A Documentary Analysis Of The Quality Control Structures In Place To

Support Supervisors in 3rd Level Education

Ross Corbett & Michelle Fahey
Galway Mayo Institute of Technology
Abstract Relevant External Agencies/ Professional Bodies/ Stakeholders Discussion
The primary aim of this research reported is to measure and determine postgraduate The higher education sector is influenced by various stakeholders, which may include
students’ perception of the quality structures of postgraduate supervision. This government that finance the sector, students that are enrolled in the system and who
document explores the quality control structures that are in place in GMIT to support pay fees, senior management and staff members of the higher education institutions,
supervisors. The document investigates the requirements of other relevant external employers who require quality graduates to recruit from, and the society at large.
agencies/ professional bodies/ stakeholders for example the connection between the All these stakeholders’ demand quality graduates from higher education institutions
Quality Framework European Higher Education Area, Quality and Qualifications because the social and economic growth that is envisioned in every country comes as
Ireland (QQI) and the GMIT Quality Framework Policy. Three key conclusions are a result of well-trained personnel from these institutions. This, in turn, creates a
outlined to assist GMIT in supporting supervisors in 3rd level education. competitive atmosphere in the higher education environment which results in higher
It is recommended that the study be used as a basis for further investigation. education institutions continually working harder to be able to secure a competitive
edge.
Introduction Literature has however, reported on numerous ingredients for high quality
GMIT QQI EHEA performance but remained ambivalent about whether there is a singular methodology
There is increasing pressure on higher education institutions regarding the quality of
of accomplishing high-level customer satisfaction in education (Matorera 2018).
postgraduate supervision, especially considering intensifying accountability (Lee
Results show benefit from a more structured relationship with their supervisors, which
& McKenzie, 2011). Literature contends that postgraduate supervision is one of the
can be established by means of a formal agreement, where the roles of each party are
most crucial determinants of student outcomes indicated a critical relationship with
defined (Parada, 2015). To sustainably improve higher education quality, the current
the quality of postgraduate supervision (Brew & Peseta, 2004).
concern must change from quality assurance to quality culture. We should reflect on
Postgraduate supervision constitutes both a knowledge and relational process, which
and innovate the traditional quality assurance in higher education. At the same time, it
takes place during encounters between students and supervisors. Within this learning
is necessary to build a holistic quality culture among various stakeholders based on
process enfolds the direct objective of postgraduate supervision, which is to yield
mutual trust and a social contract. Quality cannot be defined in a top-down manner
independent researchers by furnishing them with the appropriate knowledge, skills
but should be defined by each institution, because applying a shared definition of
and attributes.
quality to institutions with different missions and objectives is not feasible, and even
This asserted that effective supervision should involve research learning, which
disappointing (Yingqiang, 2016).
subsumes knowledge to complete a research project together with the emotional,
social, political and cognitive understanding that constitute such learning. (Franke &
In general, it appears all Higher Education Intuitions in Ireland are aligned to EHEA
Arvidsson, 2011).
and QQI standards, however there are some areas for improvement that we
highlighted in our conclusions and recommendations.
Methodology
The below documents are the key documents controlling quality assurance regarding
third level research programmes in Europe, Ireland and Galway Mayo Institute of
Conclusions
Technology specifically. Irelands Framework of Good Practice for Research Degree Programmes (QQI)
includes 3 key actionable elements that we found particularly interesting, when
Quality Framework European Higher Education Area (QF EHEA) comparing to current structures in G.M.I.T.:-
Aims to organise national higher education qualifications into an
overarching European-wide qualifications framework. Within this Framework, Role of Senior Officer (Head of Graduate Studies)
qualifications are defined according to levels of complexity and difficulty. We believe this position can add a great level of support to all supervisors. Current
supports from academic council and head of department, could be enhanced with a
Ireland’s Framework of Good Practice for Research Degree Programmes (QQI) centralised head of graduate studies/ senior officer.
Aims to provide benchmark statements, against which those involved
in delivering research degree programmes can consider their own practice, and Benchmarking with other Research Higher Education Institutes (HEIs)
identify areas where enhancement effort and/or resources might be focused We believe this collaboration may become a vital part of the Connacht Ulster Alliance
allowing use to use this opportunity to benchmark best practice across the institutes.
Galway Mayo Institute of Technology Quality Assurance Framework
Aims to give a platform to academic quality assurance and enhancement under the Comprehensive Periodic Reviews
following key principles; We encourage each discipline/research to conduct regular periodic reviews with the
• Primary responsibility for own quality and committed to continuous quality objectives of evaluating the ongoing quality of research theses and ensuring
improvement continuous high standards. This point should tie in with the benchmarking of studies
• Collegiality and collaboration are essential. as in point two above.
Chart 1. QF EHEA Graduate Learning Outcomes for Doctoral Programmes.
References
• Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: a programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 5-22.
• Crosier, D., Horvath, A., Kerpanova, V., Kocanova, D., Parveva, T., Dalferth, S.,& Rauhvargers, A. (2012). The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
• Lee, A., & McKenzie, J. (2011). Evaluating doctoral supervision: Tensions in eliciting students’ perspectives. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 69-78.
• Matorers, D. (2018), Quality management Systems in Education. Published by Intechopen.71431
• Parada F., Peacock J. (2015) The Quality of Doctoral Training and Employability of Doctorate Holders: The Views of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers.
• Peach, J. and Horner, N. (2007) ‘Using supervision: Support or surveillance’, in Lymbery, M. and Postle, K. (eds), Social Work: A Companion to Learning, London, Sage, pp. 228– 39.
• Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150.
• Yingqiang, Z. and Yongjian, S. (2016) ‘Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Reflection, Criticism, and Change’, Chinese Education & Society, 49(1/2), pp. 7–19. doi: 10.1080/10611932.2016.1192382.