Source:
http://www.ahrb.ac.uk/strategy/pgreview.htm
_____________________________________________

Arts and Humanities Research Board
Postgraduate Review

The AHRB is currently undertaking a fundamental review of its
provision of postgraduate awards.  The terms of reference for the
review are below.

As part of the review, we are seeking views and comments from the
academic community and beyond, and in particular on a series of
questions grouped under five headings below. Please feel free to
add any other comments you may think relevant. All comments
should be in free text format and returned by email to
[log in to unmask] or by mail to Steve Morgan at the AHRB's
Bristol office. The closing date for responses is 31 May 2001.

Information about the Board's current portfolio of schemes is
available on this website [www.ahrb.ac.uk]. The key questions on
which we are seeking comments are as follows:

1. Mission and objectives

Within currently available resources, how effectively does the
AHRB's present provision meet its mission "to support the
development of highly-qualified people in the arts and humanities,
both to supply the next generation of scholars and more generally
to enable students to achieve a high level of knowledge,
understanding, skills and competences that will be employed in a
wide range of professions and vocations"? How can the Board's
degree of success in achieving that mission most effectively be
assessed?

2. Achieving a balanced portfolio

What changes, if any, should the Board make to the structure of
its current portfolio of schemes? Should the Board seek to secure
an even spread of awards across the different areas of study in its
domain; or should there be specific allocations of awards to
particular areas or kinds of study? How should such allocations be
determined?

What should be the balance as between the support of students
pursuing courses with a direct professional or vocational outcome,
and the support of research training at Master's and doctoral
levels? What should be the balance between numbers of Master's
and doctoral awards?

Should the Board maintain the current 1 plus 3 structure of awards,
progressing from Master's to doctoral level, and the policy that 3-
year awards should be provided only to those who have formal
postgraduate training experience?

3. Methods of allocating awards

Should the AHRB continue to allocate awards solely through
student-driven competitions, or should it allocate at least some of
its awards by quota to institutions, departments, courses, or
subjects?

4. Research training and supervision

What should be the AHRB's minimum requirements for the
provision by HEIs and departments of research training, support
and supervision for Master's and doctoral students?

What are the similarities and differences between the training
requirements for students in the arts and humanities and those in
other subject areas?

What steps should the AHRB take to encourage HEIs to
collaborate in the provision of research and other training?

5. Funding

What evidence or criteria can be employed to determine whether
the Board has an appropriate level of funding to allocate to the
postgraduate programme?

Within a fixed envelope of funding, should the AHRB give priority to
maintaining or enhancing the current numbers of awards, or to
increasing the level of maintenance grants, in any or all of its
schemes?

Should the AHRB modify or enhance the financial structure of its
awards, to make an additional contribution, for example, (on top of
the tuition fee) towards the costs of research training?
Please feel free to email, adding any other comments not covered
by the questions above, to [log in to unmask] or by mail to
Steve Morgan at the AHRB's Bristol office.

__________________________________________

Review of the Postgraduate Programme - Terms of Reference

1. To review, in the light of the Board's mission and strategic
objectives, of the policies and practices of other bodies including
the Research Councils and the Funding Councils, and of the
demands from students and employers, the current portfolio of
schemes in the postgraduate programme, and the postgraduate
elements in the research programme.

2. To assess, so far as possible in consultation with colleagues
and appropriate partners, the ways in which the schemes might be
developed and modified to provide a more consistent programme, a
better fit with the Board's mission and strategic objectives, and an
appropriate balance of support for work and outcomes of the
highest quality across the whole of the Board's subject domain.
The matters to be assessed should include

i. the relationships between the different schemes of awards,
including overlaps and the possibilities for consolidation
ii. the financial structures of the different schemes
iii. the numbers of applications received and awards made in
different subject areas in the arts and humanities
iv. the nature and length of the courses and programmes of study
supported through the different schemes
v. the methods of allocating awards
vi. the balance of numbers and quality of applications and awards
for coursework and for doctoral study, and student progression
between them.

3. To review the diverse nature and scope of postgraduate study at
different levels in the arts and humanities, and to assess the nature
and the quality of the vocational and research training that is
currently provided, the nature of the training that the Board should
seek to promote, and what it should require to be provided for its
award-holders.

4. To assess the nature and the quality of the vocational,
professional, employment, research and other outcomes of the
awards that it makes, and ways in which these might be improved
and enhanced.

5. To make recommendations to the Board.