| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 11 26 June 2006 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. CONTENTS: editorial, the last subtext?, Lancaster in its context, intellectual property rights, student employability, the retirement of Marion McClintock, free speech?, Wallups' world, letters ***************************************************** 1. EDITORIAL This past year has seen its share of controversies at Lancaster. The problems and concerns that gave birth to subtext are not Lancaster's alone, but endemic in the university sector as a whole. Certainly at Lancaster, we had some specific catalysts to galvanise protest, such as the ill-advised university role in the prosecution of the George Fox Six case and the badly handled attempt at 'reforming' the university's corporate governance structures (see subtext 1). Yet we would be wrong to portray Lancaster as somehow an exception that requires an alternative voice in the current climate; rather, it may not be far from the norm. We note, too, that Lancaster's senior management took a more controlled and less confrontational stance during the assessment boycott than some other institutions, which made either immediate threats or carried out docking of pay from the outset (although the recent issue of SCAN indicates LUSU unhappiness with the management's communications with students over the issue). Recognising that things might be worse elsewhere does not, however, mean that after a few months of protest, satire and questioning, we now think all is rosy in Lancaster's garden. Far from it; we are aware that few if any of the concerns about Lancaster (e.g., problems with management culture, student protest, free speech, or university corporatisation) will go away, that many if not all of them may become more problematic in the future, and there will be plenty more to keep subtext occupied in the coming months and year(s). The University is unlikely to become a place free of controversy, suspend its drive (or drift?) towards corporatisation and put on ice any links with possibly dubious companies. All of these will recur - as will new issues such as Intellectual Property Rights and the ownership of research produced via funded projects (see below) - in the coming months and years. They will be with us, probably in increasingly aggressive forms, and will be increasingly important in the processes that are reshaping universities in the present day. They remain concerns of subtext as well, and we hope to maintain a forum in which they can be discussed and, where appropriate, resisted and even (as we feel is necessary when confronted by some of the managerial speak that we encounter too often in our work lives) lampooned. In this issue, we continue by writing about a range of concerns, including student employability, freedom of speech, and the retirement and extraordinary career of Marion McClintock. ***************************************************** 2. THE LAST SUBTEXT? With the end of the academic year upon us, members of the collective are going on hiatus to take part in motivational retreats and consultancies. We hope to be back in Michaelmas term but we never know what the future may hold. The concerns that we mentioned above are still very much alive, and there are so many issues to explore, and so many things that need more discussion and debate. For example, if we come back, we might ask what constitutes bullying, and what can be done to stop it? Which words can employees use to describe treatment by their line managers without worrying about retribution, and which words might be barred, and under which circumstances? What concrete steps can be taken by us all to help create a more collegial university, and to tear down the us-them mentality that all too often permeates university life? Indeed, there are numerous questions that should be asked - not just by us but by people throughout the University. In earlier issues, a number of our questions related to the George Fox Six case. At the time of subtext's formation, they had just faced sentencing for their conviction of aggravated trespass, as a result of the court's view that they had temporarily disrupted a meeting in a classroom. Since then, the Six have appealed and lost, with fines doubled. Understandably, the University seemed to want the story to go away, keeping public statements to a minimum, and being cautious around the bad press that had come about nationally. The University has never publicly admitted any mishandling of the situation, although the formation of working groups to examine free speech, protest, and corporatisation showed an acknowledgement of some of the serious issues raised by the case. The George Fox Six case brought about outrage, but no one talked of going on strike, or refusing to mark papers. The UCU (and its merged predecessors, the AUT and NATFHE) has had two industrial actions since 2004, the most recent being particularly acrimonious and unsatisfactory to all parties involved. Its national leadership had become embroiled in prolonged negotiations about whether staff should receive a 12.6% or 13.1% pay rise, or to take a different 13.1% pay rise. Meanwhile, the lives of students, staff, and management were made more difficult in the process. If we think further about the dispute, there seems to have been a misplacement of priorities. The rationale for the strike - focused on lecturers' historic position in relation to other professionals - did not match the outcome of the pay settlement awarded to all employees, lecturers and support staff alike. As we are now part of a common pay framework, couching pay claims in relation to the position of any particular group of employees, as occurred in the recent dispute, is no longer a viable approach. Concerns about pay contributed to a tense standoff between the union and university employers, culminating in an 11th hour cave-in by the union. When it comes to the rights to engage in protest about non-pay issues, such as bullying, freedom of speech, or workloads, the union is not nearly as vocal. While the union has other priorities, perhaps subtext can be a space for the airing of work issues that go beyond the realms of pay. It is up to you now, the readers, to carry on. What are the issues that concern you, and what do you think should be done about them? What do you think of the first year of subtext, and what would you like to see in its pages if it comes back in the next academic year? ***************************************************** 3. LANCASTER IN ITS CONTEXT Recently, colleagues at a university in northern England contacted us about a consultation paper produced at their institution that set out plans and strategies for changing institutional structures and focuses in the coming years. In their words, the consultation paper showed an 'absence of any rationale for the proposed changes beyond that of increasing the profitability of the university as a business venture.' Such a rationale, they noted, might be appropriate 'in a document written for shareholders of a private company' but not for an institution such as a university that requires, as a basis for its very existence, the maintenance of academic standards. This example is, of course, nothing new in the increasingly corporatised context of British higher education. In the pages of the Times Higher Education Supplement or through personal communications to subtext, we learn increasingly of corporate plans that focus on short-term economic goals, commercialisation and the transformation of institutions into little more than 'consultancy agencies'. We hear repeatedly of academic issues being sidelined, and of students being regarded as little more than transient paying customers and 'products' of a particular university 'brand'- tendencies that have served to increase tensions and stresses between students, staff and institutions - and of crass 'restructuring' schemes that have involved attempted or actual departmental closures (as at Sussex, with the furore created by the botched closure of a highly regarded Chemistry Department that had included a Nobel Prize winner, or Swansea, where 'restructuring' included the closure of five departments). Again, it is useful to be reminded that the struggles at Lancaster do have a wider context, as others go through their own battles, too. ***************************************************** 4. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, RESEARCH FUNDING, AND METRICS One issue that will clearly become an increasing matter of discussion - and one subtext would like to hear about from colleagues - is the question of the ownership of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in research projects funded by external agencies, along with the degree to which such funding agencies can, may or will seek to control the reporting of research that is produced. We are all aware of how vested interests have, in the past, played a role in 'guiding' research findings (industry-funded studies on the health effects of tobacco spring to mind), and this is likely to be an increasingly cogent issue as pressures increase for universities to become 'providers' of knowledge and attract more research income from external 'users'. The threatened transformation of the means whereby university research may be measured will merely increase the drive towards seeking external funding. As has been reported in the THES and national media, a number of government voices have advocated dispensing with the infuriatingly bureaucratic, formulaic, nonsensical, but largely peer-review based, RAE and replacing it with a metrics based system that will privilege research income above all else - a scenario that requires further discussion (our immediate feeling is that this would have disastrous consequences for much of the academic work done at Lancaster and elsewhere) and about which subtext would like to canvass opinions and discussion. Increased focus on metrics, as well as being a poor indicator of publication quality, will also increase pressures for 'research' to fit the agendas of funding organisations, from government agencies to commercial firms. In this process, the ownership of IPR will become an increasingly critical issue, as will control of research publications. Colleagues in institutions around the country have told us of cases in which engagement in major research projects has meant signing away IPR and signing agreements which give the funding providers control over whether the research gets published or not. When we hear of cases of such providers (both commercial concerns and government policy units) deeming that materials not in accord with their interests or - a term that government agencies love to use, with the 'public interest' - should not be published, we begin to worry. We are concerned about whether these are merely deviations from a normative situation, or whether they represent a growing trend in which funding agencies provide grants not for research that seeks to discover new things, but for research that is geared towards confirming existing agendas. ***************************************************** 5. STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY The Times Good University Guide 2007 has Lancaster at number 21 out of 109. There are 9 criteria, differently weighted. While no one would suggest that 21st is a bad score, the devil is, as always, in the detail. Any parent looking for a higher education institution at which to spend a lot of money in order to help their offspring through life is likely to ask three questions: 1) will Johnny /Janie have an enjoyable and safe time, 2) will they get a decent degree, and 3) what are their chances of that degree turning into something half-decent at the end of it all? The news on the first question is reasonably positive. Student satisfaction rates seem pretty good. Lancaster is safe, and the University's facilities are apparently deemed satisfactory, building-site ambience aside. Given concerns about grade inflation, perhaps the question of degree results is beyond the scope of this article. So let's look at the last question. What are a Lancaster graduate's job prospects? Since you ask, out of the 109 Universities listed, Lancaster comes 93rd for Job Prospects. Of the top 50% of Universities (of which, remember, Lancaster is a rather smashing 21st overall), we are second to last. This statistic should give anyone who cares about Lancaster pause for reflection. Does anyone doubt that the probability of getting a job after graduation is something that both students and parents give a good deal of thought to? It behoves us to consider what the University is doing about it. The University will say that it takes the issue seriously. Pronouncements have been made. Policy has been formulated. Plans are in place. Let us take one example. The University, we understand, recognises that students should be aware from day one that they are on a vocational path throughout their time here. (The PDP Journal is one manifestation of this. The PDP is very important, as we all know, even if it needs improvement in style and structure to be more appealing to students.) Departments should, we understand, regularly meet with students, find out their needs, coach them and so on. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some departments put a lot of effort into this, some do a fair bit, and some do very little. Inevitably, in such a situation, there will be duplication, gaps and wasted effort. The University lacks a coherent strategy - or, if it has one, has not communicated it to departments in a way that they can understand, accept and use. The problem of managerialism (as at many places) is that difficult tasks and issues tend to be pushed down the line to departments. This always increases strain on the periphery and enables the centre to avoid awkward issues. A simple comparison. Have a look at the University of Surrey's website. They have a 25-page strategy detailing how students are helped towards post-graduation employment. Every department has clearly defined objectives, resources are allocated, responsibilities placed. There is no doubt how seriously they take this issue. Their prospects column in the league table is rated at 79.5. Lancaster is rated 54.4. Half of our graduates won't have suitable jobs within six months of leaving. The figure for Surrey is 20%. Where would you send your son or daughter? Then again, in raising these concerns, have we now confused the role of universities with the idea of turning out 'products' for employment? Does anyone feel that the University has a workable, coherent, costed, all-inclusive strategy to address problems with student employability? And if not, should it? ***************************************************** 6. THE RETIREMENT OF MARION McCLINTOCK, ACADEMIC REGISTRAR As subtext readers will know, this summer will see the retirement of the University's Academic Registrar, Marion McClintock. This retirement will be more significant than many, if only because of the longevity of Marion's period of service to the University. She joined the University as a junior administrator in 1968, just four years after its foundation. Over the next 38 years, she gradually worked her way through the administrative ranks, being appointed to her current position in 1994. In the minds of many staff and students who have worked here over the years, Marion McClintock and the University of Lancaster are inseparably linked. For many, she came to embody the lasting values and ideals of the University, encapsulating in her own personality the institution's characteristic blend of traditional values with pioneering innovation. The significance of her retirement, therefore, goes far beyond the sheer fact of her years in office. Marion McClintock was born in 1939, and studied English Literature at the University of Durham. On graduating, she gained an appointment as an academic administrator at Cambridge, and it was while she was there that she remembers seeing a Sunday newspaper article - together with a map of the country - detailing the projected locations for what were to become the '1960s Universities'. Little did she know, at that stage, that she would play such an important role in the development of one of them. Before long, she moved to take up a post at Oxford, and it was here that she met her husband to be, Peter McClintock, then a doctoral research student in Physics. Following their marriage and the completion of Peter's DPhil dissertation, the couple then moved for some years to work at Duke University, North Carolina. Among the many experiences they appreciated, it was characteristic of them that they were delighted to find that the Episcopal Church used the traditional Book of Common Prayer in an almost unaltered form. In the tumultuous year of 1968, however, they returned to England to take up their respective posts at the University of Lancaster - Peter as a Lecturer in Physics, and Marion as an administrator in the Department of English. Although 1968 was quieter in the British Universities than elsewhere, Marion's early years in the English department were something of a baptism of fire. Before long, she found herself embroiled in the 'Second David Craig Affair' described so vividly and candidly by David Craig himself in a previous issue of subtext. As an administrator, she was not directly involved in the arguments and recriminations that took place, but this did not shield her from a considerable degree of unpleasantness, and it is rumoured that her defence of values she held dear almost caused her to lose her job (not the only time this was to happen). It no doubt came as something of a relief to her that, shortly afterwards, she was commissioned to write the official history of the first ten years of the University's existence, the book that was to become 'Quest for Innovation' (1974). The book still stands as the classic reference work for those interested in the early years of the institution and in the spirit behind the pioneering 1960s universities in general. Its combination of felicity of style, historical thoroughness and objective fair-mindedness has set a standard by which any subsequent volume will inevitably be judged. After appointments in the Centre for North West Regional Studies and in the Management School, Marion moved to the central administration located in University House in 1987. Unlike some of the occupants of University House, she was regarded by many of the academic rank and file as an island of civilisation in a sea of barbarism. This did not, however, prevent her rise to the post of Academic Registrar in 1994, achieved in part because of the recognition of her diverse talents by the then Vice-Chancellor, Harry Hanham. Her areas of responsibility were considerably extended in 1996. She was discussed as a possible candidate for the post of University Secretary on more than one occasion. It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that she was without critics. For some, she was politically too 'safe'. Gordon Inkster, writing in 'Inkytext' in 1993, said in relation to the University Secretary post that she 'might be thought by the VC to pose no political threat. She would make no worse a candidate than many another.' He put her odds at 4-1. It is likely, however, that her apparent political moderation was an effect of her innate professionalism. As an administrator (and in the best civil service tradition), she did not feel it proper to take an explicit role in debates and controversies. But there can be little doubt that, behind the scenes, quietly and unobtrusively and yet firmly, she took a stand when she felt that the tide was moving against the best interests and traditions of the University. In particular, as the 1990s progressed and the University fell prey to the dictates of 'managerialism' under the complacent eyes of a great many academics, the University's great traditions of participatory democracy and faithful adherence to the spirit of its constitutional structures came under attack. The full story of Marion's subtle resistances to these developments is yet to be told, but there can be little doubt that such resistance was happening and that she came under considerable hierarchical pressure as a result. The mature, retrospective judgement is likely to be that Marion cultivated an impeccable balance between her sense of professionalism, on the one hand, and her commitment to defend the best interests of the institution on the other. Alongside these activities, Marion was also building on the reputation of her book to establish herself as the University's 'unofficial' historian. She gave frequent lectures on the history of the institution on important University anniversaries and other occasions. She was also involved, with Martin Widden, in a campaign to get listed status for the Chaplaincy Centre and The County College in 2003, when English Heritage were reviewing Britain's radical 1960s university architecture. Her expertise and knowledge were also invaluable when the ceremonial arrangements for the installation of a Chancellor (the first for forty years) were prepared in 2005. As Marion commented at the time, the ceremonial was a blend of traditional pageantry with modern innovation. In light of these activities, it was not surprising that, at a recent Court meeting, veteran Court member, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, publicly asked that Marion be commissioned to write a second volume of the University's history. Whether such a book materialises remains to be seen, but what is known is that Marion has accepted an honorary post as University Archivist, which she will take up after her formal retirement. It should therefore come as no surprise that many consider Marion's contribution to the development of the University as unique. It was with great pleasure that the community heard of Marion's appointment as MBE in the New Year's Honours List of 2006. As subtext commented at the time, 'throughout her many years here she has been one of the staunchest defenders of the core values we associate with Lancaster, a forthright advocate of the importance of community and collegiality as vital underpinnings of our work, respect for individuals and their views, and the need for democratic involvement of staff and students in the activities and decision making of the University.' She was particularly pleased that the Queen herself presided over her investiture ceremony at Buckingham Palace later in the year. As has been announced, a leaving party is to be held at 3pm on Friday 22nd September in the Hub Area of the Management School, to which all are invited. ***************************************************** 7. FREE SPEECH? A deeply contentious issue is whether people have the right to say things that others deem to be objectionable. Concerns about the suppression of speech motivated some of the editors to join the collective. Beyond the post-George Fox 6 committee on free speech, we hope that the University can help spur discussion on freedom of speech in ways that can be open, inclusive, and part of a healthy community. On the one hand, people can feel silenced. On the other hand, people can feel intimidated by forms of hate speech. As a stimulus for further debate, subtext offers these quotes for reflection: 'The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism' - Wole Soyinka 'Only the suppressed word is dangerous' - Ludwig Börne 'I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
death, your right to say it' - Beatrice Hall 'The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.' - American Civil Liberties Union 'Are birds free from the chains of the skyways?' - Bob Dylan Most of these quotes, and others, can be found at http://www.beaconforfreedom.org. ***************************************************** 8. WALLUPS' WORLD FROM: Insects R Us Dear Mr Wallups, my dad left your letter lying around about wanting to use insect control methods to manage university staff. I think that you got the wrong company. At Insects R Us, we sell toys shaped like insects and we sell a few insects, too, but we're not a consulting firm. Anyway, I wanted to pass along advice based on some things I looked up and on things my dad told me. He knows a little bit about insects from working at Insects R Us but mainly he knows about management because he used to work for a management consulting firm, although he never told me what he really did there. My dad should be the one to respond but he says that he is too busy cleaning up our warehouse. Someone placed all kinds of crazy things there, like a coat of arms and a motto about truth, and even some pictures of you. We can't figure out how it all got there. When I asked him what to do about your letter, he said that it would be good practise for me to respond because I'll be coming to Lune Valley Enterprise University next year and he wanted to get things off to a good start. I talked to him to get advice on how to respond and I also looked some
things up on the Internet. Basically, what I found is that a lot of people
got very worried about Wayne Rooney's metatarsal, and that there's loads
of information available if you just go to Google. But more to what you
were saying about how to manage staff, there are a number of ideas that
I read about although I don't agree with them. I'm sure that none of your
senior managers or Heads of Department would do these things but I've
heard that they work. And create conflict by blowing things out of proportion. If there is even a minor disagreement or misunderstanding, see if you can blow it up. Don't be afraid to press charges if you don't understand a situation, and don't worry about learning about your university's history. It's your turf, you need to protect it. Challenge people's rights to speak up for themselves. If someone objects to what you say in a meeting, it's good if your allies stand up in your defence, one after the other. If you hear that someone challenges your ideas while you're not around, say that it was not fair for anyone to speak out against you when you were not there to defend yourself. And if anyone wants to meet with you about something that could turn into a problem, make sure that you invite someone else along to take your side. Issue edicts and don't explain the reasoning behind them. Tell people what to do and expect them to go along. If they don't, they are challenging your authority. So that's what I got from my dad's advice and from Google. It all looks a little scary since I thought that people would not want to act this way towards one another. I guess that's what management is about though, and it's supposed to be what everyone should aspire to. My dad says that one day everyone will be a manager, but I'm worried about who'll do the work when that happens. What I really think you need to do is talk with some of your students and find out how they get along. Maybe you'd be surprised that there are ways that students get along with one another that could be lessons for all of you. But that's not what you asked about anyway, is it? You wanted to know about controlling staff through insect control methods, and I don't think that I really answered your question. But I hope that I've been helpful anyway, and that you'll buy some of our plastic insects. ***************************************************** 9. LETTERS HISTORY OF PROTEST AT LANCASTER Dear subtext, I happened to have encoded old video footage of news reports of the sit-in, and it is at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/cpamfc/video/sit-in-ms.htm If you're interested in seeing it, I recommend watching it from Internet Explorer due to problems that I encountered using Firefox which I believe must be something to do with either the video server or the campus network, because the web page code is fine. Mike Cowie ****** GEORGE FOX SIX SALE Dear subtext, We have had a number of copies of a Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards report ('The Mission Betrayed': Academic values under attack: the case of Swansea.) donated to us that we are hoping to sell to raise funds for the George Fox Six defence fund (still £2400 left to go). Readers can obtain a copy for a donation (suggested donation £2 or more), by e-mailing info@georgefox6.co.uk. Jo Moodie ****** BICYCLE BY SALARY SACRIFICE Dear subtext, Some readers may not be aware that, with relevance to the article in subtext on the environment dated 12th June, as part of the UK Government's green transport plan a scheme is operated under which employees can buy a bicycle via salary sacrifice from the employer. Because the money is taken from your salary before tax a significant saving can be made on the purchase of a new bike <50%. However, you've guessed it - Lancaster University has hardly raced off the blocks to offer this to its employees, despite its being the biggest employer in a cycle demonstration town. Whether a throng of new bikes would make a tangible difference to the environment is debatable but if we cannot appeal to such environmental initiatives, what hope is there? I understand that the University is waiting to include this 'benefit' with a number of others, such as healthcare and sports centre membership to ease administration. This is very frustrating since a government initiative to relieve congestion and pollution is being confused with a staff benefit. For more information see http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/ and email me on m.joyce [at] lancaster.ac.uk so that I might lobby. The sums of money are not large, so why aren't we doing it now? Malcolm Joyce ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, Steve Fleetwood, George Green, Patrick Hagopian, Gavin Hyman, John Law, Maggie Mort, Ian Reader and Bronislaw Szerszynski |