Enterprise Ireland, HRB, Industry. The overall aggregate funding intake of the OMB discipline to date is in excess of €25 million. It is, however, unevenly distributed with three members accounting for 91% of the funding. The OMB discipline also has benefited from philanthropic support (~€500K), both for the TBSI building and, more recently, through the establishment of a Schuler Assistant Professorship in Translational Chemistry. Within the Irish landscape the funding situation of the OMB discipline is good; internationally, it lags behind in funding, but not in impact. The unit intends to strengthen its activities in attracting Horizon 2020 funding, especially as coordinators of large‐scale European research projects. Current plans include a Research & Innovation Staff Exchange, a European Industry Doctorate and a consortium application in the areas of medicinal chemistry, optical materials and catalysts for spring/summer 2016. Mid‐term the unit is especially interested in developing international joint postgraduate research schools. Other avenues for improvement are funding from Wellcome Trust, which thematically fits the work of several OMB discipline members. Some other possible initiatives, such as SFI Research Professors or outside ERC candidates either failed due to lack of College co‐ funding or are more appropriately addressed at the Dean of Research level.
94
Support from TCD for research funding applications is generally adequate. In particular, the Research Office is quite knowledgeable and supportive. Problems exist with the level of financial support for filing patents, which would increase the chances of receiving EI grants, the low level of real industrial research activity in the chemical sciences in Ireland, and the focus of the College on International Relations outside the EU. Likewise, once EU grants or other administratively “complicated” grants are awarded, the PI is often left alone to deal with the financial and administrative minutiae. The PIs of the PMC Discipline have been in receipt of very significant and diverse research funding over the last 7 years (€12,081,472 over the period 2007‐2014, excluding grants housed in CRANN), obtained from SFI PI, and SFI CGA grants, PIYRA, EI grants, SFI TIDAs, KIC‐EIT, H2020, and significantly, the ERC at both Starter and Advanced level. Thus, the Section fits the TCD Strategic Plan description of an area of strength with high‐performing researchers capable of contributing to Trinity’s research mission and reputation. Therefore, the Section’s track record of attracting staff members that are research competitive, of high scholarly standing, and able to leverage existing Irish/EU research funding opportunities is outstanding.
It can be concluded that, as a whole, the School of Chemistry has been highly effective in attracting mostly nationally sourced research funds even during the most restrictive times of the economic crisis. However, in order to improve the School’s ability to attract more research funding, particular emphasis will be placed on increasing the numbers of successful SFI PI applications, and academic staff will be strongly encouraged to participate more widely in H2020 calls.
6.7 School’s ethical practice The School of Chemistry has recently established a Research Ethics Committee (REC) level 1 and anything requiring approval at level 2 will be handled by the corresponding RECs of the appropriate faculty (FEMS or Health Sciences). Level 1 RECs will have the power to review and approve “low risk” research, while Level 2 RECs will be concerned with “high risk” research. Accordingly, a Research Ethics Policy has been drafted and is awaiting approval by FEMS. In general terms, it is established that: “It is the PI's responsibility to identify any ethical issues regarding a research project, and all research proposals must be screened for ethical implications. In most cases a 'self‐audit' by the researcher (or their supervisor in the case of under‐ and postgraduate students) will be sufficient to confirm whether ethical implications arise. In those cases with ethical implications formal approval of the research must be sought from the REC of the School of Chemistry.” Considering the recent establishment of the committee (2014) and that the policy developed is awaiting approval, no examples of approved proposals can be provided. 6.8 Quality assurance procedures put in place in the School The School of Chemistry does not need to be regulated by any external professional body; however, strong quality assurance procedures are in place around the support activities and delivery of research.
Support activities: All of the School’s research instrumentation is licensed and regular controls and quality assessment procedures are performed. There is an experimental officer of the School specifically dedicated to these routine controls.
95
Delivery of research: Some of the most important outcomes of research are the scientific publications and, as such, all articles, reviews and book chapters reported by the School of Chemistry PIs in their corresponding CVs have been submitted to peer‐reviewed journals. Similarly, all patents filed by the researchers within the School follow an assessment procedure to protect IP. Another important outcome of research is the number of PhD students graduated in the School. In this sense, all PhD students in the School of Chemistry obtain their degrees after a thorough viva voce examination with independent external examiners (mostly from Universities in the UK and other EU countries) and internal examiners, so quality control is assured (see also Section 5). Additionally, many PG students in the School have obtained IRC studentships. This funding body closely monitors the progress of the PG students who hold these awards, assuring the quality of their work. Finally, considering that a big percentage of the funding obtained by the researchers in the School of Chemistry comes from SFI, it should be noted that: (i) in their Letter of Offer for all awards, SFI demands strict adherence to ‘best‐practice’ in research, (ii) SFI has a continuous control assessment of the research produced by means of the annual reports and, (iii) in particular, for the SFI‐PI awards, SFI carry our on‐site visits with external reviewers.
6.9 Main challenges facing research in the School and how they will be addressed to improve the School’s research performance/impact The main challenges and means to improve research at School can be summarised in the School of Chemistry’s Research SWOT analysis:
Strengths: Research‐active staff with high reputation Most important School of Chemistry in Ireland High‐quality research produced (as per publications, citations, patents) at world level Very good, modern equipment base Good research laboratory accommodation (SNIAMS, CRANN, TBSI) Good international collaborations Ability (currently) to provide realistic start‐up packages for new staff
Weaknesses: Diminishing esprit de corps Limited PG growth potential due to space and funding constraints Non‐optimal mass in two disciplines due to employment embargo High dependence on exchequer funding Lack of administrative support (excessive burden on all staff)
Opportunities/Actions: Need to compose and adhere to multi‐annual planning exercise – need financial transparency and certainty from College Need to direct staff firmly towards non‐SFI and non‐exchequer research funding Development of new themes (i.e. polymer chemistry in OMB Discipline)
96
Research outreach to attract more PG students The number of research active staff needs to be increased. Initiatives such as the recent position in Translational Chemistry philanthropically funded are a good example to follow. Increase publication numbers, including increased numbers in high impact journals.
Threats/Challenges: Main challenge: Research funding Risk of serious decline in PG student numbers already observed from 2010 on. Instrumentation maintenance [recently bought X‐ray (powder) and NMR] depends on our technical staff. In particular one of these positions is dependent on SFI overheads, if funding decreases, this essential position could be in danger of disappearing. May be unable to increase PG numbers by 5% due to space constraints (but see point 2, above) Government and College staff recruitment moratorium (School currently having to meet some salary costs from reserves, urgent need of administrative support and new academic positions) Change in the SFI funding philosophy (i.e. commercialisation and applied research preferred over bio‐oriented or basic research and funding to big Centres preferred over individual PIs) is affecting the opportunities for funding of some of the School’s researchers.
97
Section 7: Resources 7.1 Finance & Funding: The College Financial Services Division (FSD) determines the School’s income on an annual basis. The School’s income is derived from a proportion of the College income and an additional contribution based on activities in the School that are related to undergraduate teaching, postgraduate teaching and training, and externally funded research. The income associated with teaching activities in the College arises from Government and student contributions; the allocation mechanism is important as it determines some of the trends in funding figures since the last Review. It is explained in the following sections. The income generated from research is explained separately in Section 7.1.3. Sources of Income to the College: College essentially receives income from the government for undergraduate and postgraduate students in two ways. These are: 1. Recurrent Annual Grant from the HEA. This funding is distributed across the 3rd‐level institutions in Ireland based on student numbers in each calendar year. The mechanism for its distribution is called RGAM. The total amount allocated to the recurrent annual grant has dropped significantly over the last 8 years (see Appendix 7, Table A7.1.1) and TCD’s share of it has decreased as other universities have increased their proportion of the total student population. The student numbers are converted to income on the basis of full‐time student equivalents (FTSEs). These are calculated with subject weightings (1.7 for lab‐based students, 1.3 for field‐work‐based students and 1.0 for other students) and the income is divided by the total weighted FTSEs to give the RGAM Standard Resource (see column C in Table 7.1.1). The money received by TCD peaked in 2008. 2. Associated student fee on each course. For EU students on UG courses this fee is paid by the government under the Free Fees Initiative. The amount paid for each student by the Government has also decreased (see column D in Table 7.1.1) and, in a bid to combat this, universities introduced a student registration charge (see column E in Table 7.1.1). Postgraduate courses also have fees associated with them (see Table 7.1.2). In the case of Chemistry these are generally paid by research grants (although funding agencies often cap their fee contributions at below EU rates). In a bid to raise income from this stream the College has increased the PG student fees steadily over the last 2 years (2 – 5% per year). The income generated from the above sources is used to calculate what will be called the ‘notional income’ from this point on in this document. It informs the budget of the faculties and the schools.
7.1.1 Notional Income for Undergraduate Students Table 7.1.1 shows the historical changes in the funding for undergraduate students and the changes in all the component parts that make up this funding. Column 1 is generated from the algorithm shown and is generated from a combination of the figures in columns C, D and E. The overall impact of these changes on the notional funding per student is shown for a lab‐based science student (as in Chemistry) as compared to that for an EU Arts student at TCD. A graphical summary of the overall funding per student for lab‐based and arts students is presented in Figure 7.1.1. The lab‐based weighting only applies to the recurrent annual grant and by extrapolation to entry values in Column C of Table 7.1.1. This is the component of the income per
98 student that has been the main focus of the funding cuts over the last five years. As a consequence, lab‐based (and to a lesser extent field‐work‐based) subjects have been hit the hardest. The plot of the ratio of funding per science student to the funding per Arts student (red line in Figure 7.1.1) illustrates how the cuts since 2008 have particularly targeted lab‐based Science students. Most observers believe that the 1.7 factor subject weighting for Science students applies to all of the notional income. In Ireland however, this factor is only used in the calculation of the annual recurrent grant component of the funding (as the student registration charge is common to all disciplines and the fees ratio, which is controlled by the Government, is fixed at 1.56). HEIs are free to distribute resources in any way they wish but the mechanism of following the HEA distribution taken by TCD (at least in informing the budget allocation) adds to the imbalance in favour of Arts subjects.
99
A B C D E 1 2 3 Grant TCD Core Recurrent HEA RGAM Fees from EU Student Income per EU Lab‐ Income per Ratio of columns Year Grant Allocation Standard Central Charge based Science EU Arts 1:2 from the Resource Government Student student Government per student per student (distributed for Science (1.7C + D + E) through RGAM)
2007 €72,845,583 €4,039 €5,684 €825 €13,375 €8,939 1.50 2008 €76,331,739 €4,135 €5,832 €900 €13,762 €9,216 1.49 2009 €75,539,444 €3,568 €5,832 €1,500 €13,398 €9,249 1.45 2010 €52,081,063 €2,459 €5,832 €1,500 €11,512 €8,140 1.41 2011 €42,461,985 €1,832 €5,332 €2,000 €10,446 €7,513 1.39 2012 €38,114,082 €1,628 €5,082 €2,250 €10,100 €7,309 1.38 2013 €37,202,576 €1,574 €4,832 €2,500 €10,008 €7,255 1.38
2014 €30,834,195 €1,321 €4,582 €2,750 €9,578 €7,002 1.37 2015 €3,000
% change in student funding per FTSE from ‐30% ‐24% peak Table 7.1.1: Overall University income per student, including recurrent annual grant income, course fees and student charge and weighted income to Schools per Science student, non‐EU student and for comparison an Arts student at TCD.
100
Figure 7.1.1: Illustration of the change in notional student income from 2006 to 2014 for lab‐based science students and arts students, and the resulting change in the ratio between these values.
As can be seen, depending on whether the student is taking Science or Arts, the notional income per student in TCD peaked in 2008 or 2009 (see figures highlighted in red in Table 7.1.1). This tallies with a period when a comprehensive comparative international assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending on tertiary education was carried out for EU Ministers of Finance (20097). This assessment found that Ireland ranked first of 28 countries in terms of graduates per 1,000 inhabitants and second in terms of the number of graduates per academic staff member (2005 data). Since 2009 there have been very significant cuts to the funding of universities (see A7.1.1). These have been significant all round but have seriously affected lab‐based Science students. The current situation in Ireland shows some similarities to the one that prevailed in the UK in the 1990s and 2000s where funding for Science UGs was insufficient compared with non‐lab‐based courses and led to the closure of a range of Science departments, in particular Chemistry and Physics. The affects were subsequently recognised by UK governments and the funding mechanism changed to redress the issues, reverse the trend and allow for the reopening of many of these departments.
7St. Aubyn, M., Pina, A., Garcia, F. & Pais, J. (2009) Study on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending on tertiary education, European Economy, Economics Papers 390, November 2009, ECOFIN, European Commission, p.24 (http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication16267_en.pdf)
101
7.1.2 Notional Income for postgraduate students Postgraduate income has a significant impact on the notional income of the School. The majority of the income for postgraduate students comes from the weighted FTSE distribution of the recurrent budget, i.e. from the figures in column B of Table 7.1.1. These are then weighted by a multiplier of 3 x 1.6 to give the PG RGAM in column A of Table 7.1.2. The income from these students has fallen from a peak of over €25,000 per FTSE in 2008 to €12,500 per student FTSE in 2014, representing a cut (including the fees component) of over 50% (see column C in Table 7.1.2). This has significantly affected the income of research‐active science schools such as Chemistry. It also comes at a time when most of the State agencies funding research are also refusing to cover the full postgraduate EU fees that TCD charges. For example, the 2015 TCD PG research fee is €6365 whereas the Irish Research Council cap their fee contribution at €5750 and SFI caps its fee contribution at €5,500. In the majority of cases the School is using its historic unspent balances to make‐up the shortfall in fee income for these students (see Table 7.5.1e).
Table 7.1.2: Overall University income per postgraduate science student, including core annual recurrent grant income, fees, student contribution and weighted income to Schools. A B A+B C Grant PG RGAM PG fee per Total income Income per Lab Year Science per EU PG based Science (3* 1.6* student in science Student as a % of standard TCD student 2008 values resource) per student 2007 €19,387.20 €5,038 €24,425.20 96.88% 2008 €19,848.00 €5,365 €25,213.00 100.00% 2009 €17,126.40 €5,500 €22,626.40 89.74% 2010 €11,803.20 €6,000 €17,803.20 70.61% 2011 €8,793.60 €6,000 €14,793.60 58.67% 2012 €7,814.40 €6,000 €13,814.40 54.79% 2013 €7,555.20 €6,000 €13,555.20 53.76% 2014 €6,340.80 €6,180 €12,520.80 49.66% 2015 €6,365
7.1.3 Research Overheads The funding of scientific research in Ireland comes primarily through SFI and EI, with some additional funding from national sources (e.g. EPA, HRB, IRC), Europe and the Wellcome trust. Funding through SFI attracts an overhead rate of only 30% (on non‐equipment items) while IRC studentships have no associated overheads. Consequently, the amount of overheads coming into TCD is limited. The total overhead associated with the School has been increasing and in 2014/15 was €1,194,371.00 (see Table 7.1.3a). The academic share of the overheads is 50% or €597,186.00 in
102
2014/15, with the remainder going towards essential College services, e.g. the library and estates. The academic share is also accessed by College, e.g. to provide the co‐funding element of an award (e.g. AMBER) or to support academic services (e.g. Science Gallery, central College redundancy provision). In addition to this the academic share is split between academic schools and research institutes such as CRANN and the TBSI. The School actually sees, on average, 34% of the total overhead generated by grants that are housed in Chemistry and 0 to 34% of the overheads generated by Chemistry PIs in the TBSI or CRANN. The total overheads received relative to the overheads generated are shown in Table 7.1.3a. This shows a continued reduction in the proportion of overheads coming to the School to just above 20% in 2014/15 – with significant pressure from research institutes for an increase in their share. The €7.2 million overhead income associated with the AMBER research centre within CRANN is not expected to generate income to the School (because of a College commitment against the overheads that was made at the application stage). One of the recommendations of the previous review was to establish a financial model for Schools and research institutes. This is still in discussion. What is clear is that an increasing proportion of the overheads are being directed to research institutes, leaving the School with issues in maintaining its research support in the face of core funding cuts.
Table 7.1.3a: A comparison of the overhead generated by Chemistry staff and the overheads received by Chemistry
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total research overheads generated by the School €741,159.00 €777,085.00 €1,194,371.00 Academic share of overheads €350,579.00 €388,543.00 €597,186.00 Overheads received by the School €255,833 €240,454 €248,188 % of overheads available to the School 34.5% 30.9% 20.7%
The breakdown of the overheads received by the School is shown in Table 7.1.3b. As discussed, the majority are from SFI with smaller amounts from other sources. Table 7.1.3b: Breakdown of overheads income returning to the School in 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 SFI €180,712 €178,953 €185,248 EI €15,249 €8,334 €34,083 OTHER OVERHEADS €59,872 €53,167 €28,857 TOTAL €255,833 €240,454 €248,188
103
Use of Overheads
As a result of the low overhead rate and declining return to the School, the amount of research overheads available to the School is small. This limits the employment of additional academic staff (unlike the case in the UK) and hence the ability of the School to provide teaching relief for highly research‐active staff. SFI and EI overheads are required to be used by the School to support researchers. Chemistry uses the majority of these overheads to provide the salaries of four support staff (high‐end instrument support – 1.5 FTEs, the global officer and research programme officer). These salaries account for €114K of the total SFI and EI overhead income of €219K in 2014/15. The need to use these funds to pay salaries arises as core funding is insufficient to provide for these essential posts. The remainder of the overheads in 2014/15 (from all sources) were used to purchase items such as service contracts on existing instrumentation (e.g. compressor units), upgrades to infrastructure (e.g. solvent purification system to negate the need for solvent stills) and research‐led needs (e.g. software licences, contribution towards TCD’s HPC enhanced data‐storage system to replace a 5‐ year‐old system). In addition to the low accumulated value of the overheads to the School there is also no mechanism to strategically accumulate overhead income as the Indirect Cost Planning Group have agreed that for SFI (the majority contributor to Chemistry overheads) ‘only underspends of up to 5% of the allocation can be carried forward to the following year’. This will be a major challenge in relation to making future provision for the replacement of major items of equipment (see A6.1). As a result the overhead research income does not pay for academic staff time. Given that the income associated with postgraduate students has seen a 50% cut it is clear that research does not cover the academic staff time involved (and hence does not pay for itself). Consequently, for most academic staff, the award of a major grant cannot come with any reduction in teaching unless teaching buyout is an explicit requirement of, and is funded by, the award.
7.1.4 Non‐EU Income In the College’s Global strategy, which is in its 2nd phase (GRSII) the university proposes to invest significant resources in increasing the number of non‐EU students within the College. This is to off‐ set the reductions in funding over the longer term. Table 7.1.4a illustrates the more favourable income situation arising from a non‐EU compared with EU UG students over time (Column 1 in this table has the same content as presented previously in Table 7.1.1). Through GRSII the University also hopes to increase the internationalisation of its student body and to further establish the University as a ‘University of International Importance’.
104
Table 7.1.4a: A comparison of the university income arising per lab‐based UG science student as a function of their EU or non‐EU categorisation. A 1 2 Income per lab‐based Science UG Student Grant Year EU Non‐EU
2007 €13,375 €19,020 2008 €13,762 €20,256 2009 €13,398 €20,864 2010 €11,512 €20,900 2011 €10,446 €20,900 2012 €10,100 €20,900 2013 €10,008 €20,900 2014 €9,578 €21,525
A major driver of GRSII is to increase the number of non‐EU students as an addition to the current student numbers (quotas). Targets have been set for the number of non‐EU students in both Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes by the College. The non‐EU targets for Chemistry are shown in Table 7.1.4b for a four‐year period. They represent a ramp‐up of the overall student numbers. When the numbers reach stability this will mean that the non‐EU students will represent 28.5% of the CMM class, 36.5% of the N‐PCAM class, 13.2% of the MedChem class and 5.6% of the Science class. In the case of the latter it is not clear within this number how the moderatorship programmes are expected to accommodate the increases. The College has run a number of different incentivisation schemes to encourage schools to increase the number of non‐EU students. These are in the form of ‘additional money’, which is ultimately a redistribution of the income. The additional funds will have to support the additional students. The School received an allocation for its non‐EU students of €46,576 for 2013/14. For 2014/15 the mechanism for allocating money changed and was calculated as the overall financial effect of the increase in non‐EU student numbers in 2014/15 vs the 3‐year average of non‐EU student numbers for the period 2008/09 to 2010/11. Numbers are based on actual non‐EU student numbers in the School for 14/15 (with the exception of Science Without Borders students who are calculated on an overall FTSE basis). The School’s non‐EU incentivisation income based on 2014/15 student numbers was €75,914. This was received by the School retrospectively, i.e. the 2014/15 allocation was received in August 2015 and, hence, it essentially supplements the operating budget for the following year (2015/16).* The School expressed major concerns about the basis for the 2014/15 figures as they disagreed with the number of non‐EU students in the School. As an example, the postgraduate student numbers were calculated based on student numbers pulled down from SITS in January. As there are two opportunities to register as a PGR student, students who registered in March were not counted. This
105
meant in 2014/15 that the School appeared to fall 2 PGR students short of its target of 10. It was therefore penalised by €9,888. The queries raised reflected not only a discrepancy in the numerical data but also problems in relation to its acquisition. In the next fiscal year the distribution of the non‐EU fee income to schools is supposed to reflect contributions to service teaching via ECTS credits, i.e. contributions to the teaching of modules housed in other disciplines in College. The Financial Services Division is hoping to be in a position to estimate the income to Schools on a yearly basis.8
8 At the time of writing this SAR, the School was given its projected 2015/16 non-EU incentivisation budget. It is 121k€. This amount is predicated on the School reaching its non-EU targets for 2015/16.
106
Table 7.1.4b: Targets set for Chemistry non‐EU student numbers 2015‐2019.
Proposed Proposed Average Non‐EU Proposed Proposed Non‐EU Additional % JF Student Quota target in Non‐EU Non‐EU Total number of % of target Non ‐EU increase Course (EU and non‐EU) addition to target target student per year non‐EU (all 4 students per in (2014‐15) quota (all 4 years) (all 4 years) by 2018‐19 students years) year by students (all 4 years) 2017‐18 2018‐19 2016‐17 2018‐19 2015‐16
Chemistry with Molecular 5 2 4 6 8 2 7 40.0% 28.6% Modelling
N‐PCAM 20 129 22 33 46 11.8 32 57.5% 36.5% Medicinal 28 5 7 12 17 4 32 15.2% 13.2% Chemistry
Science (TR071) 34010 36 56 67 80 20 360 5.9% 5.6%
School Total 393 55.0 89.0 118.0 143.0 37.8 430.8 9.6% 8.8%
9 This target has been flagged as being incorrect by the School on multiple occasions. An incoming cohort of Malaysian students into N-PCAM occurs in 2016/17 and not 2015/16. 10 The number of UG students within TR071 that take JF Chemistry CH1101 is 299. This represents 88% of the total (340).
107
Irrespective of the issue of counting non‐EU students, the incentivisation scheme could be seen as encouraging schools to take more non‐EU students. In reality this mechanism essentially removes resources that would normally have been distributed through the Annual Budgetary Cycle (ABC) process. As more of the income generated by the Schools is removed from the ABC process it seems inevitable that the operating budgets will continue to decrease unless the non‐EU students can be accommodated at no extra cost. This is likely to result in even further increases in student: staff ratios (see later) and further reductions in the quality of the education received (e.g. the current reduction in the number of lab hours for first‐year students (see Section 4). The process is basically diverting money from the ABC in favour of the direct funding of Schools based on non‐EU student numbers. Clearly those Schools who do not meet their target or who have lower targets (due to lower demand) are likely to see further pressure on their budgets in the coming years.
7.1.5 Income attributed to the School by the Faculty The mechanism for distributing income in the College has changed a number of times in the last 10 years. The current mechanism has been operating for the past four years and, hence, comparable data are only available for this time period. The notional income to FEMS and schools is calculated based on the FTSE’s as detailed above. Actually distributing money in this way (especially given the deep cuts) would leave a few schools (primarily in the arts where the cuts have been less severe) with surpluses and some with very large deficits (particularly in Science). Therefore, the calculation of a notional income is the first step in deciding the allocation of an operating budget to the School from the Faculty. Table 7.1.5a shows the data for the School of Chemistry for the three years 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. These figures are calculated from various years of data. The student numbers from the given year are used to inform the budget for the following year. These data are analysed by the College and School and discussed as part of the ABC process. This culminates in a faculty allocation and, from that, an operating budget for the following year for each of the schools. The School of Chemistry’s income is dominated by UG students (over 60%) despite being research active with one of the highest research spends per staff member (€350K) and one of the highest PG supervision rates (4.2) in the university (Table 7.1.5c). The discrepancy between the income: expenditure ratio is due to the College using 14/15 data combined with the 13/14 operational budget to calculate the expenditure. This creates a lag on the data that results in a false impression of the actual expenditure for a given year. Research‐overhead figures are present in both the income and expenditure, although approximately 50% of the income is actually distributed to Schools and research centres. The figure of €597K includes all of the overheads obtained by Chemistry staff, including those that are allocated to Research Institutes (as these are not part of the ABC). In reality the School of Chemistry sees approximately €248,188 in overheads, which is primarily being spent to provide technical support staff when staff retire and are not replaced. The average College income: expenditure ratio is 1.59 (62.9%) meaning that almost 40% of the income is taken by central administration. However, in FEMS this ratio is 1.38 (72.4%) showing that the College’s allocation of resources does not strictly follow the notional income. The ratio does vary within the Faculty, with Mathematics being particularly high (2.24) and Physics being lower (1.19) compared to the official value (using multiyear data) for chemistry of 1.30 (Table 7.1.5b). The take‐home message from the data presented in Table 7.1.5c is that the School has improved its performance across the board in all of the College’s metrics (from 2013/14 to 2014/15). The research outputs per staff FTE are clearly on the increase. Of concern, however, is the School’s
108
student: staff ratio of 28:1 (Table 7.1.5c) as this ratio impacts on the School’s delivery of its teaching mission. The high number of senior to junior academic staff in Chemistry compared with other Schools in the Faculty is representative of the higher percentage of Chemistry staff achieving promotion to senior grades. It is a reflection of output and success in this high‐achieving School.
Table 7.1.5a: Historical changes in the notional income and expenditure that are used to inform the following years’ Operating Budget. % of total income 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 (2014/15)
INCOME UG €3,486,335.00 €3,685,146.00 €3,735,335.00 60.6% PG ‐ research €1,802,177.00 €1,382,193.00 €1,217,348.00 19.8% PG ‐ Taught €8,460.00 €13,029.00 €16,346.00 0.3%
Research overheads €741,159.00 €777,085.00 €1,194,371.00 19.4% TOTAL INCOME €6,038,131.00 €5,857,453.00 €6,163,400.00
% of total expenditure EXPENDITURE (14/15) Staff costs €3,636,021.00 €3,248,658.00 €3,370,034.00 76.4%
Budget (pay and 10.1% non‐pay) €832,000.00 €764,000.00 €445,000.0011 €145,000.0012 Overheads €350,579.00 €388,543.00 €597,186.00 13.5% TOTAL EXPENDITURE €4,818,600.00 €4,401,201.00 €4,412,220.00
% of income spent 79.80% 75.14% 71.59%
Ratio income: expenditure 1.25 1.33 1.40
11 The School received an additional €46,576 through the non-EU incentivisation scheme based on 2013/14 student numbers 12 The School received an additional €75,914 through the non-EU incentivisation scheme based on 2014/15 student numbers
109
Indicative Income:Expenditure Staff:Student Ratio % of Non‐EU Students Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Total Income: Total Total 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 Total Income Expenditure Expenditure report 1: report 1: report College 189,351,367 119,462,525 1.59 1.57 24 24 10% 10%
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences 76,578,202 39,596,239 1.93 1.84 30 29 12% 14% Faculty of Health Sciences 52,665,587 36,194,506 1.46 1.52 19 19 10% 10% Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science 60,107,579 43,671,780 1.38 1.36 22 22 8% 7%
Biochemistry and Immunology 5,888,702 3,910,480 1.51 1.56 21 23 6% 4% Chemistry 6,161,400 4,725,640 1.30 1.33 28 25 8% 5% Computer Sciences and Statistics 11,394,460 9,223,291 1.24 1.31 21 21 9% 12% Engineering 11,247,325 9,063,820 1.24 1.23 22 22 9% 9%
Genetics and Microbiology 4,854,090 3,801,490 1.28 1.11 17 7 3% 5% Mathematics 5,419,862 2,424,046 2.24 2.24 22 21 4% 1% Natural Sciences 9,453,911 5,751,191 1.64 1.53 23 24 10% 10% Physics 5,687,829 4,771,822 1.19 1.12 24 21 14% 12% Table 7.1.5b: Draft School key performance indicators (KPIs) report for 2014/15 (part 1)
110
Junior:Senior Faculty Research Research Expenditure Ratio PGR per Faculty Productive Faculty per Faculty
Note 4 Note 5 Note 6 Note 7 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 2013/14 xx:1 report report % report € report College 1.69 1.21 2.2 2.4 79 75 127,955 116,247
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences 2.03 1.42 2.5 2.6 85 80 109,357 100,753 Faculty of Health Sciences 2.09 1.65 1.4 1.6 73 72 61,972 46,465 Faculty of Engineering, Mathematics and Science 0.96 0.75 2.65 2.7 80 73 212,537 173,026
Biochemistry and Immunology 0.77 0.67 3.2 3.6 100 75 355,753 332,796 Chemistry 0.58 0.62 4.2 4.1 84 79 325,577 256,057 Computer Sciences and Statistics 2.00 1.72 1.9 2.0 70 69 116,928 115,608 Engineering 0.90 0.83 2.4 3.8 92 83 129,354 151,102 Genetics and Microbiology 0.49 0.67 2.2 2.1 81 67 215,903 224,125
Mathematics 1.67 1.22 0.5 0.7 40 39 33,457 53,462 Natural Sciences 0.85 0.58 1.9 2.0 85 80 67,812 78,032 Physics 0.39 0.36 4.8 4.1 89 88 455,511 379,476 Table 7.1.5c: Draft School key performance indicators report for 2014/15 (part 2)
111
Notes associated with Tables 7.1.5b and 7.1.5c
Note 1:
Recurrent state grant allocation based upon current estimates of the 2014/15 state grant, 2012/13 student numbers and FTE splits
Total expenditure = direct School
See document on assumptions
Note 2: Draft staff‐student ratio 2013/14
Based on staff‐student ratio prepared for Senior Lecturer's Annual Report
Staff includes part‐time, casual payroll, demonstrators
UG students with weighting of 1, PG taught with weighting of 1.5; PG research with weighting of 3
Note 3: Draft % of non‐EU students
Weighted non‐EU student numbers in 2013/14 as a percentage of weighted FTSEs. Includes visiting non‐EU FTSEs, excludes non‐EU graduate students out of timescale
UG students with weighting of 1, PG taught with weighting of 1.5; PG research with weighting of 3
Note 4: Draft Junior: Senior Faculty Ratio
Academic staff in 2013/14, excluding part‐time, demonstrators, prepared for Senior Lecturer's Annual Report for staff: student ratios
Junior = lecturer; senior = Prof, AssProf, SL
Note 5: Draft PG Research student (PGR) per Faculty
112
PGR within timescale, as reported in HEA final return for 2013/14
(PhD f‐t yrs 1‐4; M Litt/M Sc f‐t yrs 1‐2; PhD p‐t yrs 1‐6; M Litt/MSc pt yrs 1‐3)
Faculty FTE = Prof, AssocProf, SL, Lect for 2013/14; part‐time, demonstrators excluded as for Junior: Senior Faculty Ratio
Note 6: Research Productive Faculty
Report run from RSS on 20/3/2015
Note 7: Research Expenditure per Faculty
research expenditure (scaled) for 2013/14 as reported in the Green Book
For the purposes of reporting (both funding statements and GAAP accounts) research expenditure is counted as income so as to avoid distortions in a year a grant may be received.
Individual PI research grants hosted in Institutes are recorded in the host School of the PI. Institute‐specific activity, i.e. SFI CSET awards or other awards specifically granted to the Institute (truly cross‐discipline awards) have been allocated to the Schools based on correspondence with the Institute Director/Institute Financial Manager, and agreed with Heads of School
Academic staff in 2013/14, excluding part‐time, demonstrators, as for Junior: Senior Faculty Ratio and PGR per Faculty
113
Operating Budget in the School of Chemistry As the income is only notional the Dean negotiates a working budget for the Faculty at College level and then agrees a working budget with the Schools based on the resources made available from the College. This operating budget (together with a small allocation of research overheads) must cover all of the non‐pay expenses of the School across all functions (teaching, research and administration), including casual pay (e.g. demonstrators). These budgets have been reduced considerably over the last five years as they are the simplest to control (reduced staff costs require people to resign or retire, or Government‐imposed pay cuts). Comparable data are only available for the last four years (due to changes in the financial distribution mechanism) and these show continued declines with a particularly drastic decrease for 2014/15 and 2015/16 (Table 7.1.5d).
Table 7.1.5d: Operating budget (non‐pay and casual pay) allocation to the School of Chemistry 2012/13‐2014/15. Year Chemistry Operating Non‐EU incentivisation Total Budget 2012/13 832,000 832,000 2013/14 764,000 764,000 2014/15 445,000 46,576 491,576
2015/16 145,000 75,914 220,91413
An estimate of the School’s actual expenditure for 2014/15 is shown in Table 7.1.5e. The comparison of this and the income to the School in 2015/16 (€220,914 excluding the recent non‐EU incentivisation budget for 2015/16 allocated to the School in September 2015) helps to quantify the deficiency in the annual budget and its inability to cover even the basic operations of the undergraduate teaching labs.
13 On 30-09-15 the School was given its projected 2015/16 non-EU incentivisation budget. It is approximately 121k€. This amount is predicated on the School reaching its non-EU targets for 2015/16 and therefore the Faculty has agreed that a conservative 80% of this budget can be spent in 2015/16.
114
Table 7.1.5e: Annual costs associated with the running of the school: these figures are based on accrued data from Sept 2014 to Oct 2015 and exclude any new equipment purchases > €10 k. Activity Expenditure Cost(€) Cocker Lab :Equipment maintenance/low level replacement Teaching 123,400 and consumables Physical Chem Lab (SNIAMS):Equipment maintenance/low 12,000 level replacement and consumables N‐PCAM :Equipment maintenance/low level replacement and 12,000 consumables PG Demonstrating 100,000 Final year research project consumables 28,700 Teaching Total 276,100
PG students Fee payments for PG studentships14 80,470
Stipend payments15 247,187
Research Mass Spectrometry 26,100 NMR (including inert gases) 40,000 Optical spectroscopy / TGA / DSC 24,400 X‐ray diffraction 30,000 Service contract renewals (e.g. N2 generators) 7,000 Research TOTAL 147,600
TOTAL 751,357
14 Note that there are no overheads returned directly to Chemistry PIs and therefore making good the shortfall in fees on some awards is a mechanism for indirectly returning the OH to those who have generated it. 15 The Faculty allocates Postgraduate Trinity Awards to the School – these are 3-year partially funded PG awards, which the School tops up to fully funded 4-year awards. The School also has a commitment to fund a 4-year School studentship for each new academic staff member.
115
7.2 Staffing During the current financial crisis the 3rd‐level sector in Ireland has been under rigorous control by Central Government. In 2008 a moratorium on the head count was imposed via the Employment Control Framework (ECF), which sought to dictate staffing levels in Universities, to freeze all promotions within the sector for a defined period, to halt salary increments and allowances and to impose a universal social charge on all government (including university) employees. The enforcement of the ECF is a requirement of the College. The only College‐wide staffing numbers that were available for this review were the total number of academic and administrative staff in TCD (Table 7.2). This shows that there is a significant proportion of non‐academic staff within the College and that this has increased over the period although the absolute numbers of both categories of staff have fallen.
Table 7.2: Historical changes in the number of academic and non‐academic staff in TCD. Academic/non‐ Academic Non‐Academic TOTAL academic staff ratios
Dec‐08 757.92 1133.79 1891.71 1:1.49
Mar‐10 698.89 1083.8 1782.69 1:1.55
Mar‐11 675.54 1050.04 1725.58 1:1.55
Mar‐12 685.79 1067.9 1753.69 1:1.56
Mar‐13 660.6 1051.47 1712.07 1:1.59
Mar‐14 651.67 1020.28 1671.95 1:1.57
The staffing constraints that the College is working under include both headcount and the numbers of staff within grades. This has implications for the recruitment and replacement of staff, the nature of their appointment (contract or COID) and prospects for promotion between grades.
7.2.1 Outline the School’s current staffing levels The staff pay costs in the School are shown in Table 7.1.5a (2014/15: €3,370,034.00) and the 5‐year approved projected pay costs are essentially static. Additional academic staff entering the School are all paid for from sources outside of the Faulty‐approved pay budget, i.e. self‐financing. In its 2007‐14 strategic plan the School made a clear statement as to its intention to expand its academic staff complement to 25 as it held the view that several disciplines were subcritical. In the intervening years from 2007 to 2011 the School made significant progress towards achieving this goal. At its height (Table 7.2.1a), the OMB discipline comprised 9 staff members, the ISM discipline expanded its numbers from 3 to 5 and the PSM discipline increased its numbers to 10 staff (several recruited as the CRANN Institute was established). The College supported these appointments within the context of the CRANN and TBSI institutes, but the School also contributed postgraduate studentships and invested considerable School resources to the renovation of existing space in the main Chemistry building, including the installation of fumehoods, modern benching and gas lines.
116
In 2010 there was a College‐wide launch of Ussher lectureships (40 across College), funded outside the core budget for the first 5 years and the School made two successful bids for junior academic staff in ‘Biological Chemistry’ and ‘Device Fabrication’. These posts were intended to be ‘new blood’ posts, enabling Schools to strategically advance new research directions. The School failed to recruit to the first of these posts on two separate occasions. In 2014/15, under considerable pressure from College to withdraw support for this post in the School, a philanthropic donor stepped in to provide the funding to create the Schuler Assistant Professorship in Translational Organic Chemistry. After negotiation at the highest levels in College the School was assured that this position would be additive to the staffing complement and funded through the HEA core‐pay budget and not mainstreamed against a future retirement when the philanthropic support ceased after 5 years. An appointment has been made to this post, starting Jan 2016. The post in Device Fabrication was originally justified in the Ussher application in 2009 against three former and projected retirees in the PSM discipline and the loss of two academic staff in the ISM discipline. After 4 years, when the process of mainstreaming the post was undertaken, the School was required to off‐set the appointment against a future retiree. This will be the Chief Technical Officer (speciality glass‐blowing workshop) in September 2016.
Table 7.2.1a: Historical changes in the Chemistry School’s staff numbers NOW Projected 06/07 07/08 08/09* 09/10* 10/11* 11/12* 12/13* 14/15 16/17 Academic Staff 18 20 23 23 24 24 22 19.5 22.5 Administrative 4.5 4.5 5 4.8 6** Staff Technical Staff 15.5 15.5 16.5 16.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.5** 14.5**
Academic staff estimated using data from the Senior Lecturer’s reports 2006/07‐2012/13 and including staff that were self‐financed. *These years include for academic staff: ERC teaching buyout staff and self‐financing research professorships. The 2016/17 figure does not include the Director of Amber (contract start date 1_10_15 who will hold a personal chair in the School but will not have any assigned teaching). **For administrative staff this Includes 50% shared RPO and GO, for technical staff this includes TO paid for out of School overheads and a term‐time laboratory attendant.
Given the significant numbers of administrative/support staff in other areas of College a particular emphasis has been to reduce the headcount in this category of staff (see Table 7.2). In the School of Chemistry the academic: non‐academic staff ratio is 1:1.1, which is already low given the number of academic staff and the number of students. The push to reduce non‐academic staff has compounded considerable and ongoing losses to the technical support staff in the School (Table 7.2.1b) over the period 2008 to 2015. This is at a time of considerable increases in the UG and PG numbers and a ramping‐up of high‐end research activity. In an attempt to address or at least stop gap the decline and the future expertise deficit, the School made a bid to recruit a technical officer (funded via non‐ exchequer and historic unspent balances) in 2015 on a 2‐year contract.
117
In the short term, there are significant other retirements which without replacement will seriously impact on the ability of Chemistry to carry out its day‐to‐day activities. However, in the current financial climate it is uncertain as to whether replacements will be funded. The lack of clarity also makes it impossible to make any strategic plans for managing the replacement of staff.
Table 7.2.1b: Breakdown of technical staff losses 2010–2015, staff retirements 2016‐2020, replacements and funding.
Source Current Staff Source of Staff loss of in the funding Funding position Replaced Core (self‐ 2008 TO Core 2009 funded 09‐11) 2008 Stores attendant Core Replaced Core Self‐ TO (mass 2010 financing Not replaced spectrometry) (PRTLI) TO Core Not replaced 0.5 core 0.5 2013 Experimental Officer Core Replaced self‐financed (Overheads) CTO2 Core Replaced Core 2‐year contract 2016 CTO (specialist) Core TO* self‐financed 2017 Senior Lab attendant Core TBD Experimental Officer Core 2020 Lab attendant Core TBD
Senior technical stores Core
There has also been significant disruption in the administrative staff. Administrative support for the day‐to‐day activities are through the School office which has seen two Senior Executive officers leave in quick succession – with the School currently having to self‐finance a temporary executive officer position to cover some of the work (Table 7.1.2c). In addition, at the end of 2016 the one full‐time executive officer will retire leaving the School with one School Administrator and a 0.5 FTE executive officer.
118
Table 7.2.1c: Historical breakdown of Administrative Staff FTEs 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Funding
School 0.13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 CORE Administrator
Coordinator 1.0 0.92 0.25 0.08 1.0 1.0 1.0 CORE Freshman teaching
Global Officer 0.42 0.5 0.5 College/Self Financing
Research 0.13 0.5 0.17 0.5 College/Self Programme Officer Financing
RSC Education 0.06 0.2 Self Coordinator Financing (RSC)
Senior Executive 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.42B ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ CORE Officer
Senior Executive ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.17B 0.33B ‐‐‐‐ CORE Officer
Executive Officer 0.5 0.71 1.0 1.0 0.84 0.8 0.5 CORE
Executive Officer 0.6 0.77 1.0 1.0 0.71 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ CORE
Executive Officer 1.00 0.58 ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 0.42 1.00 0.75 CORE
Temp Executive Sept Self Officer to help cover 2015 Financing for lack of Senior Executive Officer
In the period 2010 to 2015 not all of the staff who retired or resigned were replaced. This has had a detrimental effect. By 2013 the numbers of academic staff were back at the 2007 levels, several junior or contract staff could not be kept on, and in tandem the College determined that technical posts that became available through retirement were to be replaced at the level of 3 retirements to 1 replacement. The School is now fighting hard to regain its academic and technical support areas to above 2010 levels. Significant problems have resulted in the School of Chemistry (where the timescale of retirements has fallen in the last five years) not just with maintaining sufficient staff for critical mass but also in maintaining the breadth of the Undergraduate curriculum and quality of the research output. The record of the School is a tribute to the depth and commitment of its current, former and retired staff.
119
Student: staff ratios Official student: staff ratios have been increasing over the last few years and are provided in the Senior Lecturer’s report (Dean of Undergraduate Studies) annual reports (Table 7.2.1d). These are calculated using staff FTEs which include student demonstrators as this is how the Higher Education Authority requires the information. The student demonstrator cohort is estimated from the annual cost of demonstrator payments measured against a benchmark nominal figure generated from the School of Anatomy. The cost of PG demonstrating was €120k in 2014 and €100k in 2015. The reduction between the two years was achieved by negotiating a reduced demonstrating rate with the cooperation of our PG cohort. In other schools (e.g. Physics) where the dependency on the PG community to teach is considerably less they have cut the hourly fee or reduced this to zero and made it a compulsory activity. PG students in Chemistry whose stipends and fees are paid through a College award (School PG studentship or Trinity Award) are required to deliver 66 hours of demonstrating without payment as a condition of their award per semester. Further cuts in the demonstrator payment are strongly resisted in the School and offer the considerable risk of a reduction in the quality and safety of UG laboratory supervision and assessment.
Table 7.2.1d: Student: staff ratios from 2006/07 to 2013/14 2006/2006 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Chemistry 19 16 15 16 16 16 18 20
FEMS 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 Average
These student: staff ratios are already high compared with comparative institutions such as University College London at 10.2, Imperial College London at 11.7 and Edinburgh at 13.8 (data from the 2015 complete university guide). There are a number of student: staff ratio calculations used across College that are weighted while others include student demonstrators in the staff calculations (e.g. Table 7.1.5b compared to 7.2.1d) but, whichever set of data are used, the School of Chemistry currently operates with one of the highest student: staff ratios of any school in FEMS. This fact has not translated into the School being treated more favourably in 2015 in terms of the latest round of Ussher Assistant Professor awards (1 to the School in 2015 in ‘Chemical Energy Systems’), to requests to fill its vacant SEO administrator position or its attempts to generate a new experimental officer post. Note the School’s application for a lectureship in Chemical Education to add new capacity in the School to explore teaching innovations and efficiencies was also unsuccessful (see A7.2.1).
7.2.2 Projected staff numbers as per the School’s 3‐year staffing plan. For an overview of the projected 2016/17 numbers in each category of staff please see the last column of Table 7.2.1b above.
120
One staff member, an Assistant Professor in Inorganic Chemistry, who was on contract, has been approved to be mainstreamed. Two other contract posts, the Global Officer and Research Programme Officer end in 2016 and decisions on retaining these posts will need to be made. Given the restrictions imposed within College in all aspects of replacement, recruitment and retention, the Schools’ 3‐year staffing plans within FEMS could not be considered as strategic. In the case of Chemistry the plan is instead a set of drop‐dead appointments that need to be filled, otherwise aspects of the School’s core mission will cease to function. The actual case made by the School to justify the appointments in this 3‐year staffing plan can be found in the appendices (A7.2.2). Table 7.2.2 gives a summary of the requests made and future requests outside of the 3‐year window. Posts that have now been approved by the Strategic Staffing Planning Group and/or Faculty Executive often took multiple and persistent applications and are in the early stages of recruitment.
Table 7.2.2: Summary of staffing requests made and those to be made under the staffing plan Post Type Proposed funding Status
2015 Senior Executive Officer Replacement Core Approved
2015 Technical Officer New Self‐Financing Approved
2015 Assistant Professor in Replacement Self‐Financing Starts Jan 2016 Translation organic (donation) Chemistry 2015 Assistant Professor in New Core Interviews shortly Inorganic Energy Materials 2015 Assistant Professor in New Ussher self‐ Approved: To be Chemical Energy Systems financing for 5 advertised years
2015 Experimental Officer New Self‐Financing Awaiting decision
2016 Executive Officer Replacement Core
2017 Assistant Professor in Replacement Core Physical Chemistry 2018 Laboratory Attendant Replacement Core
121
7.3 Infrastructure 7.3.1 A brief Overview of Research Space in the School Fit‐for‐Purpose and Quality The Main Chemistry Building, erected in 1887, is still the signature building of the School of Chemistry on campus today but the School has a presence in 8 sites on and off the College campus. A space audit of the School was taken in the summer of 2015. The results of this are contained in the appendices (Appendix A7.3.1).
The experiences of research groups across the School are very much dependent on their location.
Attempts to provide ‘expansion’ space in the TBSI from its conception mean that most but not all Organic and Medicinal Chemistry PIs, feel that their research groups are well‐catered for in modern, state‐of‐art laboratories. There is some disparity in the occupancy levels of the labs, which is a cause of tension. One inorganic staff member (with bio‐inorganic interests) also has his research activity housed in this building. Some of the research laboratories are shared. The Chemistry space in TBSI is fragmented between floors (7th, 6th and ‐2 levels). This means that one 4‐person laboratory is very isolated. Space in all areas is at a premium.
The multi‐disciplinary SNIAM building comprises staff, teaching rooms and equipment for the Schools of Physics, Electronic Engineering and Chemistry. It houses the research activity of 3 of the 5 ISM staff. Built in 2000 the laboratories of these staff members are in reasonable order (despite some lingering issues) but the shared instrument rooms are too small and are over‐crowded. One of the laboratories has no associated write‐up room. There is a working group providing detailed plans for the conversion of a portion of the 3rd floor of this building to a Physical Chemistry laboratory for 1 PI plus a shared Raman instrument room. This additional space is vital to accommodating the new 2015 Ussher appointment in Chemical Energy Systems. It could also be essential to the relocation of staff from the Main Chemistry Building extension (which is currently planned for demolition) but clarity on the College plans is urgently required by the School.
Research in the Physical Chemistry discipline is the most dispersed (Lloyd, Main Chemistry Building, CRANN). The space and facilities vary significantly. The upkeep of significant sections of the Main Chemistry building has been woefully neglected, e.g. leaking and partially collapsed roofs and ceilings in offices and labs that are simply unacceptable in an internationally competitive research environment. The space vacated by the OMB discipline on their move to the TBSI has been critical to enabling industry‐funded projects and research expansion of a number of groups in Physical Chemistry, however, it is expansion into old, problematic and in some cases poorly serviced space.
7.3.2 A brief Overview of Teaching Space in the School Most of the large Chemistry classes are given in the Goldsmith Hall (off‐campus), which holds approximately 500 students. Although some improvements have been carried out to the IT system, this is a poor teaching venue (essentially on one level with a balcony). The main Chemistry building houses the large lecture theatre, the Science lecture theatre and several small group teaching/ seminar rooms. The School has some element of first call on these rooms for teaching. The rooms are old and cold but have some advantages e.g. banked seating in the Large Lecture Theatre makes it a good site for demonstration lectures. The Chemistry undergraduate teaching laboratories (the Cocker Lab for synthetic chemistry and the SNIAM Physical Chemistry lab) are of a good standard but are run at or over capacity (see Section 4). Given the increase in freshman numbers in 2015/16 the School was forced to radically rethink and to
122
reschedule all aspects of its laboratory teaching. In order to maximise the use of the space, streamline the turnover between laboratory sessions, and accommodate larger cohorts, the School reluctantly accepted that it would have to reduce the experimental contact hours of the students e.g. first year Chemists in TR071 will from 2015 onwards, undertake one 3 hour laboratory session every alternate week rather than every week (see Section 4). Similar cuts were imposed in our service teaching of experimental chemistry but this is also a significant area of UG FTSE notional income to the School. Further cuts will affect the School’s income: expenditure ratio, its notional and non‐EU income. It will also fly in the face of the more integrated exposure of students to cross‐ discipline teaching as propounded by the College Strategic Plan 2014 ‐2019 and the Trinity Education Project. While the equipment in most of the teaching laboratories is of a good standard this is primarily due to investment in the mid 2000s and again in the last 2 years. Investment has been patchy but several new items that would improve the student experience and student throughput were purchased this year (e.g. Bruker mid‐range/extended FTIR with UATR accessory, Inert Micro PureSolve SPS system, upgrades to the Nitrogen supply to fume hoods). These purchases have meant that older equipment that was exhaustive in terms of maintenance could be replaced and that staff have been able to cope more efficiently with increasing student numbers. The School makes annual bids through FEMS for ‘minor works’ project funding. In 2015 its bid was ranked 4th. The proposal (€15k) is to reconfigure the TO office area in the Cocker laboratory in order to free up a section in which additional fumehoods could be installed. This will allow for an increase in the student capacity of the lab. No funds have yet been awarded. With limited resources (i.e. once the School’s historic positive balance is spent) it is unlikely that future investment will be possible for a considerable period. The School will overspend its operating budget again this academic year.
Final‐year projects Final year projects are undertaken in research labs. They are a resource‐intensive part of the Chemistry moderatorship programmes. Every student works with a research group on a substantial and practical research project (12 weeks) either in Ireland or abroad (see Section 4). As the number of students increases along with the student: staff ratios, certain staff members are under pressure to supervise 3+ students with a threat to the quality of the student experience. The consumable costs are born by the research group and off‐set against a research allowance to the PI of €635 per annum and an allowance per student of €500. The total cost to the School of these accumulated costs was €28,700. The research funding available is often themed and has gravitated over time to a small number of PIs in the School, with many academic staff simply not having the resources to accommodate final‐year projects, resulting in an inequity in the provision for the final‐year students and their projects. While it is recognised that the final‐year projects are an important part of the course and one that both students and staff have identified as vital, it is hard in the current financial climate to understand how the School will resource these to maintain them in their current form.
7.3.3 Equipment The research equipment in the School (over a fixed amount) is recorded on the asset register. The School’s equipment is listed in the appendix with its installation date (see A6.1). This list identifies all the instrumentation that is maintained and serviced by the School’s technical support team. This does not include the 800MHz Bruker ‘protein’ NMR spectrometer in the TBSI. (Only high‐end
123
technical support is provided as this spectrometer belongs to the TBSI, not Chemistry). It excludes equipment that CRANN PIs in the School can access through a pay‐by‐use mechanism in the AMBER Centre or CRANN institute. The School has well‐equipped research laboratories, by Irish standards though not compared to other top 100 QS ranked Chemistry departments. The headline items are quite old, with the 400 DPX, 400 AV and 600 MHz NMR spectrometers being 19, 8 and 9 years old, respectively. Their long lifetimes are testament to the skill and dedication of our experimental/technical officer team. Both are workhorse instruments for the teaching and research samples generated in the School. Given that NMR spectroscopy is a vital characterisation tool and essential to the research outputs demanded of a number of SFI‐funded synthetic teams (particularly in organic and inorganic chemistry). The School has recently invested unspent balances to overhaul, service and upgrade the 400 DPX (e.g. to replace the entire electronics, probes etc. and add extra capability by incorporating a solid state probe). The costs of replacing these instruments new would be >2M€ (1M€ for the 600MHz and 0.5M€ each for the 400MHz replacements). These are funds that the School simply does not have. The 400 MHz Agilent NMR spectrometer in the TBSI has had serious operational problems since its installation in 2012. Although currently operational, many items have been replaced (e.g. 3 x probe, 3 x probe tuning unit, 4 x upper barrel). Longer term, given the liquidation of the supplier it is unlikely that parts or servicing will be available. The Chemistry TBSI‐centred researchers have made a bid for support in College for the 2015 SFI equipment call for an additional NMR spectrometer to replace it. Similar funding was used in 2014 to purchase a fluoromax spectrofluorimeter. The School owns three mass spectrometers Waters LCT, GCT and a MALDI‐Q‐ToF‐Premier (16, 6 and 6 years old, respectively). A fourth instrument housed in the TBSI is also supported. To off‐set further problems the School has spent considerable sums on fitting out rooms in the TBSI so that they are fit‐for‐purpose and can accommodate additional equipment, e.g. retrofitting of air‐ conditioning to cope with the power/heat output of equipment. Since 2009 the Mass Spectrometry Unit (MSU) has had a turnover of approx. 27,500 samples and is a vital service for synthetic chemists in the School. As with the NMRs the cost of maintaining and replacing ageing equipment is an area of concern. The LCT was revived in 2014 after water damage from a malfunctioning air‐conditioning unit. This instrument is now considered obsolete and sourcing parts for it have become increasingly difficult. The GCT was upgraded in 2014 with an autosampler/headspace analyser, at a cost of €23,000. Normally mass spectrometers would be supported by preventative maintenance contracts, however, due to budget constraints this is not possible every year. Rolling repairs of the equipment is carried out by technical staff, with support from the manufacturer as a last resort. The increase in PG numbers, project students and number of instruments has added considerably to the workload of the MSU since the last review. This is further exacerbated by the loss of a FTE member of staff in 2010 (Table 7.2.1b). The School has three single crystal X‐ray diffractometers. These are SMART Apex (> 15 years old), Rigaku Saturn (8 years old) and a Bruker DUO (4 years old). Both elderly instruments have serious issues. The one reliable instrument, Bruker DUO, has become the workhorse for the School and TBSI and is operated 24/7. The appointment of the Chair of Inorganic Chemistry came with a financial commitment from the School to invest in more X‐ray solid‐state characterisation tools. The School is in the process of buying/replacing these instruments (purchasing one single crystal X‐ray and one powder X‐ray diffractometer) at a cost of 320k€. This is a one‐off investment to strategically future‐ proof its equipment. It supports the activity of the Physical and Inorganic research communities (including 7 SFI‐funded PIs, and one ERC‐funded project).
124
7.3.4 TBSI Capital Overrun When the TBSI was nearing completion the College became aware that the project was going to be over‐budget by approximately 5M€. The Schools that would have a presence in the building were asked to contribute according to the proportion of space that they had assigned from the plans. The School of Chemistry’s eventual contribution to this capital over‐run was set at €975,000. Through philanthropic donation the School gave €250,000 towards this over‐run. The ‘debt’ outstanding is now €725,000. There has been some communication with the School over this item and a detailed response can be found in the appendices (A7.3.4) to the suggestion of the Chief Finance Officer that €72,500 per annum (starting in 2013/14 and continuing for the next 10 years) would be extracted from the School. This is an additional concern for the School, particularly in relation to its dwindling income streams.
7.3.5 Conclusion The College Board, on the recommendation of Planning Group, mandated that the University work within a balanced operating budget (2012 onwards). This puts continued pressure on the recurrent budgets in all areas. The College Community is striving to comply with this mandate and the consolidated College financial statement for Sept 2014 reports a deficit of 2M€. Further savings are necessary across the College (e.g. the realisation of pay savings, the activation of the 21st Century Lean Administration Project) in order to achieve a balanced budget. At the same time the College needs to stimulate growth in income‐generating and reputation‐enhancing activities. The financial mechanism for distributing resources to the School has changed 3 times in the last 7 years and is now within an ABC process. Through this process the College is attempting to incentivise Schools to invest in new activity that will generate alternative income streams to support core and strategic functions. There is recognition and reservation in some quarters of College that within future annual budgetary cycles (e.g. 2015/16), the allocation of resources is being made on the basis of projected income rather than need. Schools are now actors in their own destinies but at a time when national funding is at its lowest and when the global competition for non‐EU students is heightened. Given the expenses associated with a laboratory‐intensive discipline such as Chemistry the opportunities to create income‐generating taught courses are more limited. Nevertheless the School has reflected on these challenges in its strategic plan. Clearly the operational budget to the School through RGAM is too small to support its UG, PG and research missions as they stand. Rationalising and radically rethinking our undergraduate laboratory courses was a first step to facing up to the reality of the situation. If additional high‐value students emerge from the School’s globalisation initiatives the School now has some capacity to accommodate them within its existing teaching laboratories. The College’s strategic staffing policies have had the effect of systematically removing staff from the core pay role and into the self‐financing arena. The salaries of these staff are to a large extent dependent on the School succeeding in bringing in sufficient resources to honour such commitments. What happens next in the School has to be a transformation that somehow moves it toward a sustainable funding model without compromising its strengths and its future goals.
125
Section 8. Administration 8.0 Provide an assessment of the administrative structures in place in the School to support the following activities. Include information on the duties and roles of administrative staff The School of Chemistry currently has 5 administrative staff. Of these, the Research Programme Officer (0.5 SFTE) and the Global Officer (0.5 SFTE) are shared between the Schools of Chemistry and Physics. Another is employed as the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Education Coordinator (0.2 FTE to the School) and while affiliated with the School is not involved in general administration for the School. The Research Programme Officer updates academics/research fellows on upcoming funding calls and helps in the writing of grant applications. The Global Officer is tasked with increasing the numbers of non‐EU students entering undergraduate and postgraduate chemistry programmes, either for a semester, a year or a full four‐year programme. The Global Officer deals with any queries from potential students and is the contact point for non‐EU students on their arrival in Ireland, especially if part of a large programme such as Science without Borders. The Global Officer also provides information on the School’s activities to potential international collaborators and is responsible for raising the profile of the School through marketing and the School’s twitter account. The Global Officer also liaises between the School and the Global Relations office and is the contact point for all alumni queries. The School’s Freshman Coordinator has a combined academic/administration role. She is the first point of contact for first‐ and second‐year students with the School, especially in relation to labs, tutorials etc. From an administrative perspective, the Freshman Coordinator is responsible for the allocation of demonstrators to labs, structure and content of labs, assisting with the exam process, organisation of the Preliminary Course for incoming undergraduate students who lack a background in chemistry, organisation of outreach activities such as the Summer School, Transition Year (TY) programme and RSC SIAS (spectroscopy in a suitcase) programme (see Appendix A9.4 for further detail). The remaining administrative staff comprise one School Administrative Manager, two permanent Executive Officers (1.8 FTEs) and 1 Temporary Executive Officer. The position of Senior Executive Officer, with a role of day‐to‐day management of the office and responsibility for processing of examination data, has been unfilled since July 2014, with the exception of the period between November 2014 and April 2015. The School Administrative Manager is responsible for administration in the School. This involves the management of the School Office, financial planning and management support, managing the coordination of recruitment matters and liaising with HR, acting as secretary to School committees, such as the Executive Committee, School Committee and Teaching and Learning Committee, and working closely with the Head of School, Directors in the School and Heads of Discipline. The role also involves academic administration, ensuring an effective service for the management of the School's administration in accordance with College regulations relating to student records, lecture and examinations timetables, postgraduate admissions, student cases, student progression, grants, benefactions, appointment of external examiners, transfer to the PhD register, etc. This involves liaison with staff in HR, finance, Academic Registry and other areas of College.
8.1 Academic cycle/calendar of School administration The academic year comprises two teaching semesters, each of 12‐weeks’ duration with one of those weeks being a study week that typically would have no formal lectures/labs, although 4th‐year students would continue to work on their project in the first semester. In 2015/16, the semesters run from 28 September until 18 December 2015 and 18 January until 8 April 2016. The end of the
126
second semester is followed by a three‐week revision period for students. During this time most lecturers will arrange revision tutorials for their student cohorts and all such tutorials are entered in a Google calendar on the School website (http://chemistry.tcd.ie/undergraduate/) so that students have up‐to‐date information on what is being offered. Details of annual administrative tasks are given in the 2014/15 Calendar below, which is used as an example of the timeline. In the period between annual exams finishing (end of June) and students returning for the new academic year (end of September), timetables, handbooks and lab manuals are updated for the following year. The exam process is repeated for the supplemental exam session (typically a two‐ week period from the end of August). Supplemental exams are typically only available for first‐ and second‐year students although, occasionally, a third‐year student who has missed an exam during the annual session through illness may be allowed to sit a special supplemental. Also during the summer period, new postgraduate students who have been offered places with academics within the School will be given details on how to register through SITS. For each postgraduate student, both new and continuing, postgraduate proposal/extension forms and fee‐ payment forms have to be processed. This involves checking payment details on forms, sign‐off by the Head of School and forwarding of forms to relevant offices within College (HR and Academic Registry). The summer period is also the time when timetables are drafted for the following academic year, taking account of leaves of absences, changes to lecturers on modules, new offerings, etc. It is also the time when administrative staff get an opportunity to take their annual leave.
127
Table 8.1: Administration calendar 2014/15
Cal. Dates 2014/15 Outline Structure of Academic Year 2014/15 Notes Wk Mon Fri 1 25‐Aug‐14 29‐Aug‐14 Michaelmas Term begins Start date for Supplemental Examinations 2 01‐Sep‐14 05‐Sep‐14 new postgrads ‐ 1 Sep 3 08‐Sep‐14 12‐Sep‐14 PG Registration Start date for SS projects ‐ 8 Sep Preliminary Chemistry Course (15‐19 September) ‐ for incoming students 4 15‐Sep‐14 19‐Sep‐14 UG New Entrant Registration/Freshers' Week without chemistry background; Higher Options Fair 5 22‐Sep‐14 26‐Sep‐14 MT Week 1 Lecture term begins 6 29‐Sep‐14 03‐Oct‐14 MT Week 2 Deadline for submitting PhD theses (30 Sep) 7 06‐Oct‐14 10‐Oct‐14 MT Week 3 Special Examinations 8 13‐Oct‐14 17‐Oct‐14 MT Week 4 9 20‐Oct‐14 24‐Oct‐14 MT Week 5 Schol question deadline ‐ 20 Oct 10 27‐Oct‐14 31‐Oct‐14 MT Week 6 ‐ October Holiday, Monday 27 October 11 03‐Nov‐14 07‐Nov‐14 MT Week 7 ‐ Study Week Schol examiners' meeting ‐ 5 Nov; 12 10‐Nov‐14 14‐Nov‐14 MT Week 8 End date for SS projects ‐ 14 Nov 13 17‐Nov‐14 21‐Nov‐14 MT Week 9 Deadline for submission of SS 14 24‐Nov‐14 28‐Nov‐14 MT Week 10 ‐ Open Day, Saturday 29 November dissertations ‐ 28 Nov 15 01‐Dec‐14 05‐Dec‐14 MT Week 11 Michaelmas term ends; SS dissertation 16 08‐Dec‐14 12‐Dec‐14 MT Week 12 presentations and vivas 8‐12 Dec 17 15‐Dec‐14 19‐Dec‐14 Christmas Period 18 22‐Dec‐14 26‐Dec‐14 (College closed from 24 December 2014 and 19 29‐Dec‐14 02‐Jan‐15 re‐opens 2 January 2015) Fnd Scholarship exams start latest 20 05‐Jan‐15 09‐Jan‐15 Monday 5 January Deadline for SS questions & answers ‐ 14 Jan 21 12‐Jan‐15 16‐Jan‐15 HT Week 1 22 19‐Jan‐15 23‐Jan‐15 HT Week 2 23 26‐Jan‐15 30‐Jan‐15 HT Week 3 Deadline for JS questions and answers ‐ 26 Jan; JS & SS discipline examiners' meetings ‐ 27 Jan; Confirmation vivas for PG who started JS School/ examiners' meeting ‐ 3 Feb; SS 24 02‐Feb‐15 06‐Feb‐15 HT Week 4 School examiners' meeting ‐ 4 Feb 25 09‐Feb‐15 13‐Feb‐15 HT Week 5 26 16‐Feb‐15 20‐Feb‐15 HT Week 6 Registration: new PG; deadline for submission of SF questions ‐ 23 Feb; TY 27 23‐Feb‐15 27‐Feb‐15 HT Week 7 ‐ Study Week Programme (23‐27 February) Deadline for submission of JF questions ‐ 2 Mar; SF Discipline examiners' meeting ‐ 3 Mar 28 02‐Mar‐15 06‐Mar‐15 HT Week 8 JF discipline examiners' meeting ‐ 10 Mar; SF School examiners' meeting ‐ 11 Mar; Return of 29 09‐Mar‐15 13‐Mar‐15 HT Week 9 FTSE data 30 16‐Mar‐15 20‐Mar‐15 HT Week 10 ‐ St Patrick's Holiday, Tues 17 March JF School examiners' meeting ‐ 20 Mar 31 23‐Mar‐15 27‐Mar‐15 HT Week 11 32 30‐Mar‐15 03‐Apr‐15 HT Week 12 ‐ Good Friday 3 April Hilary Term ends. 33 06‐Apr‐15 10‐Apr‐15 Revision ‐ Easter Monday, 6 April Trinity Term begins 34 13‐Apr‐15 17‐Apr‐15 Revision ‐ Trinity Week 20‐Apr‐15 24‐Apr‐15 Revision Annual Examination period: 4 weeks, followed by 5 weeks for marking, examiners' meetings, publication of results, Courts of First Appeal and 36 27‐Apr‐15 01‐May‐15 Annual Examinations 1 Academic Appeals.
37 04‐May‐15 08‐May‐15 Annual Examinations 2 ‐ May Day, Monday 4 May 38 11‐May‐15 15‐May‐15 Annual Examinations 3
39 18‐May‐15 22‐May‐15 Annual Examinations 4 Return of SS marks ‐ 11 May Deadline for return of JS marks ‐ 20 May
Internal SS examiners' meeting ‐ 19 May; JS annual examiners' meeting ‐ 26 May; JF 40 25‐May‐15 29‐May‐15 Marking/Exam Meetings/Results & SF annual examiners' meeting ‐ 29 May 41 01‐Jun‐15 05‐Jun‐15 Mark/Exam Mtgs/Res ‐ June Holiday, Monday 1 June External SS examiners' meeting ‐ 4/5 June
42 08‐Jun‐15 12‐Jun‐15 Marking/Exam Meetings/Results 43 15‐Jun‐15 19‐Jun‐15 Marking/Exam Meetings/Results 44 22‐Jun‐15 26‐Jun‐15 Courts of First Appeal/Academic Appeals Trinity Term ends
128
8.2 Management of recruitment activities and events ‐ open days, school visitations Higher Options Fair, RDS: Members of the School take part in a three‐day recruitment fair for undergraduate students of all disciplines that is held annually in the Royal Dublin Society (RDS). At this fair, prospective students are given details of the programmes on offer and can talk to staff in attendance. UG and PG Open Days: TCD holds annual information days that are attended by secondary‐school students and prospective postgraduate students, respectively. Each discipline has a stall at both fairs and members of staff/postgraduate students are available to answer any queries from prospective students. Students are provided with information on the programmes on offer in the School of Chemistry and the admission process. During Orientation Week, first‐year students are given talks with more specific details about chemistry. Outreach activities such as the Transition Year (TY) Programme, Summer School, school visits etc. are discussed in Section 9.4.
Staff recruitment The recruitment of new staff involves close liaison between the School and HR. From an administrative perspective, the process involves the completion of submission and nomination forms, ensuring that the composition of the selection committee conforms to College guidelines, booking accommodation for committee members and candidates if required, liaising with HR to determine suitable dates, providing the job spec for advertising and making provisions for presentations if they are to form part of the interview process. Review of the contract prior to it being sent to the successful candidate is also part of the process. For administrative posts, the School Administrative Manager would also sit on the interview panel. For post‐doctoral and postgraduate positions, the process tends to be less onerous with the only administrative involvement being in the processing of relevant forms.
8.3 Provision of module selection advice The four undergraduate courses offered by the School of Chemistry may or may not have optional modules. In first and second year, students take 20 credits of chemistry (no choice) and modules from two other subjects (biology, geology, geography, physics and mathematics) to make up their required 60 ECTS. Some courses, such as N‐PCAM, have no subject choice with students taking chemistry, physics and mathematics, whereas Science and CMM students can choose between biology and physics, for example. The subjects chosen in first year are generally carried through to second year although there may be module choice within each subject. Students decide on the subjects they wish to take before they start their first semester so choices are based on personal preference or advice provided during Orientation Week. In third year, only the JS Chemistry students have any module choice. They can choose to take a 5‐ ECTS module in medicinal chemistry, computational chemistry or in a broad‐curriculum subject taught by another school, e.g. a language or an introduction to philosophy or politics. In fourth year, students list their top three choices of research project and the projects are assigned on a competitive basis, with SF exam marks determining the order in which student choices are considered. In taught modules, only the Chemistry and CMM students have any choice. Chemistry students choose 4 topics from a choice of 15 topics to make up a 5‐ECTS module. CMM students have to take two predefined topics but choose two additional topics to study from the 13 remaining
129
topics on offer. Students are given brief descriptions of these topics in their handbook and select topics based on their areas of interest. Following selection of their option modules, students’ modules are entered into CMIS so that their timetables will be updated accordingly.
8.4 Examinations The Annual Exam session begins after the three‐week revision period and, from an administrative perspective, lasts for eight weeks, although students sit exams within the first four weeks of this period. As modules in the School of Chemistry are typically taught by at least two lecturers and as more than one module is examined on each exam paper for Years 3 and 4, examination scripts have to be split by question and lecturer so that the right questions go to the right examiners for marking. The task of recording the questions each student answers, splitting the scripts and keeping track of their status is carried out by five administrative staff, including Dr. Scully, and takes at least 8 weeks of full‐time work. In 2014/15 when there was no Senior Executive Officer and therefore only four administrative staff, many staff from other areas of the School, including the Global Officer, academics and technical staff, helped with this process. Once all marks are returned for a given module, the marks recorded by the examiner are double‐checked by administrative staff and any discrepancies are queried. The final marks per question are then entered into a spreadsheet, the questions answered are checked against the rubric and the lowest marked questions answered by students beyond the required number are eliminated. Students’ overall marks for the examination are then uploaded into SITS, along with practical or other marks associated with that module. As external‐examiners attend for a two‐day external‐examiners’ meeting to monitor the quality of the moderatorship programme, fourth‐year examinations are prioritised. Following the uploading of all marks into SITS, an internal examiners’ meeting (attended by all examiners) is held at which students on borderline marks are discussed and may be raised to a higher grade. Any amendments to results are then made and results are finalised in SITS. Internal examiners’ meetings are followed by examiners’ meetings at course level (e.g. Science) or by external examiners’ meetings, as is the case for final‐year students. Following examiners’ meetings, results are finalized, students are progressed (a process in SITS), and the results are published. Students have an entitlement to see their examination scripts and, under defined circumstances, can appeal their results. Any amendments resulting from such appeals are made in SITS, so changes can be made for several weeks/months after results are first published.
8.5 Court of First Appeal The Court of First Appeal is organised by the Science Course Office and is overseen by the Associate Dean of Science Education. The DTLUG is a member of the court.
8.6 Systems to support School administration Three main IT systems are used for School administration, namely CMIS, SITS and Fis. CMIS is the timetabling system and is used to schedule all lectures, labs, tutorials and seminars organised by the School. Details of student cohort (module codes), lecturer(s), venue and time are entered and the system flags clashes in any of these, preventing the scheduling of an event until the clash has been resolved. A feature of the system that can be a time‐consuming limitation is that a single student clash is sufficient to prevent any updates to the timetable. For example, if a first‐year student is granted permission to sit a special supplemental exam in one module, that student will be registered for the upcoming year as if he is in both first year (repeating) and second year (progressing). Until
130
that student’s standing is resolved, no changes can be made to either a first‐ or a second‐year module for which the student is registered. A similar issue arises for visiting students who are allowed to take modules across third‐ and fourth‐year chemistry, or indeed across schools within the Faculty and the wider College. Such issues make it very difficult to keep track of changes that have been implemented and ones that are on hold. For first‐and second year, there is a fixed timetable so the timetable rolls over from year to year. The only changes that can be made are to the lecturing staff and to the cohorts of students in labs (to ensure that students’ lab schedules across subjects do not clash). Apart from compulsory modules, first‐year students are offered the option of attending basic chemistry tutorials and these are included in CMIS. For third‐ and fourth year, the timetable is mainly set by the School, except for physics modules in the case of N‐PCAM and biochemistry/pharmacy/microbiology lectures taken as part of chemistry modules by MedChem students. The timetable as entered in CMIS is used to update SITS on a daily basis. SITS was a major College project that first came on‐stream in 2012 and is not yet complete. It is the main repository of information related to students. SITS was developed to be a one‐stop shop for all student data, linking the administrative areas of finance, HR and student records with School‐generated data such as timetables, exam marks etc. The main categories it covers are Exams (assessment, progression, scheduling), Courses and Modules (core details for admissions, courses, modules and their mapping structures), Admissions Management (from a School perspective this deals with postgraduate admissions only as undergraduate admissions are dealt with centrally), Student Financials (students use the system to register and pay fees), Registration Management, Timetables, Student Lists (by course, year or module) and Student Records, including contact details. When fully operational students will be able to view their examination and continuous‐assessment results at the level of module components and be able to generate transcripts automatically. While the former is currently available, the production of transcripts element is not so students request transcripts from the School Office and these have to be generated manually. This is especially onerous for students whose examinations were held pre‐2012, where the results are held electronically in‐house. A major issue with the current version of SITS is that it is very slow, often taking minutes to open a single student record. The third major IT system is the Financial Information System (Fis). Again, this is a relatively new project (started in 2013) and not yet complete. Introduction of this commitment‐accounting system, along with concomitant changes to governance policies, has led to large‐scale changes in the way that goods are ordered and reimbursements are processed. The new systems involve many more administrative steps than previously and the involvement of many more people, with the goal of increasing transparency and financial oversight. From a School perspective, Fis has two main streams, with one for purchasing (iProc) and the other for payments (iExpenses). Users must register for each of these services, by completing forms to be signed by their supervisor/PI and the Head of School. If available, goods must be selected for purchase through an online store and from prescribed preferred suppliers. Financial details for transactions are entered at point of purchase and payment is initiated by the receipt of goods by the purchaser. All iExpenses must be approved by the relevant PI if being claimed from a research grant and by the School administrative manager/Head of School if being claimed by a member of staff. A major advantage of the new system is that income and expenditure can be tracked more easily. Since the introduction of this system, additional accounts have been set up for academics, teaching labs, research services and School studentships under the School’s general ledger account so that income/expenditure in these areas can be isolated from the general spend for easier determination of the costs associated with such items. A number of major issues with Fis still need to be resolved, e.g. the only person in the School with full visibility of general ledger accounts is the School administrative manager, resulting in the additional work of dealing with all queries related to income, expenditure and account balances. The administrative manager is only granted viewing rights to research accounts that are held in the
131
School even though PIs within the School have accounts both in the School and housed in research institutes such as CRANN and the TBSI. This means that even though the School has to sign off on expenditure, it does not have access to data needed and has to contact the Financial Services Division regularly to ensure that the correct grant codes have been entered and that grants contain the funds available to meet financial commitments. A major inconvenience is that the system regularly breaks down, with no financial information being available for periods ranging from hours to days.
8.7 What are the main challenges facing the administration of the School and how are these challenges being addressed The main challenge currently facing the administration of the School is a lack of administrative staff combined with very slow IT systems. Having the post of Senior Executive Officer vacant has placed enormous strain on remaining staff to fulfil both their own duties and those normally ascribed to the Senior Executive Officer. College’s policy of outsourcing tasks that used to be carried out centrally to schools has also added significantly to the workload over the last five years.
132
Section 9: Relationships and external engagement 9.1 Appointment of School staff to senior College positions The School’s staff members actively engage in the College community through their election to the following senior College positions.
Table 9.1.1: Senior College Positions held by School of Chemistry staff members Position Staff Member Time Dean Of Research JB June 2015‐present
Fellows MEGL, SMD, GWW, TG, DMacD, IR, YG, MOS, SC, JB, BB, GD, PC & RE Fellows Secretary DMacD (2009‐2013) Board SMD (2014‐2018) FC (2012‐16) University Council GWW (2010‐16)
College Tutors MEB, PC, RE, MEGL, DMacD & ES Science Course Director (2011‐2014) Chair of Science Course Management GWW (2008‐2010) Committee
Members of the School have also served on several College committees, Faculty committees, and on the Boards of TRIs. A listing of these is provided in Appendix A9.1.1 The School of Chemistry’s academic staff continuously serve as peer reviewers and editors for high‐ calibre international journals and European funding networks. An illustration of the breadth of these positions is given in Appendix A9.1.2. They have also served as members of many chemistry‐related societies and European funding networks (see Table 9.1.2)
133
Table 9.1.2: Illustration of the societies/funding networks on which members of staff play a role. Society or Association Position American Chemical Society Member COST Action 637 (2009‐2010) Irish Representative COST Action CM1205 Management Committee Member COST Action CM1305 Member ECS (Electrochemical Society) Member Institute of Chemistry of Ireland Member/Council Member International Council of ITMO University Member Irish Centre of High‐End Computing (ICHEC) Science Council Member Irish Federation of University Teachers Member IUPAC Member Nanotech Member Royal Society of Chemistry Member RSC Dalton Division Council Member (2012‐15) RSC HCUK Standing Committee Member (2014‐15) RSC Photochemistry Interest Group Committee Member/Honorary Committee Secretary RSC Republic of Ireland Local Section Committee Member/Honorary Committee Secretary Scientific Advisory Board of Advanced Member Material Interfaces Society of Biological Inorganic Chemistry Member Society of Porphyrins and Phthalocyanines National Representative WITS Member World Association of Theoretical Organic Member Chemists
9.2 Contributions to public debate and formulation of public policy Several members of the School of Chemistry staff are active members of trade unions such as SIPTU and IFUT. Part of the trade‐union remit is to debate issues of public policy such as the Haddington Road and Croke Park agreements. These agreements are the outcomes of negotiations between public service representatives on issues such as work‐force restructuring, performance management, working hours and public sector wages. The outcome of these negotiations affects all Irish public servants, therefore, the active presence of these staff members in trade unions affects the morale and working hours of staff and students in the College.
Interaction with Government Funding Agencies The Dean of Research has responsibility for co‐ordinating and overseeing the university’s research, innovation, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship strategies. This puts him in a position of high visibility and impact with both funding bodies and government policy‐makers. As the current Dean of Research is a member of the School of Chemistry, he is well aware of issues that affect the School research portfolio. High‐profile PIs also have direct connections with programme officers and Directors of the funding bodies with whom they engage, such as SFI and EI.
134
9.3 Engagement with the public though seminars and extra‐mural programmes Gender Equality In 2012, the School of Chemistry was awarded both Civic Engagement and Gender Equality Awards. Since then, the School has further demonstrated its commitment to Gender Equality through staff and student participation at the following events
DUGES Gender Equality Women in Science Week
‘Past, Present and Future: the Multiple Role of TCD Women Chemists’, 8 November 2013
“The Glittering Prizes” – a lecture providing insight from a successful applicant on applying for European Research Council (ERC) funding School of Chemistry Postgraduate Outreach Module (see Appendix A9.4) In July 2015, Trinity College secured a bronze institutional Athena Swan award and the School of Chemistry was one of three Schools to secure an Athena Swan bronze award for advancing gender equality. These Athena Swan awards show the School’s commitment to advancing and promoting women’s careers.
Public Engagement The School of Chemistry organises an annual public lecture celebrating the discipline of Chemistry and named after the former Head of School Professor Wesley Cocker. The Cocker Lecture is delivered by internationally renowned chemists who are pioneers in their respective research fields, with the 2015 lecture being delivered by Professor Karl Weighardt, the founding director of the Max‐Planck‐ Institut für Bioanorganische Chemie. The School of Chemistry regularly participates in the FEMS programme of events for Trinity Week. The 2015 Trinity Week theme was “Light”, to coincide with 2015 being designated the UNESCO International Year of Light. The public were invited to events demonstrating the key role of light in all its forms. Academic staff from the School provided two keynote lectures during the programme, entitled “Chemistry to Light up our World” and “Reacting to Light in a Molecular World”. Members of the School have also participated in public dissemination activities such as national radio broadcasts (e.g. Pat Kenny and Sean O’Rourke’s RTE Radio One programmes) and through university society events such as ‘Raft‐Debate’ for Trinity’s Philosophical Society.
The Science Gallery The Science Gallery is a Trinity initiative focused on promoting science outreach and art‐science collaborations through public exhibitions, lectures and demonstrations. The Science Gallery launches 4‐6 temporary exhibitions each year. Since the gallery’s inception in 2008, the School of Chemistry has been an integral cornerstone of the exhibition calendar, either curating or advising on exhibits such as “Elements”, “Fat” and “Magical Materials”. Members of the School’s student body have also being engaged as mediators, providing guided tours and demonstrations both within the Gallery and at national events e.g. the Roney & Joe show at Electric Picnic, the BT Young Scientist Exhibition and the Dublin Inspire Fest.
135
Figure 9.3.1: Advertisement for the Science Gallery’s “Elements” exhibition, which was curated by School of Chemistry staff in 2011.
Other Recent Public Engagement Activities To celebrate 300 years of Chemistry, Botany and Medicine at Trinity College, the School participated in the installation of the Trinity Physic garden, featuring sixty plants of medicinal interest.
9.4 Local outreach activities of the School The promotion of Chemistry as a discipline underpins the entirety of the mission of the School. This is illustrated by the structured activities that are embedded within the undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programmes. These act as a vehicle through which to translate the passion of the staff for their subject into an appreciation of the societal impact of Chemistry among students in the School. The list below gives a flavour of the quality and diversity of engagement that the School engages in on an annual basis (see Appendix 9.4 for further detail). Outreach Activity Time of Year Audience Demonstration lectures As requested General Public Engagement
Public dissemination (e.g. RTE‐radio 1 live As requested General Public Engagement/ presentations/discussion on science topics Trinity staff and students
SFI Speakers for Schools Throughout the Senior Cycle Primary School/ Irish school year Junior Cycle Secondary Schools Postgraduate Outreach & Demonstration Throughout the Secondary School Students Irish school year Secondary School visits Throughout the All Secondary School Cycle Irish school year RSC Spectroscopy in a Suitcase (SIAS) Throughout the Senior Cycle Secondary Students Irish school year Science Gallery Exhibitions All Year General Public Engagement & Demonstrations RSC ChemNet Chemistry Career Showcase Science Week Senior Cycle Secondary School Students (November) (300 students per year) College Open Day‐ Demonstration lecture December Secondary School Students and Parents
136
and experiments Transition Year Week February 4th Year Secondary School Students (60 per year) Senior Freshman Broad Curriculum Final February Senior Cycle Secondary Students (200 students per year) Salters’ Festival May Junior Cycle Secondary Students (80 student) Summer Schools June/July Secondary School Students (60 per year)
TAP The College is mindful of its obligation to support non‐traditional entrants and their participation in third‐level education. The Trinity Access Programme (TAP; http://www.tcd.ie/Trinity_Access/) was established in 1993 with a mission to work in partnership across the education sector and with students, teachers, families, communities and businesses to widen access and participation at third‐ level of under‐represented groups. The School has a mutually supportive relationship with TAP and the School or College financially supports the take‐up of many activities (e.g. TCD/Bristol Summer School and Transition Year programme) by students from disadvantaged backgrounds or from minority groups. The School reserves up to 10 % of places on outreach programmes for students from primary and secondary schools affiliated with TAP. Members of the School also delivered many outreach activities for TAP, including the hosting of the TBSI leg of ‘Terrifying Tales in Trinity’ which is an evening of spooky stories, ghoulish drama enactments and arts and crafts. Approximately 200, fifth‐ and sixth‐class children who are studying in schools linked with TAP.
RSC Education Coordinator In September 2015, an RSC Education Co‐ordinator for Ireland was appointed and the School of Chemistry was successful in having the post‐holder located in Trinity. It is expected that this position will further develop the portfolio of outreach activities on offer in the School.
137
Section 10: Marketing and Communications 10.1 School communication with staff and students in the School The administrative staff in the School circulate general internal communications to the School body e.g. research seminars, School notices and Werner Chemical Society Events. The Head of School communicates with staff and representatives of the PG and UG student body through regular meetings of the School Committee, which is also used as a forum for discussing all matters relating to the School’s activities (see Figure 3.1). The Head of School is responsible for electing academic staff members to official positions on the Executive Committee (DTLUG, DTLPG and DoR). Heads of Discipline are elected by members of their discipline, all of whom are members of the School Executive Committee (see Figure 3.2 for composition of the Executive Committee and Section 3.1). The members of the Executive Committee are responsible for communicating items of relevance to staff and students in the School community in advance of publication of approved minutes on the School’s local website. Undergraduate students in each class elect a class‐rep who communicates with relevant staff members regarding issues of concern to students such as module assessment and provision of additional tutorials. The virtual learning environment Blackboard is used by many staff members to deliver lecture materials, laboratory assignments and safety modules to UG students. It is also used for the submission of assignments and as a forum for delivering announcements, timetable changes and academic grades.
10.2 School communication with the wider College community and beyond The School interacts with the wider college community and externally through a variety of platforms. As mentioned previously, members of staff attend College Open Days and participate in numerous outreach and public‐engagement activities (see Section 9.4). In addition, the School communicates using a Twitter account, marketing and networking strategies (examples below).
Twitter: The School’s Twitter account (@TCD_Chemistry) is used to update the wider College community on the day‐to‐day activities and achievements of the School ‘s staff and students. The content of the Twitter feed is designed to raise the profile of the School and is focused on promoting the School’s research and teaching. The feed is used to alert Twitter followers to the presence of staff and students at national and international events and to showcase international travel by students and staff. Vacant research positions are also posted on the feed. The content of the Twitter account is maintained by the School’s Global Officer. Public Science Events: The School body is also involved either as the coordinator of, or participant in the organisation of a number of activities supporting public engagement with scientific research, e.g. CRANN/TBSI Discover Research Night, National Science Week, SMART Futures and Bright Club Events. International Research Networks: Members of the School community are connected through various professional memberships to the national and international chemistry community e.g. the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Society of Chemistry, ISCP China, the American Chemistry Society and Heads of Chemistry UK. These networks are vital in generating new collaborations with the School’s research body and have been instrumental in the School’s
138
international engagement. As a result, a significant number of international research conferences are hosted by the School or its associated research centres, such as CASE 2015, the Supramolecular Chemistry Symposium that is held biannual and the Flatlands beyond Graphene conference held in July 2014. International Marketing: The Global Officer liaises daily with Trinity’s Global Relations Office, including the Regional Officers and Country Advisors in specific target markets such as North America, China, Brazil and India. The Global Officer ensures that the School’s marketing material is made available to the Global Relations team, and answers queries from potential students related to the School’s programmes. The Global Officer also attends a number of international recruitment fairs (e.g. Copenhagen Partners Day, CEE fair Shanghai) on behalf of Global Relations to promote the School and University.
10.3 Improvement of communication Internal School Communications The School’s staff and students are currently located across eight buildings. This presents a challenge in terms of internal communications. It is hoped to publish a calendar of upcoming events so that staff and students can better plan their schedules around School activities. Additional meetings among administrative staff and among technical staff/experimental officers have also been proposed. It is hoped that this will ensure that there is maximal dissemination of information. Postdoctoral representation The School of Chemistry has approximately 50 research staff, located both on and off campus. Due to the temporary nature of most research contracts, the School has found it challenging to maintain a research‐staff representative at School and Executive committee meetings. External Communications The School of Chemistry needs to maintain its identity on marketing materials distributed by affiliated research centres, e.g. CRANN, TBSI and IMM. This process is led by the Global Officer and is ongoing. School Newsletter The School is currently strengthening its connections with alumni through targeted communication. The School’s first newsletter will be produced in collaboration with the Trinity Alumni Office and is expected to be distributed to approximately 1,000 alumni.
139
Conclusion As mentioned in Section 1.5, the School would like this review to provide
(i) a detailed external assessment of the quality of its teaching and research, and proposals for raising the standard of both (ii) a validation and/or critique of its achievements and its potential to build on them (iii) an evaluation of the School's development within the context of the last review and its growing Institute involvement (iv) a vehicle for raising the internal recognition and international impact of the School The School of Chemistry welcomes this opportunity to showcase its progress since its last external review in 2007. In this period, the School has had to adapt to change and to recognise and build on the strengths and values of its staff. The School has made innovations to its UG and PG teaching programmes that are self‐directed and undergoing further development in line with the College's semesterisation and harmonisation policies. It has also taken the steps needed to invest in its research infrastructure and to deliver improvements in its research outputs and metrics.
The School recognises that there are challenges ahead arising from the new financial reality and the College's increasing emphasis on income generation and globalisation. It foresees the need to respond and evolve as transformative research funding moves away from the individual PI and toward the themed Research‐Centre model. It looks to the expert guidance and input of the review panel to help it to transition well into the next 7 years.
140