Periodic Review of Postgraduate Research Programmes Follow-up Questionnaire

Thank you for taking part in a recent Periodic Review of Postgraduate Research Programmes at the University of Southampton. We would like to gather feedback from members of the review panel, as well as those who took part in the review, to inform enhancements to the process. This questionnaire will look at:

  • The scope of the review
  • The reflective report
  • The supporting documentation
  • The review panel
  • The review visit

Section A should be completed by all

Section B should be completed by review panel members only

Section C should be completed by Faculty members who took part in the review only

Please complete your details below:

Name
Faculty under review
Date of review
Role in review

Section A – to be completed by all

Please circle/highlight the number that indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Circle one number for each statement.

A-1 / The purpose and scope of the review were well defined. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
A-2 / Enough time was allocated for a rigorous exchange during the meetings. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
A-3 / The frequency (every five years) of these reviews is:
___ about right
___ too frequent
___ not frequent enough
A-4 / The review was conducted smoothly. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5

A-5 What was the most useful part of the review process?

A-6 What could have been done better?

A-7 / Overall, how useful did you find the review process? / 1 2 3 4 5

A-8.Please provide comments and recommendations on the overall review process.

Section B – for review panel members

Please circle/highlight the number that indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Circle one number for each statement.

B-1 / The quality, breadth, and depth of the following were sufficient
to contribute to a well-considered review:
  1. Reflective report
  2. Supporting documentation
  3. Overall review visit
  4. Meeting with the Graduate School
  5. Meeting with supervisors
  6. Meeting with students
/ disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

If you have any comments, please detail these here

B-2 / The review documentation was provided sufficiently far in advance to allow for thorough scrutiny / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
B-3 / Review instructions and guidance were provided in a timely manner. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
B-4 / The criteria outlined in the Procedures for the Periodic Review of Postgraduate Research Programmes was organized were clearly defined and used appropriately. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
B-5 / During the review process, reviewers had adequate access to Graduate School staff, students, supervisors, or requested sources of additional data. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
B-6 / The reviewers had an appropriate mix and depth of credentials for the purpose of the review. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
____ Don’t know their
credentials
B-7 / When considering the final reporting of recommendations:
  1. The process for developing the final reporting was appropriate.
  1. Enough time was allocated for reviewers to deliberate before recording review comments.
/ disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
____ N/A
If you have any comments, please detail these here

Section C – for Faculty members who took part in the review

Please circle/highlight the number that indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Circle one number for each statement.

D-1 / The notice period to prepare for the review was sufficient. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
D-2 / Guidance on the contents of the reflective report, the supporting documentation, and format of the review visit were sufficient. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
D-3 / The criteria outlined in the Procedures for the Periodic Review of Postgraduate Research Programmes was organized were clearly defined and used appropriately. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
D-4 / The right criteria were used to evaluate the PGR provision in the Faculty / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
D-5 / The reviewers had an appropriate mix and depth of credentials for the purpose of the review. / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
____ Don’t know their
Credentials
D-6 / The review was conducted in a collegial manner / disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
If you have any comments, please detail these here