Deans Discussion Group Meeting 7-2003

Meeting 7/2003 of the Deans Discussion Group was held at 3.00 pm on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30 Collins Street, Melbourne.

NOTES

1. Attendance and apologies

There were present:

Professor R Larkins AO, Vice-Chancellor

Professor A Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning)

Ms A Crook, AO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Resources)

Professor G Bouma, Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Development)

Professor S Parker, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor B Mackenzie, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Gippsland Campus

Professor J Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design

Professor H Le Grand, Dean, Faculty of Arts

Professor G Palmer, Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics

Professor S Willis, Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor T Sridhar, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

Professor L Piterman, Acting Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences

Professor C Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Professor R Norris, Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor M King, Director, Research Graduate School

Ms M Jackson, Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs

Professor G Webb, Director, Centre for Higher Education Quality

Ms P Sanderson, Chief Executive Officer, Monash Property Management

Mr N Bentley, Project Director, Monash Property Management

Ms J Holt, Director, Strategy, Student and Staff Services

Apologies:

Professor N Saunders, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences

Professor G Gupta, Acting Dean, Faculty of Information Technology

Mr T Pollock, Vice-President (International)

Secretary:

Mr T Calder, Director, Secretariat and Executive Services

2. Notes

Notes of meeting 6/2003 held on 5 August 2003 were received and noted.

3. Matters arising from the Notes of meeting 6/2003

Pricing, Positioning and Equity

Members were informed that a working party chaired by Professor Alan Lindsay had been established to progress the issues raised during the discussion.

Strategic Framework

Professor Richard Larkins advised members that he had drafted a succinct document outlining the strategic priorities for the period 2003-2008.

Noting that the document did not supplant the existing formal planning framework, members were informed that the document would be considered by the Vice-Chancellor's Group (VCG) on Wednesday, 24 September, at a future meeting of the Committee of Deans and then Council at its December meeting.

Planning Conference

A planning conference comprising members of VCG, Deans, Heads of Departments and senior support staff would be scheduled for early 2004.

Leading the Way 2020

Noting that the strategic discussion topic for the 7th October meeting of the Deans Discussion Group was "Revisit Leading the Way", members were advised that several issues including the global network of campuses and projected student numbers were currently being considered.

4. Clayton Urban Masterplan - Presentation/workshop

Caulfield Urban Masterplan - Presentation/workshop

Ms Pru Sanderson and Mr Neville Bentley were in attendance for this item.

Ms Alison Crook introduced the item noting that the presentations were intended to promote discussion on the development of a blue print for the future physical development of Clayton and Caulfield campuses that would transform the image of the University by guiding the development of each campus, including commercial and residential developments, and contributing to the efficient allocation of resources.

Clayton Campus - presented by Bates Smart

Members were advised that the starting point for the development of the Clayton Urban Masterplan was that a good campus needed a sense of entry including a place of "arrival", a hierarchy of spaces for the various activities undertaken, expansion/growth opportunities and buildings and activities that facilitated engagement with the community.

Highlights of the plan included the development of a new main entry on Blackburn Road that would also link the campus to the Synchrotron development, an urban square, proposed use of the Menzies building as student accommodation, landscaped open space precincts, a community arts precinct facing Wellington Road and possible locations for future buildings.

Caulfield Campus - presented by Lyons

Introducing the Caulfield Urban Masterplan, members were informed that Caulfield Campus was seen as a metropolitan campus that was close to the city of Melbourne and a campus with good public transport access.  Challenges included the need to break down the "walled city" concept, the creation of linkages and vistas that improved both access and liveability and the construction of buildings that took advantage of the proposed vistas.

Features of the plan focussed on creating a village-type campus incorporating retail activity, student residences, quality teaching spaces and laneway linkages across the campus.  Highlights included a new entry off Dandenong Road, a new academic building at the east end of the campus, an east/west pedestrian walk-through to Darby Road and identification of locations for "icon" buildings.

Following discussion of the proposals, members were requested to forward any comments to Ms Sanderson or Mr Bentley.

(Secretarial note:  following the presentations on the Clayton Urban Masterplan and the Caulfield Urban Masterplan and prior to consideration of the remaining agenda items, Professor Larkins informed members that Professor Edward Byrne and Professor Arie Freiberg had accepted their respective offers of appointment as Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Dean, Faculty of Law.)

5. Strategy discussions

5.1 Teaching Research Nexus - Professor Gary Bouma

Professor Graham Webb was in attendance for this item.

Members were informed that it was important for Monash to understand what it meant when referring to the teaching/research nexus and that, while discussion of the matter was not new at Monash, Monash needed to be more systematic in how it attempted to define the nexus and that the work of Boyer, E. 1990 Scholarship Reconsidered:  Priorities for the Professoriate may provide a framework for progressing the discussion.

Professor Bouma suggested that Monash required a clear statement linking both research and teaching within a policy framework where an understanding of the teaching/research nexus informed policy and decision-making including policies relating to workloads.

A member suggested an alternative model for consideration of the nexus whereby the nexus was considered as the learning environment where research was an integral component of the environment.

Commenting on the "environment" model, members noted that not all teaching was undertaken in a research environment such as offshore partner delivered programs.

Members offered the following input to the discussion:

• Monash delivered units in a variety of modes most of which were research informed;
• the role of the web must be central during discussion of the nexus given Monash's internationalisation objectives;
• that the relationship between learning and research was easier to demonstrate than the linkage between teaching and research;
• there was a need to distinguish between teaching as an activity and teaching as scholarship.  Further, it was suggested that not all staff were appropriately trained to undertake research into the scholarship of teaching;
• off-campus teaching and sessional teaching were issues to be considered as they were often undertaken by staff that were not research active;
• commenting on Boyer's principles and Monash's research activities, it was suggested that to adopt broad definitions would in effect be selling Monash short; and
• members were advised that it was important to differentiate between "good, modern educational practice" and Monash's capacity, due to its research activity, to contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Concluding the discussion, Professor Bouma noted that Monash was a diverse institution where it was important to develop drivers to motivate quality teaching and research, however, Monash may need to develop a lexicon that facilitated a better understanding of the teaching/research nexus.

6. Performance Management and the Evaluation of Teaching

Professor Graham Webb was in attendance for this item.

Professor Webb provided a background to the topic reminding members that the matter was last discussed at meeting 4/2002 of the Committee of Deans where it was resolved that rather than develop a compulsory teacher evaluation instrument to measure teaching performance, Monash would focus on the ongoing implementation of the unit evaluation policy as this provided a more appropriate means of teaching evaluation.

During discussion, members discussed a range of issues relating to performance management, probation and the evaluation of teaching.  Matters raised by members included the use of emerging technologies to obtain initial feedback from students on teaching evaluation, the need to initially separate performance management issues and students' evaluation of teaching, the outcomes of MonQueST evaluations were confidential and "belong" to the staff member concerned, the need to identify problem/poor teaching and take remedial action at the earliest opportunity and the role of the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education.

Members raised a number of concerns relating to the confirmation of appointment process following a probationary period.  It was suggested that as the matter could not be resolved at the meeting, it be deferred until the next meeting where Mr Peter Marshall would be invited to attend.  Mr Marshall would be requested to provide advice on the following issues:

• the delineation of current responsibilities in relation to the probationary period;
• what actions were currently permissible/advisable during the probationary period;
• what data was available to faculty staff to facilitate administration of the probationary period;
• what changes, if any, affecting probation were planned for discussion during the next Enterprise Bargaining round; and
• advice to Deans on Performance Management and evaluation of teaching.

7. Campus Planning

Professor Stephen Parker spoke to the item.

Introducing the topic, members were advised that the purpose of the document Re-thinking Campus Planning - a Discussion Paper was to provide a model within which to frame campus planning discussions and to identify the milestones/activities that could reasonably be achieved in 2003. 

Prior to opening the matter up for general discussion, the attention of members was drawn to the nine propositions detailed on pages 8 and 9 of the discussion paper.

Matters raised during discussion included the following:

• campus planning needed to be informed by a better understanding of the demographics of students attending each campus and the reasons they attended the campus - campus location, programs offered, ENTER scores, availability of public transport etc;

Members were informed by Ms Meredith Jackson that student demographic data, along with other market research data, was available to assist with campus planning.

• in response to the suggestion that current structures constrain decision-making, members were informed that the discussion paper focussed on putting in place a higher order framework within which proposals for each campus could be discussed and progressed.  Further, members were advised that one proposal was to convene small groups for each campus to guide and contribute to the next phase of the planning process;
• several members noted that several campuses had resource issues that needed prompt consideration; and

In response, members were advised that while resource issues underpinned campus planning, the academic vision was the primary driver for each campus.

• in relation to overseas campuses, members were informed that while the current documents stated that each campus should become, over time, self-sufficient, consideration should be given to re-aligning that statement to one where not only should Monash become self-sufficient but the global operations should become self-sufficient.

In response, a member noted that the issues of self-sufficiency and subsidies were complex as categories and divisions within the University, while self-imposed, also affect outcomes.  Any change in how we split up campuses/faculties/or a group has a resultant effect on the level of subsidies required.

Following an outline by the Vice-Chancellor of his preliminary views on the management arrangements for campuses, members were informed that the issues of self-sustainability and self-reliance were to be explored further during the coming round of strategic discussions.

8. Monash University's Staff Study Support Program

Ms Jane Holt was in attendance for this item.

Ms Alison Crook introduced the item and informed members that the Performance and Remuneration Committee and VCG had considered the proposed program prior to consideration at the Deans Discussion Group.

Members were advised that not only were initiatives such as this good for staff morale and development but they also provided Monash with a competitive advantage when recruiting staff.

During discussion, members raised the following issues:

• a member queried whether the four hour limit on study leave could be exceeded/increased;

In response, members were advised that study leave could be accumulated to assist with examination preparation etc. provided it was taken prior to completion of the unit.  Further, members reported instances where greater than four hours study leave was approved within their faculty provided the time in excess of four hours was made up via early starts, shorter lunch breaks or other similar arrangements.

• in response to a question, it was noted that the proposed policy did not address the situation where a staff member had enrolled in a single subject as a form of professional development;
• it was noted that the study leave provisions in relation to PhD courses contradicted the requirements of the Research Graduate School which state that a person enrolled part time in a PhD should allocate at least one weekday and one day of the weekend to progressing their course of study; and
• noting that section 24 did not permit staff to undertake a PhD at another higher education institution, Professor Larkins suggested the following amendment:

"Staff can undertake the following courses at another Higher Education Institution:

• Undergraduate;
• Graduate;
• Postgraduate (normally not including PhD courses);
• TAFE; and
• Accredited programs."

Thanking members for their contributions, Ms Crook agreed to implement the policy subject to minor modifications resulting from the discussion.

9. Proposal to advertise and fill positions

9.1 Chair of Pharmacology

9.2 Professor/Director of Cardiology, Southern Clinical School

9.3 Professor/Director of General Surgery, Southern Clinical School

Deans Discussion Group endorsed for transmission to Academic Board and Council the proposals of the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences to advertise and fill the positions of:

• Chair of Pharmacology
• Professor/Director of Cardiology, Southern Clinical School
• Professor/Director of General Surgery, Southern Clinical School

10. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group will be held at 4 pm on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 in the City Office. 

The meeting of the Committee of Deans scheduled for Tuesday, 21 October 2003 has been replaced by the Senior Management Forum scheduled for 12.00pm to 6.00pm.

Distribution

Vice-Chancellor

Deputy Vice-Chancellors

Pro Vice-Chancellors

Deans and Acting/Deputy Deans

Director, Research Graduate School

Vice-President (International)

Executive Director, Marketing and Public Affairs

Director, Centre for Higher Education Quality