1. ERASMUS MUNDUS ACTION 1B – Joint Doctorate Programme Marine Ecosystem Health & Conservation Dr Ian O’Connor GMIT www.mares-eu.org

2. MARES Consortium of 11 core partners – Co-ordinated by Ghent University. – All core partners contributed to writing the proposal. – All are HEIs or research bodies.

3. MARES 13 additional associated partners – diverse range of organisations/entities – equal in terms of ability to compete for funding – unequal in terms of representation on management and scientific boards.

4. Sectors represented in the MARES network : – Academia – HEIs (11 partners) – Public Research bodies (2) – Private Research bodies (2) – HE research centers (2) – Public national authorities (3) – NGO (1) (Irish) – SME (1) (recruited by Irish partners) – Large enterprise (1) – Professional association (1)

5. Associate partners Core partners

6. Why EM Action 1 ? ~50% of our research postgraduates from outside Ireland Has very positive impact

7. Why EM Action 1 ? Marine group is small 7 fulltime academic staff 5 postdocs 20 postgrads Highly specialised research group Ambitious group that want to be part of international marine graduate programme

8. Why EM Action 1 ? Building capacity for about 10 years – NDP 2000, 2006 Sea Change – TSR Strand 1, Strand 3 – Enterprise Ireland – Marine Institute – HEA research facilities enhancement scheme Have capacity, time to use it

9. Why EM Action 1 ? International collaboration in structured doctoral Delivers critical mass & diversity of expertise Enhances quality of candidate experience and outcomes

10. Alignment with GMIT strategy Formal, research-led collaborations with other institutions Proportion of international students. Number of strategic agreements with HEIs overseas.

11. Why I think we were successful Joining pre-existing consortium that runs an Erasmus Mundus Master’s Degree The quality of the co-ordinator – Dr Tim Deprez @ Ghent University

12. Highlights from the evaluation Academic & Research Quality – Relevant needs analysis – science & socio economics – Link to EU policy directives – Description of outputs – Link to EQF

13. Highlights from the evaluation Partnership experience and composition – Diversity, complementarity – Track record demonstrated through EMMC – Detailed documentation, partners, roles, agreements – Quality assurance framework

14. Highlights from the evaluation European integration and functioning – Quality of application, selection and examination processes – all documented – Detailed QA and monitoring procedures – Doctoral candidate agreement – Mobility

15. Highlights from the evaluation Provisions for candidates – Promotion strategy – Track record with international students – Provision of fulltime administrator – Use of EU Charter for researchers

16. Highlights from the evaluation Programme management and quality assurance – Financial provision for external member on QA committee – Separation of management and scientific duties – Innovative mechanism to support and promote programme – Delivery of externally funded fellowships

17. Recurrent themes Quality of application – Clarity – Extensive, documented – Justification for what is proposed – Formal agreements included – Calibre of applicants – Consideration of candidates

18. Challenges Large number of partners operating in diverse environment: – Educational – Quality – Financial – Legal – Administrative

19. Benefits Institutional and individual experience Delivers on GMIT and national policy Enhances capacity – deliver structured doctoral education – collaborative research – funding opportunities

20. My experience to date EU HEIs highly internationalised Support from Co-ordinator Esteem in which the achievement is viewed