Template for Draft Report Internal Review

							                                                                      CONFIRMED




                                Validation Report


1.   EVENT DETAILS


     Name of                             MSc Corporate Social Responsibility
     course(s)/programme(s)              and Energy

     Date of event                       10 May 2011

     Proposed date of
                                         September 2011
     course(s)/programme(s) start

     Name of University event
                                         Dr Roger McDermott
     Convener

     Name of University internal Panel
                                         Dr Roddy Smith
     member(s)

     Name of external Panel              Mr Geoff Fisher
     member(s)
                                         Dr David Whyte

     Name of external Panel
     member(s) attending for a
                                         N/A
     Professional, Statutory or
     Regulatory Body

     Name of administrative support
                                         Ms Lucy Jack
     staff from Academic Affairs

     Name of observers attending the
                                         N/A
     event



2.   SCOPE OF EVENT

                                                              Yes        No
     New course(s)/programme(s)                                √

     Major change to existing course(s)/programme(s)                     √

     Other (specify)                                                     √
                                           2
3.   CONFIRMATION OF MEETINGS HELD

                                                                Yes    No    N/A
     Senior management staff with responsibility for              √
     resources for the course(s)/programme(s) (Dean
     and Head of School)

     Course/Programme Development Team                            √

     Placements providers and educators                                        √

     Current students                                                          √

     Others (Please specify)                                                   √



4.   CONFIRMATION OF FACILITIES/RESOURCES AND MATERIALS INSPECTED

                                                                       Yes    No


     Library                                                                   √

     Computing and Information Technology facilities                           √

     Specialist teaching accommodation                                         √

     Campus Moodle                                                      √

     Other (Please specify)                                                    √



5.   SUMMARY OF AREAS DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS

     Using the Documentation Evaluation Form as a guide, the Panel explored the
     following areas with the Course Development Team (the Team):

     Rationale and Demand
      Demand for the course and the anticipated profile of candidates.
      Whether the course would be contextualised to the different needs of the
        students and, if so, how would that be undertaken.
      Whether the Team foresaw a potential market beyond the energy sector, for
        example public sector and local government, and whether any market research
        had been undertaken in relation to those areas.
      Exploration of whether there were other HE providers of similar corporate social
        responsibility course provision.
      Rationale for developing the course within the School of Applied Social Studies
        as opposed to Aberdeen Business School.
      Whether there had been any challenges in establishing an interdisciplinary
        Team, what they were and how the Team would operate once the course was
        up and running. [Refer Commendation 6.3.1]

     Admission and Intake
      Applicability of the course to graduates from disciplines other than engineering.
                                       3


Course Aims and Outcomes
 Corporate social responsibility was a new area and, that being the case, what
   employment opportunities did the Team envisage for graduates of the course.
 Clarification regarding whether there was a relevant accrediting body for the
   MSc Corporate Social Responsibility and Energy course provision and whether
   accreditation would provide any particular benefits, or indeed constraints, to
   the course content.
 Unique selling point (USP) of this particular MSc provision over other corporate
   social responsibility courses, i.e. what made this course different from others in
   the market? [Refer Commendation 6.3.1]
 How would the Team ‘ground’ the course within the School of Applied Social
   Studies given the cross-University input.
 Aim of the course, which was to provide graduates with the skills to provide
   companies with a greater awareness of corporate social responsibility, and how
   that would work in practice. [Refer Condition 6.1.2]
 Core Learning Outcomes and whether all students would be able to achieve
   these irrespective of which elective modules they selected.

Structure and Content
 Proportion of new modules versus existing modules.
 Volume of electives available within the course and, in light of that, whether
    students would gain an understanding of the integrity and cohesiveness of the
    corporate social responsibility concepts across the course. [Refer Condition
    6.1.1]
 Practicalities associated with offering so many modules to what could be a
    relatively small cohort.
 Process undertaken by the Team in identifying which modules would be
    compulsory and which electives and the rationale for identifying so few modules
    as compulsory and so many electives. [Refer Condition 6.1.1]
 Rationale for not including a fieldwork placement module within the course
    structure. Also, given the lack of a placement on the course, how would the
    Team imbibe work skills within the graduates. [Refer Recommendation
    6.2.4]
 The good breadth and relevance of subject matter across the course but
    concerns regarding the balance between the compulsory and elective modules
    in light of the Sociology QAA benchmark statements and the capacity to extend
    the number of compulsory modules. [Refer Condition 6.1.1]
 The importance of managing the delivery of the corporate social responsibility
    message within an organisation and how this needed to be embedded within
    the course, possibly through the inclusion of an Aberdeen Business School
    module. [Refer Condition 6.1.2]
 Also, whether there was the potential to increase the ‘energy’ contextualisation
    within the course by including an energy focused module. [Refer
    Recommendation 6.2.1]
 Concerns of the Panel that students would be expected to make an informed
    decision at the commencement of the course regarding which elective modules
    were most appropriate to their learning needs. Also, the appropriateness of a
    student completing the course without undertaking a business module. [Refer
    Recommendation 6.2.2 and 6.2.3]
 The complexity of the course model, which drew on a significant number of
    modules, and how the Team would manage the student learning experience to
    ensure a cohesive, course perspective.
 Given the number of electives, how would the course convey to employers that
    students were being provided with specific corporate social responsibility and
    energy skills.
                                             4



      Teaching and Learning Strategies
       Interdisciplinary approach of the course and how that would be managed given
         that students would not be undertaking the same modules.
       How would the Team ensure consistency and comparability of the student
         learning experience across the different elective modules and modes of
         delivery.
       Support of small student cohorts within large cohorts, for example a number of
         the Aberdeen Business School modules would be delivered to large cohorts of
         students and the corporate social responsibility students would very much be in
         the minority.
       How would the on-campus teaching, learning and assessment strategies
         transfer to the distance learning mode and would different approaches be
         taken.
       Availability of virtual learning space for students within the University’s Virtual
         Learning Environment, CampusMoodle.
       Whether the Team would use the full functionality of CampusMoodle to bring
         the students together to generate cohesiveness of the cohorts.

      Assessment
       Clarification regarding the diversity of assessment being employed within the
         course and the details of the assessments, for example wordage.

      Support for the Course
       Exploration of the School’s experience in supporting international students
         given that the primary market for the course was likely to be West Africa.
       Library provision to support the course.
       Mechanisms for engaging staff and students with CampusMoodle.
       Capacity to blend the full-time and distance learners in joint sessions, for
         example via discussion fora.
       Research interests within the School and whether corporate social responsibility
         was an existing research area, how easy it would be to develop research within
         the area and whether the course would require a strong corporate social
         responsibility and energy research underpinning. [Refer Commendation
         6.3.3]
       Whether corporate social responsibility would become a research priority within
         the School given the course development.
       Management of research activity within the School and the volume of time
         allocated to staff to undertake research.


6.     EVENT OUTCOMES

       The Panel agreed to recommend approval of the course, subject to normal
       quality assurance arrangements and the following conditions:-

6.1    Conditions

6.1.1 Incorporate module SSM207 Risk, Responsibility and Accountability into
      Stage One, Semester One, as a core module thereby strengthening the
      sociology focus and providing students with a more focused foundation to
      the course.
                                           5
     Reason
     The proposed course comprised three compulsory modules, SSM206 Corporate
     Social Responsibility in the Energy Sector, SSM214 Research Methods for
     Corporate Social Responsibility and Energy and SSM302 Dissertation. Students
     accumulated the remaining credit from a range of elective modules. The Panel
     expressed a number of reservations regarding the proposed structure.

     The QAA subject benchmark for the course was Sociology and the Panel
     questioned whether the course would meet the requirements of the Subject
     Benchmark Statements with so few core modules and the Team was, therefore,
     asked to incorporate a further core module to address this issue.

     Furthermore, the expectation of the Panel had been that the course would be
     more prescribed and that students would have a clearly defined route through the
     course. Instead, students would only be required to undertake one compulsory
     module in Semester One and then select three modules from a defined list of
     elective modules. The Panel appreciated the Team’s reasons for incorporating
     elective modules, i.e. to provide students with a broad perspective of corporate
     social responsibility whilst also allowing them to gain specialist knowledge to meet
     the individual’s requirements. However, the Panel considered it important that
     students gained an understanding, and underpinning, of, not only sociology, but
     also the integrity and cohesiveness of the corporate social responsibility concepts
     from the commencement of the course. The Panel also felt that it was a ‘big ask’
     to expect students to come directly into a course and select modules which would
     meet their specific learning requirements (also refer Recommendation 6.2.3). In
     liaison with the Team module SSM207 Risk, Responsibility and Accountability was
     identified as the most appropriate module for inclusion as an additional
     compulsory module. This module was considered to be the most applicable to all
     students, irrespective of their profession, and it would enable the Course Learning
     Outcomes to comfortably meet the Sociology Benchmark. Furthermore, the Panel
     believed that the increase in compulsory modules would ensure that employers
     would receive graduates from the course with a set of core corporate social
     responsibility skills.

6.1.2 Revise the Course Learning Outcomes to incorporate an outcome about
      understanding the application of corporate social responsibility principles
      and the management of the corporate social responsibility message
      within an organisation.

     Reason
     The implicit expectation was that graduates of the course would be in a position to
     enter an organisation, apply corporate social responsibility principles within that
     organisation and be able to manage the delivery of the corporate social
     responsibility message. The expertise of these graduates would be instrumental in
     informing companies’ decision making and risk assessment processes. These were
     not insignificant tasks and it was important that students were able to make
     corporate social responsibility a compelling story and that they were equipped
     with the requisite skills to undertake this key role. The Panel was not minded to
     incorporate a core module to address this but, instead, suggested that the Team
     incorporate it as a Learning Outcome of the course thereby ensuring that any
     graduate from the course was in possession of the requisite skills. The School had
     experience of delivering leadership and change management and would be vigilant
     to this requirement and expressed a willingness to incorporate an additional
     learning outcome to this effect.
                                            6
      The mechanism for meeting these conditions was through the submission of
      documentary evidence to the Panel by 17 June 2011.

6.2   The Validation Panel also wished to make the following recommendations:-

6.2.1 The Course Team was strongly recommended to give consideration to
      incorporating module SSM212 Economic Contexts and Impacts as a core
      module within Stage One, Semester Two, in order to provide the ‘energy’
      contextualisation to the course.

      Reason
      The title of the course was MSc Corporate Social Responsibility and Energy and,
      although two of the compulsory modules, SSM206 Corporate Social Responsibility
      in the Energy Sector and SSM214 Research Methods for Corporate Social
      Responsibility and Energy, included reference to ‘energy’ within the title, the
      Panel was concerned that ‘energy’ was still not as prominent within the course as
      it might be. The Panel, therefore, suggested that the Team give serious
      consideration to incorporating SSM212 Economic Contexts and Impacts within
      Semester Two of the course to address these concerns. An additional benefit of
      such an approach would be that it would further strengthen the core elements
      within the course.

6.2.2 All students be advised to, normally, undertake at least one Aberdeen
      Business School module as one of their elective choices.

      Reason
      Students would enter the course from various disciplines, for example
      Engineering, Business Development, Communications, Law, and each student
      would have a different set of skills. The Panel considered business skills to be key
      to corporate social responsibility and currently a student could enter the course
      without those key skills and, potentially, leave without attaining those skills. The
      Panel appreciated that it would not be appropriate to make an Aberdeen Business
      School module core for all students as some students would already be in
      possession of the relevant skills. However, where students did not possess those
      skills then the Panel recommended that the Team advised students to choose at
      least one of the Aberdeen Business School modules as an elective. The Panel
      believed that this would help strengthen the student’s employability and career
      prospects on completion of the course.

6.2.3 It be a requirement that, prior to the commencement of the course, all
      students be given the opportunity to discuss their individual expectations
      of the course with a member of the Course Team in order to allow
      him/her to make an informed decision regarding their choice of electives.

      Reason
      In light of the large number of electives available on the course it was important
      that members of the Course Team had a pre-entry discussion with each student
      to explain the different elective modules available and to discuss the student’s
      individual expectations of the course and their learning requirements in relation to
      their careers. The discussion would, thereby, allow students to make an informed
      decision about which electives would be most appropriate to their needs.

6.2.4 The Course Team to consider the future introduction of a placement
      element into the course, which would help increase the employability of
      graduates and assist employers’ understanding of the place of corporate
      social responsibility within the organisation.
                                         7


    Reason
    Corporate social responsibility was a new area and it was important that
    employers understood where graduates from the course would fit into an
    organisation and the incorporation of a fieldwork placement could be one
    mechanism of engaging employers. Furthermore, a fieldwork placement would
    help embed work related skills within the course by providing students with
    practical work experience within the field of corporate social responsibility which
    would help increase their employability on completion of the course.

    The School, which had a strong history of placement provision, was not entirely
    adverse to incorporating a fieldwork placement and this had been considered as
    part of the course development discussions. However, the majority of the part-
    time student cohort would be in employment and, as the market research had
    indicated, many of them would have experience of the energy sector and they
    would bring that experience to the course discussion fora. In addition, live client
    briefs would be used within the course and students would also be given the
    opportunity to undertake site visits to ‘energy’ organisations. Furthermore, as
    corporate social responsibility was such a new area the School did not currently
    have ready access to fieldwork placements. The School would be working with
    companies to provide them with an understanding of the benefits which a
    graduate from this course could bring to their organisation. The potential
    incorporation of a fieldwork placement would be kept under review.

6.2.5 Revisit the Course Learning Outcomes in a way which recognised
      corporate social responsibility as a contested concept.

    Reason
    The Panel believed that there was an element of contradiction between the aims
    and outcomes of the course, i.e. at some points there was a clear indication that
    the concept of corporate social responsibility was not taken for granted and
    subject to detailed scrutiny and at other points the concept seemed to be taken
    for granted as something that was to be encouraged or promoted. More
    specifically, the Learning Outcomes for Autonomy, Accountability and Working
    with Others emphasised ‘corporate citizenship’, however, the ability of
    corporations and their officials to develop corporate socially responsible ways of
    thinking or the extent to which this was likely to reduce corporate risk was a
    process that was highly contested in the literature. It was understood that the
    Team’s intention was to deliver a balanced approach but the Learning Outcomes
    in the Detailed Course Descriptor perhaps required some minor amendment to
    reflect the balanced, analytical approach that would be taken. It was suggested
    that the recommendation could be addressed by changing the wording in these
    sections as follows:

    The statement ‘Forecast the positive and negative impact of policies and actions
    in a manner that reduces risk.’ could be changed to: ‘Forecast the positive and
    negative impact of policies and actions’. The statement ‘Demonstrate the value of
    corporate socially responsible ways of thinking in order to better inform decision
    making’ could be changed to: ‘Demonstrate how corporate socially responsible
    ways of thinking informs decision making’. It was also recommended deleting the
    outcome: “Emphasise corporate citizenship.”
                                              8
6.3   The Validation Panel wished to commend the following:-

6.3.1 The interdisciplinary approach and cross-University collaboration in
      developing the course; the Team was encouraged to sustain and continue
      this approach throughout the implementation and delivery of the course.

      Reason
      In developing the course, the School had collaborated with the Aberdeen Business
      School, Scott Sutherland School of Architecture and the Built Environment and the
      Centre for Understanding Sustainable Practice. The interdisciplinary collaboration
      in developing the course was reflected within the course, which would equip
      graduates with the breadth of knowledge and skills to consider corporate social
      responsibility in the wider context. This approach was unique within a corporate
      social responsibility masters and the Panel considered it commendable and,
      furthermore, encouraged the Team to sustain and continue this approach.

6.3.2 The School in identifying an important, innovative area of study which
      was ‘ahead of the curve’ in the business world and cutting edge in terms
      of academia.

      Reason
      Corporate      social responsibility was gaining increasing prominence within
      companies      but there was currently limited course provision which provided
      individuals   with the requisite skills. The Panel applauded the School’s initiative in
      developing    the course at such a key time.

6.3.3 The willingness of the Course Team to move into new areas which built
      upon their existing teaching and research base.

      Reason
      It was evident from the documentation and the discussions at the event that staff
      had research expertise in corporate social responsibility related areas, such as
      globalisation, political conflict etc, and during the discussions staff demonstrated
      both willingness and enthusiasm to extend that research and move into
      contextualised energy related corporate social responsibility research.

6.3.4 The work and effort which the School had put into the development of
      this innovative course.

      Reason
      It was evident from both the documentation and the discussions that considerable
      work and effort had been invested in the development of the course, for example:
      an external market research agency had been employed and a survey had been
      issued world-wide; further research had been undertaken in relation to the
      preferred modes of delivery and course content; discussions/interviews with
      approximately 25 world-wide organisations had taken place to help shape the
      course. In addition, the School had liaised internally with staff from across the
      University.


      LJ
      August 2011