Report of the Quality Audit of the University of Mauritius

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION
REPORT OF THE SECOND CYCLE
QUALITY AUDIT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS
May 2012
May 2012
TEC Audit Report Number 06
© Tertiary Education Commission 2013
Réduit
Mauritius
Ph (230) 4678800
Fax (230) 4676579
http://www.tec.mu
The Tertiary Education Commission is a statutory body under the aegis of the Ministry
of Tertiary Education, Science, Research & Technology. The Commission has as objects
to allocate government funds, promote, plan, develop and coordinate tertiary
education in Tertiary Education Institutions under its purview in order to
achieve an accountable and responsive tertiary system of international standards.
Since 2005 the objects of the Commission has been extended to include the responsibility
to promote and maintain high quality standards in post-secondary education
through appropriate quality assurance and accreditation processes.
CONTENTS
1
OVERVIEW OF THE AUDIT........................................................................................ 1
1.1
Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Terms of Reference of the auditors ............................................................................ 1
1.3
The Audit Process ....................................................................................................... 2
1.4
Audit Findings ............................................................................................................ 4
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5
3
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................... 7
3.1
Institutional Profile..................................................................................................... 7
3.2
Strategic Context ......................................................................................................... 9
4
AUDIT OUTCOMES ..................................................................................................... 10
4.1
Progress Made on the Recommendations of the Quality Audit 2005 ..................... 10
4.2
Theme 1: Teaching and Learning............................................................................ 10
4.3
Theme 2: Research ................................................................................................... 11
5
COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 13
5.1
Commendations ........................................................................................................ 13
5.2
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 14
6
MATTERS FOR FOLLOW-UP FROM THE FIRST QUALITY AUDIT .............. 18
7
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ............................... 42
7.1
Increasing Access ..................................................................................................... 42
i
7.2
Governance ............................................................................................................... 42
7.3
Institutional Leadership ........................................................................................... 43
7.4
Communication and Culture .................................................................................... 44
7.5
Human Resources Management .............................................................................. 45
7.6
Senior Academic Management ................................................................................ 46
7.7
IT Governance and Management ............................................................................ 47
7.8
Strategic Planning and Budgeting ........................................................................... 48
7.8.1 Vision ........................................................................................................................ 48
7.8.2 Internationalisation .................................................................................................... 49
7.8.3 Budgeting at UoM ..................................................................................................... 49
8
THEME: TEACHING AND LEARNING ................................................................... 53
8.1
Academic Governance and Quality Assurance ....................................................... 53
8.1.1 Involvement of Senate ............................................................................................... 54
8.2
Quality of Teaching and programme delivery ......................................................... 55
8.3
Programme design, Development and Review......................................................... 57
8.4
Assessment of student work ...................................................................................... 59
8.5
Professional accreditation ........................................................................................ 61
8.6
Online learning ......................................................................................................... 62
8.7
Teaching and Research Infrastructure.................................................................... 62
9
THEME: RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 64
9.1
Research Strategy and Research culture ................................................................. 64
9.2
Postgraduate programme by research ..................................................................... 65
9.2.1 Registration Process for MPhil/ PhD Degrees .......................................................... 65
9.2.2 Supervision ................................................................................................................ 67
ii
9.2.3 Training and Support ................................................................................................. 68
9.3
Research Funding..................................................................................................... 69
9.4
Research Publications .............................................................................................. 70
9.5
Research ethics ......................................................................................................... 71
9.6
Research Information Management ........................................................................ 71
9.7
Building research capacity with the creation of the National Research Chairs .... 72
9.8
Consultancy and Contract Research ........................................................................ 73
9.8.1 Intellectual Property Rights ....................................................................................... 73
9.8.2 Consultancy and Contract Research Approval.......................................................... 73
9.8.3 Project Funding ......................................................................................................... 73
10 DATA ............................................................................................................................... 76
10.1
Fund allocated to staff development from 2005 to 2010 (SERp129) ...................... 76
10.2
Student Enrolment at UoM (SERp 56) .................................................................... 76
10.3
Income Distribution from 2005 to 2010 (SERp 112)............................................... 77
10.4
Budget Allocation For Year 2009/10 (SERp68) ...................................................... 77
10.5
Distribution of Staff at UoM (SERp60) ................................................................... 78
10.6
Distribution of Graduates by Level of Qualification (SERp57) .............................. 78
10.7
Number of PhDs completed by Faculty (SERp121) ................................................ 79
10.8
Number of transfers from MPhil to PhD by Faculty (SERp121) ........................... 79
10.9
Fund Allocated to Research from 2006 to 2010 (SERp129) ................................... 80
10.10
Total Number of Research Publications from 2005 to 2010 (SERp132) ............... 80
10.11
Total Number of Research Publications by Faculty from 2005 to 2010 (SERp132)
……………………………………………………………………………………...81
iii
11 APPENDICES................................................................................................................. 82
11.1
APPENDIX A: THE AUDIT PANEL ..................................................................... 82
11.2
APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS & DEFINITIONS.......................................... 83
iv
1
1.1
OVERVIEW OF THE AUDIT
BACKGROUND
The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is the statutory body under the aegis of the
Ministry of Tertiary Education, Science, Research and Technology (MoTESRT) responsible
inter alia for ensuring and monitoring quality in tertiary institutions in Mauritius. This Report
on the Second Cycle Quality Audit is published by TEC, further to the institutional audit
carried out in publicly-funded tertiary institutions.
Publicly-funded tertiary institutions are required to undergo institutional academic quality
audits. These audits adopt the audit process as per the Quality Audit Handbook for Tertiary
Education Institutions (2nd Edition). The audits relate to the existence and effectiveness of the
quality processes that the organisation has in place to achieve its stated objectives, monitoring
the performance of the institution in meeting its objectives and achieving the desired
outcomes. The audit also addresses actions taken by the organisation to improve its overall
effectiveness and the means for monitoring the extent to which the desired outcomes are
attained. For the purpose of this report, quotations and references from the Self Evaluation
Report (SER) are identified in the Report as (SERp).
The membership of the Audit Panel is provided in Appendix A, and Appendix B defines
abbreviations and technical terms used in this Report.
1.2
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE AUDITORS
a) To make a commitment to act as a quality auditor for the institution identified as per
the schedule worked out and participate in the pre-audit workshop and the audit.
b) To act within the scope as approved by the TEC Board in the Quality Audit Handbook
(2010).
c) To evaluate as part of its scope the progress made by the University of Mauritius in
addressing the recommendations of the first cycle quality audit and two themes for
quality audits i.e. Teaching and Learning and Research.
1
d) To be objective at all times, ensuring that they are non-judgemental in their approach;
that they are aware of possible personal bias.
e) To observe confidentiality.
f) To give full support to the Chairperson.
g) To work as a team, ensuring that members are working in harmony with a view to
accomplishing a fact finding mission grounded on the Self-Evaluation Report.
h) To identify good practice as well as unhealthy practice and make necessary
recommendations.
i) To ensure that there is agreement among the members on the conclusions of the panel.
j) To fully co-operate in getting the audit report ready within two months of the audit by
writing the specific observations made and checking with the Tertiary Education
Commission‟s Secretariat to see that the report is a true reflection of the panel‟s
findings.
1.3
THE AUDIT PROCESS
In 2005 TEC appointed an Audit Panel to undertake the First Cycle Quality Audit of the
University of Mauritius (UoM). Within the scope of the particular audit, Second Cycle
Quality Audits emphasise two themes, which reflect specific areas of academic risk at the
institution and the management of these risks.
The UoM in consultation with TEC selected two themes for the audit, „Teaching and
Learning‟ and „Research‟, both of which are core activities at the UoM. The report of the
First Cycle Quality Audit made major recommendations in respect of both Teaching and
Learning and Research. The Audit Panel also followed-up the recommendations of the
2005 TEC Audit Report. On 09 April 2012, the UoM submitted its Self-Evaluation Report
(SER). The different faculties, departments and centres were drawn into the self-evaluation
assessment by providing a SER at departmental level. All information was compiled to
produce the SER of the UoM. The materials were sent to the Audit Panel on 16 April 2012
for consideration.
2
TEC staff involved in the audit exercise undertook a Preparatory Visit to the UoM on
04 May 2012. During that visit, the facilities to be provided for the conduct of the audit were
discussed, as well as the Audit Visit programme.
The Audit Visit at the UoM took place from 08 to 11 May 2012. The Audit Panel split into
two groups on 9, 10 and 11 May 2012 for interview sessions with the Heads of Department,
academic staff, undergraduate students and individuals for the open session.
In all, the Audit Panel spoke with 171 people in 40 interview sessions during the Audit Visit,
including:

Court Members;

Council Members;

Senate Members;

The Acting Vice-Chancellor and the senior management team;

Academic staff;

Administrative staff;

Academic and Non-Academic Staff Union;

Undergraduate and postgraduate students; and

Representatives of affiliated institutions.
Open sessions were also available for any member of the University community to meet the
Audit Panel. Some staff members and union representatives took advantage of this
opportunity to meet with the Panel.
This Report relates to the situation current at the time of the Audit Visit, which ended on
11 May 2012, and does not take account of any changes that may have occurred
subsequently. The Report records the conclusions reached by the Audit Panel based on the
SER provided by UoM, supplementary information requested as well as information gained
through interviews, discussions and observations during the Audit Visit. While every attempt
has been made to reach a comprehensive understanding of the University‟s quality
3
arrangement within the scope of the audit, the Report does not identify every aspect of quality
assurance and its effectiveness or shortcomings.
It is expected that UoM will use these findings to strengthen its quality management systems
with the objective of facilitating quality improvement in all spheres. The decision about the
manner in which this is to be done is the prerogative of UoM. It is expected that UoM will
submit an improvement plan based on the TEC Audit Report.
TEC expresses its appreciation to the UoM for the cooperative manner in which it has
participated in the audit process. TEC also thanks the UoM for providing additional
information and access to key documents to the Audit Panel during the course of the Audit.
1.4
AUDIT FINDINGS
The scope of the 2012 audit of the UoM is the two themes of „Teaching and Learning‟ and
„Research‟, together with the follow-up of the recommendations of the 2005 TEC Audit
Report.
The audit findings are contained in sections 4 to 9. A selection of data that supports the
findings is given in section 10.
4
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Despite of its proud history, today, the University of Mauritius faces several systemic and
structural challenges which are compelling the University to internally transform itself. The
Panel was of the view that in order for the University to uphold its strong reputation, it will
be required to strengthen its internal resources and at the same time tap on external
investments.
The Panel noted with concern that the University has addressed only a small number of the
recommendations of the 2005 Quality Audit Report. While there have been improvements in
some areas, including work-based learning, teaching strategies and examination processes,
the recommendations in this report often echo those made in 2005. The University does not
appear to be adequately generating and using internal data and information to drive
improvements.
The University is presently operating in a vacuum with the absence of a Vice-Chancellor
(VC) and the two Pro-Vice Chancellors (Pro-VCs) who provide support to the VC in
fulfilling the University‟s Mission and Vision. Understandably, the lack of institutional
leadership has led to an internal climate of uncertainty. The University must imperatively fill
these positions with a view to create a more enabling environment leading to the attainment
its objectives.
To achieve its goals and to implement the required changes, the University must provide for
stronger corporate and institutional governance. There is an urgent need to professionalise
and improve most administrative functions and administrative leadership, to better support
academic activities. Allowing academic leaders to lead, through the empowerment of Deans
and Heads of Departments (HoDs), must also become a reality at UoM.
Further, the relationship between the TEC and the University needs both clarification and
stronger engagement. Without greater public investment accompanied by more efficient
internal management, the University will struggle. The upgrading and maintenance of
infrastructure, equipment and supplies, for both research and teaching, is a matter of
considerable urgency for UoM.
5
Given the many challenges facing the University, the commitment of UoM academics to
maintaining academic standards is highly commendable. There is an active and dedicated
academic leadership among staff at UoM which despite the challenging circumstances, drives
the quality of teaching consistently. The University is commended for a number of good
practices in regard to the improvement of teaching and learning, including its processes for
examinations and continuation of a robust system of external examinations. These and other
good practices, however, need to be applied systematically across the whole University.
The panel was of the view that despite the presence of three National Research Chairs
(NRCs) and some other key researchers, the University‟s commitment to building its research
reputation is not widely evident. The UoM is recommended to conduct a comprehensive
overhaul of its research framework with a view to strengthen and facilitate the management
of research at institutional level. Furthermore there is also a pressing need to institutionalise
an enhanced research culture at the UoM which must include the reviewing of the
cumbersome processes leading to the award of research degrees.
6
3
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
The UoM is the first university established in Mauritius, founded in 1968 with the School of
Agriculture, Industrial Technology and Administration. Since the Quality Audit of 2005, the
UoM has undergone changes which inter-alia included the appointment of a new VC in
January 2010 who later resigned in January 2012. A temporary arrangement was made and
the University has nominated the senior-most Faculty Dean (a post held on a rotational basis
for a period of three years) as Acting VC since January 2012.
The Panel noted that the former VC had embraced a consultative and open approach to devise
a restructuring plan for UoM. The objective was to align the University with international
standards. The University has developed new restructuring plan which proposes to address
several changes in the management structures of the University. At the time of the audit, the
Panel noted that staff of the UoM was favourable to these structural changes.
The Panel is of the view that in order to implement this process of change at the UoM, the
VC must be appointed and, the latter must participate in the selection process for the two ProVCs for Teaching and Learning and Research, Consultancy and Innovation. It should be
noted favourably that the portfolios of the two Pro-VCs will undergo changes with the
proposed restructuring plan.
3.1
INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE
During the academic year 2010/2011, the UoM offered a total of 151 undergraduate and 46
postgraduate programmes. It introduced 14 new undergraduate programmes and 9 new
postgraduate programmes for the academic year 2010/2011. The University aims to become a
research-intensive university and is currently running doctoral programmes across a range of
disciplines. The University has five faculties and four centres, namely:

Faculty of Agriculture (FoA);

Faculty of Science (FoS),;

Faculty of Engineering (FoE);

Faculty of Law and Management (FLM);
7

Faculty of Social Studies and Humanities (FSSH);

Centre for Information Technology and Systems (CITS);

Centre for Professional Development and Lifelong Learning (CPDL);

Virtual Centre for Innovative Learning Technologies (VCILT); and

Consultancy and Contract Research Centre (CCRC).
The University also has a University farm operated by the FoA.
The institutional profile of UoM is summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Institutional Profile of UoM
University of Mauritius
Year 2010/2011 (unless otherwise
Total student enrolment
stated)
11,000
International Student Enrolment
86
Staff to Student Ratio
1:32
Number of Undergraduate Programmes
151
Number of Postgraduate Programmes
46
Postgraduate Programmes by Research Enrolment
163 (As at 31 July 2011)
Academic staff and general staff
1009
MPhil/ PhD Supervisors
Not available
Total Funds Available
MUR 620.2 Million (Year 2011)
Total Research Income
MUR 1,846,245
Source: SER p52-60,119, Annual Report 2009-2010 (p112, 119)
The institutions which are affiliated with the UoM are the, Mauritius College of the Air, SSR
Medical College, CDAC School of Advanced Computing and Apollo Bramwell Nursing
School and the Mauritius Institute of Training and Development. The Mauritius Institute of
Education and Mahatma Gandhi Institute are associate institutions.
8
3.2
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
The vision of the University is to “be a leading international university, bridging knowledge
across continents through excellence and intellectual creativity” (SERp2). The University
aims to develop students and staff with required competencies and knowledge, to engage in
research and to „develop and sustain an intellectual, innovative and facilitation environment‟.
The Strategic Plan 2006-2015 of the UoM rests on six strategic directions and for each
strategic direction, goals have been set. The University has succeeded in some spheres such
as „increasing student access‟, where the number of students enrolled has increased but for
other objectives such as to„re-dynamise pure & applied research and development‟ the
University has still a long pathway ahead.
9
4
4.1
AUDIT OUTCOMES
PROGRESS MADE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE QUALITY
AUDIT 2005
As per its Terms of Reference, the Audit Panel investigated the progress made by the UoM in
the implementation of the recommendations of the Quality Audit Report 2005. The Panel
noted with concern that only few of these recommendations have been implemented
thoroughly. The views of the Panel on some general recommendations are given hereunder.
A first recommendation is that the UoM Council review its processes and procedures. The
existing governance structures need to be evaluated for their effectiveness and
appropriateness for a modern university.
Regarding staff performance appraisal, the University has hardly taken any actions to
implement the recommendation of the First Cycle Quality Audit. There is no effective staff
performance management system at UoM. The human resources system at UoM needs to be
professionalised in its entirety, as none of the functions of workforce planning, recruitment,
retention and development of staff are adequately supported at present.
As far as quality assurance is concerned, the Panel noted that there is no adequate approach
or proper understanding of quality assurance in the administrative divisions of the University.
The recent conduct of graduate and employer surveys is a good development as far as
collection of data is concerned, however the Panel is of the view that there is need for greater
transparency in the planning and budgeting processes at the University. Greater transparency
is also required in the alignment of planning and budgeting, and more effective personnel
management so as to improve the internal quality culture of UoM.
4.2
THEME 1: TEACHING AND LEARNING
The Panel noted that the academic staff at the UoM are generally dedicated and committed to
the improvement of teaching and learning at the University. The Panel was apprised of
several good practices in teaching and learning, same have been commended in this Report.
Overall, academic staff showed dedication and commitment to their work and the roles that
10
they fulfil. Some good practices in learning and teaching are evident and the University is
addressing the need for work-based learning experiences for its students.
The University has well-established processes for the development and approval of new
programmes, and these are thoroughly observed through the faculty committee structures.
Stronger efforts are required to embed graduate attributes in programmes developed by the
University. In this regard, the Academic Board could take a stronger role, as with other
academic quality assurance processes. There is a need, for example, for regular programme
reviews and a policy framework for online learning.
The University is commended for the initiatives of the Examinations Committee to develop
policies and procedures relating to assessment and examinations.
Several institutions are affiliated with the UoM and the University must ensure that it takes
responsibility for effective quality assurance of standards and teaching at all its affiliated
institutions.
The induction of student representatives on committees has not been addressed, although this
was a previous recommendation. More should be done to facilitate student participation in
decision-making.
4.3
THEME 2: RESEARCH
The pathway to becoming a research-active university requires the University to develop a
more effective approach to building research capacity and facilitating research activities.
Greater priority needs to be given to encouraging and supporting academics to undertake
research.
The processes and procedures in place to process MPhil and PhD applications must be
streamlined. The University should consider establishing a Higher Degrees Committee that
will embrace responsibility for inter alia:

Postgraduate student supervision;

Student completion; the need for consistency in the application of research student
policies and procedures;
11

Student publication requirements; and

Student support for research programmes.
It is recommended that a suite of policies and procedures be developed for the management
of research, particularly in regard to the ethical conduct of research. A Research Information
Management System could assist the University.
The creation of the post of NRCs by the MoTESRT in collaboration with TEC is a
progressive intervention to promote a more dynamic research environment at the University.
However, a proper framework must be worked out to provide an enabling environment for
research to be carried out.
12
5
5.1
COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMENDATIONS
1. The University of Mauritius is commended for its recent conduct and analysis of graduate
and employer surveys, which provide rich feedback for future improvement. ....................... 25
2. The University of Mauritius is commended for making the professional development of its
academic staff an institutional priority through developing the „Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education‟ programme, that professionalises teaching at the University, and for
ensuring that the first module „TAL 5010: Academic Induction‟ is mandatory for new
academic staff. ......................................................................................................................... 26
3. The University of Mauritius is commended for enabling larger numbers of students to enter
the University, thus responding to a national need to increase access to tertiary education and
the output of graduates. ............................................................................................................ 42
4. The academic staff in some departments of the University of Mauritius is commended for
establishing and maintaining good practices in teaching and learning, e.g. use of teaching
guidelines, active use of grading rubrics, mentoring of new academics and peer review of
teaching. ................................................................................................................................... 56
5. The University of Mauritius is commended for its well-established processes, through
departmental, interdisciplinary and faculty Boards of Studies, for the development and
approval of new programmes. These processes include the use of advisory committees and
stakeholder input. ..................................................................................................................... 58
6. The University of Mauritius is commended for its maintenance of a robust system of
external examination of final year projects. ............................................................................. 59
7. The University of Mauritius is commended for ensuring that appropriate institutional
arrangements are in place for the conduct of examinations and the certification of all its
programmes.............................................................................................................................. 60
13
8. The Examinations Committee of the University of Mauritius is strongly commended for
its initiatives in the development of new policies and procedures relating to assessment and
examinations. ........................................................................................................................... 61
5.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius undertake an expert, external review of
its governance models, to ensure they are fit for purpose and allow for a clear separation
between governance and management of the University. ....................................................... 19
2. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius refresh its strategic plan by reviewing
the KPIs in the plan and ensures that the plans and the KPIs can be cascaded through both
academic and administrative units and applied in staff performance management................. 22
3. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius conceptualise its quality management
system in such a way that it moves beyond compliance and focuses on provision of good
quality teaching and learning, research and community engagement. .................................... 24
4. In order to make better use of existing data and improve the quality of information at the
University of Mauritius, it is recommended that the University establish an internal
institutional research function that would allow it to foster the development of appropriate
institutional systems for benchmarking, student and employer surveys, and impact studies. . 25
5. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius take urgent and sustained action to
ensure effective quality assurance of standards and teaching at all its affiliated teaching
institutions and clarify the accountabilities of these institutions to the University as the
institution that awards the degree. ........................................................................................... 32
6. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop an agreed understanding of the
communities it wishes to engage with and develop a framework, policies and plans for
community engagement. .......................................................................................................... 34
7. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius find innovative ways to develop and
resource a five-year growth plan for its library that will ensure currency and sustainability. . 41
14
8. It is recommended that the Council of University of Mauritius urgently finalise the
recruitment and appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, following which the incumbent must
participate in the selection and appointment of the two Pro-Vice-Chancellors....................... 44
9. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop a professional human resources
function, clearly designed to be responsible for all staff, academic and non-academic. The
direct reporting line for this function should signal both its importance to the University and
its impartiality with respect to academic and administrative staff. .......................................... 46
10. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius revise its processes for the
appointment of Deans and Heads of Department, to ensure these positions are filled
competitively, and that the University of Mauritius ensure that these positions have authority
over their budgets. .................................................................................................................... 47
11. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop an ICT policy that addresses
the use of all IT facilities, including an IT security policy and disaster recovery plan, and
formalise its structures and processes for governance of IT at the University. ....................... 48
12. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius, with the assistance of external
expertise, comprehensively redevelop its budget model, to ensure greater transparency
throughout the process and appropriate incentives for good performance by faculties. ......... 51
13. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius establish realistic plans to achieve,
over the medium-term, the allocation of a sustainable proportion of the University budget to
salaries, and thus to achieve an increase in the availability of funds available for non-salary
expenditure. .............................................................................................................................. 52
14. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius review the adequacy and coverage of
its academic policies to ensure comprehensiveness without duplication. ............................... 55
15. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop strategies that have clear time
frames and allocation of responsibilities to ensure that there is an equivalent learning
experience across faculties for all of its students. .................................................................... 56
16. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius ensure that the number of full-time
academic staff is sufficient to create an enabling teaching and learning environment for
15
students across all faculties and that the practice of the over-use of part-time lecturers be
discouraged. ............................................................................................................................. 57
17. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius systematise and implement a regular
cycle of programme reviews. ................................................................................................... 59
18. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop University-wide strategies for
the use of blended and online learning, including the provision of more comprehensive
information to prospective and enrolled students. ................................................................... 62
19. It is recommended that the processes governing the acquisition of new infrastructure/
equipment at the University of Mauritius be delegated to the faculties with commensurate
transparency, responsibility and accountability. ...................................................................... 63
20. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius refresh a strategy for research, which
should be endorsed by all stakeholders, and which will help to develop a vibrant institutional
research environment. .............................................................................................................. 65
21. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius earmark funding annually for the
renewal/replacement of research equipment in order to ensure that the University has the best
equipment to conduct globally competitive research............................................................... 68
22. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius consider establishing a Higher
Degrees Committee that will embrace responsibility for postgraduate student supervision and
student completion, the need for consistency in the application of research student policies
and procedures, and student publication requirements and student support. ........................... 69
23. It is recommended that a Research Information Management System (RIMS) be
developed and implemented for the tracking of all research-related activities at the University
of Mauritius. ............................................................................................................................. 72
24. It is recommended that the conceptualisation, framework and implementation of the
National Research Chairs initiative be re-visited by the appropriate government ministry
together with target institutions so that the institutional arrangements governing the Chairs‟
initiative are unambiguous and that the role, responsibilities and obligations of all parties are
clearly spelt out. ....................................................................................................................... 72
16
25. It is recommended that the University of Mauritius confine the role of the Consultancy
and Contract Research Centre to a more focused mandate so that the aspects of Research
Management, Research Capacity Building and Higher Degree studies become the
responsibility of the appropriate university research structures. ............................................. 75
17
6
MATTERS FOR FOLLOW-UP FROM THE FIRST QUALITY
AUDIT
Recognising the importance of continuous quality improvement, the Panel evaluates the
progress made by the UoM in implementing the recommendations of the TEC Quality Audit
Report 2005. During this audit process, the Panel sought for evidences pertaining to the
continuous improvement and effectiveness of the internal quality assurance system of the
UoM.
In its SER, the University provided a summary of the actions and progress made in
implementing the 23 recommendations from its TEC Quality Audit Report 2005. The Audit
Panel‟s findings on each of these recommendations are outlined below. Many of these
matters address issues directly relating to University management, or to the themes of
teaching and learning and research. The specific issues are addressed in this section and are
not repeated in sections 7, 8 or 9 of this report.
Recommendations of the TEC Quality Audit Report 2005 (R):
R 1: The University is invited to consider giving an induction to new members, be they in
Court, Council or Senate, or alternately provide a brochure which will deal with the
responsibilities of members of Committees mentioned.
The SER mentions that all members of Court are provided with a copy of the „Terms of
Reference‟ of the Court (Section 14(1)-(8), and the University of Mauritius Act 1971) at each
meeting, and minutes of previous meetings. All new members of Council or Senate are
welcomed and briefed verbally on their responsibilities. Members of these bodies are
expected to appreciate the functions of the respective body after the first few meetings.
It was confirmed during the interviews that the formal induction process of members of the
Court, Council or Senate is minimal. Little has been done to help members understand their
responsibilities as part of these important governance bodies.
The Audit Panel urges the University to develop more formal and useful induction processes
and documents. This is not a major task and the University‟s failure to address this
recommendation appears to the Audit Panel to be symptomatic of a more general
18
unwillingness in some areas of the University to acknowledge a need for change and
improvement.
R 2: Council as the body responsible for overall management of the University needs to
play a more active role in setting directions for the University.
The SER provided information on the role of Council, which is the executive body of the
University and is responsible for the management and administration of the revenue and
assets of the University (SERp10). Council meets regularly and has defined processes.
The governance structure has the right to appoint a committee with the required expertise for
an exercise following which a report is submitted to Council for decision-making purposes.
For instance, a sub-committee was set up by Council to work on a restructuring plan of the
University.
In the Panel‟s view, the operations of some current Council committees, e.g. Budget
Infrastructure Committee and Staff Committee, are likely to blur the distinction between
governance and management in ways that are not considered to be good practice
currently.The interviews revealed that Council committees such as a corporate governance
committee have not been established and an Audit Committee is only now being established.
The Panel was unable to obtain a clear picture of arrangements for the management of
separate entities created under the UoM such as the UOM Trust. It appears that after several
years, the University has been unable to determine whether the trust is a controlled entity or
not (see Section 7.1.3).
There is no risk management planning or review by Council. Evaluation of the effectiveness
of Council is not carried out; it is thus difficult to say whether the actual governance structure
still meets the requirements of the University.
Recommendation 1
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius undertake an expert, external
review of its governance models, to ensure they are fit for purpose and allow for a clear
separation between governance and management of the University.
19
R 3: Court needs to assume a greater role in providing an oversight to the University by
meeting on more than one occasion annually and actively taking up matters of national
importance having impact on the University and advising Council and Senate in the
overall management of the University.
The SER states that Court meets twice a year to allow more interaction and contribution of
stakeholders and that due to the inability to gather all stakeholders, the University finds
difficulties in holding meetings (SERp10).
The interview sessions indicated that the Court Members meet only once a year. Evidence
from the SER showed that Court met twice only in 2006 and once annually from 2007 to
2010 (SERp11). Very often issues remain pending for a year because Court meets only once
a year and in addition, a decision is taken again only if all Court Members are present. From
the information gathered during the interviews, it seems that attendance of Court Members at
meetings is usually satisfactory, but unfortunately replacement is not allowed in case of
absence. Members of Court have suggested that Court meeting, which is scheduled by the
Registrar‟s Office after consultation with the VC, should be held at least quarterly every year
to allow the proper functioning of Court.
Although Court formally has the legal function of a governing body for the University, Court
Members recognise that over the years, Court has had little role to play in the decisionmaking process of the University. Presently, Court does not advise on any issue; it is usually
apprised of the decisions taken by Council. Members of Court were of the opinion that
greater interactions between the Court Members and more consultation of the other
committees of the University with Court would foster constructive debates with the aim of
contributing in the development of the strategic orientation of the University.
The interview session with members of Court revealed their insights about the strategic needs
of the University. The willingness of the Court Members to work for the betterment of the
University is obvious. However, there is a need to build an interactive platform where
academics and other stakeholders such as industry can discuss and collaborate to achieve the
strategic goals of the University. For example, representatives of the private sector in Court
could provide a communication channel between the University and the private sector to
identify opportunities for applied research. The Audit Panel was made aware that the
20
Mauritius International Business School (MIBS) was created under the UOM Trust with a
view of establishing collaboration between the UoM and the private sector through the
Mauritius Employers‟ Federation, to find ways and means by which the private sector could
collaborate in research.
The Audit Panel suggests that the governance review recommended above should include the
role of Court, taking into account both the potential for Court to act as a channel of
engagement between UoM and national stakeholders but also norms of good practice in
University governance, which have evolved since the time the UoM governance structure
was approved. This could be an impetus for Court to adopt a new course of action and act as
a strategic „think tank‟ for the University.
R 4 : The University should aim to develop its strategic plan based on sound research of
national imperatives, undertake continuous evaluation of its performance, and seek to
develop performance indicators for attainment of its objectives.
The Strategic Directions 2006-2015 was approved in 2006 and comprise a list of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) pertaining to research. A progress report was submitted to
TEC in 2008 (SERp11).
The Audit Panel recognises the good practice of the University in renewing its Strategic Plan
since the last audit and promulgating it, so it is widely known. However, many of the
University‟s KPIs do not appear useful in monitoring the University‟s progress towards its
goals. As an example, a KPI for the number of courses, over time, is likely to lead to a
proliferation of courses and over-development of programmes that may not be offered. KPIs,
taken as a group, need to address the University‟s outcomes through a „basket‟ of measures,
to minimise the potential for perverse behaviour through over-reliance on a single measure.
As a further example, a KPI for research publications could be balanced by a KPI for the
quality and impact of the publications. UoM needs to review the KPIs in its Strategic Plan, to
ensure they represent the best available measures of outputs and outcomes for teaching and
learning and for research.
The Audit Panel suggests that the goals and KPIs in the strategic plan be supported by
congruent plans for each faculty and the administrative divisions, so that the plan is
21
effectively „cascaded‟ through these units and to the level of staff performance. In this way,
everyone at UoM can be clear about:
•
The ways their work contributes to making UoM a good university;
•
How their department will be evaluated; and
•
The expectations of their department and of individuals.
The Audit Panel was informed during the interview sessions that the CITS has set their KPIs,
which are regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure their consistent alignment with the
centre‟s goals and objectives. This is good local practice but the Panel observes that the
centre‟s goals need to be clearly aligned with the University‟s overall objectives.
Recommendation 2
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius refresh its strategic plan by
reviewing the KPIs in the plan and ensures that the plans and the KPIs can be cascaded
through both academic and administrative units and applied in staff performance
management.
R 5: The University should seek to develop its quality assurance measures in a
comprehensive manner and ensure that they are implemented and evaluated and that such
evaluations are reflected in its self-assessment/ portfolio.
The Quality Assurance (QA) Office explained the difficulties met in the preparation of the
SER since continuous monitoring and improvement has not been a key component of the
University‟s quality management system. The SER is the result of the input from the
faculties, centres and units of the University. The Audit Panel finds that follow-up of the
implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 TEC Audit Report of the First Cycle
audit was not carried out in a systematic manner.
The University does not have an internal audit process or QA Committee; the Audit Panel
was informed that all quality issues are brought to the Academic Management Committee
(AMC). The QA Director is a member of the AMC and therefore claims to be able to oversee
22
quality matters at faculty level. The University claims that quality issues are taken on board
by the following academic decision making instances:
 Faculty Boards
 Lifelong Learning Cluster Board
 Teaching & Learning Committee/ Research, Consultancy and Innovation (RCI)
Committee
From documents viewed by the Panel, it appears that there is not any standing item on quality
or quality assurance for these committees. There was little evidence to demonstrate whether
and how these committees take an active role in improving quality at UoM.
As is noted later in this report (section 8), academics at UoM have a sound appreciation of
most aspects of academic quality assurance. However, at the most senior level within the
administrative division, there is no overall approach to or understanding of quality assurance,
notwithstanding some areas of good practice within this division, such as the Examinations
Office (R:11).
The quality assurance measures listed in the SER (p11) include: the documentation and
formalisation of all procedures at the University, standardised for all faculties and centres; the
availability of the Student Feedback Questionnaire on-line; the establishment of the
Examinations Office; and devising procedures for handling the recommendations of external
examiners. These are all helpful mechanisms but effective quality assurance and
improvement must extend beyond the production of documents and surveys to their active
use and the introduction of improvements. The Audit Panel formed the view that the QA
Office‟s approach to internal quality assurance emphasises compliance over improvement.
The QA Office needs to demonstrate a better understanding of its role in providing a
functioning system that maintains quality standards at UoM. For this to be possible, senior
management needs to take a more active role in providing intellectual and strategic direction
in terms of the formalisation, implementation and monitoring of a quality management
system that suits the profile of a university.
23
Recommendation 3
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius conceptualise its quality
management system in such a way that it moves beyond compliance and focuses on
provision of good quality teaching and learning, research and community engagement.
Use of data and information to drive improvements
The UoM appears to be realising the value of collecting and analysing aggregated data and of
mining existing data sources. However, the quality management system of the University
needs to focus more on measuring the University‟s performance through the development and
use of effective instruments.
The Audit Panel observes that the use of student feedback surveys has commenced and could
be further improved quite easily, if proper attention were given to its implementation. At
present, the collection and analysis of data from the student survey is incomplete due to the
low response rate. The measure taken to deny access to the „Online Module Registration
System‟, which enables students to register for the following year/semester, unless the
student fills the Student Feedback Questionnaire, reportedly has not produced any significant
improvement in the response rate. It appears that the ineffectiveness of the present student
feedback mechanism is due, in part, to a lack of trust in the system. The QA Office has been
unable to provide assurance to the students that the survey is anonymous. Students need to
understand that the purpose of collecting and analysing data is to improve the quality of
teaching and learning. The QA Office should put in place appropriate actions to gain the
confidence of the students to make this feedback mechanism relevant and helpful.
Advice about means to ensure that students fill in the questionnaire could also be sought from
the CITS. The Audit Panel observes that the use of student feedback surveys is common in
universities throughout the world and that the UoM must find the right way to make the
system successful.
The interview sessions indicated that the resources of the CITS could be used more
effectively to support quality assurance at UoM. For example, to assist the QA Office in
quality improvement, the CITS could produce meaningful information in the form of reports
to monitor student feedback.
24
The Audit Panel acknowledges the laudable initiative of the QA Office in conducting a
Graduate Satisfaction Survey and an Employer Survey. The latter report contains useful
information, which unfortunately has not been disseminated. The Audit Panel was of the
opinion that it should be a regular practice at the University to obtain feedback from
employers and graduates. If UoM is serious about continuous quality improvement, it needs
to ensure that the findings of these surveys are used to produce action and change at relevant
levels of the University.
More generally, the Audit Panel suggests that UoM consider the development of an internal
institutional research function that would allow it to give attention to the development of
appropriate institutional systems for internal and comparative data collection, analysis,
reporting and monitoring. Other institutional arrangements will be needed to ensure that
valuable information does not just sit there, but is acted on: these arrangements should
include implementation plans with time frames and the allocation of responsibilities.
Commendation 1
The University of Mauritius is commended for its recent conduct and analysis of
graduate and employer surveys, which provide rich feedback for future improvement.
Recommendation 4
In order to make better use of existing data and improve the quality of information at
the University of Mauritius, it is recommended that the University establish an internal
institutional research function that would allow it to foster the development of
appropriate institutional systems for benchmarking, student and employer surveys, and
impact studies.
R 6: Quality Promotion, including building capacity, should be made a permanent feature
of the University’s quality management system.
The Audit Panel notes the efforts of the University in building capacity; the post of
QA Director that was previously on a contractual basis, is now on a permanent basis.
25
However, the QA Office does not appear to have strong links with other areas of the
University or any strategy to ensure that necessary improvements are acted on.
As part of a qualification in higher education teaching, the „MSc in Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education‟ programme, the „Teaching and Learning‟ module, „TAL 5010: Academic
Induction‟ is available at UoM. The University has implemented a requirement that this
module must be completed by new academics for confirmation of appointment. This is good
practice and the Audit Panel notes that the „TAL 5010‟ module is available as an option to
part-time lecturers as well as full-time lecturers. New academics and technicians must also
complete the „Research@UoM: Processes and Methodology [RM5010]‟ and „Research
Seminar Series [RM 5011]‟ before confirmation (SERp12). Other academics are encouraged
to register for these two modules and some have done so.
To further promote academic excellence in teaching and learning, the QA Office
recommended the introduction of a „Teaching and Learning Excellence Award‟ but this has
not been approved. The Panel was of view that such an award would support quality in
teaching and learning.
Commendation 2
The University of Mauritius is commended for making the professional development of
its academic staff an institutional priority through developing the ‘Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education’ programme, that professionalises teaching at the
University, and for ensuring that the first module ‘TAL 5010: Academic Induction’ is
mandatory for new academic staff.
R 7: The University is advised to rationalise and streamline its committees such that
Faculties are not unduly loaded with responsibilities best located elsewhere.
One example of action taken by the University is the establishment of the Examinations
Office which is working effectively to ensure consistent and streamlined processes across the
University. Otherwise, it was not evident to the Audit Panel that much streamlining has
occurred. While committees are important within universities for academic governance and
decision-making, time taken by academics in committee meetings takes them away from their
own teaching and research and this can be an excuse for lack of productivity. The Audit
26
Panel considers that at UoM there is further scope to streamline committee operations, to
ensure that only relevant academics participate in the approval of higher degree candidature.
R 8: The University needs to review its management policy with regard to the following
and consider:

Integrating the Faculty of Agriculture as a department of the Faculty of Science;

Optimising resources afforded by the SSR Centre for Medical Research in the
interest of the University’s students;

Redefining the role of the Virtual Centre for Innovative Learning Technologies
and the Lifelong Learning Cluster against the need to strengthen the Jay Baguant
Centre for Distance Learning and the Centre for Information Technology and
Systems.
The Audit Panel was informed of the following actions taken by UoM (SERp14):

The SSR Centre for Medical Studies & Research was restructured into the SSR
Resource Centre and relocated on UoM Campus in 2004 under the aegis of the
Department of Medicine, FoS.

The Department of Health and Medical Sciences, FoS, was restructured into the
Department of Health Sciences and the Department of Medicine.

The proposed merging of VCILT and CPDL to become the Centre for Lifelong
Learning and Educational Technologies (CLET) has been postponed.
No information was provided regarding the integration of the FoA as a department of the
FoS. Regarding the VCILT and CPDL, the members of the centres explained to the Audit
Panel that each centre has distinct roles and objectives and that merging both centres might
not be helpful. The University has not yet reached any decision regarding the merging of the
two centres.
R 9: The University should develop clear policies on the relative importance of Student
Work Experience Programme against the Internship applicable to respective programmes
and assume responsibility for placement of students
27
The SER (p12) mentions the introduction of the „Summer and Winter Courses‟ in view of
promoting the employability and competitiveness of UoM graduates. These courses are also
open to the public. Stand-alone modules were introduced in 2007/2008. The MRes in
Research Methodology, launched in 2006, aims to develop generic research skills in
prospective MPhil/PhD students, academics, and other researchers. „Vacation Research
Schemes‟ have been set up in order to promote a research active campus and to expose
undergraduates and pre-university students to research environment; encourage students to
pursue a career in research.
The University has also initiated the „Work-based Learning (WBL) Project‟ in partnership
with the University of Bradford. This was an initiative of the former Pro-VC of Teaching and
Learning. The aim of introducing WBL was to assist students in acquiring practical
knowledge and professional skills in the workplace. The project was initially funded by the
British Council under the England-Africa Partnership (EAP) project for a period of 3 years.
The WBL was set up to overcome the weaknesses of the Student Work Experience
Programme. The WBL Unit consists of a project co-ordinator and a placement co-ordinator
appointed for a period of two years. The Unit is independent of faculties (SERp14-15).Three
modules carrying two credits each were developed in collaboration with industry. One further
benefit of the WBL programme to a student is that the result appears on the student‟s
transcript. The programme is evaluated every three years.
The WBL unit allows placement to be carried out in a structured manner. Students work
under the supervision of a mentor who has to assess the student at the end of the training.
Mentors are trained to ensure supervision of students under the WBL programme during the
placement period and these mentors have in turn to train employees of their department to
become mentors. The challenge facing the unit is to succeed in meeting the demand of all
students but presently only 50% of demand can be satisfied. The WBL unit would also expect
greater participation of academics, who are supposed to follow up students in the workplace.
Besides the WBL, training is in-built in some programmes. It is evident that there is some
variance among faculties in practices and support for formal, within-programme, experiential
learning. In the FoA, the programmes have compulsory practical training, while the four-year
programmes of the FoE have compulsory industrial placement. The professional programmes
28
of the FoS (such as Medecine and Physiotherapy) also include clinical training for which
there are arrangements with the ministries and professional bodies.
The task of finding a placement for the students is usually a responsibility of the Programme
Coordinator, but this differs among faculties; in some areas it is carried out by either the HoD
or the Industrial Training Coordinator. In other faculties such as the FLM, where the cohort
size is large, students are encouraged to look for placement opportunities on their own.
For those programmes which include a compulsory training/ placement or internship,
students may opt for the WBL training but are not exempted from the compulsory training.
The Audit Panel acknowledges the serious efforts being made by UoM to identify placement
opportunities for students but observes that there is little University-wide coordination or
sharing of practice and there are variable approaches to assessing student learning within
placements. While individual faculties are well-placed to identify and manage placements for
their own students, greater interaction across the University and some University-wide
guidance would help in ensuring consistent experiences for students. Such coordination
would allow UoM as well to more effectively promote the availability of these opportunities
to prospective students. The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM ensure that every student in
a programme with an experiential learning component is placed appropriately, that there is a
functioning system to record, monitor and assess the content and progress of the student‟s
learning experience in the workplace, and that the system is implemented consistently and
monitored across all areas of the University.
R 10: The University should develop appropriate systems for appraising performance of
lecturers and develop performance indicators for assessing teaching and learning.
The University has not developed a performance appraisal system (PAS) for staff or an
associated set of indicators for assessing the quality of learning and teaching.
The Council approved a proposal to appoint a „consultant to expedite the setting up of the
system‟ in February 2009 (SERp16), but this was not implemented. The University has thus
no formalised system to assess the quality of teaching and learning.
Interviews with a range of academics at UoM suggested to the Audit Panel that, in general,
academics would be in favour of a performance appraisal system, provided of course that the
29
system is developed in consultation with all stakeholders and performance appraisal is carried
out at all levels of the University structure, from top to bottom.
A view was expressed to the Audit Panel that the process of setting targets for performance
appraisal should be a dialogue between the staff and the HoD, and this is a system in common
use in other universities, although broad parameters must be dictated by the University‟s
teaching and research goals.
It was brought to the attention of the Audit Panel that the conditions of salaries are governed
by the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) and that the PRB Report 2008 recommended the
implementation of the Performance Management System (PMS) for the public sector and
parastatal bodies.
Some academics were of the opinion that performance indicators would introduce a new
method of assessing academics‟ performance that could be a helpful and transparent part of
the University‟s academic promotion process. The present promotion criteria encourage the
accumulation of „points‟ in the areas of teaching and learning but do not appear to address the
actual quality of teaching. The Audit Panel agrees on the need for a more transparent
academic promotion policy that includes indicators of the quality of teaching and research.
Further comment on the implementation of a staff performance appraisal system is at
section 7.5 - Human Resources Management.
R 11: Given the high importance that the University places on the feedback of the external
examiners in ensuring academic standard, the Senate should give due importance to the
feedback and any action taken and respond to the external examiners on the action taken.
The University should ensure that
external
examiners
revisit their
previous
recommendations and comment on any action taken.
The SER (p16-17) indicates that the procedure for handling feedback received from external
examiners has been amended. Within two months, each faculty has to send a report of the
actions taken to the QA Director and this report is ultimately sent to external examiners. The
Examinations Committee has the responsibility to oversee the faculties‟ progress towards
implementing the recommendations of the external examiners through appropriate corrective
measures.
30
R 12: The panel has strong reservations on the way the University is undertaking its
collaborative provisions, particularly with the SSR Medical College (SSRMC), and
recommends that it reconsiders them as a matter of urgency and makes awards only in the
fields and up to standards in which it is appropriately equipped, and ensures quality of the
programme delivery.
The University appears to have taken little action to implement this recommendation. It is
fortunate for UoM that many of the University‟s affiliated institutions are active in quality
assurance of their own operations.
The Audit Panel finds there is considerable ambiguity in the role played by the University in
monitoring and maintaining the quality standards at its affiliated institutions. In most cases,
this role appears to be minimal. There do not appear to be quality assurance requirements or
defined procedures in respect of quality assurance between UoM and its affiliated
institutions. There is a need for UoM, working with its partners, to take sustained action for
the quality assurance of standards and teaching at affiliated institutions, through:
•
Active monitoring of the implementation of Memoranda of Understanding, and the
inclusion in these Memoranda of clear responsibilities for quality assurance;
•
Active quality assurance reviews and auditing by UoM as the awarding institution.
As an example of the difficulties that can be created by the absence of a proper responsibility
and monitoring framework, and in reference to the recommendation from the previous Audit,
the Audit Panel was informed that the University is presently facing problems with the
SSRMC regarding its compliance with the Clinical Training Framework for Medical
Education. The University claims that quality issues at the SSRMC are taken up at the level
of the Academic Board and that it regularly meets the representatives of the SSRMC for a
follow-up of the progress and that inspection visits are undertaken. However, there appears to
be no structural or legal way for UoM to ensure that SSRMC complies with directions given
by UoM.The Audit Panel observes as well that there is a policy issue to be considered in
arrangements that allow institutions such as UoM to award degrees through third parties
when the awarding institution does not have fully developed academic expertise in the
discipline area of the award.
31
Recommendation 5
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius take urgent and sustained action to
ensure effective quality assurance of standards and teaching at all its affiliated teaching
institutions and clarify the accountabilities of these institutions to the University as the
institution that awards the degree.
R 13: The University should seek solutions to making the Centre for Applied Social
Research more productive or alternatively integrate it with the Faculty of Social Studies
and Humanities.
The Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR) was established as a joint initiative of the
UoM and the Mauritius Research Council (MRC) in 2001 to undertake research in areas
pertinent to the development of Mauritius. The SER (p20) states that CASR was integrated
within the MRC in 2008 „to allow MRC to exploit its assets with a view to undertaking
business development which includes the marketing of its services and expertise locally and
regionally as well as undertaking consultancy works‟. The Audit Panel notes that this
recommendation has been acted on but was not able to establish whether the integration has
been effective in increasing productivity.
R 14: The Panel recommends that the University develops clear policies on research
students and ensure that they are put into practice, including monitoring of research
supervision and obtaining feedback from students without exposing them to any
disadvantages.
The RCI Committee is the central body for research management. A review of the regulations
was undertaken and revised regulations were approved in 2006.
The mechanism put in place to monitor research programmes requires the submission of a
six-monthly progress report and the Student Progress Form signed by student and
supervisor(s); any urgent matter can be brought forward to the attention of the Dean of
Faculty/Director of Centre outside the six-monthly evaluation periods. The Student Progress
Form enables the Faculty Research Committee and the Lifelong Learning Cluster Research
Committee to oversee the conduct of the research programmes and allow the supervisor to
comment the progress of the student.
32
It is not evident to the Audit Panel that the student feedback mechanism in use, that is the sixmonthly progress report, provides any means for students to make confidential comments or
provide feedback on issues without these issues being noted by their supervisors, which may
expose the students to potential disadvantage. It appears that the second part of this
recommendation is yet to be addressed.
There appear to be some gaps in the regulations, such as the lack of any limit on the number
of students that can be supervised by any one academic. Some people without PhD are acting
as supervisors of students who have or intend to proceed to PhD candidature: the Audit Panel
was advised that Associate Professors with extensive research experience are allowed to be
supervisors of these students.
The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM seek examples of best practice in doctoral supervision
internationally and revise its regulations accordingly.
Other comments on higher degree candidature and research supervision are contained in
section 9 of this report.
R 15: The University should develop clear strategies on how it aims to provide its services
to the community.
The SER provided some brief examples of community service and engagement by UoM,
although the examples given did not seem to the Panel to be fully representative of the
University‟s activities or involvement with its communities. The Audit Panel found no
evidence that this recommendation has been acted on at University level.
The Audit Panel formed the view that there are much greater opportunities for UoM to
engage strategically and practically with industry and other leaders across the nation, for the
generation of unified efforts in promotion, training, research collaboration and other
activities. The University must consider how most effectively and systematically to forge
these connections.
The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM engage in an institution-wide debate on which people
and groups constitute its communities for purposes of engagement. From this, UoM should
proceed to develop a framework, policies and implementation plans through which
33
community engagement can be quality managed and integrated into the curriculum and other
University activities.
Recommendation 6
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop an agreed understanding of
the communities it wishes to engage with and develop a framework, policies and plans
for community engagement.
R 16: The University should consider developing a formula for total workload and not only
for teaching load.
The SER (p22) states that the QA office has developed a „Framework for Academic
Workload Planning‟ which is still under discussion. The Audit Panel observes that academic
work involves more than teaching students, speaking with them at other times and preparing
for classes. Academics: undertake research; supervise projects, especially final year projects;
assess student work and provide formative feedback; discuss matters with colleagues; plan
and participate in committee processes of deliberation and review. Development of a
comprehensive academic workload planning model should be a priority for UoM. It is
understood by the Audit Panel that all UoM academics supervising more than five projects
are paid an allowance.
The University has some practices that may inhibit academics in focusing on excellence in
teaching and in research. An example is that academics are required to complete 30 to 60
hours of examination invigilation, a process that could be undertaken by others with
appropriate training and skills. The University needs to consider whether this activity is the
most productive way to use academics‟ time.
As the number of students are increasing, in some faculties such as the FLM, the academic:
student ratio is 1:64 (SERp62). The pool of academics comprises 300 full-time and 360 parttime lecturers. Part-time lecturers are recruited in fields where the University does not have
the required expertise and they are also involved in supervisions of dissertations. The Audit
Panel suggests the University consider the workload implications for full-time academics of
the high number of part-time lecturers, given the need for effective coordination of all people
teaching a particular unit or programme.
34
R 17: The University should consider the need to give explicit and explanatory feedback to
applicants who have been unsuccessful, and make the criteria on which final decisions for
promotion are taken fully transparent.
According to the SER (p22), the ‘Notes of Guidance for Academic Staff on Interpretation of
Criteria for Promotion‟ are provided to all staff at the time of application for promotion.
When a promotion exercise is completed, „a letter is sent to all unsuccessful applicants to
inform them that they will be given verbal feedback by the Staff Committee upon requests
made within ten days of Council‟s decision and that they will be given the opportunity to
appeal if they wish to do so after the verbal feedback‟. While there is a formal process for
providing feedback on applications for promotion, staff have raised other concerns about the
promotion system. One of these concerns is that the applicant can choose the relative
weighting to be considered for the three assessment criteria, namely teaching, research and
service, within defined broad bands. There is a view that the promotion criteria do not
promote research or emphasise quality in teaching; instead they permit an academic to
accumulate points mainly through the completion of required teaching activities.
Refer to section 7.5 - Human Resources Management
R 18: The University should consider putting in place and implementing a continuing
professional development plan for its entire staff.
The University has not fulfilled this recommendation. Although there is a programme for
academic development and schemes for conference attendance, there is no systematic,
University-wide approach to continuing professional development. The absence of a
performance appraisal and development system for staff means that staff do not have the
appropriate forum to discuss and have their self-identified needs for professional
development recorded, and that UoM has no systematic process for identifying and
supporting professional development needs.
While the SER states that academic staff attend conferences and workshops under the
„Conference and Workshop Attendance Scheme‟ the disbursement of funds is an intricate
process and does not appear to be prioritised in any transparent way. Item 10.1 shows the
allocation of funds for staff development from 2005 to 2010. The Audit Panel was informed
that each faculty has an overall budget and that the allocation of financial resources for
35
conferences and workshops is subject to the availability of funds. Academic staff registered
on MPhil/PhD programmes may benefit from the Academic Staff Development Scheme to
enhance their research abilities through short visits/attachments abroad.
There does not appear to be any culture or plan for professional development of
administrative staff, other than some generic courses available to all, a lack that the Audit
Panel urges the University to address.
R 19: The University should ensure that their entire administrative staff is adequately
allocated to the respective departments to ensure smooth execution of their responsibilities.
A range of administrative duties has been devolved to faculties, with staff based in faculty
offices but accountable to the Registrar. Presently, each faculty has a confidential secretary
attached to the Dean‟s office, one to three administrative officers and a pool of typist who are
assigned to carry out all administrative duties. One of the administrative officers oversees all
matters pertaining to curriculum. The HoDs, however, lack administrative support in the
execution of their duties, another reason why this position places a heavy burden on
academics. Consistent with other changes recommended to the method of appointment of
Deans and HoDs, the Audit Panel recommends that administrative support be provided to
HoDs.
R 20: The University should, as a matter of principle, make provisions for induction/
orientation programmes for student representatives to enable them to participate as fully as
possible in the committees to be able to make their contributions.
The University makes provision for student representation on faculty committees and has an
active Student Union. However, there has been little progress in relation to
Recommendation 20, as it is evident to the Audit Panel that there is no formal induction
process to inform the student representatives about their roles as student spokespeople. The
SER (p23) indicates that the student representatives are briefed by the Secretary of the
relevant committee.
The student representative elected to be member of the Council is not an elected member of
the Student Union, but a former president of the union. The Audit Panel suggests that the
students of UoM consider whether it would be more appropriate to elect the student member
36
of the University Council from a current Student Union elected representative, through the
established processes for Student Union elections.
R 21: UoM should be more sensitive to the needs/ concerns of students and take
appropriate measures to address them positively.
The SER provided only a small amount of information on the actions taken to address this
recommendation. The Panel notes that the FoA has set up a Student Liaison Committee
which comprises the Dean of the FoA, HoDs and student representatives from the different
programmes. If students face general problems with their studies, they can report them
through the committee. This is an example of good practice that the University might extend.
(The Audit Panel observes that UoM will need to ensure that there are confidential processes
separate to such a committee mechanism to investigate individual grievances and complaints
raised by students.)
Student Learning Support
Academics at UoM in some faculties, such as FSSH, are aware that students entering UoM
may have additional needs for language and academic literacy support. The University as a
whole has taken little action that the Audit Panel could discern to identify the learning needs
of particular cohorts of students, for example, to identify students who may be struggling in
their studies. In mitigation, however, academics in the faculties are providing additional
assistance to these students on a one-to-one basis.
UoM, as the national university, is able to be selective in its admissions, but with a rapidlyincreasing student body, it must expect that it is now admitting some students who are
comparatively less prepared for university-level study than in the past or whose level of
English language proficiency needs further development.
The Audit Panel suggests that UoM explore further the need for and options to provide both
remedial and developmental assistance to students by cohort.
Student Union
The Student Union has a budget which is controlled by the University. The budget is
generated from the fees of students, about MUR 3.6 million, although not the whole amount
for student services is available to the Student Union. All expenditures of the Union have to
37
be approved by the Budget Director‟s Office (BDO) through the Registrar. The Audit Panel
suggests that, to encourage responsibility and innovation by student leaders, responsibility for
funding decisions, up to a set limit, be devolved to the Student Union.
On the evidence available to the Audit Panel, students believe the student voice is listened to
and they have opportunities to bring forward proposals, such as a policy on conducting
supplementary exams, a policy that the Audit Panel would endorse for use in specified
circumstances to avoid students having to wait a year for an opportunity to repeat a module.
The Audit Panel observes that students have raised concerns about overcrowding, as the
enrolment of students is constantly increasing but the size of the campus has not changed. A
number of other welfare issues were raised by students and staff. The Audit Panel encourages
UoM to ensure there are formal mechanisms for the University to hear and address such
matters.
Student Welfare
The UoM has a Student Charter and students are satisfied that the requirements of the Charter
are being implemented by the University. However, some students are concerned about the
lack of discipline among students: for example, some students do not abide by the rules
regarding the University being a smoke-free and alcohol-free zone.
All new students have a one day induction and are given a copy of the student handbook.
Seminars are organised by the University to introduce students to new postgraduate
programmes.
The University has a gymnasium where students can practice sports activities and a cafeteria
but, as noted above, there are concerns about overcrowding. Other concerns of the students
include a lack of transport for students who have late classes, the closing of the library at
20.00 hrs and the closing time of the cafeteria at 19.00 hrs, which means that food services on
campus are not available to students with late classes.
The Audit Panel formed the view that dissemination of information to students needs
improving. For example, students were not informed about the purpose and conduct of the
audit, even when they had been asked to attend interviews. As another example, the
electronic mail provided by the University could be used more effectively. It was not clear to
38
the Audit Panel whether students had been asked for their views on how induction and the
provision of information to students could be improved.
Assistance to needy students has been one of the items on the agenda of the Student Union.
The Student Union has worked on providing payment facilities to needy students with
income less than MUR 7,000.
Student matters are usually handled by the Registrar‟s Office and Admissions and Student
Records Office (SERp24). About 25 cases of students in difficulty are handled every year
(SERp41). The Audit Panel suggests the University review its complaints and grievance
procedures against those of other universities internationally, to ensure that the rights of
students are effectively protected and that the processes are effective and fair to all.
The Audit Panel was advised that there is currently no on-campus counsellor available for
students, a situation that the University should remedy as soon as possible. Students must
know that there are trained professionals to whom they can go for confidential support. Not to
have such a service, for an institution of the size of UoM, presents a clear risk to the
University.
R 22: It is recommended that the UoM reviews the Library as a matter of urgency towards
ensuring that it meets the needs of the University.
The recommended review does not appear to have occurred, although Senate approved a
paper on the „Management of Books and Study Resources at University of Mauritius‟ in
September 2010.
The Audit Panel met the Library Committee responsible for making recommendations to the
Senate. It is evident that the current space of 3,000 m2 is inadequate for the increasing student
population size, which is currently about 10,000 full-time students.
The SER states that the University has embarked on a new computerised Library
Management System (LIBERO). Some of the facilities provided to students consist of the
availability of past examination papers accessible via the Library‟s Web OPAC, cataloguing
and circulation services. The library has also shifted from journal subscriptions to electronic
versions for a total of MUR 5 million. The online subscriptions include EBSCO, Emerald,
JSTOR Scholarly Journal Archive, Directory of Open Access Journal, UNESCO39
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, and access online through Campus Numerique
Francophone (CNF) to 1031 journal articles and 7 PhD theses. While online journals are
available, it was brought to the attention of the Panel that full text of some publications of
Science Direct, EBSCO and EMERALD is not accessible. The lack of full-text access
severely inhibits the use of these databases for study and research and may encourage the
citation of articles without full knowledge of their contents.
As far as EBSCO and Emerald publications are concerned, TEC controls online subscriptions
for all public-funded institutions. The number of new acquisitions amounts to 3,000 to 4,000.
The Panel suggests that a list of on-line journals be posted on the website of University to
ensure the availability of information to all potential users.
The Audit Panel conducted a site visit of the library and identified problems of space, a lack
of access for the disabled to all floors and outdated or obsolete texts. The Audit Panel found a
lack of seating space for students to study, insufficient access to computers, and insufficient
copies of prescribed and recommended books. These concerns are well-known to the
University librarian and to library staff, but there is no longer-term plan to ameliorate a
situation that should be of major concern to UoM. There is a view among library personnel
that the budget of the library department is given less importance relative to some other
departments, so that somehow the library budget ends up at the end of the priority list and
thus, inevitably, is curtailed each year.
Concerning research, from the list of the current journals in the library as well as the limited
on-line resources, the Panel was of the opinion that the library facilities do not adequately
meet the needs of postgraduate students and researchers.
The Audit Panel urges UoM to try to develop and implement a plan to address the need for a
major upgrading of electronic and physical resources of the University Library. The
University should ensure as well that TEC is apprised formally of the concerns of UoM over
the lack of adequate library and information resources.
The Audit Panel was informed that the library is working on the digitalisation of theses and
notes that care should be taken with regards to the intellectual property of the students in this
regard. It has been agreed that the dissertation of all students graduating in at least the Second
Class First Division will be digitalised.
40
The library also provides photocopying facilities and, to the extent possible, monitors
adherence to the University‟s copyright license agreements.
The Mauritiana Collection, which was previously the National Repository, was digitised in
2007 and copies of publications have now been sent to the National Library.
In respect of library services, a one-day induction session is organised for new students and
the library staff are available to provide assistance to individual students and staff. It is
difficult to assess the quality of service provided by library staff to stakeholders as no
satisfaction survey has been developed or implemented. There is a need for a mechanism to
assess and monitor the quality of the services, including the use of online services, provided
by the library, making allowance for the limited resources that are available.
Recommendation 7
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius find innovative ways to develop and
resource a five-year growth plan for its library that will ensure currency and
sustainability.
R 23: It is recommended that the University considers reviewing its employment policy in
allowing upward mobility of staff having higher qualifications and potential to add value to
the University as a measure to retain appropriately qualified staff.
The SER(p25) states than an Academic Staff meeting in 2008 approved a policy that „those
vacant posts@ (up to Middle Management level) where the schemes of service provide that
they should be advertised internally in the first instance, so as to give priority to internal staff
who are qualified. In case no suitable candidate is found internally, then the posts would be
advertised externally.‟ This recommendation has been addressed but should be reviewed as
part of the development of a professional human resource management function for the
University.
41
7
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
This section of the audit report has been expanded into a full chapter, in view of the large
number of audit findings that address crucial aspects of the University‟s operations. Although
these findings are not directly encompassed by the two thematic areas namely, Teaching &
Learning and Research; they have a direct impact on the quality of the two main themes
under consideration. Through this section of the Report the Audit Panel has as per its
Terms of Reference endeavoured to identify good practices at the institution and made
necessary recommendations where appropriate with a view to contribute to the general
improvement of the quality culture at the University.
7.1
INCREASING ACCESS
The Audit Panel is aware of the deeply significant role played by the University in
developing an educated and well-qualified citizenry in Mauritius, especially in the
University‟s founding period. But, having cemented its role as the national university, the
UoM has not been entirely agile in adapting to change. Item 10.2 shows the extent of some
changes in indicating an increase in the number of students enrolled at the University, and
more specifically a large increase in the number of part-time students from 2006 to 2010. The
Audit Panel congratulates UoM for enabling larger numbers of students to enter the
University and to succeed in their studies.
Commendation 3
The University of Mauritius is commended for enabling larger numbers of students to
enter the University, thus responding to a national need to increase access to tertiary
education and the output of graduates.
7.2
GOVERNANCE
The University needs now to demonstrate to Government and the nation that it has the
internal capability to continuously improve itself in line with international best practices.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has the legitimate right to determine national
higher education policy and priorities, a key principle for UoM, as for other universities, is
that the autonomy and independence of the University must be jealously guarded.
42
There is a climate of considerable insecurity at UoM among management and academics, due
in part to changes in the external environment such as the extent to which UoM is able to
reach agreement with the TEC and the Government on priorities for its future development.
The Audit Panel was informed, for example, that a project for hostel accommodation,
approved by Council, had not started because it was not a priority of the Government and
consequently not approved by the Public Procurement Office.
The University has a governance structure established by law and the governing body, the
Council, should be able to approve the top leadership, strategy and structure for UoM in its
own right. There was a general view among University staff that the Council must be allowed
to work more independently, in order to preserve the autonomy of the University. The Audit
Panel is of the view that Council must reinforce its position to manage any perception of
interference in its internal affairs as this poses a reputational risk to UoM as an autonomous
institution. However, along with autonomy comes responsibility: in this instance, the
responsibility to safeguard and enhance the good standing and reputation of the University,
for past and future graduates. The University appears reluctant to fully accept this
responsibility.
The Audit Panel finds that UoM has weak internal capability to systematically monitor,
evaluate and drive improvement at institutional level, despite helpful incremental changes at
local levels. Indeed, the University appears to be heavily dependent on TEC for the
introduction of new practices, taking a view of quality assurance as „compliance‟ with
external demands. Once a new VC has been appointed, the Panel suggests that UoM and TEC
need to work out the parameters of their respective roles.
7.3
INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
The success of any higher education institution is determined, inter alia, by the quality and
character of its leadership. The University of Mauritius is currently faced with a leadership
vacuum, as at the time of the audit, the positions of VC and two Pro-VCs were vacant. Such a
vacuum contributes to a situation of increasing instability at the University. The prevailing
condition has a negative impact on staff and student morale, and legitimises inaction. The
interim arrangement of an Acting VC creates further challenges when it confers to the chosen
individual (the most senior Dean) only limited decision-making powers.
43
The Audit Panel observes that, in general, both academics and students appreciated the
approach undertaken by the former VC to reform the University and restructure its
operations. However, the Panel noted that the restructuring exercise is at a standstill until a
new VC takes office.
The Audit Panel, therefore, urges the speedy finalisation of an appointment to the position of
VC. In order to ensure that the VC has scope to develop the senior management team he/she
considers most appropriate, the Audit Panel encourages the participation of the new VC in
the selection of the new Pro-VCs.
The Audit Panel believes there should be at least two Pro-VCs responsible for broad
portfolios across the University but make no recommendations on structure, given the process
that is already underway at the University.
Given the lead time required in making these appointments, and given that the term of the
Acting VC was due to expire on 2nd July 2012, the Audit Panel further suggests that
appropriate arrangements be made in the interim to provide the requisite leadership with all
the powers of a VC, so that stability prevails and institutional advancement is not further
compromised.
Recommendation 8
It is recommended that the Council of University of Mauritius urgently finalise the
recruitment and appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, following which the incumbent
must participate in the selection and appointment of the two Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
7.4
COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE
The quality culture at the University is heavily reliant on the quality of its people. For these
reasons, matters of communication, husbanding and nurturing of people at UoM cannot be
overlooked.
The Panel viewed and heard of many instances of a „silo‟ mentality, and concerns were
expressed about the growth of a climate of mistrust within the University. One of the factors
that may set the scene for mistrust is a lack of clear, accurate and transparent information
44
readily available online about key aspects of University operations, such as finances and
budgeting, organisational structures, and procedures.
The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM develop and implement a strategy to ensure that there
is open and inclusive communication across the institution and with all its stakeholders. The
Audit Panel is of the view that the internal communication strategy may include an online
„Policy and Procedures Library‟, listing all the University policies, related procedures, with
version control and renewal dates.
7.5
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The University‟s human resource management functions are divided among two Assistant
Registrars in the Registrar‟s division, with some staff development responsibilities being
taken by CPDL. There is no integrated HR function for career review or development, or to
assist managers who need guidance and support in addressing personnel issues.
The Audit Panel considers there is an urgent need to professionalise human resources
management at UoM, given the many recommendations from the previous audit and in this
audit about workforce and workload planning, recruitment, retention and reward of people
and about the need for an improved organisational climate. The Director of Human Resources
should be a very senior appointment and should have unambiguous responsibility for both
academic and administrative staff. For this reason, the position should not report only through
the administrative division of the University.
This new professional office would be required to develop and implement a performance
development and review system for all staff, starting with senior management. One aspect of
this work should be the revision of academic staff promotion criteria, to ensure that they
appropriately recognise and reward quality in teaching and/or research
The workload model for academic staff should be revised as part of this system, to allow for
flexibility to balance teaching and research responsibilities. Leadership and management
training, as part of staff development for all staff, should form part of the role of this office,
as should the ability to offer professional advice on the handling of disputes and grievances
and to act as a neutral broker of solutions.
45
The Audit Panel considers there is particularly an urgent need to professionalise the
management of administrative functions at the senior levels. UoM needs to ensure that senior
officers can be appointed to senior administrative positions and also needs an accountable
management that aims to move the University forward through creative solutions. The Audit
Panel finds unacceptable that there is no understanding of management concepts and no drive
for efficiency or effectiveness at the most senior level of the administrative division.
The Audit Panel heard repeated comments of a shortage of administrative staff, although the
aggregate ratios of academic to administrative staff suggest a very high number of
administrative staff. There is a suggestion that the number of administrative positions
includes people such as those who work on the University farm. The Audit Panel suggests
that UoM meet urgently with TEC to explain the breakdown of administrative staff, to ensure
that the figures used by TEC reflect an accurate situation, and that TEC‟s views take into
account the role of UoM as a national, comprehensive university.
Recommendation 9
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop a professional human
resources function, clearly designed to be responsible for all staff, academic and nonacademic. The direct reporting line for this function should signal both its importance
to the University and its impartiality with respect to academic and administrative staff.
7.6
SENIOR ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT
The Audit Panel acknowledges the very significant academic leadership and management
role played by the five dean of faculties at the time of the audit, especially in their function as
the AMC. As Deans, their ability to manage their faculties, and to strive for better
performance, is circumscribed by a lack of authority over budgets and a lack of formal
defined processes for staff performance management.
The current arrangements, whereby Deans and HoDs are appointed on rotation by seniority,
do not empower the holders of these positions to drive change and may indeed be seen as
„hardship posts‟ when they interrupt research careers or productive and innovative teaching.
The University must consider whether these traditional arrangements remain fit for purpose,
especially when their purpose is to facilitate excellence in teaching and in research.
46
The Audit Panel therefore suggests these positions be filled competitively. In this way, the
holders will have the credibility and moral authority to lead and inspire the staff in their
respective faculties and departments, and guide them towards excellence in their performance
of their teaching and research functions. Adequate administrative support must be provided,
both for Deans and for HoDs, such as a support staff for finance and Administration in each
faculty. This will allow Deans and HoDs to dedicate more of their time to strategic planning,
creative thinking and research activities. It is to be noted that both types of position must also
have authority over budgets, especially the dean of faculties. Deans must be able to authorise
expenditure for operational expenses without having to go back to the Budget Director for the
disbursement of amounts already approved for recurrent and capital expenditures.
Recommendation 10
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius revise its processes for the
appointment of Deans and Heads of Department, to ensure these positions are filled
competitively, and that the University of Mauritius ensure that these positions have
authority over their budgets.
7.7
IT GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Information and communications technology (ICT) is pervasive in modern life and especially
so in universities. For these reasons, good universities invest heavily in ICT governance and
planning, to mitigate the risks inherent in ICT projects and management.
The CITS at UoM has taken a number of initiatives to improve quality, including the use of
innovative ways to authenticate certificates and the trialling of paperless meetings. However,
the Audit Panel encourages the University and the CITS to adopt a more structured approach
towards ICT governance and infrastructure management.
The University of Mauritius needs a comprehensive ICT policy that addresses the provision
and use of all ICT facilities, including adequate Internet access for students and staff. The
University should ensure that such provision is regularly monitored and evaluated for its
effectiveness.
The ICT Policy needs to include an „IT Security Policy‟ which is adopted and implemented
by the CITS. There is also a need for the CITS to set up an ISO 27001 compliant
47
„Information Security Management System‟ with the required documentation, processes and
controls. External auditors should conduct regular security audits of the information systems
of UoM to ensure the security and integrity of these information systems.
A disaster recovery plan should be implemented (with an adequately equipped disaster
recovery site) and tested on a regular basis to ensure that the information systems of UoM
remain secure and available in the event of any disaster that may cause system disruptions.
Recommendation 11
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop an ICT policy that
addresses the use of all IT facilities, including an IT security policy and disaster
recovery plan, and formalise its structures and processes for governance of IT at the
University.
7.8
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGETING
7.8.1 Vision
The University‟s vision statement is: “The University of Mauritius aspires to be a leading
international university, bringing knowledge across continents through excellence and
intellectual creativity” (SERp2).
The Audit Panel suggests that the University of Mauritius select appropriate international
universities as models that would help it to understand what it means to be “a leading
international university” in substance, and to develop its own indicators so that it can measure
its progress towards achieving this goal.
If the University is to progress towards the achievement of this vision, it needs now to
establish a realistic trajectory for itself as a research-active university. It is not evident to the
Panel that all members of the University community understand the particular character of
research and why the support and promotion of research will enhance UoM‟s reputation
internationally.
The objectives set by UoM to achieve its vision must be constantly monitored to assess the
progress that is being made. The Audit Panel finds that the University has not yet
48
implemented effective processes and structures for monitoring progress in achieving the
objectives of the University.
7.8.2 Internationalisation
As yet, the University has not made any firm plans to progress the internationalisation of its
operations. The citizenship of both staff and students of UoM is predominantly Mauritian,
although the University has expressed a desire to increase the diversity of its student intake.
The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM gives continuing attention to the development of a
conceptual framework for internationalisation. The development of this framework should be
conducted in such a manner as to foster a University-wide debate on:
i.
how internationalisation could be given expression in its core functions, and
ii.
how internationalisation could be made compatible with local and regional objectives
and the identity signalled in the University‟s vision.
7.8.3
Budgeting at UoM
The University has a three-year budget plan which is prepared after consultative meetings
with the VC, Deans and Directors to set priorities. The budget is developed using a top-down
approach and is approved by the Budget and Infrastructure Committee of the Council.
The overall University income includes Government Grant, Student Fees and other income, a
breakdown of which is given in item 10.3. Referring to item10.2, the increase in enrolment,
more specifically in the number of part-time students may account for the increase in the
income from student fees and other sources.
TEC is responsible for allocating public funds amongst the publicly-funded tertiary education
institutions. Budgetary proposals are submitted to TEC, which after consultative meetings,
are sent to the TEC Board for approval. Once approved, the budget is examined by the
MoTESRT and finally by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Cash flow
statements are prepared by UoM on a quarterly basis and funds are released based on the cash
flow statements. Recommendations are made to the MoTESRT for release of funds which is
done on a monthly basis for recurrent funds. For capital grants, funds are released as and
when required. According to the SER (p112), the Government Grant is allocated to faculties
49
based on a weighting system. Any unutilised funds do not go to the reserve of the University
but must be returned to TEC.
Many within the University recognise that the process for release of funds is cumbersome and
hinders longer-term planning and financial management by UoM. It is not clear to the Panel
why disbursement of funds must again secure approval since the budget is already earmarked.
The Panel was of the view that once the budget has been approved, the management of
appropriated funds could be entrusted to the Deans under clear accountability criteria, thus
reducing bottlenecks with regard to the allocation of funds.
The Audit Panel was informed that the University, being a publicly-funded institution,
operates under the Public Procurement Act 2006 which has brought a detailed and wide range
of parameters to govern public procurement, making the process lengthier. The Audit Panel
urges UoM to explore ways in which it might meet the requirements of the legislation while
reducing delays in the release of funds. It is not evident that the University observes all
requirements made under this Act: as far as the Audit Panel could determine there is not, at
UoM, a defined position of Finance and Administration Manager to handle all financial
matters.
There is little transparency about the budgeting process at UoM and no incentives for good
performance at faculty or divisional level. Such good performance could include, for example
cost-savings, efficiencies, diversification of the revenue base, or generation of alternative
sources of income. Furthermore, the Audit Panel was informed that faculties do not benefit
from any revenue generated through consultancy services as direct funding. Any revenue
generated by a faculty is absorbed in the overall budget of the University. Faculties,
especially those who are active in consultancy services, therefore do not have any incentive
to improve their performance.
The Audit Panel thus concluded that the budget model of the University must be reviewed to
bring the needed transparency to the planning and budgeting process, thereby enabling a
more strategic approach to the allocation of University resources. As noted below, a more
strategic allocation is contingent on the University being able to limit the proportion of
funding spent on salaries, which in turn will rely in part on the overall funding envelope
approved by Government for UoM.
50
Recommendation 12
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius, with the assistance of external
expertise, comprehensively redevelop its budget model, to ensure greater transparency
throughout the process and appropriate incentives for good performance by faculties.
The Audit Panel suggests that UoM discuss with TEC ways for the University to be able to
better make and deliver longer-term campus master plans and capital investment plans.
It is noted that up to 85% of the total University budget is allocated to salaries of staff (Item
10.4). Effectively, this results in only 15% of the budget being available for the core
functions of the university, viz., teaching and learning, research and community engagement.
If the proportion of the University budget devoted to salaries stays at this level, it will be
impossible for the University to make any significant inroads into meeting its targets and in
realising its vision and mission.
The Audit Panel observed that the University has a high number of non- academic staff
(Item 10.5). In fact, the University has a high proportion of manual workers which bears
heavily on the budget of the University. It has been decided that as these manual workers
retire over time, the posts should not be filled. The University is gradually outsourcing a
number of processes which, in the long-term, will result in the phasing out of some of the
manual jobs. The extent to which this is expected to improve the University‟s funding
position was not examined by the Audit Panel.
The Audit Panel urges the University to find ways to gradually reduce the proportion of the
total budget allocation that goes to staffing, with a view to meeting an international
benchmark of 60-64% for universities. Creative interventions must be developed by the
University to meet this target so that more funds become available to drive teaching and
learning, research and innovation. Such interventions may include, inter alia, voluntary
severance packages, outsourcing/contracted-out initiatives and developing work-based
packages. The Audit Panel recognises that, to ensure that core University functions continue
to be adequately staffed, the University should engage TEC in discussions of its plans.
51
Recommendation 13
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius establish realistic plans to achieve,
over the medium-term, the allocation of a sustainable proportion of the University
budget to salaries, and thus to achieve an increase in the availability of funds available
for non-salary expenditure.
The Panel took account of the University‟s other sources of funding. The UOM Trust was set
up by virtue of a trust deed with the objective of generating funds from fee-paying
programmes to the University. However, it was not clear to the Audit Panel and some
interviewees whether or not the UOM Trust is a subsidiary of the UoM and how it contributes
financially to the University. The UoM Trust is not under the BDO; the Chairman of the
Trust reports directly to the VC and trustees. The Audit Panel was informed that the company
UOM Enterprise Ltd has been set up under the ownership of UOM Trust for the delivery of
programmes.
The Audit Panel considers that the governance and funding arrangements for UoM Trust
need to be clarified and documented, so that they are transparent to the University community
and the public.
52
8
THEME: TEACHING AND LEARNING
The first theme „Teaching and Learning‟ was chosen by the University of Mauritius in
recognition of the significance of the theme to the University‟s strategic priorities. The
University prides itself on being a learning organisation; an institution „that is constantly
adapting to the conditions around it‟ (SERp26).
Since 2010, the Teaching and Learning Office headed by the Pro-VC no longer exists and has
been replaced by the AMC. The AMC, which comprises the Deans of Faculties, is the main
forum whereby instruments to promote, develop and improve the quality of teaching are
developed.
The scope of this theme includes:
8.1

Academic governance and academic quality assurance

Quality of teaching and programme delivery

Programme design, development and review

Assessment of student work

Online learning

Teaching and research infrastructure.
ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
The Audit Panel understands that objective in setting up the AMC is a temporary reactive
measure which has been created by the vacuum due to the absence of a Pro-VC Teaching and
Learning.
The Panel appreciates that in view of the leadership instability prevailing at UoM following
the departure of the former VC, and in the absence of the Pro- VCs, the Deans of Faculty and
the HoDs have managed to ensure that the University‟s academic governance structures
continue to work and thereby to ensure that academic standards are being maintained. The
Audit Panel acknowledges the determination of the Deans and HoDs to maintain the
academic standards of the University in a challenging situation. The Audit Panel appreciates
53
that the effort of the University in adapting its academic decision-making structures and
committees with a view to continue to fulfil their roles with diligence and engagement.
The panel observed that most features of sound academic quality assurance for learning and
teaching are present at UoM. However, many of them are not yet systematically embedded
into the University‟s operations. In particular, processes for „closing the loop‟ through
review, monitoring and implementation of improvements to teaching quality and support to
students are relatively weak.
Moreover, the support that has to be given to Deans and HoDs in the execution of their duties
has not been well thought-out. As mentioned previously, HoDs lack administrative support.
The posts of Dean and HoD are allocated to on a rotational basis to academics meeting the
required criteria. The appointment of a Dean is for three years and that of a HoD for two
years. Given the lack of adequate support, appointment as Dean or HoD is regarded as a
burden by many academics.
8.1.1 Involvement of Senate
The Senate is responsible for the academic matters of the University, for example, all courses
and curriculum have to be approved by Senate. The interviews demonstrated some lack of
involvement of Senate in academic quality assurance; as an example, some programmes have
not been reviewed for five years. There appears to be an understanding at the level of Senate
that all matters pertaining to quality are taken care of at faculty level. The Audit Panel was of
the opinion that the Senate should have an appropriate mechanism in place to effectively
assess the level of the quality of teaching and learning at institutional level.
While academic governance structures at faculty level are working to assure the quality of
many aspects of programmes, the Audit Panel formed the view that Senate could be more
proactive. Specifically, Senate could become more actively aware of and exercise its
academic quality assurance responsibilities, including ensuring systematic formal review of
each programme at regular intervals and monitoring the follow-up of recommendations for
action. It may be useful to UoM to consider how Senate, working closely with the Pro-VCs,
could be given more executive support to drive an agenda for improvement. As well, Senate
must take seriously its role as the guardian of academic policies, and ensure that these
policies are comprehensive, avoid overlap and duplication, and are regularly updated.
54
Recommendation 14
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius review the adequacy and coverage
of its academic policies to ensure comprehensiveness without duplication.
8.2
QUALITY OF TEACHING AND PROGRAMME DELIVERY
While the quality of teaching across programmes is felt by students to be variable, on the
evidence considered by the Panel, the overall standard of teaching appears very acceptable
and students commented on some excellent teaching.
The SER provides a list of recommendations approved by the Senate in 2007, among which
auditing of lectures was included (SERp15-16). The interview sessions has revealed that
auditing of lectures is not occurring systematically although, as noted below, it does take
place in some academic areas.
There is evidence of some very good practices in learning and teaching being used by
academics and in certain departments of the UoM, although mostly these have not been
systematically adopted across the University.
The Audit Panel was appreciative of the
commitment demonstrated by the academic staff to their teaching functions. Among the good
practices are teaching guidelines, the use of grading rubrics in assessment, the mentoring of
new and more junior colleagues and a practice of constructive, formative peer review of
teaching by academics.
These good practices need to be shared more widely across the University. Given a
noticeably low level of trust among some academics, and a less than positive academic
culture, the Audit Panel understands why peer review of lectures is not being used more
widely as a tool of improvement of teaching and knowledge-sharing across the University.
An increased tolerance, respect, openness and transparency can contribute to improve trust
among colleagues and the Panel suggests that UoM give serious attention to improving the
internal academic climate, to enable innovations and improvements to be taken up more
willingly.
55
Commendation 4
The academic staff in some departments of the University of Mauritius is commended
for establishing and maintaining good practices in teaching and learning, e.g. use of
teaching guidelines, active use of grading rubrics, mentoring of new academics and peer
review of teaching.
The Audit Panel considers that the role of programme coordinator is taken seriously by
academic staff at UoM, and suggests that the workload requirements for this role be
considered in the development of a comprehensive workload policy for academic staff. This
workload policy should allow some flexibility for academics to vary their loads according to
the full range of their responsibilities over a term, semester or year. Senior academics should
fulfil their responsibilities within a framework that takes into account their workload and
other factors that affect their work; thus they will be able to devote themselves to more
meaningful activities such as research.
Interviews conducted with the different faculties suggest that there are some differences in
the learning opportunities across faculties and departments, in terms of expectations of study,
student support and opportunities for work experience. The University needs to take action to
ensure better equivalence in students‟ learning experiences in their different fields of study,
giving attention to infrastructure, the quality of staff, and to student and academic support.
Recommendation 15
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop strategies that have clear
time frames and allocation of responsibilities to ensure that there is an equivalent
learning experience across faculties for all of its students.
The Audit Panel observes that student surveys have to be carried out to gather feedback
regarding the performance of lecturers and the quality of teaching. As mentioned previously,
the student feedback mechanism is not functioning properly and the participation rate in the
student survey is quite low. Consequently, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about the
quality of teaching, notwithstanding the Panel‟s impression from interviews that the quality
of teaching is acceptable overall. The attention of the Panel was drawn on the fact that
effectiveness of teaching is not a criterion for promotion.
56
The staff to student ratios for some faculties may also have an impact on the quality of
teaching. The ratio of academic staff to students is on average 1:32 and is presently 1:64 in
FLM. The high ratio of academic staff to students is problematic, and the use of large
numbers of teaching staff, while appropriate, requires additional coordination, especially
when substantial numbers of part-time staff are engaged. For instance, the HoDs face
difficulties in monitoring issues such as the attendance of full-time lecturers and replacement
of lectures. The Panel also noted a high number of part-time academic staff, more specifically
in FLM with a total of 231 part-time lecturers (SERp61). The University needs to find ways
to establish a pool of academic staff that is adequate to promote an enhanced teaching and
learning environment.
With regard to staff development opportunities, the Audit Panel recognises that more
systematic staff development opportunities for all academic staff, including part-time staff,
need to be encouraged.
Recommendation 16
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius ensure that the number of full-time
academic staff is sufficient to create an enabling teaching and learning environment for
students across all faculties and that the practice of the over-use of part-time lecturers
be discouraged.
8.3
PROGRAMME DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW
The QA Office has developed guidelines for „Programme Design, Approval, Monitoring and
Review‟. The mechanism in place involves the consideration of a new programme proposal
by a „Board of Studies‟ set up for each new programme, followed by similar consideration by
an Advisory Committee, Faculty/Centre Board, AMC and ultimately the Senate, which has
formal authority for the approval of new programmes. Design of new programmes, in some
faculties, also incorporates inputs of stakeholders from industries, with which the faculties are
regularly in liaison.
Academic governance structures within the faculties are robust and the Audit Panel received
ample evidence of academic discussion and careful review at departmental level in the design
and improvement of programmes.
57
Commendation 5
The University of Mauritius is commended for its well-established processes, through
departmental, interdisciplinary and faculty Boards of Studies, for the development and
approval of new programmes. These processes include the use of advisory committees
and stakeholder input.
While there is evidence that the establishment of advisory committees is approved for
proposed new programmes, the Audit Panel saw less evidence that these advisory committees
are always active, and it notes that some of the proposed membership of advisory committees
was hardly likely to be achieved, given the very senior level external appointments that were
proposed. The University is encouraged to ensure that the contributions of advisory
committees are actually obtained and documented.
It appears that graduate attributes have not been embedded in the unit outlines for modules
and programmes. While it is the practice in some faculties, such as the FoA, to consult with
employers about the graduate outcomes to be achieved by the University‟s students, graduate
attributes have yet to be developed and embedded for all programmes and modules across all
faculties.
The Audit Panel suggests that UoM make stronger efforts to ensure that learning outcomes
are developed for all programmes, at both the level of the overall programme and the
modules. The University should also consider developing a statement of generic graduate
attributes (to be contextualised by discipline), to guide the use of learning outcomes for
programmes. The Audit Panel notes that efforts are being made, in varying ways, to ensure
that UoM graduates acquire relevant generic and „soft‟ skills that will equip them for future
careers and employment. These include individual modules, the use of General Education
Modules (GEMs) and extensive use of capstone projects and dissertations.
A policy on referencing the Mauritian Qualifications Framework in programme design may
assist in facilitating the portability of UoM qualifications (recognition) across a wider range
of countries.
There is ample evidence that minor improvements and adjustments to modules are made by
academics at UoM and approved through the standard channels. While many programmes are
reviewed fairly regularly, there is no University-wide policy framework for reviews or any
58
standard requirement for a regular cycle of programme reviews, which ideally should
incorporate external expertise and input.
Recommendation 17
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius systematise and implement a
regular cycle of programme reviews.
8.4
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK
The University has continued to support its well-established system of external examination
of final year student work, which is a significant factor in ensuring the comparability of
academic standards between UoM and other institutions. While there may be opportunities
for further improvements to and updating of this system, evidence viewed by the Panel
indicates the system is holding up well.
Commendation 6
The University of Mauritius is commended for its maintenance of a robust system of
external examination of final year projects.
The examinations process has been reinforced with the establishment of the Examinations
Committee, which reports to the Chairman of the Senate in the absence of a Pro-VC Teaching
and Learning. The Examinations Office (EO) was set up in 2007 „to ensure a centrallymanaged examination process, that is transparent and equitable‟ (SERp13). The office is
headed by an Assistant Registrar and an Administrative Officer and was initially run on a
pilot basis in close collaboration with FoA and FoS. The EO has responsibility for supporting
four Committees: Examinations Committee; Senate Examinations Sub-Committee;
Discipline Committee; and an Appeals Committee. In an effort to streamline processes, a new
structure was approved in 2011 for processing results, in order to reduce delays in the
proclamation of examination results. The EO coordinates all examination processes and is
responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the system by identifying deficiencies in the
system and taking appropriate corrective actions.
59
The Audit Panel acknowledges the endeavours of the Committee members, and of the EO, to
continuously improve the University‟s examination procedures.
From the SER and interviews, as well as site visits to the Central EO, the Examinations
Section of the FLM (Undergraduate and Postgraduate studies) and the Registrar‟s office, the
Panel finds that:

There is a clear and user-friendly compendium of guidelines/policy papers/procedures
pertaining to examinations;

Clear guidelines exist relating to the recruitment and appointment of external
examiners for dissertations and theses;

Appropriate security measures are in place to protect the integrity of all aspects
related to examinations; and

Appropriate security measures are in place for the certification of all diplomas and
degrees.
Commendation 7
The University of Mauritius is commended for ensuring that appropriate institutional
arrangements are in place for the conduct of examinations and the certification of all its
programmes.
Among the measures taken by the Examinations Committee is the development of a policy
for student misconduct, such as cheating and plagiarism. The Committee has shown its
resourcefulness in taking preventive measures to discourage cheating and plagiarism;
although the Panel considers that more could be done to educate students about the reasons
why plagiarism is improper and ways in which to avoid plagiarism.
Notices regarding examination rules and regulations are affixed throughout the University
and emails are sent to all students. While these preventive measures seem to deter misconduct
at examinations, the Committee is aware that it must also keep alert to technological
developments that might facilitate new ways of cheating in examinations.
60
Commendation 8
The Examinations Committee of the University of Mauritius is strongly commended for
its initiatives in the development of new policies and procedures relating to assessment
and examinations.
The Audit Panel expresses some concerns over the scrutiny of the examination procedures in
place at some affiliated institutions. The interview sessions indicated that the procedures are
not uniform at the affiliated institutions. For example, all examinations take place on the
campus of the UoM as per the rules and regulations of the University for the CDAC School
of Advanced Computing; whereas for Apollo Bramwell Nursing School and the SSR Medical
College, the examinations are organised by the institution. It may be beneficial for the
Examinations Committee to turn its attention now to the quality assurance of clinical
examinations at the affiliated institutions.
Students have a maximum of five years to complete a programme at the University. The
University does not organise supplementary exams but does have special exams for final year
students so that the latter do not have to wait one additional year before graduating.
The Audit Panel viewed ample evidence that care is taken in reviewing students‟ marks and
grades by staff at UoM, as well as by external examiners. However, the Audit Panel suggests
that UoM attend very carefully to the critical comments from graduates about the extent to
which students receive adequate formative feedback during their programmes, and address
this issue.
8.5
PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION
The Audit Panel acknowledges the international professional accreditation achieved in the
accounting discipline and the efforts to date of the FoE at UoM in seeking to work with the
Council for Registered Professional Engineers (CRPE) to obtain international professional
accreditation for engineering graduates. The University is encouraged to seek other
opportunities to gain external professional recognition of its awards, including recognition by
international bodies where there is no national professional association.
The Audit Panel suggests that UoM in collaboration with other institutions and agencies
nationally, actively pursue international professional accreditation in an appropriate range of
61
disciplines, as this will assist graduates from higher education institutions in Mauritius to
pursue opportunities in the region and across the globe.
8.6
ONLINE LEARNING
The Audit Panel learnt during the interview sessions that the learning management system
Moodle has been implemented at the University. Interviews with both academics and
students indicate however that the overall use of „Moodle‟ is minimal at present. At the same
time, there is considerable variation in practice across faculties and there are some examples
of good use of this platform: for example, in the FoE all lecture notes are available on
Moodle.
The use of Moodle by academic staff is increasing, but only slowly and not in accordance
with any defined requirements or plan of the University. Greater use of Moodle would assist
not only enrolled students but could allow UoM to provide more comprehensive information
about programmes and units to prospective students.
Recommendation 18
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius develop University-wide strategies
for the use of blended and online learning, including the provision of more
comprehensive information to prospective and enrolled students.
8.7
TEACHING AND RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE
From the SER, interviews and site visits to the undergraduate and postgraduate laboratories in
the FoA and the FoE, it is evident that the University‟s teaching and learning infrastructure is
ageing or even lacking, particularly for laboratory-based studies. The Audit Panel heard
examples of equipment that is old or outdated, an insufficient number of instruments such as
microscopes, a lack of chemicals, and the lack of a generator at the FoA. While the
interviews indicated dissatisfaction regarding the procurement process at UoM, the Audit
Panel positively acknowledges the acquisition of two new laboratories equipped with 80
computers at the FoE.
62
Furthermore, the increasing student population must also be taken into account. For example,
at times lectures are scheduled in computer laboratories that are meant to be freely available
for student use, creating inconvenience for both academics and students.
Despite departments and faculties submitting proposals for replacement of equipment, and
despite the applications being approved for funding, the bureaucratic procedures and delays
that characterise the procurement process are both frustrating and demotivating.
There
appears to be no clear University-level process to determine priorities for procurement of new
equipment. It was explained that the Public Procurement Act 2006 has brought in more
detailed public procurement processes. Consequently, the purchase of items requiring
approval of the Public Procurement Office is quite lengthy. However, even items that do not
need this approval can take time to purchase. While central purchasing of some supplies will
save money, there is a strong case for allowing faculties to determine their own priorities for
new and replacement infrastructure and to be involved in negotiations with suppliers.
The current arrangements for procurement of equipment hinder research productivity at the
University, as well as teaching quality. It would be helpful for the University to budget for
new equipment to be used solely or mostly for research purposes, consistent with the focus of
a UoM research plan (see next chapter).
Recommendation 19
It is recommended that the processes governing the acquisition of new infrastructure/
equipment at the University of Mauritius be delegated to the faculties with
commensurate transparency, responsibility and accountability.
63
9
THEME: RESEARCH
The UoM has shown a commitment to achieve quality and excellence in research by
incorporating „research and innovation‟ in its mission and vision. However, research overall
is at a comparatively early stage of development at UoM and there is a need to remove some
internal barriers that are inhibiting the further development of a research culture. The
University is facing difficulties in attracting research students, who account for less than1%
of the student population of the University (Item 10.6). The new leadership of the University
will need to take a significant role in the re-development of a research strategy and in
removing these internal barriers.
The scope of this theme includes:
9.1

Research strategy and building a research culture

Postgraduate programmes by research

Research Funding

Research publications

Research ethics

Research information management

Building research capacity with the creation of National Research Chairs (NRCs)

Consultancy and contract research.
RESEARCH STRATEGY AND RESEARCH CULTURE
The Audit Panel received varying reports on the research strategy for the UoM. The
document titled “Positioning UoM at the vanguard of knowledge creation -The 2009-2015:
Strategic Research and Innovation Framework with Operational Plan” appears to be known
only to a few persons. This institutional research agenda is apparently currently “frozen” as
there is no champion at the UoM for research. The appointment of a new VC and new
Pro-VC responsible for research are expected to help to re-invigorate research at UoM.
64
The Audit Panel finds there is not a pervasive culture of research at UoM, although there are
particular concentrations of research activity. On this point, the Audit Panel observes that the
SER did not do full justice to the presence of some strong research groups at UoM.
Furthermore, it is important that senior staff across all areas of the University, administrative
as well as academic, understand why research is vital to the University in achieving its
mission, and understand the main research strengths of UoM.
The Audit Panel acknowledges some other positive developments, such as the conduct of the
„Research Week‟ in 2011 and the presence at UoM of three NRCs. The challenge for UoM
now is to build on these developments.
The University will need, in its research strategy, to consider the extent to which it must be
selective and focus its research efforts in particular areas of research capability or need.
There are numerous internal barriers to improving research productivity at UoM and few
incentives to promote research and its publication. The changes recommended in this report
to human resource management, e.g. implementation of workload models and workforce
planning, performance appraisal, changes to promotion criteria, and other changes, such as
earmarked funding for research equipment and improvement of library services, will assist in
establishing a more useful internal climate for research. The Audit Panel observes further that
Deans need to be empowered to nurture a vibrant research environment within their faculties.
Recommendation 20
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius refresh a strategy for research,
which should be endorsed by all stakeholders, and which will help to develop a vibrant
institutional research environment.
9.2
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMME BY RESEARCH
9.2.1 Registration Process for MPhil/ PhD Degrees
The procedures with respect to MPhil, MPhil/PhD and PhD applications for admission were
said by the University to have been streamlined in 2010 and implemented across the
University. It is clear to the Audit Panel, however, that the procedures for approval of
65
research proposals are excessively protracted and almost certainly discourage many students
from commencing a research degree at UoM.
The registration process for higher degree studies at the UoM is in urgent need of review.
Fresh graduates very often prefer to take a job rather than pursuing research higher degree
studies. The University‟s processes for approval of candidates can be cumbersome. Most of
the MPhil/PhD students are academics from the University. Items 10.7 and 10.8 provide
details about the number of PhDs completed and the number of transfers from MPhil to PhD.
The University encourages newly recruited staff to enrol on MPhil/PhD programmes, which
is an appropriate strategy where these staff have the capability and where appropriate
supervision is available at UoM or elsewhere. As noted earlier, the Audit Panel suggests that
the process for determining the workload of academics should be more transparent and take
into account the research programmes of academics. The University could also consider
allowing lighter teaching loads in the initial years of appointment, once it has rebalanced its
academic staff profile and implemented workforce planning and management strategies.
The Audit Panel understands that applications for higher degree candidature are considered
by the Faculty Research Committee, but that this body contains many academics who may
not be active in research and who may have little expertise in the actual field of the proposal.
There appear often to be lengthy delays and requests for revision for a level of detail that may
be inappropriate at the commencement of candidature.
Similar concerns arise in respect of the processes used by UoM to approve transfer from
MPhil to PhD candidature, as UoM requires PhD candidates to complete an MPhil first.
Transfer from an MPhil to a PhD degree requires a transfer report to be submitted for scrutiny
by two external examiners. The Audit Panel was informed that research students cannot
pursue their research work unless the upgrade to a PhD degree has been approved and this
process can take a considerable period of time.
The Audit Panel suggests that UoM review this model to see whether it is still in line with
norms for research degrees internationally, with a view to establishing a more direct route to
PhD studies for able graduates, and thus more timely completion of projects. If the current
MPhil to PhD route is retained, the University should consider allowing automatic transfer
66
for students who have already published their research in peer-reviewed journals. Much
greater encouragement needs to be given to students to publish during their candidature.
The process also is not fully transparent, shrouded in uncertainty, and the status of
applications is not communicated to the applicants in a timely manner. The Audit Panel
urges the UoM to review and benchmark its processes for the approval of research proposals
for academics and postgraduate students, to ensure the timeliness of approvals and
appropriate (but not excessive or irrelevant) quality assurance.
There is a view in some quarters that the employability of research students must be
increased in order to encourage more MPhil and PhD students. This may well be the case,
and the provision of post-doctoral fellowships would assist, but it does not address the issues
surrounding the process for current and intending doctoral candidates.
9.2.2 Supervision
The information, available on the website of the UoM, on internal supervisors and their areas
of interests enables potential students to search for and contact potential internal supervisors.
Nevertheless, an effective mechanism to ensure an appropriate allocation of students‟
research projects to supervisors is not evident. Students also face difficulties with regard to
finding external supervisors. The identification of appropriate external supervisors is often
the responsibility of the student.
The Audit Panel suggests the University make greater efforts to assist students to find an
appropriate supervisor: one way of doing this would be for expressions of interest to be sent
to the Department Research Committee for consideration of potential supervisors, which
ensures that the proposed research project goes to a suitable supervisor.
From the evidence received, the Panel finds that students appear generally satisfied with their
supervision, although problems are likely to arise if a student needs to change a supervisor.
As elsewhere, care needs to be taken that academic workloads allow supervisors of research
students adequate time to properly interact with and supervise these students.
The UoM should consider a need for mentoring of less experienced supervisors by those
academic staff who have acquired greater experience as research supervisors.
67
9.2.3 Training and Support
The MRes in Research Methodology programme, launched in 2006, aims to develop generic
research skills in prospective MPhil/PhD students, academics, and other researchers. Two
modules of the MRes in Research Methodology programme namely „RM 5010 Research @
UoM: Process and Methodology‟ and „RM 5011 Research Seminar Series‟ are compulsory
for MPhil/PhD students (SERp122). These two modules could be useful, but should not be
presented to students as an additional requirement prior to their commencing higher degree
studies.
As mentioned earlier, the Audit Panel formed the view that communication between research
students with their supervisors is generally satisfactory. However, the Audit Panel finds that
the University needs to pay greater attention to the care and support of students undertaking
research degrees. The UoM should pay more attention to creating an enabling environment so
that students are able to confidentially express their concerns to a third party, especially if a
supervisory relationship may be breaking down.
Higher degree research students do not have any formal induction programme and there
appears to be no student feedback questionnaire for research students to ensure aggregate
feedback on areas of concern, such as the lack of access to research facilities after hours. A
student feedback mechanism would assist the University to demonstrate the extent to which
the needs of its research students are being met.
Research students and their supervisors also recognise the need for new equipment and an
upgrading of the present infrastructure, as well as for better access to specialised equipment.
As noted elsewhere, the University might consider the establishment of centralised laboratory
facilities.
Recommendation 21
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius earmark funding annually for the
renewal/replacement of research equipment in order to ensure that the University has
the best equipment to conduct globally competitive research.
It appears that the research students confine themselves to their respective faculties and have
little or no interaction with their fellow research students in other disciplines. For example,
there is no postgraduate society, through which all research students can meet to share
68
knowledge and experience, and which could facilitate conversations about interdisciplinary
research and other activities and thus support a healthy research culture.
Considering all the findings and suggestions in this section, the Audit Panel is of the view
that the establishment of a University-wide Higher Degrees Committee, with responsibility
for the oversight and approval of all matters relating to higher degree candidature, could be
one means of streamlining and assuring the quality of procedures and processes for research
higher degrees at UoM.
Recommendation 22
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius consider establishing a Higher
Degrees Committee that will embrace responsibility for postgraduate student
supervision and student completion, the need for consistency in the application of
research student policies and procedures, and student publication requirements and
student support.
9.3
RESEARCH FUNDING
There are several research support schemes for MPhil/PhD students. Among the schemes are
the TEC Postgraduate Scholarship and Fellowship award and the TEC Bursary which
encourage students to enrol in research programmes. The „University of Mauritius Research
Promotion Scheme‟ has been designed by the University to provide financial support to
researchers. The allocation of funds to research from 2006 to 2010 has increased as shown in
Item 10.9.
The University provides funding for the costs of undertaking projects of higher degree
studies. The budget threshold for a research project irrespective of the field of study is not
more than MUR 100,000 (not more than MUR 30,000 per annum). In the event that the
project cost exceeds the threshold of MUR 100,000, the student must provide evidence of the
availability of the funds before starting the project. The Audit Panel noted that the
responsibility to ensure that funds are available for a research project is vested with the
student. In addition, even if a budget plan has been submitted, the Audit Panel understands
that the student‟s supervisor has to go through lengthy procedures each time funds need to be
disbursed for a new item.
69
There is scant support for travel by students to facilitate their research or to attend
conferences. Students who have to travel overseas have to pay their own travel and
accommodation costs, except in rare cases where the supervisors are able to find an
arrangement with a host university.
The University needs to encourage and facilitate participation of research students in
conferences, particularly international conferences that help researchers to position
themselves at an international level and consequently increase the visibility of the UoM as a
research-active institution.
According to the SER (p126), academics may benefit from an „Academic Staff Development
Scheme‟ which was implemented in 2011 and which encompasses workshop and conference
attendance funds. The Audit Panel understands that approval for disbursement of funds is
seen by academics as a difficult process, even though applications to the scheme are
approved at faculty level. Furthermore, there is a general view among academics who are
active in research that the main source of research funds is through their research students.
Besides the University‟s internal funding sources, academics also seek external funding for
their research. However, the lengthy process in place for the approval of contracts for
external sources of funding by the Consultancy and Contract Research Centre is in need of
improvement.
9.4
RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
The total number of publications and the number of publications by faculty from 2005 to
2010 are given in Items 10.10 and 10.11 respectively. The Audit Panel acknowledges the
increase in research publications achieved over this period. However, the quality as well as
the quantity of research must also be considered within the University‟s research strategy.
The University does not appear to maintain or promote a database of peer-reviewed
publications, although the Audit Panel was advised that in the FoS more than 90% of the
research articles are peer-reviewed.
The Audit Panel was of the view that research students should be encouraged to publish their
research work in peer-reviewed journals and proceedings, and thus increase the University‟s
70
output of weighted research publications, while ensuring that students have evidence of the
quality of the research they have undertaken.
9.5
RESEARCH ETHICS
The processes in place for approval of the ethical aspects of research undertaken at UoM
were not clear to the Audit Panel. It appears that the Research Ethics Committee (REC),
which handles applications of students for ethics approval, operates mainly via email and
rarely meets to discuss the applications.
The Audit Panel was informed that the REC is scheduled to meet twice per annum and the
last face-to-face meeting was in 2010. Research involving human subjects is processed by the
National Ethics Committee and the REC has the responsibility of liaising with the National
Ethics Committee for such research studies. Furthermore, the REC does not appear to have
any mechanism to follow up whether ethical clearance has been granted. The procedures for
seeking research ethics clearances are not documented for staff or students and it is not
evident that there is active encouragement for researchers to think carefully about the ethical
implications of their research.
The REC may also have a role to play in ensuring that other ethical issues in research are
addressed, including grievances over authorship or allegations of academic misconduct in
research. The Panel suggests that the University reviews its current policies and considers the
development and implementation of a policy on academic misconduct that would apply to
both staff and students.
The Audit Panel suggests that the UoM implement a suite of policies and procedures, in order
to ensure the professional and ethical conduct of research across UoM. This suite of policies
for the management of research will help to streamline and align all processes that govern
research activities at the University.
9.6
RESEARCH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
The University does not appear to have a research information management system to track
applications for external research funding or to manage the administration and acquittal of
external (and any internal) research grants. Such a system could also be used to monitor the
71
totality of the University‟s research output, e.g. publications, higher degree completions,
patents, other awards.
Recommendation 23
It is recommended that a Research Information Management System (RIMS) be
developed and implemented for the tracking of all research-related activities at the
University of Mauritius.
9.7
BUILDING RESEARCH CAPACITY WITH THE CREATION OF THE
NATIONAL RESEARCH CHAIRS
The introduction of the National Research Chairs initiative in November 2010 is an important
step in advancing the national research agenda through appropriately selected public
institutions. However, the selection and placement of the three NRCs at UoM have been
problematic for both the incumbents and the University.
The NRCs were of the opinion that the idea was excellent. A budget of MUR 7 million has
been earmarked by TEC. Unfortunately, the lack of a framework and resourcing at UoM to
properly accommodate and support them has led to many issues, threatening to undermine the
intent of the initiative.
The Audit Panel appreciates that the process has been a learning experience for both the
Government and UoM, however, it is timely now for both parties to review the initial
operation of the scheme and redevelop it to ensure that other NRCs do not encounter similar
difficulties. The Government must also ensure that the three NRCs at UoM are appropriately
supported. The Audit Panel observes that good practice guidance in respect of NRCs is
available from other countries, such as Canada and South Africa. The Government and UoM
can learn from the experiences of these countries to develop appropriate functional structure
and associated processes.
Recommendation 24
It is recommended that the conceptualisation, framework and implementation of the
National Research Chairs initiative be re-visited by the appropriate government
ministry together with target institutions so that the institutional arrangements
72
governing the Chairs’ initiative are unambiguous and that the role, responsibilities and
obligations of all parties are clearly spelt out.
9.8
CONSULTANCY AND CONTRACT RESEARCH
The CCRC was established in 1998 and is involved in the management of externally funded
projects. The CCRC coordinates all Consultancy and Contract Research projects between the
University and industry, Government and other stakeholders, from pre-award state until
project completion. The CCRC assists the research community of the University in terms of
technology transfer and promotion of social and economic development of the country.
According to the information submitted by the CCRC, some 2100 projects have been handled
to date. For the period 01 August 2010 to 31 July 2011, a total of 290 Consultancies and
Contract Research for a total value of MUR 32.7 million were managed by the CCRC
(SERp138).
9.8.1 Intellectual Property Rights
The University‟s arrangements for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are also managed by the
CCRC. The Panel finds that at UoM the rules governing intellectual property are unclear to
many academics – not because there is not a policy but because there is little awareness. The
Audit Panel urges the University to ensure that all academics, and research students, are
aware of the University‟s policy on intellectual property ownership and of the procedures that
give effect to this policy.
9.8.2 Consultancy and Contract Research Approval
There is a perception among academics that projects commissioned through the CCRC take
too long to be finalised, and that the length of the process may discourage some external
funders, such as industry. Given that consultancy and contract research can be a considerable
external source of income for the UoM, the University must consider reviewing its processes
and procedures to maximise consultancy and contract research opportunities to support more
research.
9.8.3 Project Funding
Additional external funding for research projects was raised on several occasions as a way of
improving UoM‟s research performance. It is to be noted that the CCRC has registered itself
as a service provider with the European Commission to assist the Commission‟s services.
73
Other external funding agencies for research include the Mauritius Research Council (MRC),
statutory bodies, regional and international organisations such as Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Southern African Development Community
(SADC) and European Union.
Applications for grants and distribution of funds are managed by the VC Office and project
supervisors are accountable to the BDO regarding expenditure of funds.
Presently, the processes may not encourage academics to submit external funding
applications to funding agencies. The Audit Panel was advised that an application for a grant
from an external funding agency made by an academic has to be approved by the University.
The Audit Panel also noted with concern that there is little research funding from local
industry.
Thus, the University is encouraged to build and strengthen its international linkages and
collaboration with a view to increasing the research income of the University. There is also a
need for more effective and streamlined processes for seeking external funds and processing
research contracts. The former Office of the Pro-VC RCI was responsible for the
implementation of the research strategy of the University. It is evident that presently there is
no University Research Office that collectively deals with (i) Research Management and
Development and Research Capacity Building; (ii) Higher Degree/Postgraduate studies; (iii)
Technology Transfer, Contracts, Consultancy, Partnerships and Innovation. The functions of
the research management and development and research capacity building; and higher
degree/ postgraduate studies appear to be subsumed by the CCRC. Some of the functions
have also been taken by the AMC. Interviews with staff indicate that this institutional
arrangement is not satisfactory as the role and functions of the different aspects of the
research enterprise of UoM is compromised.
Ultimately, the Panel was of the view that the research function of the University should
reside under the Pro-VC (Research) who will be responsible for aspects of Research
Management, Research Capacity Building and Higher Degree studies. These institutional
arrangements would play a catalytic role in entrenching an institutional research culture at
UoM.
74
Recommendation 25
It is recommended that the University of Mauritius confine the role of the Consultancy
and Contract Research Centre to a more focused mandate so that the aspects of
Research Management, Research Capacity Building and Higher Degree studies become
the responsibility of the appropriate university research structures.
75
10 DATA
10.1 FUND ALLOCATED TO STAFF DEVELOPMENT FROM 2005 TO 2010
(SERP129)
10.2 STUDENT ENROLMENT AT UOM (SERP 56)
76
10.3 INCOME DISTRIBUTION FROM 2005 TO 2010 (SERP 112).
10.4 BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR YEAR 2009/10 (SERP68)
77
10.5 DISTRIBUTION OF STAFF AT UOM (SERP60)
10.6 DISTRIBUTION OF GRADUATES BY LEVEL OF QUALIFICATION
(SERP57)
78
10.7 NUMBER OF PHDS COMPLETED BY FACULTY (SERP121)
10.8 NUMBER OF TRANSFERS FROM MPHIL TO PHD BY FACULTY (SERP121)
79
10.9 FUND ALLOCATED TO RESEARCH FROM 2006 TO 2010 (SERP129)
10.10 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS FROM 2005 TO 2010
(SERP132)
80
10.11 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS BY FACULTY FROM
2005 TO 2010 (SERP132)
81
11 APPENDICES
11.1 APPENDIX A: THE AUDIT PANEL
Dr Jeanette Baird, Acting Executive Director, Regulation and Review Group, Tertiary
Education Quality and Standards Agency, Australia (Chairperson)
Dr Dorsamy (Gansen) Pillay, Deputy CEO: Research and Innovation Support and
Advancement (RISA), National Research Foundation, South Africa
Prof Zita Haji Mohd Fahmi, Deputy Chief Executive Director (Quality Assurance),
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), Malaysia
Mr Vipin Y S Mahabirsingh, Managing Director, Central Depository & Settlement Co Ltd,
Mauritius
Mrs Kalyani Putty-Rogbeer, Quality Assurance and Accreditation Officer, Tertiary Education
Commission, Mauritius
Secretary to the Audit:
Ms Kamini Peersia, Programme Officer, Tertiary Education Commission, Mauritius
Secretarial support:
Ms Poonam Soborun, Programme Officer, Tertiary Education Commission, Mauritius
82
11.2 APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS & DEFINITIONS
The following abbreviations and definitions are used in this Report. As necessary, they are
explained in context
AMC - Academic Management Committee
CASR - Centre for Applied Social Research
CCRC - Consultancy and Contract Research Centre
CITS - Centre for Information Technology and Systems
CLET – Centre for Lifelong Learning and Educational Technologies
COMESA- Common Market for Easter and Southern Africa
CPDL - Centre for Professional Development and Lifelong Learning
CRPE - Council for Registered Professional Engineers
BDO – Budget Director‟s Office
EO - Examinations Office
FLM - Faculty of Law and Management
FoA - Faculty of Agriculture
FoE - Faculty of Engineering
FoS - Faculty of Science
FSSH - Faculty of Social Studies and Humanities
GEMs - General Elective Modules
HoD - Head of Department
ICT - Information and Communications Technology
KPI - Key Performance Indicator
LLC - Lifelong Learning Cluster
MIBS - Mauritius International Business School
MoTESRT - Ministry of Tertiary Education, Science, Research &Technology
MRC - Mauritius Research Council
MUR - Mauritian Rupees
NRC - National Research Chair
PAS -Performance Appraisal System
PMS -Performance Management System
PBB - Programme-Based Budgeting
83
QA - Quality Assurance
R – Recommendations of the TEC Quality Audit Report 2005
RCI - Research Consultancy and Innovation
REC - Research Ethics Committee
SADC - Southern African Development Community
SER - Self Evaluation Report
SERp – Self Evaluation Report page reference
SSRMC - SSR Medical College
TEC - Tertiary Education Commission
UoM - University of Mauritius
VC - Vice-Chancellor
VCILT - Virtual Centre for Innovative Learning Technologies
WBL - Work-based Learning
84