The Friday Interview: Paul Hannigan, Letterkenny IT


17 Dec 2004

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditEmail this to someone

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditEmail this to someone

When his year as chairman of the board of directors of the Institutes of Technology finally draws to a close at the end of the month, Paul Hannigan (pictured) will reflect that rarely has the education sector come under as much scrutiny as it did this year.

The OECD Review, the Kelly Report, the Enterprise Strategy Group and the Third-Level Capital Review all trained their sights on third-level education and how it should be best structured to support the needs of the Irish economy in the years to come.

The institutes are a key part of this higher-education fabric. More than 50pc of the third-level students in the country attend the 13 Institutes of Technology across the State and, given their traditional emphasis on technology, it is safe to assume that their relative importance will only increase as the economy continues its journey towards the research and knowledge-driven era.

For Hannigan, who is also director of Letterkenny Institute of Technology in Donegal, 2004 was the year in which several of the obstacles facing this sector were finally removed, leaving the way clear for it to reach its full potential. For six long years, the institutes have campaigned to be taken out from under the control of the Department of Education and Science and instead be designated under the Higher Education Authority (HEA), putting them on an equal footing with universities. As Hannigan explains, this finally looks like happening. “The Education Minister [Mary Hanafin, TD] has said that she will make this designation announcement in the spring of 2005 although we are pressing her department for a specific date.”

He believes the Department of Education’s tendency to “micromanage” the institutes has stunted their development. “If you didn’t have the department looking over your shoulder at every turn, you’d be in a better position to try to move things forward.”

The other reason why the institutes have pressed for a new master can be summed up in one word — funding. “If we move on to the same basis for funding as the universities we would get a core grant administered to the college that you could use to decide on how many people to employ and what money you spend on what. It would give us a more definite planning horizon,” Hannigan explains.

The funding concerns of the institutes were acknowledged by the Kelly Report, which recommended that the institutes receive multi-annual funding from now on. “The recommendations are very important because the way we’ve operated is that the institutes had to make a submission to the Department of Education every year outlining our programmes and budgets. By the time that process is complete, it’s normally the middle of the year. Until then you don’t know what your budget is. That makes it very difficult,” notes Hannigan.

Although he is pleased to see the move towards multi-annual funding, Hannigan points out that the other funding issue — the amount — is just as important. Although he has no quibbles with the Kelly Report, which set out priorities in terms of which institutes’ building projects receive capital funding, Hannigan notes that these increases will need to be joined by increases in so-called “non-pay” funding (ie excluding staffing costs). “The majority of institutes would have a substantial expansion in their capital spending and, if the non-pay budget does not take account of the additional demands that that makes on the purse of an institute, then it’s obviously going to lead to constraints and cutbacks,” he warns.

Research is another issue cited by Hannigan as being of central importance. Here he is less happy with what has been mooted by another prominent report — the report in question this time being the recent OECD review. “On the basis of our good track record in the applied research area and the recruitment of more specialist staff, a lot more basic research is going on at institute level than before. Some of the recommendations within the OECD report seemed to be saying that the institutes should stick to the applied research area and leave the basic research to the universities. But a lot of the institutes have been involved in collaborative projects with the universities and they want to see those continue. And also when you build up a capability such as that within your staff members they don’t want to be stopped from progressing,” he says, expressing disappointment that the OECD review did not seem to acknowledge the good work that was being done in that regard.

He feels that to root out some of the research being done within the institutes would be both counterproductive and demoralising for research staff. “There are pockets of strength in research within institutes around the country. For example, despite being one of the smaller institutes, Letterkenny has recently taken in €2m worth of funding in the areas of electronics and marine biotechnology. For an institute our size that’s big money. What you don’t want is wholly dispersed effort because of the small size of the country. At the same time, if you have expertise within your institute and you want to develop it, there should be mechanisms to do that whether it’s on a collaborative basis or not.”

While issues such as research and funding urgently need to be addressed, Hannigan stresses that the institutes are not standing still in the meantime, particularly in terms of academic development. He points to the cultivation of a rich crop of postgraduate and masters programmes, which have helped attracted mature students back into education and widened access to different groups in society. At the same time, the institutes have been working hard to reverse the recent decline in the number of students taking technology and computer-related courses — an unfortunate consequence of the technology downturn.

Despite the stresses and strains facing the institutes, Hannigan is optimistic about the year ahead and believes that some momentum changes could be close at hand. “At the start of the year there were a lot of uncertainties, with several reports yet to be published. We have waited long enough to see some of them appear. The next thing now is to see some of them acted on.”

By Brian Skelly