Presentation on theme: "UNIVERSIDADE EDUARDO MONDLANE Management Meeting UEM-Swedish Government Agreement 2011 – 2015 Management Team Profa Ana Mondjana, Carlos Lucas, Bettencourt."— Presentation transcript:
UNIVERSIDADE EDUARDO MONDLANE Management Meeting UEM-Swedish Government Agreement 2011 – 2015 Management Team Profa Ana Mondjana, Carlos Lucas, Bettencourt Capece, Orton Malipa, Dulce Fife, Vasco Manjate Stockholm, 02 November 2014 1
2 Presentation of the summary Draft Evaluation Committee Report For the mid-term evaluation held during June 9-20, 2014 at UEM, Maputo, Mozambique on the Swedish continued research cooperation with Eduardo Mondlane University for the period 2011 - 2015
The report from the evaluation starts with presenting the Terms of reference, highlighting the following: 1.Objectives of the programme UEM-Sweden 2011-2015; 2.Expected results of the Swedish continued research cooperation with UEM; The purpose is to evaluate the quality of the research, MSc and PhD education performed from the Swedish continued research cooperation with UEM, reflect on its relation and relevance to best international practices and to the mission of the profession, and most importantly, to provide recommendations and guidelines for the future development of the Program in the interest of future development of UEM. 3 ToRs for the EC Members
4 Members of the Evaluation Committee Professor Ashwani Gupta USA Professor Josse G. De Baerdemaeker Belgium Professor Mohamed El Tom Sudan Professor Somrat Kerdsuwan Thailand Professor Koos Coetzer South Africa Professor Sutapat Kwankaomeng Thailand
Desk research of the Desk research of the SPECIFIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN SWEDEN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF MOZAMBIQUE ON CONTINUED RESEARCH COOPERATION WITH EDUARDO MONDLANE UNIVERSITY plus 24 documents. Interviews to students: Interviews to students: 09, 10, 18 and 19 June Attending the Annual Review Meeting : Attending the Annual Review Meeting (11 June): Management Team, ISP, Embassy, 13 Coordinators Seminars with students Seminars with students (12, 13, 16 and 17 June): 39 PhD, 7 MSc and 2 PhD holders Meetings Top Management of UEM: Meetings Top Management of UEM: Rector, 2 Vice-Rectors 5 Working methodology of MEC
6 Seminars (12, 13, 16 and 17 June 2014) Presentation (15 min) followed by questions and answers (20 min) for PhD holders (2 graduated in 2013): Presentation (15 min) followed by questions and answers (20 min) for the 39 ongoing PhD students Presentation (15 min) followed by questions and answers (15 min) for the 7 ongoing MSc students Luis Cristóvão Jaime Palalane Isabel Guiamba Domingos Ginja Lúcia Chemane
The evaluation was opened with a welcome address by the Rector, Vice-Rector; Dr. Ulla Andren, Ambassador of Sweden in Mozambique attended the opening ceremony of the event and gave a background and history of the Swedish support to UEM. She provided very favorable remarks on the Swedish support to UEM and provided an indication of future support. Many of the documents needed, including proposal review comments, and annual progress reports were, for most part, provided to all members of the evaluation team. The documents lacked consistency between them. Some documents lacked quality and detailed information. 7 1. Program of the Mid-term Ealuation Findings (1-1/2):
Almost all students gave well timed presentation in the time allocated to them. The contents however were most part at the high administrative level and lacked technical details. All staff/student oral presentation and interviews with the evaluation committee were in English. All of them could speak English well. The staff/ student ability to express themselves in English proficiently was duly recognized. 8 1. Program of the Mid-term Ealuation Findings (1-2/2):
All members of the academic staff should be encouraged to attend the evaluation meeting in its entirety. They should also participate in discussions along with their graduate students; Student presentations should include more technical content, work plans and a plan of expected accomplishments with defined time schedules possibly using Gantt chart for every year as well as the entire programme; The programme evaluation should be one week in time duration with some smaller part of the programme evaluated one year and the remaining programmes evaluated in the following year. 9 1. Program of the Mid-term Ealuation Recommendations:
All research topics in the various programmes were carefully selected with mutual consent between the supervisors at partner institutions in Sweden and South Africa, student interest and UEM academic staff members who serve as local supervisors to students; In all cases the focus is on capacity building at UEM while conducting research at host institution since the needed research facilities at UEM are not available; All students after finishing their graduate work return back to Mozambique to serve their country. This will help build the local capacity and infrastructure in due time; The value of the reward is limitless with slow but evolved production of few PhD and Master degrees to-date. All students conducted their research at partner institutions, mostly on a sandwich type arrangement 10 2. Collaborative research and postgraduate training Findings (2-1/2):
All students at partner institutions get good networking opportunities; Almost all students are involved in undergraduate teaching so they get teaching experiences as employees of UEM; Several supervisors from Sweden attended the mid-term evaluation and listened to the presentations, especially given by their own students; The SIDA supported programme provided good opportunities for students to see and conduct research at other locations/institutions and directions for future research under advisement of top leaders in the field; The students in the programme showed strong desire to publish their research findings in journals and also at international conferences. 11 2. Collaborative research and postgraduate training Findings (2-2/2):
12 2. Collaborative research and postgraduate training Recommendations: Better communication amongst supervisors and co- supervisor at host institution and programme coordinators at UEM, and student is recommended; Programme description of MSc programme engaging external supervisors and local coordinators can provide a pivotal role to set a good model; Extraordinary successes of the students should be reflected in some form of reward to local supervisors so that they can take pride in the student research accomplishments; The local supervisors should be rewarded for research productivity with a larger impact/relevance of research.
13 3 Research capacity Findings: The programme is diverse and of great breadth that provides potential for links to conduct cross-cutting research opportunities between faculty and research groups at UEM and elsewhere; This programme has major improvements with significant potential for capacity building through education, training and entrepreneurship; Through the cooperation UEM aims to foster research activities that will help enhance student training and education to subsequently build focused research programmes at UEM.
No research seminars are offered at the section, department, faculty or campus level to create a culture of research. Every student or staff member with a research assignment should be required to give a technical research presentation in English upon their return from Sweden or South Africa on their progress of the research. The committee noted a wide range of PhD as well as MSc thesis topics. This is good from the mere research programme expansion but the coverage and depth is of concern. Building the infrastructure requires both depth and breadth.. 14 3 Research capacity Recommendations:
The evaluators had the opportunity to visit and see the laboratory facilities and departmental library of the Chemistry department. The state of this laboratory facility as well as the departmental library was poor; A functional central library is available with a good quiet learning environment wherein the students can seek basic information. Some electronic journals are also available in the new central library. 15 4 Research environment and infraestrucxture Findings:
16 4 Research environment and infraestrucxture Recommendations: Further improve access to library with more electronic subscriptions; The central library lacked many books and electronic subscriptions to many journals that would be helpful in student research; The UEM has some laboratory space and some non- functional equipment but without much of any operational equipment. The functional facilities are far from being adequate. Proper laboratory management can help here; The UEM should gradually build the infrastructure to provide support for the regular maintenance of the research instruments.
Strong commitment and support to the SIDA program from the UEM upper administration was noted; There is good governance of the SIDA project by the UEM administration. All financial aspects are carefully checked and evaluated; No real student complaints were received in any aspect during interviews of several students other than relatively longer time taken for procurement of consumables and equipment and reimbursement of the expenses made by some students to make small purchases necessary for conducting their research work. 17 5 Research Management Findings:
18 5 Research Management Recommendations: There should be course/modules on time management and also on statistics at UEM or Sweden or South Africa; In addition the students should focus on results based management approach with due consideration to design of experiments and later to ‘statistical analysis’ of their data obtained; The number of students supported on SIDA programme is very healthy (e.g. 99 PhD and 46 MSc) but the numbers graduated thus far is considered low. Many students reported their PhD/MSc to finish in 2014 or 2015; It is for this reason the committee feels to have a programme evaluation again sometime in middle of 2015.
1.How many PhD degrees per programme and in total? 2.Will How many MSc degrees per programme and in total? 3.How many papers published in scientific journals? 4.How many papers published in peer review conferences? 5.How many laboratories will be built at UEM? 6.etc 19 Hints for discussion (by Dec2015)