Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 14 February 2023
58. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to clarify the process by which chairs of the review into PhD conditions were selected; and to provide details of the remuneration awarded to chairs. [6933/23]
View answerWill the Minister clarify the process by which chairs of the review into PhD conditions were selected and provide details of the remuneration awarded to the chairs?
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I acknowledge he was one of the people most strongly agitating and advocating for a review into PhD conditions and I am pleased that is under way. The purpose of the review of PhD supports is to contribute to the development of a set of national guidelines for supports for PhD researchers that fosters a consistent standard of experience. That lack of consistency is something about which I hear a lot of frustration from PhD researchers. This is a key commitment in Impact 2030, the national strategy for research and innovation published in May last year. About 11,000 people are undertaking PhD studies in Ireland at any time. In the context of the cost-of-living crisis, there was an urgent need to bring forward the implementation of that commitment in order that PhD supports would be fit for purpose. The review will build on the previous work on reforms in the tertiary education and research system, including the national doctoral framework, student supports and the equality, diversity and inclusion agenda.
Officials in my Department identified a shortlist of persons with the appropriate high-level experience to oversee the review. The experience identified as most appropriate included talent and skills management, research careers, high-level skills development and human resource management, industrial relations and public service management. People were then approached to see whether they would be willing to serve in that role, noting the urgency in establishing the review. Mr. David Cagney, recently retired as assistant secretary and head of Civil Service HR in the then Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and Dr. Andrea Johnson, vice president of Workhuman and chairperson of Women in Technology and Science, both agreed to serve.
I was very pleased with the calibre of these individuals. I felt that having one person with significant experience in human resources and the Civil Service who understands the system, as well as a strong and powerful female leader in the area of women in technology, science and research, was a good balance, with one person who is used to the system and another who is used to research, and with one person who is male and another who is female, and with both them having qualities in a variety of other areas.
In line with established procedure, my Department obtained sanction from the then Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to pay each co-chair a per diem rate of €200 for up to ten days for their work on the review. There is no salary, therefore, but rather expenses of up to €200 capped at ten days per year. I am delighted that two so highly qualified people as Mr. Cagney and Dr. Johnson agreed to conduct this review urgently and at an extraordinarily modest cost, having regard to the importance of the review.
My intention in tabling the question was to find out facts, so I do not really have anything to debate, although I do have a request. Will the Minister engage with the chairs to see whether they will meet the soon-to-be-formed postgraduate workers’ organisation as the body that will represent PhD researchers? If the Minister has not met representatives of an earlier iteration of this group, I strongly suggest he do so. They are an incredibly engaged, active and willing people who are seeking to broaden and expand who gets access to research, especially among postgraduates such as PhD students, which has, regrettably, tended to be an exclusive domain. Widening that franchise will be very important in getting the most out of research in this country in a way that will benefit all of us.
I thank Deputy Gannon for raising this important topic. Will a more formal consultation process take place later in the review process and include the stakeholder engagement? We are concerned that at the moment, it is more of a scoping exercise without a consultation paper and that submissions are not actively being sought. I join Deputy Gannon in urging the Minister to request the chairs of the review into PhD conditions to contact the postgraduate workers’ organisation, when it is formed, and meet it as the body that will represent PhD researchers? It is awfully important that there be proper consultation and that the Minister meet with that group, which will be highly co-ordinated and active on this and will know what needs to be done.
To be crystal clear, one of the first acts of the chairs will be to meet with those groups. I will have to check if I have met that group but I have met postgraduate representatives from the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, and a group of postgraduate researchers from Trinity College Dublin who made a strong and compelling case about the need. I am meeting the co-chairs next week. The first item on our agenda will be to discuss their engagement with the representative bodies for our PhD researchers. I have no difficulty meeting that group. I am very happy to do so. It is most important we get them meeting the co-chairs because I want this work to be done, done well and for them to have confidence in it. As people know, the scope of the review includes current PhD research supports, including financial supports, stipends, SUSI supports and others; the adequacy, consistency and equity of current arrangements across research funders and higher education institutions, including equity and welfare considerations, the status of PhD researchers, whether student or employee, and a review of international comparators and models; the impact on funding of research supports of any adjustment to current supports; graduate outcomes; and visa requirements and duration for non-EU students. The review will look at issues of adequacy, taking account of cost and other issues. This is a very important piece of work with quite broad terms of reference. The engagement will happen and they will be formally written to very shortly to confirm that.
