Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Academic Departments
Department of Zoology
2
Contents
Page
1. The Department 5
Appendix 1 29
3
Members of the Peer Review Group
4
1. The Department of Zoology
There is a total of 13 offices in the Department. All academic staff have their
own individual office space, as do the Departmental Administrative Assistant,
the Principal Technician and one Senior Technician (whose office is used as a
stationery store and the reception point for deliveries).
1.2 Staff
5
Environmental Science (MApplSci), with input from other departments and
faculties. Academic staff from the Department also contribute to courses in
the degree of Master of Engineering Science (MEngSc, Faculty of
Engineering), and to the degree of Master of Science (Agriculture) in
Environmental Resource Management (MSc(Agr), Faculty of Agriculture).
6
2. The Departmental Self-Assessment
7
3. The Site Visit
3.1 Timetable
The detailed timetable for the PRG visit is enclosed as Appendix 1 of this
report. The site visit took place on 15th to 17th April 2002. The PRG met:
All staff members, as groups and/or individuals,
Representative groups of Third and Fourth Year undergraduates,
taught MSc and postgraduate students,
Postdoctoral fellows
The Dean of Science,
A representative of the Careers Office.
The PRG viewed teaching and research facilities of the Department.
3.2 Methodology
The PRG found the site visit to be an extremely informative process. The
information, views and opinions expressed by the staff and students served to
clarify and strengthen the information provided in the very comprehensive
Self-Assessment Report and accompanying material. The visit to research
laboratories and teaching facilities also helped the PRG to evaluate the
physical state of the Department as described in the Self-Assessment Report.
8
We are grateful to all members of the Department for their open and candid
answering of our questions, and note the very high level of professional
commitment shown to the Departments work by all the staff. We also wish to
record our appreciation of the courtesy afforded the PRG by the Dean of
Science and the staff of the Faculty Office, who made the Faculty Boardroom
available at short notice for our interviews and meetings when the
departmental boardroom proved too small.
The PRG noted with disappointment the fact that no First- or Second-Year
undergraduate students turned up for the scheduled meeting. Neither was
there an opportunity to meet with employers in order to gain an independent
view of the quality of graduates and of the relevance of the taught
programmes and research training to a career in industry, biomedical research
and other areas of employment that graduates of the Department have
followed. It was not clear whether employers are consulted when courses are
being devised or revised.
The PRG particularly wishes to thank the Acting Head of Department for his
co-operation at all stages of the process. His personal attention to the Self-
Assessment process and to the Site Visit made our work both more efficient
and more comfortable.
9
4. The Peer Review
4.1 Methodology
The PRG first met on the evening of Sunday 14 th April 2002. Throughout the
entire period of the site visit the PRG group worked together, including visiting
the teaching and research laboratories. As the Department of Zoology is not
over-large, it was felt that the ideal methodology was to work as a group in
relation to meetings with groups and individuals rather than to break into sub-
groups with specific tasks. During off-campus analysis the PRG also worked
as a group.
The expertise brought to the PRG by the external reviewers was vital to the
successful completion of the work, particularly in the areas of comparative
analysis of the teaching and research areas.
The tasks of overseeing the various parts of the review were subdivided, by
agreement, initially into the following areas:
Departmental Details: Professor Pat Shannon
Planning and Organisation: Dr Angela Bourke
Taught Programmes: Professor Ciaran Regan
Teaching and Learning Dr Julian Reynolds/Professor Stephen Phillips
Research and Publications: Professor Stephen Phillips/Dr Julian Reynolds
External Relations: Professor Ciaran Regan
Support Services Dr Angela Bourke
The main sources used by the PRG in the review and preparation of the
report comprise the following:
The SAR, and accompanying 11 appendices, produced by the
Departmental Co-ordinating Committee
Information, views and comments provided by groups and individuals
representing the Co-ordinating Committee, the academic, technical and
administrative staff of the Department, postdoctoral fellows,
postgraduate and undergraduate students, the Dean of Science and a
representative from the Careers Office.
The collective impressions gained from the tour of the Departmental
teaching and research facilities.
Copies of postgraduate theses.
Additional documentation requested by the PRG regarding aspects of
the Universitys strategic development plan, the Division of
Biosciences, job descriptions, the new benchmarks for promotion to
Senior Lecturer, and Careers Office documentation on First
10
Destinations of recent Zoology graduates from the Department.
The PRG acknowledges the wholehearted participation of all the staff of the
Department throughout the QA/QI process. This was very evident in the
quality and clarity of the information in the SAR. The openness, hospitality
and generosity with time during the entire QA/QI process, and especially
during the site visit, was greatly appreciated. The members of the
Department found time to produce an excellent report while revising many of
the Departments taught courses and continuing to carry out research and
normal teaching duties. The genuine team effort was very impressive and
professional, and has made the task of the PRG much easier.
Notwithstanding the team effort, it was clear to the PRG that the Acting Head
of Department had exercised considerable leadership during this testing time
and had conspicuously led from the front. He has shouldered a full teaching
burden and maintained his research group. He is to be congratulated for this.
The factual information provided in the SAR report and in the accompanying
documentation provided an excellent, clear and informative insight into the
operations of the Department, its personnel and its teaching and research
programmes. The clarity of its layout and presentation will allow this SAR to
serve as a reference document for many years to come. The SAR provides
valuable background information that will be of use in helping to plan the
future development of the Department. In addition to the factual information,
the Department, in the SAR, offers a frank assessment of what it perceives
are its strengths and weaknesses. It is to be complimented on this.
11
5. Findings of the Peer Review Group
The Department has a strong and proud history of serving Irish science and
society, and honouring the intellectual traditions of classical Zoology, while
embracing new developments. The skills, flexibility and positive attitude of the
technical staff have contributed greatly to the development of the Department
in its teaching and research activities.
12
of self-assessment, however, has made the Department aware of certain
deficiencies in its own administrative structure, which it has already begun to
address, with positive results. We support this constructive approach and
recommend that it continue, with the participation of all members of the
Department. The PRG expects that the momentum already generated will
carry the Department towards an improved structure for the planning and
organisation of all its work where transparency and a culture of
communication and exchange of information are paramount.
Appendix 5 of the SAR gives the text of the Departments Five-Year Plan,
produced in 2000. While this document is useful, its emphasis is on the
maintenance of existing areas of excellence and on open-ended exploration
of further possibilities, rather than on defined strategies. Chapter 2 of the
SAR notes that the QA/QI process has focussed the Departments attention
on its goals; it also anticipates the preparation of a new five-year plan
following the presentation of the present Report by the PRG. We warmly
recommend this course of action, as we find little evidence so far of the sort of
strategic planning which will be required at this crucial period of the
Departments development if it is to maintain and enhance its position in
teaching and research.
13
commends the Department on already establishing new committees and
subcommittees to deal with aspects of planning and organisation, but its
operational procedures are still not fully transparent, especially in the
distribution of teaching duties. A description of the Departments management
structure should be prepared, therefore, and made available to all staff, with a
staff activity profile for each member of the Department. The Universitys new
Staff Development Programme will offer further opportunities to review the
work of individuals, and we would expect each staff member to meet with the
Head of Department on at least an annual basis to discuss his/her career and
contribution to the Departments work.
The Zoology Department has a high profile in the scientific community and
among the general public perhaps more than is realised by the members of
the Department. As the Department has recognised, however, its corporate
image needs to be improved. A visitor at present receives an impression of a
jaded department with little ambience of vitality and pride in achievements,
with no obvious focus and little orientation. Staff have commented that their
achievements and those of their students, whether as individuals or groups,
are barely noted, much less celebrated (as say, by displaying book jackets or
posters prominently on noticeboards). It is important that the First- and
Second-Year classes be used to attract students to stay with Zoology, and
here again, the Departments ability to communicate its message clearly
through various media will be vital. Those students we spoke to who are
below Fourth-Year level professed themselves baffled by the Departments
structure; we therefore urge the re-establishment of the Staff-Student
Committee without delay, and the provision of a comprehensive handbook for
each year.
The Departmental Office has an important role to play in the areas mentioned
here, since its function is to facilitate all of the Departments work. Given that
the Senior Executive Assistant is expected to be the first line contact for
students, this office should be the natural heart of the Department. At present
it is not clearly signposted and is reached via a small dark lobby, which
contains a photocopier and a fax machine and easily becomes crowded. The
arrangement of its furniture, moreover, makes it a less than welcoming place
for students, staff and visitors. We recommend that this space be redesigned
with a desk or counter facing the door, and that well-lit noticeboards be
installed in its immediate vicinity to convey important and frequently-changing
information about courses and other activities, and to designate this area as
the Departments administrative centre. If possible, the office should
accommodate racks for documentation. All members of the academic staff
and the Principal Technician should have keys to it.
14
The filling of the Chair of Zoology must be carefully planned. The Department
should draw up a briefing document for the Academic Council Committee on
Chairs. To attract a high-calibre candidate, moreover, it must plan the
allocation of space and facilities. At present, resources of various kinds, from
the expertise of the technical staff to laboratories and storage space, are
inefficiently used. There is a tradition in the Department of history rather than
need and merit dictating the allocation of space, technical assistance and
other resources. This reduces flexibility and the ability to respond to a
continually changing scientific environment. The Department should move
away from a model of ownership by individual academic staff of technical
support and laboratory space, and consider establishing a more flexible
system including technical support units, each under the direction of a Section
Head Technician. Storage space is clearly a problem for a department that
relies so much on fieldwork, but a coherent policy on the use of space is not
apparent. Along with its policy on health and safety, this should be an
important part of the Departments new five-year plan.
The Biosciences initiative, with nine degree options and involving one third of
all science graduates, has stimulated a major overhaul of First Year courses,
with revision of the Second-Year courses now in progress. Despite such
integrated courses, the different destinations of students in the first three
years should be seen as an opportunity to recruit from the best students into
Zoology. This will require interdepartmental co-operation and the active
involvement of course committees.
The PRG met a group of fifteen students that represented Third Year, six
students from Fourth Year Zoology, two students from the taught MSc course
and 15 postgraduate students. Fourth-Year students perceived themselves
as fully integrated into the Department; they reported a highly demanding but
exciting and challenging course and an approachable staff who were
generous with their time. This was in marked contrast to Third-Year students,
15
who found the staff unapproachable. These students had no sense of
departmental layout, location of staff offices or whom to approach for specific
information. They had sought unsuccessfully for examination details on new
courses and their requests for knowledge of exam paper layout and sample
questions had been turned down. The taught practical course was perceived
by Third Years to be out of date and lacking in organisation when compared to
other Bioscience departments. While the Third-Year students appeared
somewhat disoriented and to a degree disillusioned, the transformation in the
Fourth Year and taught MSc students was remarkable. These students, by
contrast, gave glowing reports of their laboratory and fieldwork experiences.
16
are encouraged to read around the course. One-to-one supervision in Fourth-
Year projects is to be commended.
Mentors are available in First and Second Years, but the recruitment of
postgraduate demonstrators for practical classes is becoming increasingly
difficult. This is a vitally important area of contact with students, and steps to
improve the demonstrator training and their remuneration should be
implemented. The heavy reliance on multiple choice examinations in the First
Year also needs consideration to evaluate if it is the optimum method of
assessment.
All academic staff of the Department of Zoology are research active and the
staff complement includes researchers of national and international calibre.
This is rarely the case in similar departments elsewhere. Most researchers
have collaborative programmes in their portfolio of projects within the
Department, the University, Ireland and overseas. Collectively this presents a
very dynamic picture. The publication output in numbers of refereed
publications is very respectable and has improved over the last 5 years.
There has not been a strong policy of trying to publish in journals of as high
an impact factor as possible and the average impact factor for the Department
is rather low. Many of the articles by members of staff have been published in
very reputable Irish journals. Despite the fact that these Irish journals operate
a high standard of peer review, they are not much read internationally and so
generally have a low impact factor. There appear to have been no papers
published in very high impact factor journals in the past 5 years although
several colleagues have done so during their careers and for a few there is an
expectation that they will do so again in the future. It is noted that some
academics are engaged in much report writing, possibly at the expense of
writing refereed papers. The PRG recommends that up-to-date impact factors
for journals be made available in the Departmental Office.
17
Research income is relatively high but the greater proportion over the review
period is earned by a relatively small number of individuals. It is noted,
however, that the research of some is more expensive than that of others and
that income alone is not the best or only index of research excellence and
activity. There is no scheme for assisting staff who are in difficulties or lack
funding with their research activities, but the Departmental Supplies & Travel
budget is very valuable here.
The number of PhD students in the Department is high and a large proportion
of the PhD students is made up of UCD graduates. The expectation is that
the PhD will take at least 4 years to submission. While recognising that the
commitment to demonstrating work by some PhD students eats into their
research time, the Department should be encouraging and facilitating PhD
students to submit within three years, with four years as the maximum
duration. Supervisor and student should aim to have at least some work
submitted for publication by the time the thesis is completed. The website,
which most students outside UCD use as their entry point to a department,
needs development to be an effective means of recruiting research students.
There are very few postdoctoral researchers, and none in their second
postdoctoral appointment when they might be of most value. The Department
should address urgently how such researchers can be attracted.
Some members of staff have written books that have been well received.
Some academic staff members have attracted major conferences to the
campus, bringing great kudos to the Department, the Faculty and the
University. However, there is no tradition of celebrating the achievements of
an individual or a group at the departmental level to the benefit of collegiality
of all.
The Department has a very high external profile. Members of staff participate
regularly in TV, radio and popular press events and have extensive links with
state, semi-state and private organisations. The staff involved are to be
complimented on these links and encouraged to foster them as an important
means of publicising the work of the Department, and to attract students and
research funding.
18
The Department has many research projects in collaboration with researchers
from external agencies. The number, size and diversity of these projects are
a clear indication of the research strength and international academic
standing of several members of the Department. These research links offer
the opportunity to increase and enhance the research reputation of members
of academic staff. They also have the potential to help with the placement of
graduates from the Department and for the attraction of possible postgraduate
students or postdoctoral researchers.
The Department has begun to revise and enhance its website. An attractive
and informative website will enhance the ability of the Department to attract
postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers, both from home and abroad.
5.7.1
The SAR acknowledges the support given to the Department of Zoologys
work by the Universitys administrative offices, while noting the heavy burden
of administration in connection with both teaching and research which falls to
academic and technical staff. The Department is particularly appreciative of
the support it receives from the Faculty of Science Office.
19
Computing Services does not appear to have enough staff to deal with
problems in a timely way. The small sample of students interviewed said that
the Careers Office provided little information on job opportunities and advice
and timing of applications for postgraduate opportunities, especially in the UK.
To date, members of the Department have rarely used the services of the
Teaching Development Unit, although its courses aimed at postgraduate
students are likely to be helpful for the induction of new Demonstrators.
The SAR expresses concerns about security within the Science Building,
especially when offices are left unlocked and sometimes open after cleaning.
Postgraduate students and postdoctoral fellows often work late; they operate
a policy of working in pairs, but some nevertheless feel unsafe in such a large
building with so many entrances and such free access.
Chapter 7 of the SAR does not consider the Careers and Appointments Office.
Students questionnaire responses indicate that they would like to know more
about career options and suggest that they are uninformed about the
transferability of the skills they acquire in the Department. The small number
of students interviewed by the PRG reported that they had not found the
Careers Office useful or well informed. The PRG interviewed a member of
that office, however, and discovered a real willingness to liaise with the
Department about its needs and to organise a programme specifically aimed
at its students.
5.7.2
Technical and administrative staff are key members of the Department, and
the PRG was pleased to note that their professional contribution to the
efficient operation and development of the Department and the University is
increasingly acknowledged and valued within the University. As that
contribution is essentially in support of the Departments teaching and
research work, we consider it here.
20
technical support units be established, each under the direction of a Section
Head Technician, to afford the sort of flexibility and optimal use of technical-
staff skills which are required in a changing scientific environment. Such units
would also offer career development opportunities to technical staff, whose
contribution to published research could also be acknowledged in print as a
matter of departmental policy.
21
6. Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats
Strengths
National/international leaders in research in the Department.
Strong commitment to teaching.
Record of attracting international conferences.
High output of PhDs.
Rising and impressive research income.
All academic staff are research active.
Breadth of disciplines currently covered for teaching. Morale in the
Department has improved within the last year.
Wide range of skills, positive attitude, flexibility of technical staff.
Age profile of the academic staff within the Department.
Perceived benefits from SAR recognised by staff.
Ability of the members of the Department to work together, in a flexible
manner.
Willingness to take on board the challenge of QA/QI process.
Recent changes in organisation and management of the Department
proving effective.
High national and international media profile.
Taught Masters degree.
Acting Head of Department who leads from the front (dedicated,
energetic, research- and teaching-active).
Some money from the Travel and Supplies budget available against
lean funding periods for academic staff.
Fourth Year and postgraduate students enthusiastic about staff
support.
Weaknesses
Lack of strategic plan and coherent vision.
Awareness of Health and Safety requirements is generally poor within
the Department.
Lack of corporate identity and unattractive departmental shop window.
Departmental Office does not provide the support adequate for a
dynamic and ambitious department.
Great concerns by Environmental Protection Agency regarding quality
of facilities for molecular work and recombinant technology.
Teaching laboratories in a poor state of modernisation.
Achievements by department members are not adequately celebrated.
Lack of an adequately sized and experienced postdoctoral cohort.
Heavy reliance on UCD graduates to populate the postgraduate school
(mix is not right).
Poor promotion of departments activities.
Practical classes are outmoded and are not well received by students.
Third Year students perceive academic staff as unapproachable.
Lack of documentation on courses for Second and Third Years and for
postgraduate students.
22
Historical lack of recognition of value of impact factor for publications.
Lack of research seminars by staff.
Expectation of long duration of postgraduate projects.
Historically poor communication at various levels of the Department.
Obsessive concern among some academic staff that all academic staff
should have equal teaching loads irrespective of individual level of
research activity and contributions in other ways to the Department and
the University.
Staff room not routinely used by all staff and postgraduate students.
Current teaching and research equipment often in poor repair.
Lack of residential field courses for Third Year students.
Lack of secure storage for fieldwork equipment.
Opportunities
The Chair of Zoology is to be advertised shortly.
Development of the proposed Division of Biosciences is viewed with
broad support by all staff.
The new Conway Institute offers opportunities for research
collaboration.
The current allocation of space offers the potential for redesign,
enabling development and growth
New appointments have been made of young academics with potential.
New benchmark for promotion of academic staff to improve morale.
New funding opportunities through Science Foundation Ireland, etc.
The relocation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Veterinary Faculty on the Belfield campus offer new possibilities for
collaborative research.
The website can be developed for much greater effectiveness in
information and recruitment.
Staff Development Programme requires annual meeting of staff with
Head of Department, which will aid personal and departmental
planning and development.
Threats
Failure to address concerns about loss of identity through lack of
communication.
Zoology may be submerged in the Division of Biosciences.
Impact of Conway Institute may reduce opportunities for funding in
some areas of Zoology.
Inadequate promotional prospects for technical and administrative staff.
The Universitys increasing devolution of administration to departments
at the expense of research time.
Loss of potential zoologists in First and Second Years.
May be difficult to attract outside high calibre candidates for the Chair
of Zoology.
23
7. Recommendations for Improvement
The PRG acknowledges the many positive and constructive aspects of the
Department of Zoology. There have been the major and ongoing positive
changes in the areas of departmental organisation, and in teaching and
research programmes. The generally positive attitude of the members of the
Department is clearly evident and will be a positive driver for continued
development and progress in the future. The successes and positive aspects
of the Department have been highlighted in preceding sections of this report.
In this section, however, the PRG offers a series of constructive suggestions
and recommendations for improvement. These are not intended as criticisms
of the Department but are offered instead as pointers which may help to
continue the process of development which has been embarked upon and
which will aid towards realising the full potential of the Department of Zoology.
The recommendations are grouped under various convenient headings.
Research
Draw up a departmental strategic plan, which should encompass a vision
for the future, both for research and teaching needs. Consultation with
employers will help adjudge whether the current curriculum is optimal for
graduate employment.
Plan for filling the Chair of Zoology. Evaluate the incentives required, and
their availability, to attract high-calibre candidates.
Take a fresh look at the allocation of space and technical support. History
should be set aside and the Department should look at current needs,
expectations and the need for efficiency. Allocation of critical departmental
resources should be reviewed at least annually.
24
Technical support units should be established where appropriate, each
under the direction of a Section Head technician, to provide maximum
flexibility in the running of the Departments operations.
PhD students should aim to finish in three years they should certainly
have submitted within four years. The Department should work towards
the development of a culture of three-year PhD completion
Attract more PhD students from outside UCD. Consider how best to
attract overseas PhD students with a bench fee.
Investigate methods of attracting more postdoctoral workers including
research fellows from abroad, especially postdoctoral workers in their
second postdoctoral appointment.
Develop a Staff Activity Profile or Workload model to avoid disputes over
relative contributions to the work of the Department/Faculty/University.
Consider rewarding technical input into publications by a place in the
author list where justified. This can improve morale.
Revive the departmental Seminar Programme, to include staff
participation.
The Department should consider the implications of the Universitys stated
commitment to reward research excellence and activity in its new funding
formula, and how best to benefit from it.
Undergraduates
Increase emphasis on learning to learn.
Reinstate Third-Year residential field courses.
Use First- and Second-Year classes to attract rather than discourage
recruiting into Honours Zoology.
Consider introducing Third Year tutorials
Revamp and redesign practicals.
Prepare Course Information handbooks for Second and Third Years.
Lectures to undergraduate classes, especially First and Second Years,
should only be given by members of the academic staff, except in
exceptional circumstances as approved by the Head (or Acting Head) of
the Department.
Teaching loads should be distributed as equitably as possible, taking into
account research activities and other Department, Faculty and University
commitments.
General
A greater adherence to the requirements of Health and Safety is required
urgently but this will need serious input from the University. There should
be a general tidying up of the Department. Unannounced spot Safety
checks should be carried out. All laboratory users should sign off annually
confirming that they are aware of, and will adhere to, the Health and
Safety regulations of the Department.
All staff should meet with the Head of Department as part of the Staff
Development Programme on at least an annual basis to review and agree
their progress within and contribution to the Department.
25
In progressing the Biosciences initiative it could be helpful to visit other
institutions where such a re-organisation has taken place and been
running for a period.
University
The University should fund departmental refurbishment, particularly
structural requirements under Health and Safety. Departmental Supplies &
Travel funds should not be required for this purpose.
The Central Transport Pool should submit accounts to the Department on
a monthly basis, with all financial transfers to be approved by the Head of
Department. Staff should be permitted to keep vehicles at home both
before and after field trips.
26
8. Response of the Department of Zoology Co-ordinating
Committee to the Peer Review Group Report
There was some concern expressed that the PRG had the view that some
staff were too involved in writing reports and this was at the expense of writing
research papers. (PRG report Section 5.5). Some Academic staff have been
actively involved in seeking funding to address specific demands/needs from
industry and semi-state bodies because of limited funding opportunities in
some disciplines. This funding has provided support for undergraduate and
postgraduate projects which otherwise could not have been undertaken.
Remuneration for this activity has contributed to the funding, or partial
funding, of a number of PhD, MSc, MApplSc and, in some cases, 4th year
undergraduate projects. The compilation and submission of reports is a
requirement of such activities. Such work, reflected in a "report" has not only
provided essential information to the funding body but has also fostered a
vibrant research ethos, supported undergraduate and postgraduate research
and in many cases (where confidentiality is not an issue) has also later
resulted in peer reviewed papers.
27
Committee recognised that the programme was not as effective as it should
be and recognised that there was a problem with attendance, but the
Department has for many years operated a seminar programme and will strive
to improve it.
The PRG report also indicated that there was a failure to recognise the
achievements of staff at the departmental level (Section 5.5). The Co-
ordinating Committee also recognised this problem but would argue that the
failure extends beyond the Department to both Faculty and University as well.
The Co-ordinating committee did not agree that there was a historical lack of
recognition of the value of impact factors for publications. Emphasis has
always been placed on dissemination of results through publication in the
most appropriate journal for the research undertaken while recognising that, in
some instances, the most appropriate journal may not necessarily have a high
impact factor
28
APPENDIX 1. Timetable of Site Visit
Sunday, April 14
Monday April 15
29