Support from senior management

How fully supported a CETL is by senior management

Well over half (58%) reported that the CETL was fully supported by senior management and just over a third (34%) that there was some support from senior management. Only very small numbers (8%) reported a lack of any support.

Table 21: Whether or not CETL is actively supported by senior management

No. %

Yes, fully supported by senior management in the host institution through regular informal and formal meetings

37 57.8

Yes, some support from senior management 22 34.4 No, little or no support from senior management 4 6.3 No, senior management are more critical than

supportive

1 1.6

Total 64 100

Other aspects of CETL’s relationship with senior management

Nearly two thirds (61%) said that they worked closely with the senior management to disseminate the work of the CETL across the institution. For a quarter (25%) the relationship was less developed and they only discussed the progress of the CETL with senior management through steering or

management board meetings. A small number (6%) felt that senior management had little knowledge of what they were doing.

Table 22: Aspects of CETL’s relationship with senior management Strongly agree/ Agree No. (%) Neither agree nor disagree No. (%) Disagree/ Strongly disagree No. (%) No reply No. (%) Total No. (%) We work closely with the senior

management to disseminate the work of the CETL across the institution 39 (60.9) 14 (21.9) 11 (17.2) - 64 (100)

We discuss progress of the CETL with senior management only through steering or management board meetings

16 (25.1) 7 (10.9) 38 (59.4) 3 (4.7) 64 (100)

I don’t think the senior management have much knowledge of what we are doing

4 (6.3) 12 (18.8) 45 (70.4) 3 (4.7) 64 (100)

Support from senior management

Respondents who felt that their CETL was actively supported by senior management were asked about the ways in which this happened. This was usually seen as being achieved by the presence of senior managers on the CETL management board/steering group or equivalent. It was also done through report-back mechanisms and other kinds of meetings. A number of other kinds of support were also mentioned as shown in the table below.

Table 23: How CETL is actively supported by senior management in the host institution Senior manager(s) member of CETL group/management board 24

Report to senior management 9

Regular meetings 5

Support at launch/opened building 3 CETL seen as a focus for education-related advice/speak positively

about CETL/mentioned in the university learning strategy

3

Generally supportive 2

Extra funding provided/funded building works 2 Involvement in university strategic discussions 2 Central services support 1 Active in implementation 1 Interest in integrating the skills training agenda 1 CETL team lead working parties 1 Promotion of CETL staff 1

Some comments were:

Regular quarterly meetings with PVC (academic) who is also responsive to issues raised. I am a member of the university senior management team. VC is Chair and PVC a member of the CETL Strategic Advisory Group.

Our Management Board is chaired by a PVC and others occasionally attend. Our values are beginning to be fed back to us from statements made by PVCs to third parties.

This is variable and depends on individuals. The bidding process was supported by an extremely pro-active PVC, then in the first year of life of the CETL there was one who was disinterested, and now again there is one who is thoroughly engaged. This is not due to institutional fit, but ‘the individual’. Broadly we are supported, but we are fairly small beer compared with some current issues in HEIs, none the less our potential usefulness in market- positioning is recognised.

The CETL reports formally to the university’s Education Policy Committee. This senior management group endorses the activities of the CETL. The second accountability and reporting mechanism is through the Strategy Group. This group also supports the CETL’s activities.

PVC T&L sits on steering group; invitation to myself to address conference of senior management about our work; currently exploring with PVC new ways of supporting dissemination to other subjects. Head of School extremely active in CETL: sits on steering group and executive committee, participates in events including delivering presentations, meets informally with myself and others in the CETL.

There is a supportive CETL Board chaired by a PVC and there are many invitations to meet less formally with other senior staff at PVC or Vice-Chancellor’s Executive level. More tellingly, funds have been made available from internal sources for various CETL initiatives.

Strong support from PVC with responsibility for Learning and Teaching, increasing support from Deans of School.

The involvement of the CETL in discussions concerning the future direction of teaching and learning at XX and direct input into how policy documents are being written. Promotion of staff associated with the CETL

Lack of support from senior management

Respondents who did not feel supported by senior management were asked to give details. There were very few responses as only a small number of people (five respondents) did not feel supported by senior management. The main factors mentioned were:

• Antipathy from Deans and PVC

• CETL doesn’t fit with university systems

• University ‘support’ functions not supportive

• Management have other priorities

• Management not attending steering group

• Little contact with senior management. Some comments were:

While there is support from chancellery, some 2nd level managers, especially in the support functions are less consistently supportive e.g. Estates, finance and computing.

Some antipathy from Deans and PVC. Largely stems from CETL being outside their direct control. But we now have a regular meeting with Deans to address these issues, share what’s happening and plan for future [so hopefully it will improve].

We’re not supported in that, as a free-standing centre, we don’t fit with ‘systems’ and we don’t get much help with that. We’re caught up with university budgeting processes so at the moment we are desperate to spend (on staff) – but we’re not allowed to.

It is not at the highest level, but rather at the level of some Deans or Pro-Deans, and some Heads of School or Department. For example I’ve only had rather limited support, if any from my own department and the Head of School, who… tend to view [our topic area] as peripheral to core discipline activity.

Sustainability after the end of the funding period

Respondents were asked if their institution had any plans to provide resources for the CETL after the end of the funding period. For nearly half (42%), this was a matter still under discussion and nothing had been agreed. A small number (6%) reported that the institution would provide resources to fully fund CETL activities after the end of the funding period, while 14% reported that the institution was planning to partially fund some continuing CETL activities. 14% of institutions were not planning to provide any resources for the CETL after the end of the funding period. Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) did not know if the institution had any plans to provide resources for the CETL after the end of the funding period.

Table 24: Institutional plans to provide resources for CETL after the end of the funding period

No. %

Continuation funding is under discussion but no plans have yet been made

27 42.2

Yes, institution will provide resources to fund a more limited range of activity

9 14.1

No, institution is not planning to provide resources for the CETL after the end of the funding period

9 14.1

Yes, institution will provide resources to fully fund CETL activities

4 6.3

Don’t know/not sure 15 23.4

Total 64 100

Some comments were:

The CETL is expected to be self-sustaining.

Aspects of the CETL’s work will start to be incorporated into mainstream university.

No one is prepared to think about it yet. End of CETL is a long time off in institutional terms. Working with a mindset of creating a legacy, we expect to become part of the university’s commitment to teaching and learning, and the university is supportive of our continued activities. It is, however, accepted that all the staff… should have delivered [the core CETL] activity within five years, and the focus of activity will be through the new estates provision and refreshing the curriculum.

This is difficult to answer because of the collaborative nature of the CETL. Current

discussions already ensure that there will be some continuation of activity, but the level is not yet clear, nor the distribution between the partners.

This is not clear at this stage as there have been few discussions as yet. This will be discussed following the review in mid 2007.

Continuation of CETL activities is built into the proposal for the establishment of a pan- university institute [in this topic area].

Capital equipment will be replaced.

A very sparse continuation strategy (worth £40,000 per year) was agreed prior to starting. No sign of this changing despite considerable dialogue and discussion.

Continuation of lecturer and director posts but not other roles.

Current thinking is that, on the one hand, continuation will happen anyway if [our] agenda has become deeply embedded in all areas of the institution, so there might be no great need for a discrete entity called [CETL]. On the other hand, there are a range of lines of development… that would be income-bearing and this would allow for the continuation of a slimmed-down Centre. Discussions continue.