Job Spec – Irish Marie Curie Office – National Contact Point

Position:          Marie Curie National Contact Point

Organisation

The Irish Universities Association (IUA) is the representative body of the seven Irish universities. The IUA seeks to advance university education and research through the formulation and pursuit of collective policies and actions on behalf of the Irish Universities. It is a non-profit making body with charitable status. IRCSET (Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology)operates multi-million euro research funding initiatives, which support talented researchers in their early stage career formation across Masters, Doctoral and Postdoctoral levels in the area ofscience, engineering and technology.

The Irish Marie Curie Office is supported by the Irish Universities Association (IUA) and the Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology (IRCSET) and provides the National Contact Point for the EU Framework 7 “People” Programme. It ensures dedicated support, advice and in-depth assistance to researchers applying for Marie Curie Actions funding under the People Programme http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html

The Irish Marie Curie Office under the leadership of IUA and IRCSET is now seeking to recruit a National Contact Point (NCP) overseen for the programmes above and to be involved in research career development initiatives with the European Commission.

This is a 2 year fixed term contract.

Functions:

Reporting to the Director of Research in the IUA, the NCP will:

• Execute the Irish Marie Curie Office
• Organise promotional activities, information days and workshops to assist applicants to the Marie Curie Actions
• Advise, assist and train researchers on the funding schemes available under the Marie Curie Actions
• Advise on administrative procedures and legal issues
• Analyse fellowship data, prepare reports and publicity material
• Provide expertise and on proposal writing, legal aspects etc.
• Carry out reviews of proposals prior to their submission to the EC
• Provide on-going support to successful applicants on negotiating and managing contracts
• Liaise with the European Commission and the NCP networks across Europe.
• Work closely with the EURAXESS Ireland office based in the IUA on policy and practice concerning researcher mobility and career development

Profile of Candidate:

• Possess a primary degree and a minimum of three years relevant experience in a related field, such as research administration and management.
• Significant experience in EU R&D funding
• Results focused and a self-starter with excellent interpersonal and negotiating skills
• A capacity for strategic thinking and hands-on delivery
• Ability to analyse data and prepare statistical reports
• In-depth knowledge of the Higher Education, Research and Industry sectors on an international scale

Remuneration

A competitive salary commensurate with experience will be offered.

Applications

Please forward a detailed CV and cover letter, demonstrating the competencies and experience listed above, by post or email by 15th August 2011 to:

Jennifer Cleary
HR Manager
IUA
48 Merrion Square
Dublin 2

E-mail: jennifer.cleary@iua.ie
Tel: (01) 676 4948

The IUA is an equal opportunities employer.

The Irish Universities Association today welcomed the revisions contained in the redrafted Employment Control Framework. Chief Executive, Ned Costello said: “the revisions acknowledge that the response to the national financial crisis must be balanced by according universities the flexibility to manage their resources to best effect.”

A key change is the removal of the former ceilings on research and privately funded posts. This recognises the importance of research in attracting foreign direct investment and promoting indigenous exports. In relation to privately funded posts, it is notable that the new framework explicitly recognises the importance of diversifying funding in higher education. “The universities are already very active in raising private funding through philanthropy, international education and contract research and commercialisation – this can now continue unhindered”, Costello said.

The Universities also welcomed the transitional provisions which have been put in place in respect of the required pension funding for certain research posts. However, IUA Council Chair, Dr. Michael Murphy expressed concern at the ultimate impact the pension funding requirement could have on research if steps are not taken to address this. “It is clear that the government recognises the importance of the technology sector in growing jobs and exports. The impressive growth in this sector will not be maintained if the infrastructure which supports it is eroded”, Dr.  Murphy  said.

“Overall, however, we are pleased that the government has listened to our concerns and responded to them”, he concluded. “We will continue to work with government in maximising the contribution of education and research to national recovery.”

Ends.

For more information contact: Lia O’Sullivan, Communications Manager, Irish Universities Association. Tel: 01 6764948 lia.osullivan@iua.ie

REVISED EMPLOYMENT CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR

The Ministers for Education and Skills and Public Expenditure and Reform have approved a revised Employment Control Framework (ECF) for the Higher Education Sector. This revised ECF confirms the previous clarifications provided by the Higher Education Authority and Department of Education and Skills since the issue of the earlier ECF document in March. There are also some further changes as summarised in the note below.

HEA Chief Executive, Tom Boland, said,

“While everyone would prefer that controls on staffing were not necessary, the Framework provides reasonable flexibility to the higher education institutions to manage their staffing requirements. The revised Framework is a result of very constructive discussion between the HEA and the Departments.”

Since the restrictions in staffing levels were introduced to the higher education system in 2009, the number of staff across the sector has decreased by 1,361 (7%) resulting in ongoing annual savings of approximately €80m. At the same time, staff salaries have been reduced and student numbers have increased by 15%.

“The enhanced performance of the higher education sector has been very impressive”, Mr Boland said, “but we have to be constantly vigilant for any negative impact on quality”

Employment Control Framework for the Higher Education Sector 2011-2014

Note on main changes:

Categorisation of Staff

The three categorisations of staff to which the revised Framework applies are now as follows:

Core-funded staff

• A ceiling will apply to core-funded posts, set by the HEA for each institution.
• Institutions are permitted to fill vacancies up to the level of the ceiling subject to certain conditions.
• The filling of these posts is no longer limited to fixed term or fixed purpose contract posts.

Non- Core funded Research and related project posts,( including commercialisation posts) funded from Exchequer resources external to the institution

• No ceiling applies to this category.
• An overall envelope of additional research posts is identified to provide for anticipated approved growth in Exchequer funded research activity over the period
• There is now no requirement for proposals to appoint staff under this category to be put in advance to the HEA
• Posts must be funded on a full cost recovery basis (including pension provision)

Other Research and/or Specialist project based posts funded from non-Exchequer sources.

• There are no restrictions on the number of posts that may be created under this category.
• There is now no requirement for proposals to appoint staff under this category to be put in advance to the HEA
• Posts must be funded on a full cost recovery basis (including pension provision)

Transitional Arrangements for Research/Special Projects

The revised ECF has provided for transitional arrangements in relation to the requirement to include a 20% pension charge for research/specialist posts. Projects that were already well advanced when this new pension arrangement was introduced may now proceed under the “old” arrangements (pre 10th March). This means that the 20% pension charge will not apply in respect of individual appointments or re-appointments under these projects. The Framework clarifies the specific circumstances where the “old” arrangements will apply.

Promotions

The ECF that issued in March 2011 allowed for academic/non-academic promotions subject to the maintenance of balance between grades. The benchmark at which this balance will be measured is now changed from 31 December 2010 to 31st December 2008. It is considered that this revised date will more accurately reflect the natural balance of posts between grades.

ENDS

For further information, contact Malcolm Byrne, Head of Communications, Higher Education Authority (01) 231 7162 or (086) 22 37 102

Malcolm Byrne

Head of Communications
Higher Education Authority
Brooklawn House
Shelbourne Road
Dublin 4

Tel: +353 (0)1 2317 162

Fax: +353 (0)1 2317 172

www.hea.ie

Irish Universities Education Fair for Saudi Arabian Students

On April 4th the 7 universities will host an Education Fair for over 700 Saudi Arabian further education students who are considering their higher education options. The majority of students are government sponsored by the Saudi Arabian Ministry for Higher Education under the King Abdullah Scholarship Programme.

The fair, which is part of the drive to implement the Irish strategy for international education, will be opened by Dr Hesham Khadawardi of the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in London. Speaking about the growing relationship between Irish Higher Education and Saudi Arabia, Dr Khadawardi said, “The Education Fair registers a strong repercussion of a flourishing relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Education and the Irish Universities are co-operating both academically and culturally to facilitate the enlarging presence of Saudi students to mutually enrich and benefit foreign students and Irish academia and society”.

The Saudi students are currently studying in Ireland at English Language Schools, undertaking English and Foundation programmes. The aim of the fair is to demonstrate to the students the wide range of options open to them in the Irish University Sector. At the fair they will participate in a series of information sessions given by university lecturers and professors. These sessions will cover a range of disciplines at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and will include popular subjects like Business, Engineering and Pharmacy.

The Education Fair, organised through the Irish Universities Association, will take place in the Royal College of Physicians, No 6, Kildare Street from 1.30pm to 6pm.

Ends.

For more information contact: Sinead Lucey, International Education Manager, Irish Universities Association. 086 7304177. sinead.lucey@iua.ie.

IUA warmly welcomes the Student Support Act 2011, passed by the Oireachtas and signed into law by President MacAleese on 2nd February 2011. The existing arrangements for processing grants are hugely fragmented and needed radical overhaul, especially in light of ever growing demand for higher education.

The new student grant scheme, which should be in place for the academic year 2011/12, will be followed by the designation of a single grant awarding authority in 2012 to take over from the 66 local authorities and VECs through which the schemes are currently administered. This will enable all grant applications to be processed and paid centrally in the future.

Welcoming the enactment of the Bill, IUA CEO Ned Costello said “the single student grant scheme and awarding authority is a much needed development. It will reduce the red tape burden on both universities and students and enhance the student experience”.

For more information contact:
Lia O’Sullivan, Communications Manager, Irish Universities Association, Lia.osullivan@iua.ie
01 6764948 085 7141414

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the universities’ position in respect of our implementation plan under the‘Croke Park’ Public Service Agreement (PSA).

Background
The Public Service Agreement (PSA) was formulated against a backdrop of the worst financial crisis in the history of the state. The Agreement is aimed at improving efficiency and quality so that public services can continue to be delivered with the reduced resources available to the Exchequer. Since the conclusion of the agreement, we know that the state’s financial position has worsened considerably, leading to the agreement with the EU, ECB and IMF, of the four year national recovery plan. The current position re-emphasises the need to implement the PSA. This has been stressed by the Chair of the National Implementation Body.

Concerns Expressed about the University Plans
The PSA explicitly provides for a review of academic contracts and this has been further emphasised in national policy by the recently published HE Strategy. The focus of the concerns expressed to date is that the provisions of contractual revision represent an attack on academic freedom and tenure and thus the very essence of the university.

In our view this is emphatically not the case.

These proposals must be viewed in the context of both the wider strategic stance of the universities, and the real intent underlying their specific content. These two aspects are elaborated on below.

Overall strategic position of the universities
There is a widely held view that universities which have a strong capacity for self determination are both more efficient and effective. We are fully committed to maintaining this position, and, indeed enhancing it. We made our position clear in our interactions with, and inputs to, the Higher Education Strategy group and the resultant Strategy (National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030) reflects this.

The Strategy does discuss at length the balance between institutional self determination and accountability to the state and society in general. It is appropriate that this be discussed, not least given the current crisis. There has been deep-rooted societal questioning of the causes of our economic collapse. This has included reflection on the failures of our financial regulatory system and the functioning of our entire administrative and political system.
Given the depth of the crisis, the universities have sought to play their part in response. This has been reflected in the universities agreeing to cut staff numbers by over six percent while continuing to respond to the demand for additional student places.

In summary, the universities are committed to the principle of self determination and to enhancing this over time.

Content of the PSA Plan
In line with the overall strategic position outlined above, it must be stressed that the theme underlying the plan is accountability and not control. As regards the proposed contractual revisions these have been driven by a desire to identify good practice across the universities and to consolidate this on a sectoral basis. In terms of the specific provisions, it is worth highlighting the major ones and elaborating on their intent and the thinking underlying them, as follows:

Attendance/hours of work
Attendance: this is stated as a requirement to be in attendance at the university during the normal working week and for the duration of the college year which is 12 consecutive calendar months.

It will be apparent that there has been considerable questioning of academic hours of work in recent times. At the Public Accounts Committee the University Presidents and IUA strongly defended the record of University staff and firmly rejected simplistic definitions of academic hours based on contact time. In our inputs to the HE Strategy process, and at the PAC, we rejected efforts to impose a requirement for fixed hours within the academic contract. We believe this would inhibit flexibility and ultimately compromise the widespread excellent commitment which staff have demonstrated.

However, we believe it is reasonable to set down minimum standards in respect of attendance as outlined above. Some have suggested that this is to have the effect of physically shackling academics to the university and banning remote working etc. We want to stress that this is categorically not the case. Our concern is fundamentally about accountability for work and, in practice, this provision is simply to consolidate a framework which protects against cases of obvious abuse of the freedoms which currently exist and which we support. Thankfully, those abuses are extremely rare, but it cannot be denied that they have occurred.

Tenure
Here, we are seeking to establish that tenure is consistent with the established corpus of employment law and, in that context, refers to the duration of contract.

It has been suggested that the above represents a concerted attempt to casualise university employment. Again, this is emphatically not the case.

However, the concept of tenure dates from a time when employment law was much less well developed. We now have a national legal framework incorporating, inter alia, the Unfair Dismissals and Fixed Term Workers Acts which provide considerable protections to employees generally. We strongly support employment security for staff.

In some of the commentary, the concepts of tenure and academic freedom have been conflated, with the implication that any contextualization of tenure will be used to attack academic freedom by facilitating the dismissal of staff who express unpopular ideas.

This is a completely wrong characterisation as will be reflected in the section on academic freedom, where we vigorously uphold and support freedom of thought and enquiry.

We do not believe that it is helpful to have an amorphous concept of tenure which somehow subsists in a parallel realm to that corpus of law. Such subsistence at best creates ambiguity, and at worst, creates the impression that tenure will be advanced to create an absolute prohibition on dismissal or sanction, even in the worst and thankfully extremely rare cases of misconduct. The fostering of such an impression is enormously damaging to the public reputation of the universities, to our desire for continued and enhanced self determination, and it does no service to the vast majority of staff within the university.

Academic Freedom
The capacity of universities to develop new knowledge and to share that knowledge within the collective community of learners and with the wider society is essential: in the literal sense, it is the essence of what defines a university. We have consistently defended this.

We have firmly and repeatedly rejected the notion of universities as mechanistic institutions which exist to supply static units of learning to a cohort of passive consumers. Most recently we gave an extensive presentation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Skills showcasing the range of innovation and high quality demonstrated by our universities and emphasizing the contribution of our academics as independent thinkers and contributors to national and international debate.

We are unambiguously committed to academic freedom of thought and enquiry.

We are equally committed to our academics’ freedom to continuously vary what is taught as the universe of knowledge expands. We believe that the continual testing of what is held to be true is essential for all in the community of learners.

There can and should be no doubt of this and we will defend this position.

What we must do as a foundation for that defence, is to distinguish between freedom and licence.

This is what we are seeking to do in the proposed contractual provision which states that it is to be acknowledged that the freedoms which are contained in Section 14 of the Universities Act are to be exercised in the context of the framework of rights and obligations contained in the contract.

As articulated in this paper, the obligations element is simply a framework that contains accountability requirements which reflect the excellent practice of the vast majority of academic staff and which also safeguard against those cases of abuse which, though extremely rare, have the capacity to undermine public confidence in the universities.

Public Confidence
It is worth considering further the importance of public confidence. Universities have an essential role within society in the creation of new knowledge and in challenging conventional wisdom and accepted truths. However, if this role is to be effective, universities must have public trust and confidence.

Trust and confidence are qualities which are earned; universities have no intrinsic right to them. Intellectual freedom which exists in the absence of such trust and confidence would be a debased currency of little or no value. It would reduce universities to voices crying in the wilderness, dependent on society for their subsistence but powerless to influence it.
Conclusion
In summary, the PSA plans are designed to reinforce all that is good in our university system and provide for the further enhancement of our self determination.

They allow Universities to maximise their traditional and properly-valued contribution to society, as well as making a real contribution to national recovery.

Their implementation will enhance our reputation and strengthen public trust and confidence in our institutions.

In consequence they will strengthen our voice and our position in society to the benefit of, students, society and staff alike.

For more information contact:
Lia O’Sullivan, Communications Manager, Irish Universities Association, Lia.osullivan@iua.ie
01 6764948 085 7141414

IUA Welcomes HE Strategy Report

The Irish Universities Association welcomes the publication of the report of the National Strategy Group on Higher Education. The report sets out a strategic framework for the development of Higher Education which establishes important parameters for how Higher Education in Ireland should evolve in light of the economic and demographic challenges and opportunities facing us. The fact that the report recognizes the fundamental strengths of our system, while also highlighting those challenges and opportunities, is important.

Against that backdrop, and among the issues addressed in this extensive report, we see the following as being especially significant.

Integrated view of higher education. The report firmly establishes that research, teaching and engagement with society and the economy are essential and interconnected facets of the mission of higher education. Within this holistic view, there is a particular role for the universities in generating new knowledge and disseminating that knowledge to students and society.

Importance of diversity. The report foresees a continued expansion of participation in higher education, but with that expansion having a changed character which places more emphasis on part time and adult learners, post graduate and international students. While it will pose challenges for the state, society and institutions in accommodating this demand, we believe that a continued widening of participation along these lines is a desirable goal. The universities have consistently shown themselves willing to respond flexibly to demand, even when exchequer resources are being reduced. In addition, we have put new structures in place to give effect to the report’s recommendations on internationalization.

Greater emphasis on the student experience. The report deals extensively with the student experience and related issues of learning and teaching. It reflects developments already underway in the universities in the modernization of the curriculum, both in its structure and content, new approaches to pedagogy and the use of student feedback. We endorse the reports’ view that these approaches need to be deepened and applied more consistently across all of higher education. We also welcome the reports’ contribution to the debate about the balance between specialization and a broader approach to education, especially in the context of First Year. The themes explored in the report have significance for the education system as a whole, and emphasize the need to reappraise our approach to Second Level, in particular.

Contribution of Research. The report recognizes that, in addition to its providing a foundation for teaching, research and its exploitation, has a specific place in economic development. The continued prioritization of research and commercialization in the National Recovery Plan is consistent with this and the research prioritization exercise recommended in the report is now underway. In addition, the universities have been proactive in the advancement of the Innovation Taskforce’s report in areas such as the protection and commercialization of intellectual property.

Benefits of autonomous, accountable institutions. The report underscores the benefits which accrue from a system of autonomous, but accountable, institutions. It makes valuable recommendations as to how both dimensions can be strengthened. For example, in human resources it recommends that institutions should have greater flexibility in setting terms and conditions while also recommending new approaches to staff contracts and workload management. In the implementation process it essential that the balance which the report strikes in ensuring accountability while continuing to incentivize innovation and flexibility is maintained. The tools and methodologies applied should be guided by best practice internationally.

New approaches to system configuration. While our system has a solid core, we agree with the report’s conclusion that there is excessive fragmentation in parts of our system and that this should be addressed. Among the universities there is already an extensive network of collaboration which has been supported and deepened by initiatives such as PRTLI, the SFI CSETS and the Strategic Innovation Fund. There are also growing numbers of strategic alliances, both between universities, and with smaller and more specialized higher education providers. The recommendations which the report makes in this area, including the deepening of collaboration within the context of regional clusters, are to be welcomed and will be engaged with proactively by the universities. However, it is important to underscore the fact that the report recognizes that these approaches should not be pursued at the expense of maintaining diversity within our system. This structural diversity is all the more important, given the growing heterogeneity of the learner body. In addition, while the regional dimension is important, it is vital that this is not at the expense of the broader national agenda and the international competitiveness of our higher education system.

A reappraisal of how higher education is resourced. Given the significant ambitions which the report holds for higher education, it is vital that a resourcing framework be put in place which is commensurate with them. The report proposes new approaches both to how the system is resourced and how those resources are distributed. As regards raising revenue, clearly the student contribution announced in Budget 2011 is a new development which reflects the specific circumstances facing the nation. Such a contribution is necessary to maintain a minimum level of financial sustainability within the system. However, it is appropriate that the report should set out a longer term strategy and we continue to endorse the proposal to develop a system of income contingent loans. Planning for the introduction of such as system should not be in any way delayed by immediate fiscal concerns.

As regards how funding is distributed, we welcome the proposals to bring greater transparency and consistency to the allocation of funding across our higher education institutions overall, building on the system already operated by the HEA in respect of the universities. We also welcome the acknowledgement that a balance needs to be stuck between the available resources and the scale of the system overall and that, consequently, pursuing growth at the expense of quality is inappropriate and will not be tolerated.

Further work will be required to cost the various proposals in the report. In the implementation process, there should be a specific priority to reduce red tape and avoid over-regulation, guided by an emphasis on measuring outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.

Conclusion – Importance of stakeholder engagement in implementation. The greater part of the modernization and improvement which has taken place within our higher education system (and which the report endorses) has happened without the need for government intervention. This is as it should be. In the case of the universities it is the logical evolution of a network of institutions which are responsive to their customers and globally connected to their peers. However, the Strategy Report brings a much needed conceptual and strategic perspective to the development of our system overall. As the report acknowledges, implementation can only happen through engagement and we look forward to working with government to deliver this.

For more information contact:
Lia O’Sullivan, Communications Manager, Irish Universities Association, Lia.osullivan@iua.ie
01 6764948 085 7141414