1

REPORT

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT REVIEW

14-16 SEPTEMBER 2010

X5B 012

Panel members:

• Professor Nigel Bond, School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney (Chair)

• Professor Don Byrne, Head of Department/Director, School of Health and Psychological

Sciences, Australian National University

• Professor Nicolle Packer, Director of Biomolecular Frontiers Research Centre, Faculty of

Science, Macquarie University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

Psychology Review Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

List of Interviewed Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

The Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

2

REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Faculty of Human Sciences

TERMS OF REFERENCE

OVERVIEW

The Department of Psychology is the largest, in terms of student enrolments (~7200), in the Faculty

of Human Sciences. It has a large undergraduate student base (77%), significant postgraduate

student numbers (21%) and a sound HDR contingent (2%). The Department offers a range of

professionally accredited courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It is home to the

MU Research Centre for Emotional Health and houses 3 clinical facilities which support the

professional training of students and research. Its programs offer a scientist practitioner model of

training which helps support the very good research record of the Department. All courses were

reviewed and approved for accreditation by the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council within

the last 2 years. The purpose of the present review is to cover a broader range of leadership,

management, resourcing and engagement issues that were not covered in great detail by the course

reviews.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1) Review the effectiveness of departmental planning, leadership and management structures,

processes and resources in maintaining and developing teaching quality, research

productivity, academic standing and reputation.

2) Review the appropriateness of the degrees, courses, and units offered by the Department

relative to institutional and faculty priorities, employer and professional community

demands.

3) Review current research outputs, activity, and capability relative to Faculty and University

objectives including opportunities for developing research and knowledge leadership.

4) Review the alignment of academic, professional, and student profile relative to current and

future objectives and plans

5) Review the scale, scope, and quality of industry engagement, including external/professional

contribution to and referencing of, curriculum and research development.

6) Recommend future development opportunities for the department in terms of its resources,

research, teaching and industry engagement activity.

3

PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW SCHEDULE

14-16 SEPTEMBER, 2010

DAY 1 - TUESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER – Building X5B Room 012

10

.30

- 2

.00

WELCOME

10.30 Briefing with Professor Janet Greeley and Panel

12.30 LUNCH with Professor Bill Thompson, Head, Psychology, X5B 383

1.30 Panel discussion

2.0

0 –

5.0

0

MANAGEMENT, STAFF PROFILES AND BUDGET

2.00 Psychology Staff

Professor Bill Thompson, Head, Psychology

A/Prof Mike Jones, Deputy Head, Psychology

Ms Avril Moss, Department Administrator

A/Prof Julie Fitness, Senior Lecturer, V-President, Academic

Senate

2:45 Faculty

Ms Linda Schofield (Faculty General Manager)

Mr Graham Dowle (Faculty Finance Manager)

3:15 Afternoon Tea

RESEARCH

3:30 Research Staff

Dr Cathy McMahon

Professor Ron Rapee

Associate Professor Sachiko Kinoshita

Dr Megan Oaten

A/Prof Mike Jones

4:30 Panel discussion

4

DAY 2 - WEDNESDAY 15 SEPEMBER - Building X5B Room 012

9:0

0-1

:00

LEARNING AND TEACHING

9:00 Undergraduate Teaching and

Professional Staff

Academic Staff: Dr Julia Irwin, A/Prof Colin Wastell, Dr Nasreen Yasin

Professional Staff: Ms Radha Pathy

9:30 Undergraduate Students Gerhard Bronn, Nicola Rusten, Simone Mohi

9:50 4

th Year Honours and PGDIP

Teaching and Professional Staff

Academic Staff: Dr Kerry Sherman, A/Prof Mike Jones

Professional Staff: Ms Kaye Separovic, Ms Donna Keeley

10:20 Morning Tea

10:45 Postgraduate- Masters Teaching

and Professional Staff

Dr Andrew Baillie – Clinical Psychology

Dr Ben Searle – Organisational Psychology

A/Prof Arthur Shores – Clinical Neuropsychology – A/Prof Shores

cannot meet at this time. He will have an out of session interview at

12:15 tomorrow.

Professional Staff: Mr Marcus Ockenden

11:15 Postgraduate- Masters Students Lucy Brogden

11:45 Panel discussion

12:15 Applied Psychology Teaching and

Professional Staff

Mr Norman Rees,

Ms Avril Moss, Department Administrator

Ms Jill Hummelstad, Postgraduate Office

12:45 Applied Psychology Students

1:00 LUNCH

1.3

0–

5.0

0

1:30 Honours + PG Dip Students Bareena Johnson, Elizabeth Shevlane, Ian Adrian, Jenna Tregarthen

2:00 Social Health Teaching and

Professional Staff

Ms Adriana Gordon-Glusman, A/Prof Mike Jones, Ms Jill

Hummelstad, Postgraduate Officer in Social Health

Ms Carmela Paredes, Postgraduate Officer in Social Health

2:30 Social Health Students

5

DAY 3 – THURSDAY 16 SEPTEMBER – Building X5B Room 012 – Afternoon Session

HIGHER DEGREE RESEARCH

3:00 HDR Psychology Staff

Academic Staff: Dr Megan Oaten

Professional Staff: Ms Avril Moss

3:30 HDR Students Karen Davis

4:00 Afternoon Tea

4:15 Out of session Interviews – Possible Craig Errey, Honorary Associate in Organisational Psychology

Amanda Olley, Clinical Neuropsychology Supervisor

~4:30 Panel Discussion

9:0

0-1

:00

EXTERNAL ENGAGEMENT

9:00 Clinic Staff

Ms Ros Knight – Director Rod Power Clinic

Mr Jonathan Gaston – Director, Emotional Health Clinic

Ms Amanda Olley – Clinical Neuropsychology Supervisor – Amanda Olley

cannot attend at this time. Ms Olley had an out of session interview at 4:30pm

yesterday

10:00 Morning Tea with guest interviewees

10:30

10:50

11:20

11:50

Clinical Hon Assoc

Neuro Hon Assoc

Org’l Hon Assoc

Applied Psych

Ms Tanya Lye

Mr Graham Hercus, Mr Rob Hall

Ms Jill Duffield

12:15

12:30

Out of Session interview – A/Professor Arthur Shores – Clinical Neuropsychology

Open Interview – Professor Ken Cheng, Faculty of Science

12:45 LUNCH

1:45 Panel Discussion

6

TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

2:00

Psychology Centre Concept

Other Concepts

Professor Ron Rapee

Professor Bill Thompson

Professor Ron Rapee

A/Professor Jennie Hudson

Professor Dick Stevenson

3:00 Professor Stephen Crain, Professor Anne Castles, MACCS, IHCBS and CoE CCD

3:30 Afternoon Tea and Final Panel Discussion and Debrief

7

Interview list

Psychology Department Review

Management, Staff Profiles and Budget

Professor Bill Thompson, Head, Psychology

A/Prof Mike Jones, Deputy Head, Psychology (and immediate past Head)

Ms Avril Moss, Department Administrator

A/Prof Julie Fitness, V-President Academic Senate, past Head of Department

Ms Linda Schofield, Faculty General Manager

Mr Graham Dowle, Faculty Finance Manager

Research

Professor Ron Rapee, Director, Centre of Emotional Health

Professor Bill Thompson, Head, Psychology

Professor Dick Stevenson, Senior Lecturer

Associate Professor Jennie Hudson, CORE and ARC QEII Felow

Dr Cathy McMahon, Senior Lecturer, Chair, Psychology HDR Committee

Associate Professor Sachiko Kinoshita, Psychology/Cognitive Science

Dr Megan Oaten, Lecturer, ARC Australian Postdoc Fellow

A/Prof Mike Jones, Deputy Head, Psychology (and immediate past Head)

Learning and Teaching

Undergraduate

Dr Nasreen Yasin, Associate Lecturer

Dr Julia Irwin, Lecturer, Undergraduate Coordinator

Associate Professor Colin Wastell

Ms Radha Pathy, Undergraduate Liaison Officer

4th

Year Honours & PG Dip

Mrs Kaye Separovic, PG Dip Officer

Dr Kerry Sherman, Senior Lecturer

Associate Professor Mike Jones

Ms Donna Keeley, Honours Coordinator

Postgraduate - Masters

Dr Andrew Baillie, Senior Lecturer – Clinical Psychology

Dr Ben Searle, Senior Lecturer – Organisational Psychology

Associate Professor Arthur Shores – Clinical Neuropsychology

Mr Marcus Ockenden, Postgraduate Officer

Non- Accredited Courses

Mr Norman Rees - Applied Psychology

Ms Adriana Gordon-Glusman – Social Health

8

HDR

Dr Jennifer Cornish, Senior Lecturer

Dr Megan Oaten, Lecturer

Professional Staff: Ms Avril Moss, Ms Erin Thatcher

External Engagement

Ms Ros Knight, Director, Rod Power Clinic

Mr Jonathan Gaston, Manager, Emotional Health Clinic

Ms Amanda Olley – Clinical Neuropsychology Supervisor

Ms Tanya Lye - Neuropsych Honorary Associate

Mr Graham Hercus, Mr Rob Hall - Organisational Honorary Associate

Ms Jill Duffield - Applied Psychology Associate

Professor Ken Cheng, Faculty of Science

Trends and Opportunities

Professor Ron Rapee, Director of the Centre for Emotional Health

Professor Bill Thompson, Head, Psychology

Associate Professor Jennie Hudson, CORE and ARC QEII Fellow

Professor Dick Stevenson,

Professor Stephen Crain, Director CoE, Cognition and Disorders

Professor Anne Castles, Head, IHCBS and Director, MACCS

9

Report of a review of the Department of Psychology

Faculty of Human Sciences

Macquarie University

Professor Nigel Bond, University of Western Sydney

Professor Nicki Packer, Macquarie University

Professor Don Byrne, Australian National University

16 November 2010

10

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Janet Greeley for the opportunity to undertake the present review.

In addition, we would like to thank the staff who gave of their time to meet with us. Likewise, we

thank the students who met with us at a busy time for them. As the report suggests, students are

critical in understanding the workings of any academic unit. The present group were excellent

ambassadors for the Department and the University, highlighting the good and the bad, but always

generous in their praise of the academic and general staff. Importantly, we would like to express

our gratitude to Judy Lawrie, who supported us throughout the entire process.

Briefly, the Faculty and Department provided us with a significant amount of material that we then

used to develop a set of questions that we would employ in our interviews. These took place over a

three day period from September 14 to 16. Professor Byrne was unable to be present at the

interviews. However, we consulted prior to those sessions most relevant to his expertise and

provided a summing-up at the end of each day.

We trust that the Department finds the report valuable as it thinks about its future role within the

Faculty and University.

11

Report of a review of the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie

University

The Department of Psychology at Macquarie is in an enviable position. It attracts large numbers of

students into its undergraduate and fourth year programs. Its Masters programs are of high calibre

and attract many more applicants than it can cope with. The Department of Psychology, Centre for

Emotional Health (CEH) and the newly proposed Centre for Elite Performance, Expertise and Training

(CEPET), along with links to the Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science (MACCS) and the Centre of

Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (CCD), produce a breadth of research that places psychology

at Macquarie well within the top eight universities in Australia. These are significant achievements

that speak to good leadership, dedicated staff, both academic and administrative, and students who

clearly show the benefits of their time at Macquarie.

Given the above, it might be pleasant to sit on one’s laurels for a while. However, having read the

documentation provided to us and interviewed Macquarie staff and students, together with adjunct

appointees, we believe that changes need to be made to ensure that Macquarie builds upon its

already enviable reputation. In particular, we are concerned that the current structure of the

undergraduate program may see staff located within the Department finding little or no time to

conduct their research. We note the valuable contribution that the Centres have made to the

reputation of psychology at Macquarie. However, if the Department is to fulfil Professor Schwartz’s

view that teaching should be done by those steeped in research, then changes need to be made to

ensure that staff within the Department are able to continue to engage in research.

We do not intend to belabour these points. However, we would encourage staff and students

within and without the Department to examine the recommendations that we have put with a view

to implementing them as soon as possible. We would argue that it is very unlikely that the

Faculty/University will increase staffing levels within the Department to solve these problems.

Hence, the solutions must come from within the Department.

Commendations

1. The Department of Psychology, together with the Centre for Emotional Health, MACCs, and

the new Centre for Cognition and its Disorders, have placed psychology at Macquarie within

the top 8 universities in Australia. To that end, the discipline has made a major contribution

to the goal of the University to be within the top 8 universities by 2014.

2. We commend all staff, both academic and professional, for their caring and sympathetic

approach to the student population, both undergraduate and postgraduate. There was

evidence of a very good culture within both academic and administrative staff.

3. The Department’s research record, while patchy, has significant breadth. As a result, the

Department provides research opportunities to students in a variety of areas of Psychology.

The new Centre will expand these opportunities making Macquarie a very attractive place to

pursue graduate studies.

4. The Department offers a suite of programs aimed at students with differing interests and

expertise. The undergraduate program, while the subject of a number of recommendations,

is of good quality and staff who teach into the program are both expert and dedicated.

12

5. The postgraduate coursework programs, including the Graduate Diploma in Social Health,

Postgraduate Diploma (soon to be renamed), and the coursework Masters programs in

Clinical, Clinical Neuropsychology, and Organizational, are all well run and clearly enjoy a

good reputation in the field. Clinical placements have a high reputation and attract very

good students. The professional staff provide excellent support to students.

6. Research areas show high quality and productivity in both the Centres and within the

Department.

Recommendations

Undergraduate program

That the Department examine its undergraduate offerings within the constraints of APAC

requirements with a view to:

1. Reducing the number of hours taught in some units including transition to more

Web-based units to decrease the need for double classes.

2. Correcting the imbalance that sees 7 out of 8 second year units as compulsory core units,

which although ensuring a greater number of students continuing to third year Psychology,

causes less choice for students across disciplines and more internal workload.

3. Reducing the units in the core program in psychology to allow students within the Bachelor

of Arts to complete a second non-psychology major

4. Equalizing and where appropriate reducing assessment across units while ensuring any

student completing the core meets the attributes required of a psychology undergraduate

program and the University.

5. Allowing students who meet the ATAR to undertake the Bachelor of Arts to take the

introductory courses in Psychology.

6. Building some practical skills, e.g., counselling and interviewing (e.g., units from Social

Health), into the undergraduate program to ensure that the three-year degree remains

attractive and viable.

7. Redesigning the Honours programme to allow group Honours projects with individual

reporting to decrease supervision workload. Attempt to find strategies to reduce

competitive anxiety level in Honours students.

8. Using complementary expertise in teaching from other University staff both internally

(MACCS) and externally (MGSM, ASAM, BBE) to reduce teaching load whilst increasing

exposure to new research areas.

9. Ensuring the above changes are compatible with APAC course-requirement guidelines for

registration at undergraduate and Honours level.

Macquarie has always had a good reputation for its undergraduate teaching and we saw no evidence

to dispute this. Nevertheless, we find it paradoxical that at a time when most universities are

moving towards flexible delivery strategies that there is such an emphasis on face-to-face delivery.

13

For example, we were told that each of the first year units in the undergraduate program involved

five hours face-to-face for each student. And this did not include the teaching of research methods

and statistics, which is a separate unit at Macquarie unlike most other psychology programs. We

would urge the Department to look at its undergraduate program to determine whether current

methods of delivery are the most appropriate.

It is clear that many students will avail themselves of the alternatives, given that Macquarie, like

every other university, sees a significant decline in attendance at lectures over the semester.

Presenting three hours of lectures and repeats is a significant waste of resources. Of course, it is

difficult to withdraw options when they have been presented. However, we suspect that the

numbers remaining at the end of the semester could be accommodated in one lecture theatre and

we suspect that this is true of all the units with multiple lecture offerings. The solution can be as

simple as requesting that students indicate whether their preference is for live lectures or i-lecture

(or podcasts). We suspect that, particularly in later years, the Department will find around 50% of

students opting for the latter. Of course, some will argue that there is no substitute for face-to-face

teaching but empirical evidence for this view is lacking. As long as tutorials, excellent readings, and

supplementary materials are provided, face-to-face lectures may not add a significant benefit to

student learning.

The most important issue that needs to be addressed is the requirement that psychology students

take seven core units at second year, allowing only one possible elective within a normal (8 unit)

load. Such a heavy load means that students are locked into Psychology because they have no

capacity to take prerequisites for non-psychology units in their third year of study. This means that

the large numbers that flow from first year into second year will now flow into third year. This is a

problem of the Department’s making. There is nothing in the APAC Guidelines that requires such a

large number of requirements. Indeed, the guidelines do not require specific units for particular

areas of study. Hence, there are almost certainly more core units than are required by APAC.

Importantly, this structure will lead to staff who have no time for anything but teaching.

While the Department is addressing the issue of structure it should take note of the fact that it is not

possible to complete the core in Psychology and take out a second major in the BA. Surely, a

Bachelor of Arts degree should be the most flexible on offer and students should be able to

construct programs of study that suit their interests. Likewise, it is important that we train

Psychologists who have breadth as well as specialization. To that end, we recommend that the core

in Psychology be reduced to allow students to undertake a second major in the BA.

We did not probe deeply into the issue of assessment. However, upon reading the documentation

prepared for us, it became clear that the policy of the University to require a formative assessment

in each unit and the move from three to four units per semester must have led to a significant

increase in the assessment load for staff and students. We recommend that the Department

examine its assessment practices in the light of desired graduate capabilities for students specializing

in psychology and the broader capabilities required by the University. We suspect that there are

some differences between units with respect to assessment load and that there is unnecessary

duplication across units with respect to assessments designed to underpin certain of the capabilities.

If the Department’s and the University’s goals can be achieved with fewer assessments, this will lead

to a significant reduction in workload for staff and most importantly for students.

14

Despite the fact that that students are required to take five hours of face-to-face teaching each

semester in first year, the Department has argued that the ATAR to enter the BA in Psychology

should be higher than that required for the general BA. We were told that the experience was that

students who entered with a lower ATAR required more time and were more likely to fail. We would

note that the relationship between the ATAR score and performance in an individual unit is almost

non-existent. Further, other universities accept students at these or lower ATARs. Their programs

are accredited and their students pass. Hence, why is it such a problem at Macquarie? The first year

units in psychology should be available to as many students as possible. Importantly, this will

simplify a host of administrative processes for all concerned.

The students we interviewed had only good things to say about the staff they encountered at

Macquarie. However, as with most three-year trained students they bemoaned the almost

complete lack of any skills training. They enjoyed and were interested in research, but they wanted

skills training in addition. Again, this lack of skills training results from a misinterpretation of APAC

guidelines. The guidelines say what should be part of a program; they do not forbid training in

interviewing and/or counselling. Three-year trained psychology students are at a significant

disadvantage compared to three-year trained nurses or social workers in that they lack these basic

professional skills. Macquarie has a significant opportunity to provide such training within its

undergraduate programme, given the skills of the staff who teach into the Graduate Diploma in

Social Health. We are not suggesting that the Department turn to vocational training; we are simply

suggesting that adding training in interviewing and counselling would provide its graduates with an

edge in the labour market and have a significant impact on the outcomes of the Course Experience

Questionnaire.

Entry into the Honours programme in the Department of Psychology is highly competitive. This

means that many students miss out on the fourth year of training that is required if they are to gain

entry into a Masters/Doctorate in a professional area. Many seek entry into the Postgraduate

Diploma in Psychology, which has a good reputation, although changes to registration may see it

disappear in the near future. However, it was disconcerting to note that a student who completes

the Post Graduate Diploma at Macquarie is never considered for entry into the professional

programs in Clinical Psychology and Clinical Neuropsychology. We would question the value of such

a program, if its aim is to train graduates who will have to go elsewhere. Given that the program has

little future and is not valued by those running some of the professional programs, we recommend

that it be cancelled.

Of course, removal of the PG Diploma will increase the pressure on the Honours program. To that

end we recommend that the Department take the bold step of running group projects at the

Honours level. We make this recommendation for a number of reasons. The individual Honours

project was appropriate when few students went on to Honours. Most Departments of Psychology

would have some 50-100 students in their Honours program, making individual supervision

problematic. People may argue that the Honours year is good training for doctoral studies.

However, applicants for doctoral studies in other disciplines rarely complete such a large thesis, the

sciences excepted. Indeed, the majority of students completing an Honours year are interested in

professional training, not doctoral studies (another option is the introduction of two honours

streams: a professional and a research stream, with individual supervision provided only for the

research stream). The costly endeavour of individual supervision for every honours student serves

15

little purpose and creates a major bottleneck in the training of psychologists. Importantly, a move to

group projects would reduce the supervision load considerably and allow the numbers of students

taking Honours to increase.

On a related point, we note that some students are uncertain of the cut-off for entry into Honours,

even though this information is available. We recommend that the Department closely monitor

student understanding of entry requirements to ensure that the Honours cohort remain fully aware

of such requirements prior to any selection process. Such enhanced communication will help to

reduce the stress on the most academically able students.

Finally, we would encourage the Department to engage in much more cross-disciplinary teaching.

There are clearly significant pockets of expertise in Biological Sciences, MACCS, the Centre for

Cognition and its Disorders, and the Macquarie Graduate School of Management, who could teach

into the undergraduate and graduate programs, thereby exposing students to a diversity of research

directions and expertise that even the largest Department of Psychology could not provide. We note

that this was taking place to a certain extent, but remained unreported because it was

administratively time-consuming. If that is the case, we recommend that the Faculty and University

address this issue.

Postgraduate programs

That the Department examines its postgraduate offerings with a view to:

a) Deleting the Postgraduate Diploma in Psychology, or allowing students who graduate from

this program the opportunity to apply for the coursework Masters/PhD programs at

Macquarie.

b) Reducing any electives within each of the postgraduate programs to ensure that staff with

expertise and experience in teaching skills can contribute to the undergraduate program.

c) Allowing students to take units outside the Department as part of their program, e.g., units

in the MBA could feed into the Masters in Organizational Psychology and vice-versa.

d) Consider whether the best interests of the Department and its students are served by

continuing with the Graduate Diploma in Social Health, or whether the skills employed in

this program would be better used elsewhere within the undergraduate programmes.

e) Seek accreditation of the Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Psychology as five year training in

Psychology.

f) Give serious consideration to succession planning with respect to the Postgraduate Diploma

in Applied Psychology and the Graduate Diploma in Social Health, if it continues with the

latter.

g) Building MQ University differentiation of offerings in areas of research strength, in line with

the Strategic plan, e.g., strength in Neuropsychology and its research intersections with

ASAM and MACCS, and the strength of Organisational Psychology (and possible overlap with

MGSM) as the only University in Sydney offering this aspect of Psychology.

We have already discussed the recommendation that the Postgraduate Diploma in Psychology be

deleted, or at the very least the Department should allow such students to apply for entry into its

own professional programs.

We have noted above that the professional programs have an excellent reputation. However, we

are concerned that because of the teaching requirements of these programs undergraduate

students never see some of the staff involved in them. We recommend that the Department review

16

the elective offerings at the postgraduate level with a view to reducing their number or eliminating

them completely. Staff will argue that students are attracted by the electives on offer. This may be

the case, but we doubt that any student will turn down a place at Macquarie because a particular

elective is not on offer. Staff who teach into the professional programs conduct excellent research

and we believe that the student experience at Macquarie would be enriched by exposure to staff

who are both scientists and practitioners.

The above may not need to see a reduction in offerings available if the Department is prepared to

allow students to take advantage of units offered by other groups. For example, students in the

Masters in Organizational Psychology could take advantage of units offered by the MGSM. This need

not be at the Departments’ expense if students in the MGSM are provided with the opportunity to

take units in the Master of Org. Psych.

The Graduate Diploma in Social Health occupies a peculiar niche within the Department. It is funded

in part by an outside organization and clearly serves a purpose. However, it is not accredited and

seems to be somewhat marginalised. We believe that the staff involved in it might be better

integrated into the Department if they were to teach into the undergraduate program. This would

expose a much larger body of students to the skills and expertise of the staff involved in the Grad.

Dip. and would also better prepare students for the capstone unit that is to be the pinnacle of the

Macquarie degree.

The Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Psychology may well be the blueprint for the training of some

psychologists in the future. The program has an excellent reputation and is running well. We

recommend that the Department seek accreditation for the program.

Notwithstanding our recommendation concerning the Graduate Diploma in Social Health, we

recommend that, should this degree continue, the Department must engage in serious planning for

the future of this program and that of the Postgraduate Diploma in Applied Psychology. Both

programs rely heavily on the expertise and reputation of individual staff members. If either of these

people were to leave for whatever reason, the programs would be in jeopardy, hence, the

importance of succession planning to ensure both programs remain viable.

Finally, we note that the University wishes to promote postgraduate study in areas of uniqueness

and research strength. Clinical neuropsychology has always been an area of strength in psychology

at Macquarie and this promises to expand with ASAM, MACCS, and the new Centre of Excellence in

Cognition and its Disorders (CCD). Likewise, Macquarie has recruited well in organizational

psychology and the fact that this program is unique in the Sydney basin makes it, together with the

program in clinical neuropsychology, a differentiator that sets the Department apart from the rest of

the Departments of Psychology in Sydney. To that end, a continued focus upon these two

professional areas is very worthwhile.

Feedback

a) That the Department cease using Blackboard to obtain feedback and require unit

coordinators to seek feedback in the last class that is likely to be well–attended, e.g., a

tutorial class.

b) As a requirement for entry into a doctoral program, students agree to be interviewed by a

third party on conclusion of their program.

17

c) The University seek to align its practices with respect to obtaining feedback on the CEQ and

GDS with those of other Universities.

Reading the material that was prepared for the review we noticed that a lack of feedback was

common at all levels. Thus, few students provided feedback on undergraduate units. Similarly, few

doctoral students provided feedback. Importantly, the response rates on the CEQ and GDS were

also low. Thus, we have set out three recommendations regarding feedback, without which it is

impossible to gauge what is working and what is not.

First, we recommend that the Dept. cease using Blackboard to acquire feedback on undergraduate

units. No university has solved the problem of getting students to access online feedback tools. To

that end, we recommend that each unit coordinator identify a class towards the end of the unit that

most students are likely to attend and seek feedback then.

Second, we suggest that the Dept. initiate a system whereby any student who enrols in a doctorate

be required to be interviewed by a third party at the end of their enrolment. Even the largest

university graduates few doctoral students in comparison to the number of undergraduates. To that

end, we need to obtain feedback from as many as possible. If not, any feedback received can be

biased in way that suggests changes that are not appropriate for the silent majority.

Finally, we note that most universities get students to complete the CEQ and GDS at the time of

graduation, thereby benefiting from the feel-good factor that does with the event. We understand

that Macquarie does not do this, which means that its outcomes on the CEQ and GDS may not be

comparable with those of other universities. Unfortunately, the ‘league tables’ that are constructed

on the basis of these questionnaires take no account of when they were administered. Therefore,

we recommend that Macquarie consider changing its policy, both to increase the number of

students responding and to take advantage of any positive association with graduation.

Workload

That the Department/Faculty re-examine their workload models to ensure:

a) That they capture the diversity of interests and expertise to be found within the Department

with a new balanced teaching/research workload model.

b) That they do not place an emphasis on face-to-face teaching and all that entails

c) They recognize in a period of transition that it may be necessary for a senior academic to

take on a significant academic advising role (e.g., as Undergraduate Director).

d) That they recognize all aspects of academic work and reward people for quality not quantity

e) That future recruitment is at ECR level to distribute teaching load better.

The calculation and distribution of workload is at the heart of the academic endeavour whether we

like it or not. Nevertheless, workload models can be restrictive or they can be flexible. We suspect

that the current model employed by the Department is an example of the former. Hence, we

recommend the development of a model that espouses the latter. To that end we make three

specific recommendations that should be embodied in any such model. First, the model should

recognize that there is diversity among academics, especially at this time. Universities are seeking to

establish their reputations through research and to the extent that individuals are successful in

obtaining grants, graduating doctoral students, and publishing the outcomes of their research, then

this must be expressed in their workload. Similarly, many academics go through a period in their

18

careers when teaching and administration are deemed important, research less so. A workload

model needs to recognize these differences. If a staff member is very successful at research, then

the Department should recognize this and reduce their teaching load accordingly. The extant model

does not adequately reward research success beyond a certain point.

Importantly, any workload model needs to reward quality not quantity and it must support, not stifle

innovation. We would argue that any model that counts hours will fall into the trap of rewarding

inefficiency in any endeavour, whether it be teaching or research. Academics are professionals.

Work should be allocated on a professional basis. For example, the workload associated with the

delivery of a unit should be based upon the student load, not on the manner of delivery. If an

academic can deliver a quality program with few face-to-face hours then this should carry as much

value (if not more) than the colleague who spends all of his or her time in front of a class. The

metrics that should be applied are the quality of the outcomes in terms of student progression and

the ratings that students give to the unit. (We will return to the issue of feedback later.)

We have put forward a series of recommendations that would impact upon the undergraduate

program and the students enrolled in them. We recommend that a senior academic take on the role

of managing these programs and the students through the next set of changes. This position needs

to be allocated a significant workload and any new model should take this into account. It also

highlights the need for the model to support a broader and more diverse set of academic roles than

is currently the case.

Finally, we note that like many Departments, staffing is skewed to the higher levels. To that end, we

recommend that any new positions be allocated to positions likely to attract early career academics.

This will assist in bringing fresh ideas to both teaching and research and support a better distribution

of teaching load.

Research

a) That the Department continue with its development of the Centre in Elite Performance

Expertise and Training

b) That the Department continue to support and build upon the successes of the Centre for

Emotional Health

c) That the Research Higher Degrees Committee continue with its initiatives designed to

improve completion rates including a re-assessment of the value of the combined

Masters/PhD.

d) That the Department/Faculty/University re-examine the issue of the number of students

who can supervised by one academic

e) That the Department/Faculty/University attempt to arrive at a balance between student

choice and the needs of the University and broader community when allocating scholarships

f) That the Department/Faculty/University recognize that all good research is not nor can be

located within Centres and that where excellence exists it should be supported and

rewarded

The Department has been very successful in initiating and developing centres. MACCS and the

Centre for Emotional Health are excellent examples of this. While MACCS has morphed in part, to

the new Centre in Cognition and its Disorders the proposed Centre in Elite Performance Expertise

and Training promises to be the Department’s first attempt at developing a multi-disciplinary centre.

Given that this is the thrust of much work in the sector more broadly and within Macquarie

19

University, we recommend that the Department support this initiative. It will provide significant

opportunities for cross-disciplinary research and will also provide students with a location in which

to carry out their capstone project.

We have mentioned the Centre for Emotional Health in a number of places. It is successful and its

focus upon children makes it unique. The staff in the Centre take their membership of the

Department seriously and contribute in a variety of ways through teaching, Honours and Doctoral

supervision, and in providing professional placements for students in the various postgraduate

programs. To that end, we recommend that the Department continue to support and assist in the

growth of the Centre, both as a research centre and as a focus for training. The nexus between the

Centre and the Department is one that many heads would envy and is an excellent model of how

two such entities can coexist.

We have three related recommendations to make about the Department’s doctoral program. First,

our conversations with the Research Higher Degrees Committee convinced us that they had the

issue of completions in hand and we encourage them to continue to implement the strategies that

they have developed.

We were puzzled to find that some staff members had more than 10 doctoral students. We do not

wish to cast any aspersions on those in this position, but most universities would not countenance

such a load. We recommend that all levels of the University give consideration to limiting the

number of students who can be supervised by one academic.

This situation appears to arise because students in the Masters program take on a Masters/PhD or a

professional doctorate. As noted above, students entering these programs are of the highest calibre

and so when they apply for a scholarship to pursue a doctorate of any sort, they are successful.

However, the corollary of this is that some of the professional staff can end up with significant

numbers of students to supervise. This is a problem for the University as well as the Department

because it means that student choice is driving a significant area of research allocation within the

University.

We were told that students sought to gain a doctorate so that they could be called ‘doctor’. We

doubt that any of them would give up their place in the Masters program if they were unable to do a

PhD or a professional doctorate. We also note that the shift towards doctoral training will reduce

significantly the number of trained psychologists. This results from the fact that a doctoral student

requires more professional placements and it is placements that are the limiting factor in

professional training. Basically two Doctoral students are the equivalent of three Masters students.

At a time when the Government is seeking to increase the number of mental health professionals,

this unplanned move to Doctoral training is short-sighted.

Finally, we have noted the success of the various research Centres on a number of occasions. At this

point we want to support the cause of the individual academic to engage in research. The

Department has many fine academics, who have made a significant contribution to the University

over a number of years and we recommend that such people continue to be supported. We have

noted above that the ability of academics to engage in research is largely in their own hands. If the

Department continues to corral large numbers of students and teach them face-to-face for extended

20

hours, no one will engage in research. We recommend that the Department think carefully about

how it will balance teaching and research in the future.

Space

a) That the Faculty/University provide research space to be shared by members of staff of the

Department of Psychology who are not in Centres or who do not require dedicated

laboratory space

b) The Faculty/University recognize that where research involves members of the public, the

space must be of adequate standard. Likewise, it needs to consider allocating a parking

space close to a Centre, e.g., the Centre for Emotional Health, to ensure that the experience

of visiting Macquarie is a positive one

c) All professional programs within the University should be accorded space that is fit for

purpose. Thus, all of the postgraduate programs in Psychology should be provided with

access to a large room with adjoining break-out rooms.

d) That the Faculty/University recognise that the inadequate space has impacted the University

strategy of CoRE recruitment, resulting in the loss of potential high calibre researchers to

MQ.

The Centres at Macquarie appear well-catered for in terms of space. This was clearly not the case

for most of the staff in the Dept. of Psychology. We were told that people gravitated to research

employing questionnaires because there was no space available that they could employ to run

experiments. Importantly, staff members were not asking for dedicated space, they were quite

happy to share such space if it were available. Given that psychology is an empirical discipline then

it behoves the Faculty and the University to provide some space, whether this is through a

refurbishment of C4A, so that people can conduct such research. A lack of space is a major

impediment to the conduct of good research and to the extent that people are starved of space,

then the University runs the risk of creating two tiers of academics, those who have the wherewithal

to conduct research and those who do not.

We also note that where such research involves members of the public, then their experience needs

to be made as attractive as possible. Members of the public who visit the University can be excellent

ambassadors, but not if they have to park a significant distance from the research experience they

are attending. We realize that parking is at a premium at most universities. Nevertheless of the

University wishes to engage the public in its research program, then it should set aside a spot

dedicated for just such a purpose. This is particularly the case where children are involved, as with

the Centre for Emotional Health.

We have indicated that the professional programs run by the Department are first class. However,

they too find that the nature of the space that they require is unavailable to them. Given that the

students who attend these programs are paying a premium whether through fees or HELP, then they

need to be made to feel that they are getting value for money by being taught in a facility that was

clearly designed with their program in mind. In the present case, this would be a central room with

break-out rooms for smaller group interaction. We suspect that other areas of the University have

made this argument in the past and it has been listened to, e.g., the MGSM. The students in these

professional programs are among the best in the University and need to be treated appropriately.

The importance of space was highlighted when we heard that two overseas academics had turned

down positions at Macquarie because of poor facilities. Competition for academic staff will be even

21

more fierce in the future as the ‘baby-boomer’s leave creating gaps that may be difficult to fill.

Every university will be competing for good staff and space and facilities will be an attraction. The

university that provides them will be the winner.