Irish orld usic Centre (IWMC) Review, Irish World Music Centre, University of Limerick. Table of...

Quality Review, Irish World Music Centre, University of Limerick.

UNIVERSITY of LIMERICK

OLLSCOIL LUMINIGH

Quality Review

of the

Irish World Music Centre (IWMC)

The University of Limerick (UL), through its membership of the Irish Universities Quality Board, follows an established process for Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement. This involves a 7-year cycle during which all Academic Departments undergo a rigorous Self Assessment prior to a Peer Review by internationally recognised experts in the field. The process itself has evolved as a result of the Universities Act 1997 in which the responsibility for QA/QI was placed directly with the Universities. The UL Quality Support Unit (QSU) web site provides an elaboration of this process and the current state of progress. The broader picture is described in the publication “A Framework for Quality in Irish Universities” which can be downloaded from the IUQB web site: http://www.iuqb.ie/

Issued by QSC 14th January 2005 Report Date March 2004 Peer Review Group Appendix A UL-QSU Web Site www.quality.ul.ie A&F Web Site http://www.ul.ie/~iwmc/flash.htm IUQB Web Site www.iuqb.ie Copyright © – University of Limerick, March 2004

25/01/2005 17:02


Table of Contents

1.0 Background .....................................................................................................................3 1.1 Legislative Framework................................................................................................3 1.2 The Irish Universities Quality Board ..........................................................................3 1.3 The Quality Review Process .......................................................................................4 1.4 The Steering Committee on Quality............................................................................4

2.0 The Irish World Music Centre.........................................................................................5

3.0 The Follow-up Process....................................................................................................6

4.0 Preliminary Comments of the Peer Review Group .........................................................7

5.0 The Report of the Peer Review Group ............................................................................8 5.1 Mission ........................................................................................................................8 5.2 Design and Content of Curriculum ...........................................................................10 5.3 Teaching, Learning and Assessment .........................................................................12 5.4 Faculty and Support Staff..........................................................................................13 5.5 Learning Resources ...................................................................................................15 5.6 Student Guidance and Support ..................................................................................16 5.7 Management for Quality Performance and Improvement.........................................17 5.8 Research Activity ......................................................................................................19 5.9 Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses and Reaction Plan .......................................21

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................23

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................23

Confidential Page 2 25/01/2005


1.0 Background

1.1 Legislative Framework The University of Limerick, in common with all the universities in the Republic of Ireland, falls within the Universities Act 1997. This Act specifies the responsibilities of universities in Ireland for Quality Improvement and Quality Assurance. Section 12 stipulates that, “The objects of a university shall include - …(h) to promote the highest standards in, and quality of, teaching and research”. Section 35 (1) of the Act further requires that each university Governing Authority “shall…require the university to establish procedures for quality assurance aimed at improving the quality of education and related services provided by the university”. The Act provides a framework for the Universities to develop their quality processes. Section 35 requires each university to review the quality of the work of all faculty, academic Departments and service (including administrative) Departments on a ten-year cycle. In particular “The procedures shall include …(b) assessment by those, including students, availing of the teaching, research and other services provided by the university”. Although each University is free to develop its own procedures in fulfilling its obligations under the Act, close cooperation has been achieved through the coordinating role of the Irish Universities Quality Steering Committee, (IUQSC). Accordingly, the universities have developed a framework comprising a set of common principles and operating guidelines for quality improvement and quality assurance. These principles and guidelines have been integrated into each of the universities procedures, which ensure coherence through the university system while maintaining the autonomy of each university and its individual institutional culture. More detail is available at www.quality.ul.ie/The_Act.htm and www.iuqb.ie 1.2 The Irish Universities Quality Board

The Governing Authorities of the seven Irish Universities established the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) in February 2003. This board comprises the current, past and incoming Chairs of the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities (CHIU), the Registrars of the remaining four Universities and seven external members. The aims of the IUQB are:

• To increase the level of inter-University cooperation in developing Quality Assurance processes

• To represent the Irish universities nationally and internationally on issues relating to quality assurance and quality improvement

• To articulate, on behalf of the Governing Authorities of the universities, the resource implications of recommendations for quality improvement.

The IUQB subsumed the roles and functions formerly carried out by the IUQSC.

More detail is available at www.iuqb.ie



1.3 The Quality Review Process

The common framework adopted by the Irish universities for their Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement systems, consistent with both the legislative requirement of the Universities Act 1997 and international practice comprise the following stages:

1. Preparation of a self-assessment report by the unit taking into account feedback from students and customers.

2. Peer Review involving external experts, both nationally and internationally, who have visited the Department, met the students and studied the Self Assessment.

3. Peer Review Report, made publicly available by the Governing Authority of the university, incorporating the reactions and quality improvement plans of the Department, College and University.

4. Continuing improvement through implementation within the resources available to the university.

More detail is available at www.quality.ul.ie/Academic_Departments.htm

1.4 The Steering Committee on Quality Overall responsibility for implementation of Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement policy and implementation at the University of Limerick is overseen by the Steering Committee on Quality (QSC), and implementation is carried out by the Director of Quality and the Assistant Registrar under the overall direction of the Vice President Academic and Registrar. The planned schedule of Quality Review of both academic and support Departments was commenced in the year 2000, with the first full cycle of units within the University being reviewed within a 7-year cycle. More detail is available at www.quality.ul.ie/Academic_Progress.htm



2.0 The Irish World Music Centre The Irish World Music Centre (IWMC) was established by Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin in January 1994 when he became first holder of the Chair of Music at UL. Initially operating as a research centre, it grew rapidly from a zero base to 21 masters and doctoral research students, sometimes with External Supervisors brought in as part of the team. By Summer 1995, an innovative five-year plan was launched which saw the bringing on stream of three taught Masters programmes simultaneously each year for three years from 1997 to 1999. By the year 2000, all nine postgraduate taught programmes were up and running, and student numbers had risen from zero to some 80 postgraduates from up to 20 different countries, and with up to one in three from outside the European Union. Within months of the setting up of IWMC in 1994, discussions were underway to allow the Irish Chamber Orchestra (ICO) to decentralise from its Dublin base to IWMC. Within a year, the Arts Council of Ireland announced the full professionalisation of the ICO in the context of the move to Limerick. The presence already on the campus of a contemporary dance company, Daghdha Dance, pointed towards further opportunity for IWMC developments. Dance quickly became part of the vision. Postgraduate programmes emerged at IWMC which twin-tracked with Daghdha and the ICO. The importance of indigenous music and dance traditions is central to IWMC vision. This has resulted in the creation of a Centre which celebrates both classical and oral tradition music genres, and which nurtures both traditional and contemporary dance forms. Further local strengths such as Glenstal Abbey with its interest in contemporary liturgical forms and the integration of Gregorian Chant, pointed the way towards additional integrated programmes that added to the increasingly rich tapestry of the Irish World Music Centre. A Hospice next to the campus, and a Special Needs School near to that, pointed towards the development of Music Therapy, and a willingness to engage head on with the Irish second level music education system resulted in the Music Education programme. Community Music came as something natural to the Centre through its engagement with popular music forms, and its concern with the place and use of music in community and social settings. The academic disciplines of Ethnomusicology and Ethnochoreology were a natural academic surround to the emerging performance interests at IWMC. The period 1994 to 2000 marked the birthing of IWMC. The three years since then, 2000 – 2003 have been a necessary period of consolidation. The next three-year period, 2004 to 2007, will coincide with a transition period during which the Irish World Performing Arts Village will be designed and constructed. This new home for the Irish World Music Centre in 2007 will mark the end of its initial birthing process, and mark the beginning of its full flight into the furtherance of its desire to offer a heartfelt Irish response to a world of music and dance. Further details of the IWMC ethos can be found on the IWMC website www.iwmc.ie



3.0 The Follow-up Process The Quality Review process occurs on an approximately 7-year cycle at the University of Limerick. An average of three Academic Departments are reviewed annually. Once the Peer Review report is finalised the Department concerned immediately sets about planning its response to the issues raised therein. The Self Assessment is intended to be a deep soul-searching exercise in which a Department should identify many of its own weaknesses and develop plans to strengthen and grow as appropriate. Quite often, the Peer Review Group (PRG) will reinforce these issues and may identify areas of concern that were overlooked. In many cases, the PRG will also highlight the strengths of the Department and encourage them to take advantage of these. After the Department, the College and the University have been given time to respond to the issues raised the Peer Review Group’s report will be made available to the community through the University’s web site. Normally, the report is available within the University less than four weeks after the PRG visit. Responses and plans for action are incorporated into the report and are subject to the approval of the Quality Steering Committee. Presentation to the University’s Governing Authority usually follows within six months of the PRG visit. The Governing Authority will publish the Peer Review report, including reactions and plans, immediately following approval. It is expected that a review of progress in implementing recommendations and investigating issues raised would occur quarterly for the two years following the Peer Review Visit. Progress Reports will be published as deemed appropriate.

Date Action

April 2004 Department, College, Support Departments and University issued with Quality Review document and prepare reactions and plans for QI as appropriate.

September 2004 Quality Support Unit incorporates reactions and plans, from all levels, into the document. This is presented to the QSC. IWMC presents an overview of Peer Review and its reactions/plans for QI to the QSC and Deans’ Council.

January 2005 Quality Review document, incorporating reactions and plans, is presented to UL Governing Authority for approval for publication.



4.0 Preliminary Comments of the Peer Review Group The PRG wishes to acknowledge the highly visionary, vibrant and dynamic nature of the Irish World Music Centre (IWMC). The Centre’s artistic and scholarly excellence establishes the IWMC as a unique national and international resource. We applaud the University’s foresight in establishing a specialist centre that promotes the vital contribution that song, instrumental music and dance make to the local and international communities, and its ongoing commitment in sustaining it. The PRG finds that the work of the Centre is infused by a clear moral and ethical engagement. Staff and students affirm the transformative experience of participation in the Centre’s programmes and activities. The first decade of the IWMC has been marked by a period of rapid growth and accomplishment. The Centre now needs a period of strategic consolidation. The University should ensure that the Centre’s work is underpinned by stable systems for organisational development, human resources management, facilities management, and financial and business affairs. The PRG appreciates the invitation of the President of the University to reflect on the future of the IWMC. We support the projected development of the Centre’s portfolio into an academic entity in its own right, such as a school, with dedicated, purpose-built accommodation to the highest international standard. The IWMC enthusiastically embraced the opportunity provided by the quality review process to reflect critically on its progress, development and future. The SWOT analysis played an important role in bringing the members of the Centre together for the self-evaluation. It would appear that conducting a SWOT analysis early in the quality review cycle is beneficial to the process. The PRG commends the Centre’s intention to continue critical self-reflection as part of the creation and implementation of an action plan. The PRG appreciated the openness and warm cooperation of the staff and students in the review exercise.



5.0 The Report of the Peer Review Group 5.1 Mission

Commendations The PRG commends:

5.1.1 the ambition and breadth of vision that underpins the IWMC’s mission as articulated throughout the QA process

5.1.2 IWMC’s commitment to addressing issues of the local-global dynamic through its evolving programming and operational practices

5.1.3 IWMC’s success in developing a distinctive and innovative contribution to scholarship, practice and theory in the arts through undergraduate, postgraduate and research activities

5.1.4 the inclusion of proactive concerns for marginalised groups in IWMC’s mission

5.1.5 IWMC’s “street-access” admissions policy as a means of realising UL’s commitment to APL and APEL



Recommendations The PRG recommends that the IWMC:

5.1.6 redrafts its mission statement to reflect more accurately the Centre’s core values and its expanded portfolio which now includes dance

Response of the IWMC: Ongoing discussion with Faculty in order to generate a revised mission statement

5.1.7 periodically re-evaluates the mission in order to ensure that it accurately steers the Centre through the period of consolidation and future expansion within the broad UL policy framework

Response of the IWMC: Revisit the Mission Statement at the beginning of each Academic year

5.1.8 reconsiders its name in order to reflect more accurately current provision and its future developmental ambitions in its multidisciplinary and international domain

Response of the IWMC: Already taken. A new name has been agreed and this is currently under discussion with Executive Council Response of the Dean: The issue of the new name brings up the issue of the structural relationship between the Sionna Academy of Music and Dance and the College of Humanities. If it is separate from the College, then it is no business of the College; if it is a constituent part of the College, it is still mainly a concern for the Director and faculty. However the current semi—detached status means that the title has implications for the coherence of the College. There is no clear link between Humanities/Arts/Social Science/ Law and the Sionna Academy of Music and Dance.

5.1.9 continues to articulate its mission and core values in an explicit and consistent manner to the UL, its stakeholders and the wider international audience

Response of the IWMC: The publication of the revised Mission Statement in all future IWMC promotional publications Response of the Dean The structural ambiguity of IWMC/Sionna Academy of Music and Dance is not helpful. In many ways it acts as a College without any of the structural supports. However the fact that it is semi-detached means that it is less visible than it might be, and reduces the coherence of the structure to which it is in a semi-detached relationship (i.e. the College)



5.2 Design and Content of Curriculum Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for:

5.2.1 the innovative and focused nature of its educational provision

5.2.2 addressing performance in intellectual domains and including and honouring such traditions.

5.2.3 providing opportunities for elective modules, enabling synergies and a breadth of study

5.2.4 its commitment to the development of staff expertise and research which infuses taught courses

5.2.5 having responsive mechanisms which address curricular issues such as designating the dissertation as a compulsory module for attaining pass

5.2.6 regular high level international input into design of curriculum

5.2.7 the development of new programmes including undergraduate programmes in music and dance




5.2.8 consider cross-programme provision of specific modules, such as research methods

Response of the IWMC: Already taken with provision of: a) a cross-programme module on research methods b) creation of 'elective pathways' between subject areas.

5.2.9 examine the demands of an emerging vocational world of work that the Centre’s graduates will enter

Response of the IWMC: a) Faculty training seminar in graduate employment b) Data gathering on post graduates employment patterns

5.2.10 review the clarity, consistency and application of the published entry requirements for all programmes, courses and the elective modules within the programmes

Response of the IWMC: Co-ordination of revised descriptions

5.2.11 examine perceived anomalies in the student workload in elective modules as well as the balance weighting of elective elements as opposed to core discipline

Response of the IWMC: Continued discussion at CoG leading to minuted decisions as action points

5.2.12 review the range of assessment opportunities available to students in light of practical relevance to the world of education and work

Response of the IWMC: Discussion with professor Graham Walsh, Institute of Education, University of London as to a wider range of assessment procedures

5.2.13 continue to consider the development of practice-based doctoral programmes

Response of the IWMC: Subgroup already formed (entitled BOSCA) to move this forward



5.3 Teaching, Learning and Assessment Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for:

5.3.1 the rich diversity and quality of its teaching, learning and assessment approaches that are encompassed by its academic portfolio

5.3.2 providing students with opportunities to organise and participate in workshops, recitals, concerts and festivals, and various out-reach activities, both on and off campus

5.3.3 the evident openness of its tutors in responding effectively to the personal and professional needs of students

5.3.4 the quality of its teaching, especially in the ability of tutors to promote a shared, critical and reflective engagement by students with course content and issues


5.3.5 systematically map and critique the diversity of teaching, learning and assessment approaches in its courses to explore how good practice in one area might be of benefit to another

Response of the IWMC: Sharing of teaching, learning and assessment methods between faculty at regular faculty meetings

5.3.6 review its procedures for ensuring that all students are provided with systematic formative feedback on submitted coursework

Response of the IWMC: Review of procedures through Faculty sharing at regular meetings

5.3.7 review what might be the appropriate balance which it should maintain between research and scholarship on the one hand, and performance or professional practice on the other hand, in its entire range of courses

Response of the IWMC: Review through discussions at regular Faculty meetings

5.3.8 require all students to participate in specialist courses in research methods and the development of academic writing.

Response of the IWMC: Review of new Elective module in research methods with a view to extending its use across a wider range of students



5.4 Faculty and Support Staff Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for:

5.4.1 the dedication and flexible responsiveness demonstrated by all its staff in meeting the challenges facing the Centre and thus contributing to its ongoing and successful development

5.4.2 the visionary and inspiring leadership given by the Director

Response of the Dean: Absolutely. His contribution was, and is, extraordinary

5.4.3 the excellent and dedicated teaching and leadership of the Course Directors

5.4.4 the selfless devotion of the administrative staff to the success of the Centre

5.4.5 the rich variety of national and international tutor expertise that is made available to students through full-time and part-time staff




5.4.6 provide regular opportunities for the entire teaching teams (full-time and visiting) to meet across the academic year, as far as is feasible, in order to foster the widest possible sense of collegiality

Response of the IWMC: Extension of convocation meetings to include visiting staff. Inclusion of visiting staff in invitations to any other general gatherings throughout the year

5.4.7

ensure (with the University) that staff engaged in doctoral research have appropriate space across the working year for the speedy and successful completion of these studies

Response of the IWMC: Continued encouragement of Faculty to avail of sabbatical opportunities Response of the Dean: I have been happy to encourage and support such sabbaticals as part of a College wide policy

5.4.8

ensure (with the University) that there is a dedicated member of staff, either within the Centre or centrally, with responsibility for financial administration

Response of the IWMC: Discussion with Finance Office as to the most efficient way of achieving this

5.4.9

initiate a Human Resource Management policy and include provision for systematic annual appraisal by line managers

Response of the IWMC: Discussion with HR office as to the most efficient means of achieving this. Response of the Dean: There are models of best practise that I would encourage IWMC to use.

5.4.10 ensure (with the Human Resources Department) that all current Support Staff have systematic job evaluation to ensure that they are established at staff grades commensurate with their qualifications, responsibilities and accountabilities

Response of the IWMC: Discuss with HR Office issues surrounding Support Staff job evaluations



5.5 Learning Resources Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for:

5.5.1 the provision of a diverse range of resources for students

5.5.2 its ongoing efforts to solve the problems arising from inadequate and/or inappropriate accommodation and aging equipment

5.5.3 forging links with music technology provision elsewhere in the University


5.5.4 explore possibilities of rescheduling some practice sessions outside of normal teaching hours (9h00-18h00, Monday-Friday)

Response of the IWMC: Ongoing review of timetable in terms of its efficiency in the face of programmes developing.

5.5.5 consider using Dromroe Village Hall, the space vacated by Daghdha Dance Company; and reassigning of current office allocation

Response of the IWMC: Ongoing discussion with PESS and PCM on use of any vacated dance space

5.5.6 take immediate steps to ensure, in co-operation with the Library, that the unique audio-visual materials generated at the Centre’s concerts, recitals and festivals be professionally archived

Response of the IWMC: Meeting between Director IWMC and incoming UL Librarian on archive issues.

5.5.7 adopt a strategic approach in its student resource provision in relation to the changing landscape of contemporary arts and artistic practices

Response of the IWMC: Discussion at regular Faculty meetings on present student provision

5.5.8 ensure that essential learning resource materials, particularly in the audio-visual and new media areas (e.g. motion capture technology), be made available to students

Response of the IWMC: Identification of necessary materials through consultation with Faculty.

5.5.9 seek symbiotic opportunities for drawing on learning resources provided by other departments (e.g. CSIS)

Response of the IWMC: Discussion with Head CSIS and relevant CSIS Faculty with a view of identifying systems if increasing CSIS/IWMC interaction



5.6 Student Guidance and Support

Commendations The PRG commends

5.6.1 the IWMC for very supportive, attentive, and available programme leaders and teachers

5.6.2 the IWMC for the transformative and “life-changing” nature of the educational experience several students have reported

5.6.3 the University for its student support guidance structures and systems

Recommendations The PRG recommends that the IWMC

5.6.4 ensure that postgraduate research students are provided with alternatives to main supervisor; consider using co-supervisors

Response of the IWMC: Continue to examine and encourage the existing system of co-supervision for research students Response of the Dean: Co-supervision by faculty in the ‘main’ College has been initiated and welcomed.

5.6.5 encourage faculty to make full use of University’s advisors’ training programme

Response of the IWMC: Discussion at regular faculty meetings to highlight training opportunities for faculty

5.6.6 improve monitoring of students´ health and safety issues

Response of the IWMC: Increased liaison with Health and Safety office towards improved monitoring



5.7 Management for Quality Performance and Improvement

Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for

5.7.1 the weekly use of COG meetings to address short-term management issues

5.7.2 high value placed on the use of visiting, world-class experts in all fields

5.7.3 excellent students feedback on faculty commitment to student growth and knowledge acquired

5.7.4 careful maintenance of faculty-student ratio in most programs

5.7.5 good results in initial attempts to track graduates in their professional lives.




5.7.6 review the organisation to create a more effective structure for the distribution and delegation of senior management roles and responsibilities

Response of the IWMC: Review of organisation in consultation with faculty Response of the Dean: The issue as to whether the Director is a Dean or HOD is a source of confusion. Related to this is the question as to whether the Course Directors in IWMC (who have a great deal of responsibility and autonomy) are HODs or not. Since they do not have that designation, information that would be available to HODs does not reach them. The Director’s ambiguous status means that at times, he also misses out on routine information. The fact that the structure is semi-detached adds to the complexities of its relationship with other components in the University. The fact that a member of IWMC is now ADAA for the College creates a link- but this is not a substitute for clarity at a structural level.

5.7.7 place higher priority on face-to-face meetings with authorities in charge of Finance, Health and Safety, Teaching and Learning Centre, Advising and Counselling

Response of the IWMC: Review of organisation in consultation with faculty

5.7.8 investigate alternative models of pedagogy for application to current teaching methods in all programs.

Response of the IWMC: Continuation and extension of current practice of inviting relevant offices to attend faculty meetings once a year. Schedule relevant annual meetings with appropriate offices.

5.7.9 make use of peer-teaching observations and consider inviting experts in pedagogy to observe and evaluate current teaching for use of ‘best practice’.

Response of the IWMC: Consult with Professor Graham Walsh, Institute of Education, University of London on alternative models

5.7.10 give focused attention to worldwide marketing strategies for student recruitment through various, selected media.

Response of the IWMC: Issue invitations to Prof. Graham Walsh, University of London, to evaluate current teaching

5.7.11 develop and implement student evaluations of teaching in each module and alumni evaluations

Response of the IWMC: Review current global marketing strategies with IWMC PR disk and relevant faculty. Response of the Dean; IWMC very effectively profiles and markets itself.



5.8 Research Activity Commendations The PRG commends the IWMC for

5.8.1 high quality being a fundamental focus and goal of the IWMC from its inception

5.8.2 clear evidence of high level of scholarship and a broad range of important research topics.

5.8.3 important and healthy production of MA and PhD theses in the relatively short life of this centre.

5.8.4 a high level of students´ satisfaction with their research processes and the professional dissemination of their works

5.8.5 excellent role models of successful scholarly activity found among program directors




5.8.6 continue to examine and develop innovative and significant models of practice-based and performance-centred research

Response of the IWMC: Continuation of IWMC committee to investigate these research models. Continue to seek financial support to enable international consultation Response of the Dean: I would support the IWMC in its desire to develop practice based models (and have been instrumental in ensuring that their CD etc output was properly rated in the university’s classification system)

5.8.7 consider developing and implementing courses in research methods the cut across all programs and serve all students.

Response of the IWMC: Currently in action for first time for 03/04 academic year. Response of the Dean; The semi-detached nature of the IWMC means that it is not a part of discussions concerning methodology in the ‘main’ College

5.8.8 provide opportunities to insure that all faculty can be involved in research and creative activity through more appropriate workload support and allocation.

Response of the IWMC: Individual consultation with all faculty to encourage and reward research and creative activity.

5.8.9 encourage more faculty members to qualify for doctoral supervision as such responsibilities are expanding

Response of the IWMC: Continue current policy of enabling faculty to qualify and acquire relevant skills Response of the Dean; I have been happy to support this

5.8.10 continue developing interdisciplinary research with colleagues across UL.

Response of the IWMC: Monitor efficiency of current interdisciplinary research and research supervision. Continue to encourage cross-college and inter-college interaction



5.9 Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses and Reaction Plan

Commendations

5.9.1 The PRG commends the IWMC for its artistic and scholarly excellence, which makes it a unique national and international asset. The visionary nature of the Centre reinforces the vital contribution that song, music and dance make to communities locally as well as internationally. Staff and students have convinced the PRG of the transformative experience of participation in the Centre’s educational activities. The PRG commends the IWMC for its intention to continue the critical self-assessment as part of the development of the action plan.

Recommendations

5.9.2 Strategies are needed for educational and research development to ensure that the Centre fulfils its unique mission. Strategy must also be developed to address long standing problems in four areas: Human Resource Management, Health and Safety, Finance and Facilities.

Reaction Plan

5.9.3 The PRG suggests that the IWMC includes the following points in its action plan and that it should be reviewed and renewed annually.

• A Mission The IWMC should rearticulate its mission statement to reflect more accurately the Centre’s core values and its expanded portfolio which now includes dance and its developmental ambitions in the multidisciplinary and international performing arts domain. The revised mission should be embraced by a new name.

Response of the Dean; See earlier comments on the need for clarification of the structural relationship with the College

• B Pedagogy The IWMC should systematically map and critique the diversity of teaching, learning and assessment approaches in higher education. This mapping should be used to explore how excellent practice in one area might be of benefit to another. Learning resources such as audio visual material need to be expanded to ensure equivalence to an international standard.

• C Research Core training in both generic and specialist research methodologies should be developed and implemented for all students. In order to encourage research activity by all faculty, the IWMC needs to ensure



that work loads and support systems are appropriate. As doctoral supervision expands across faculty and programmes, it is imperative that faculty are well prepared to assume this responsibility. A wider range of international journals and other research resources needs to be readily available to both staff and students.

Response of the Dean: Absolutely agree re library. No new journals have been ordered since 2000 in an attempt to control the library budget. The importance of such resources to programmes in IWMC and other areas cannot be under-estimated

• D Human Resource Management The PRG suggests that this part of the action plan includes systematic role definition, job evaluation and annual cycle of appraisals for faculty and support staff. Gaps that have been perceived by the panel include senior administrator, archivist, financial administrator, audio visual/web developer.

• E Health and Safety Immediate action is required to ensure that rehearsal and performance spaces are in compliance with Health and Safety legislation. Risk assessments should be undertaken regularly to monitor areas of potential danger, including dance surfaces, and heating and ventilation systems.

• F Finance Since current systems for financial administration are inadequate, and fail to comply with the requirements of the Prompt Payment of Creditors Act, there is a need for a dedicated member of staff, located either within the IWMC or centrally, with responsibility for efficient financial control and management.

• G Facilities The IWMC is poorly accommodated at present. Action should be taken to minimise this problem. A space management strategy is needed that is agreed by all stakeholders. There is a clear need to explore the benefits of rescheduling and relocating



Appendix A Membership of the Peer Review Group: Irish World Music Centre University of Limerick, 8-11th March 2004

Dr Karl-Axel Nilsson (Chair) University of Lund, Sweden

Dr David Elliott New York University

Dr Christopher Bannerman Middlesex University

Dermot McLaughlin, Temple Bar Properties

Nicholas Carolan Irish Traditional Music Archive

Dr Patricia Sheehan Campbell University of Washington

Prof Graham F Welch University of London

Dr Patrick Cashell Assistant Registrar, University of Limerick,

Appendix B

The Peer Review Group interacted primarily with the Irish World Music Centre Quality Team. Members of the Department of Irish World Music Center:

Irish World Music Centre

Professor Micheal O Suilleabhain, Director IWMC

Joan Cunneen Acting Administrator

Sandra Joyce Course Director, BA Irish Music and Dance

Dr Helen Phelan Course Director, MA Chant and Ritual Song and Assistant Dean Academic Affairs, College of Humanities

Niall Keegan, Course Director MA Irish Traditional Music Performance The PRG met the entire staff of the Department on a number of occasions, both as a group and individually. A significant number of postgraduate research students, researchers and undergraduate students were also met, both formally and informally, during the visit. A closed session with the PRG lunching and then meeting with, a representative group of students and graduates of the Department provided some very useful and constructive feedback.


Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangduong
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Irish orld usic Centre (IWMC) Review, Irish World Music Centre, University of Limerick. Table of...

Documents