Present: THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO TE WHARE WĀNANGA O WAIKATO ACADEMIC BOARD: 13 August 2013 Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 13 August 2013 Professor R Crawford (Chair), Professor B Barton, Professor K Broughan, Dr K Bryan, Associate Professor W Drewery, Mr S Fellows, Professor A Gillespie, Professor B Grant, Ms S Gyde, Mr R Hallett, Dr D Johnson, Mr R Kyle, Mr A Letcher, Professor B Morse, Ms S Nock, Professor D Penney, Ms K Ross, Dr M Schoenberger‐Orgad and Associate Professor J Tressler. In Attendance: Mrs A Drake, Ms D Fowler and Ms H Pridmore Secretariat: Ms M Jordan‐Tong and Ms R Boyer‐Willisson 13.44 APOLOGIES
Received Apologies for absence from Dr T Bowell, Professor B Clarkson, Dr A Kingsbury, Ms S Morrison and Ms P Ngatai. 13.45 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 JUNE 2013
Confirmed The minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2013 as set out in document 13/368a. 13.46 REPORT OF THE VICE‐CHANCELLOR
Received The report of the Vice‐Chancellor as set out in document 13/369a. 13.47 REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY STRATEGY
Considered Input into a review of the University Strategy, as set out in document 13/353. Noted in discussion General comments 1. That it would be useful to identify what was proposed in the Strategy that was different from what we were doing now, and what the operational differences would be once the strategy was implemented. 2. That the language and tone of the Strategy was aspirational, but it was not clear whether it was pitched at the correct level for an academic document, and there was no analysis of what had been achieved against the previous Strategy. It was noted, however, that specific actions were included in the various lower‐tier plans, which detailed how the University would achieve its targets. 3. That it was felt that the word ‘world‐class’ was overused. The Deputy Vice‐
Chancellor had tried to reduce use of the word ‘world‐class’, and replace it with ‘world‐leading’ and/or ‘world‐changing.’ “Benchmarked against international standards” was another phrase that could be used, where appropriate. 4. That the Strategy read more like an internal document at present. A shorter executive summary or overview could be developed for external use, to include concrete examples of what made the university distinctive. 5. That it was not clear from the document how the Strategy would be implemented. It was noted that the monitoring plans and Key Performance Indicators were in the lower level plans. 6. That with regard to target setting, whether targets were aspirational and/or clearly achievable was dependent on whether they were internal targets (which tended to be aspirational) or external compliance targets, such as for the TEC, which needed to be clearly achievable. Appendix 1 7. That in Appendix 1 the source for the list of reasons for students choosing Waikato was queried. It was noted that the information had been primarily drawn from recruitment and student surveys. When students were consulted about the University Strategy, they had highlighted that they felt Waikato undersold itself. 8. That a pilot study completed with Y13 Hamilton students regarding factors that influenced their choice of university had found that amongst that cohort, the top three reasons for choosing a particular university were good reputation, that it offered their chosen programme, and affordability. Action 1 9. That it would be useful to make clearer that excellent research happened across the University, not only in the research centres and institutes. Action 2 10. That Action 2 signalled an intention to invest in excellent quality teaching; however, it would be good to see this more clearly articulated in the delivery points. 11. That the phrase ‘future‐focussed curriculum’ in Action 2 was appropriate but there was no associated bullet point that urged faculties to re‐evaluate their programmes in line with this. Whilst aiming to produce job‐ready graduates was appropriate, a strong review of the curriculum would be required to make it more streamlined. 12. That Action 2 referred to ‘offering a wide range of internships’. Internships were valued by both students and academic staff, and were seen to be important. However they were also expensive and time‐consuming to resource and run. 13.48 REPORT OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Significant Academic Developments Noted in discussion That, following the meeting of the Education Committee and prior to the Academic Board meeting, further discussion had been held with the proposers of the Master of Applied Science and Master of Science (Research), and with the relevant Deans. It was recommended that for consistency across the University, the proposals should be reorganised to provide for a combined 180‐point Master of Science (which could have both research and taught components), and a renaming of the current 240‐point Master of Science as a Master of Science (Research). This would result in one category 1‐5 proposal, for a 180‐point Master of Science, and a category 6‐9 proposal, to rename the current MSc as the MSc (Research), being submitted to CUAP. Resolved 1. That, in consultation with the Chairs of the relevant Faculty Boards, the proposals to introduce a 180‐point Master of Applied Science and a 180 point Master of Science (Research) be redrafted, as a single proposal for a 180 point Master of Science (with options for taught and research components) and a proposal be drafted to rename the current 240 point Master of Science as a Master of Science (Research). 2. That the revised proposals be circulated for consideration by the Education Committee members and, subject to their recommendation, approved executively by the Chair of Education Committee and Chair of Academic Board for submission to the New Zealand Vice‐Chancellors’ Committee, Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP). 3. Approval of the following Category 1‐5 proposals for submission to the New Zealand Vice‐Chancellors’ Committee, Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP): a. The proposal to introduce a Master of Cyber Security (document 13/310b). b. The proposal to introduce a Bachelor of Entrepreneurship (document 13/310c). 4. Approval of the following Category 6‐9 proposals for submission to CUAP: a. Amendments to the compulsory papers in Appendix B for the Bachelor of Arts (document 13/311a). b. Amendments to the core papers for the the Master of Business Administration and the Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies (document 13/311b). c. An amendment to the regulations of the Master of Business and Management to allow completion in 180 points (document 13/311c). d. A change to the name of the subject “Tourism and Hospitality Management” for the Master of Management Studies to “Tourism Management” (document 13/311d). e. An amendment to the regulations for the Master of Māori and Pacific Development to allow completion in 180‐points (document 13/311e). 5. Approval of the Category C proposals as set out in documents13/255a‐n and 12/426j 6. Approval in principle for the proposal to introduce a Master of Teaching and Learning (document 13/333), subject to the outcome of the Ministry of Education Request for Application for Provision of Exemplary Postgraduate Initial Teacher Education Programmes. 7. Approval of the proposed specialisation in Public Sector Leadership for the Postgraduate Certificate in Management (document 13/324). 8. Schedule of limitations 9. Recognition of UoA FCEAP 13.49 REPORT OF THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Considered The report of the Research Committee, as set out in document 13/371, in relation to the following items: 1. Open Access Mandate Guidelines That the University Librarian had a process underway in relation to the Open Access Mandate Guidelines and would bring the item back to the Academic Board in October. 2. Research Unit Guidelines Noted in discussion 1. That the definition of research units states that research units operate within a faculty and are accountable to the Dean of that Faculty. Where research units operate across departments or faculties it should be more explicit who the host faculty or department is and where the lines of accountability lie. 2. That the wording within the definition would be tidied up to cover a unit located within a single faculty or across multiple sites. Recommended Approval in principle of the Principles, Guidelines and Processes for the Establishment and Management of Research Units as set out in document 13/371 subject to the incorporation of the amendments suggested by faculties reported orally at the meeting. 13.50 DEGREES, DIPLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES STATUTE
Reported That the Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates Statute was updated annually to take account of new qualifications that had been approved by Universities New Zealand Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP). Recommended That Council approve the Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates Statute 2013 as set out in document 13/372. 13.51 MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
1. Ako Aotearoa Memorandum of Understanding Approved The Memorandum of Understanding between Ako Aotearoa and the University of Waikato, Faculty of Education, as set out in document 13/365. 2.
Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding between the New Zealand Council for Educational Research and the University of Waikato Approved The Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding between the New Zealand Council for Educational Research and the University of Waikato, Faculty of Education, as set out in document 13/366. 13.52 DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Reported That the next meeting of the Academic Board would be held on 22 October 2013 at 2.10pm in the Council Room. AGENDA PART TWO – CONFIDENTIAL
Resolved That the public be excluded from the meeting to allow consideration of the following items: 1. Minutes (Part 2) of the Academic Board meeting of 18 June 2013 2. Report of the Vice‐Chancellor (Part 2) 3. Report on the development of EFTS targets for 2014 4. Report of the Honours Committee The interests protected under the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 and/or the Official Information Act 1982 which would be prejudiced by the public conduct of these proceedings were: 
Item 1 affected material previously dealt with in a meeting from which the public was excluded. 
Item 2 and 3 affected the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or advantage. 
Item 4 affected the privacy of natural persons. Michelle Jordan‐Tong Renée Boyer‐Willisson Student and Academic Services Division 15 August 2013