1.Stipend
Some students still feel the stipend is too low and would like the University to reconsider its commitment to the 3 year, £6000 pa stipend for the following reasons:
Students are very unlikely to complete their PhD on a 3 year £6000 stipend. This is both because they must work whilst studying in order to fund their living costs and they have no opportunity to save any money to cover their living costs for the average 6 - 12 months it takes to complete a PhD after funding ceases.
Research students in the School of Computing and the School of Business (Marketing Division) have been told that there is no money whatsoever available to them for the foreseeable future, including in the form of teaching pay. That is, research students in the School of Computing have been categorically told that they will not be able to get paid teaching work or any funding from the School for research at all, under any circumstances. Many are worried that this will affect their ability to carry out their studies as they cannot afford to fund their living expenses or any research related expenses from their stipend alone.
The level of the stipend does not permit international ‘mobility’ to allow effective study between universities in different countries – those who are studying across borders cannot afford to live in the UK and/or away from family on the 6k stipend.
The types of students that the stipend appeals to is very narrow as those with families to support are not able to live on this figure.
More students being recruited to the University will mean that the meagre teaching that is already available will be greatly reduced even further.
A number of students would like the IRO to confirm the specific reason(s) why the stipend was reduced to 6k. There appears to be some discrepancy between those reason(s) previously given and the reason given on the IRO response to the survey results.
2.Email
The University’s IT policy seems to stipulate that email/Exchange accounts be revoked when a student finishes their PhD. This is an issue because:
- They may not actually be ‘finished’ and still be in the writing up stage
- Any person who wishes to contact them, e.g. on the back of an earlier publication, cannot do so and is not given a forwarding address
We need to review this policy so that students are not losing access to their contacts in the latter stages of their PhD and, it has been suggested, set up a means of forwarding mail after the account has been closed down once the PhD is actually awarded, or set up a forwarding message on revoked accounts. It would also be helpful to set up a forwarding mechanism on existing accounts, for those students who often work from home or prefer to use other email accounts/managers. There are also issues with some distance and part-time students who are not ‘eligible’ for university email accounts. This must be addressed.
3.Survey
We need a repeat of the survey from 2009, as soon as possible, in order to assess whether the experiences of research students are changing or stable, especially for new students from the Oct 2010 intake.
4.Assessment
Research students need to be provided with some detailed guidance on the new 12 month interview assessment – specifically, an outline of what we will be asked at the interview.
5.Library
There is concern that the library has now withdrawn the capability to order items from ILL online and that it is planning to implement a maximum number of ILL items per head per year. Some PhDs are very literature heavy and the current library facilities are not adequate without substantial ILL access.
6.Research Funding
The 2009 survey conducted by the IRO into the financial situation of UWS research students articulates a number of issues. Of particular relevance, one third of students reported having to subsidise study-related expenses, while another third reported that they had been unable to undertake essential study-related activities due to funding issues. We do not consider this to be acceptable. Therefore, we aim, in conjunction with the IRO and individual Schools, to confirm/ negotiate:
(i) Which level of administration (Supervisor, School, Faculty, IRO, University) is responsible for providing funding for each specific activity (e.g. conferences, research expenses etc.).
There have also been significant issues for some students, especially in the science faculty, with regards to inappropriate, poor quality or unusable equipment. We feel a level of responsibility should fall on the University to provide funding for the completion on a PhD requiring this equipment if departments/schools are not able to afford this.
(ii) The appropriate contact details for information and application of funding for each of these administrative levels and activities.
(iii) Appropriate sums of money designated by each School to fund the number of students it recruits. We are aware that there is a lack of clarity for some students, some supervisors and some schools concerning the responsibility for research costs and what constitutes adequate funding. We strongly believe that none of these costs should fall upon students. We aim to work towards providing clarity, parity and guidance for all concerned. We feel the cost of a minimum standard of one conference per research student per year should be anticipated by each School, to a minimum agreed value.
(iv) Better information should be given to supervisors and prospective supervisors about sources of external funding for research and for research students. We need to confirm what information is given at present and work to improve that given.
7.Working Conditions
The survey also reveals a lack of clear information regarding the amount of time which should be dedicated to research versus the quantity of time ‘allowed’ for external work. Recent investigations have also uncovered dissatisfaction with the inflexibility of working hours for some students. Therefore, we will work to confirm:
(i) The exact nature of the research student’s commitment to the University, including the negotiation, if applicable, of flexible working arrangements.
(ii) The exact nature of the University’s commitment to the research student in the provision of a suitable working space/desk, computer, email address and internet access. This discussion will include how part time and distance-learning students could be best supported and we will lobby for greater parity between different Schools and modes of study. This is increasingly important considering the number of new research students recruited and we feel a universal hot-desking system is unacceptable and inappropriate for most research students.
It is also essential that research students, going forwards, be given at least 2 months notice of changes to their working conditions, for example, the institution of hot-desking arrangements at their workstation or a change of office.
8. Employment Opportunities
Finally, the survey uncovers a tendency for students to work outside the University. In doing so, they take on more hours than is ideal, at relatively low rates of pay, often with no added value to professional development. We feel that the University and individual Schools should be doing everything they can to provide jobs internally to research students.
We aim, therefore, to work in conjunction with Schools and the IRO, to develop an improved system for the advertisement of internal employment among research students, in order to provide sufficient additional income and more relevant experience. This could, perhaps, take the form of a dedicated website for the advertisement of jobs suitable for research students, with standardised forms and procedures (and not be required to reapply annually for ongoing positions). We not consider the current methods, especially of teaching opportunities by word-of-mouth, to be acceptable in promoting fairness amongst students.
No comments:
Post a Comment