| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 19 21 February 2007 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk.
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: introduction, well-being at work, update on Study Group International, news in brief, Study Group International, wiki professors, knowledge transfer, Senate effectiveness update, urban myths, Wallups world, recycling **************************************************** INTRODUCTION Welcome to this issue of subtext. The contents may appear varied, but subtle and not so subtle themes run throughout and help unite them. The first we would suggest is the continuing lack of timely consultation and appropriate communication within the institution. Information by itself is not enough - though it would be a helpful start in certain instances. Rather, it is the need to recognise the value of a two-way flow, upwards as well as downwards. Staff complain about it as do students, a consensus indicating an important issue which has yet to be successfully addressed. The Study Group saga demonstrates this did not happen. Most of the news items below indicate it is still not happening. The expenditures on new classrooms confirm this further, in lacking input from the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching about teaching and learning architecture. There is also the question of the information which is given to Senate in order to make decisions. Lancaster is a complex organisation but it surely can do much better than this. ************************************************** WELL-BEING AT WORK Last issue's news item on stress within higher and further education has thrown up more information on what the University has been doing on the subject of your well-being at work. It seems that, last summer, all members of ISS received an e-mail inviting them to partake in a 'well-being at work survey', also known as a stress survey. Presentations of the findings have recently been made. Opinions on the quality of the work seem to vary but interest has focused on the company that carried it out. It was undertaken by Robertson Cooper Ltd and yes, you've guessed it, the aforementioned Cooper is no other than our very own PVC for External Affairs, Professor Cary Cooper. According to their web site (http://www.robertsoncooper.com/Company/Homepage.aspx), he is recognised as the 'world's leading expert on stress and the media's first choice for comment on workplace issues'. We have no reason to doubt this! It seems he is a Director and founder (with Professor Ivan Robertson) of the company. The University has stated that this is just one such 'well-being at work' survey and they intend running a few more. Whilst there is no suggestion of impropriety or of university procedures not being followed, questions inevitably suggest themselves regarding potential conflicts of interest. One would assume, given the circumstances, that the decision to use this company was of course the result of a rigorous tendering process. But we also hear that the University intends to carry out other similar surveys. Perhaps it would be better not to use the same firm, to avoid putting Professor Cooper in an invidious position. It would be a shame for him to have to withdraw from discussion of matters on which one would normally expect him to make an input in his capacity as PVC. ************************************************** MORE ON STUDY GROUP INTERNATIONAL UMAG minutes (GAP/2007/0131) reveal that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor provided a recent update on progress with our new initiative. It seems the correct name is Study Group (and not Study Group International). More importantly and somewhat belatedly, it now seems that the need for the International Study Centre to have space on campus has been acknowledged. The Vice-Chancellor believes the Estates master plan should be used to identify locations. This raises interesting questions, particularly since Lancaster is already advertising that it will be based at the 'heart' of campus. Where is this? Suggestions please. Apparently SG were to visit Lancaster on 12 February and further progress reports would then follow, including information on the expected numbers. subtext readers interested in what we are offering as our side of this 'dynamic partnership' should follow this link: http://www.studygroup.com/isc/lancaster/. Lancaster also continues to host on its website a list of frequently asked questions for prospective applicants (http://www.studygroup.com/isc/lancaster/faqs.aspx). It's worth consulting. You will be informed that the University is validating the course but that it will be taught by Study Group. One can't help wondering who will staff this centre. We understand it's easy to sign up as an agent with SG but there's no information as yet on vacancies for these posts. Assuming they are advertised, it will be interesting to establish what qualifications and Lancaster University cultural experience will be required. SG's Embassy Summer Schools' tutors apparently should have a CELTA (Certificate of English Language Teaching for Adults) qualification, obtained after a four-week intensive course. (A degree or equivalent is also supposedly required.) This might be sufficient for SG but as the validating organization, is Lancaster satisfied it meets its own quality criteria and standards? The concerns identified within the open letter from Linguistics staff (see subtext 16) have still to be properly answered. Meanwhile, the national campaign to stop the encroachment of the private sector into course provision and key university functions is gathering pace and now has the support of all the unions representing university staff. Collectively, they hope to persuade the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) to commit to signing a joint statement opposing the privatisation of key university functions and to commission a joint investigation of the extent of privatisation on campuses (see http://education.guardian.co.uk/administration/story/0,,2016718,00.html). ************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Rumours are circulating widely about the plans to establish a Faculty of Medicine (out of the current Centre for Medical Education). The new Faculty would bring together the Centre with other currently existing departments or parts of departments currently based in other faculties. A Working Group is apparently considering a proposal along these lines, although there has been little or no prior consultation up to this point. Unsurprisingly, some members of staff are up in arms over the proposal, especially those who feel that their work would be ill at ease in a Faculty of Medicine. subtext understands that the Government will be looking to invest in a selected number of Medical Schools in the near future, and that it is felt that Lancaster needs to place itself so as to be in the best possible position to make a bid for this. A Medical School at Lancaster would certainly be a major strategic academic development whose implications would be felt by the institution for years to come. We hope that Senate - and other interested parties - can start debating the principle as well as the practicalities before these proposals become too far advanced. ******* Speaking of openness and the free flow of information ... one claim made in a recent paper to the Audit Committee is that minutes and papers of committees are widely open to members of the University. subtext can reveal that a recent trawl of the relevant web sites carried out on behalf of our readers tells a different story. But then we always suspected it would. If transparency and effective communication were so much in evidence, there might be no need for subtext. ******* The Admissions Tutors of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences have recently been expressing grave misgivings over the University's tactics on the admissions and recruitment front. The unrest was sparked by a circular sent by e-mail to all Lancaster applicants, which begins: 'Considering Lancaster as your first choice? Consider yourself one of us! We're chuffed that you're considering Lancaster as your University for next year. But we thought we'd let you know why it would be a great idea to put us as your first choice....' Numerous Admissions Tutors were horrified that their applicants had been sent such a flyer, fearing that such prose would inevitably put off their brightest and best applicants. The flyer campaign has been devised to address the important issue of conversions (i.e., ensuring that as many applicants as possible put Lancaster as their first choice institution). This is indeed an important aim, but it has to be pursued in such a way that it does not compromise the institution's other often stated and equally important aim of raising the academic quality of the students we admit. The episode draws attention to the fact that there needs to be a better developed overall admissions strategy, tighter coordination of efforts and wider consultation. As usual, Admissions Tutors were not consulted on these flyers and were simply sent copies of them shortly before their distribution. Also as usual, it seems that the flyers have been devised by external consultants, no doubt at considerable cost to the University. So far, the discontents have been described as 'a small number', but they certainly do not seem to be a minority within FASS, and it would be interesting to know how far these concerns are shared across the other two faculties. ******* The Alumni Association held its AGM on the same day as the meeting of University Court (see subtext 18), apparently to the chagrin of senior officers, only one of whom attended (the University Secretary). As previously, turnout was hindered by the lack of university publicity or help for this event but those present enjoyed a talk given by the former Academic Registrar, Marion McClintock, on the history of the various alumni groups. It seems that the Chancellor had been asked to speak and had agreed, but then unfortunately pulled out. For those unaware, this is the 'official' University Alumni Association, although the powers that be would prefer it simply disappear. It has accumulated a small amount of funds but it seems the University is reluctant for it to be spent as the executive would wish. They have proposed to spend some money on the following: postgraduate bursaries (apparently refused by the Director of Alumni and Development last year, on the grounds that publicising the Alumni Association's name would damage the University brand); a fund to make allocations to the colleges, on receipt of applications from the JCRs; and a donation to the Create project. They wait with baited breath to see if these will find favour. ******* The People Strategy was written to complement and support the successful implementation of the University Strategic Plan 2006 -11. Unfortunately - but not unusually - very few were consulted about it before it went to Council for agreement. However, it now seems that - long after the event - consultations on it have finally started. Campus unions met with the Director of Personnel on 7th February to be told that because University Council had agreed it nothing fundamentally will change within it. Given the substance and tenor of the document (see subtext 16) this would seem to be bad news for all of us. Apparently it is now to be sent to HoDs for comment (and discussion with their staff) and then to the Faculties in March. Quite what they will make of it being presented as a done deal is anyone's guess, especially given the sceptical and hostile reception it previously received in Senate. Hopefully it might ensure HoDs also comment on the business process review of Personnel Services now under way. Informed sources have made it clear to subtext that Council accepted it on the basis that its implementation would be accompanied by extensive consultation, albeit belatedly - and presumably they expect it to be genuine and meaningful? ************************************************** WIKI PROFESSORS If you could put together a list of the five most notable professors at Lancaster, who would they be? The answer (at the time of this writing) can be found at the online encyclopaedia, wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_University). Look closely, though, and you will find that publicity shy Cary Cooper is not mentioned at all; this omission saddens us. It calls into question the accuracy of the entire list, even though it is nonetheless possible that some may be on the list because of name recognition or contributions to scholarship. Certainly, no professors at Lancaster would think of putting their own names on wikipedia as a means of self-promotion, highlighting their top esteem indicators in advance of the RAE. Perhaps there is at least some truth to the list. We came up with our own notable professors list - which is now kept in confidential files in the subtext warehouse - and discovered that one of the names on our list was also on wikipedia's (the precise details are kept secret while we wait for offers from News of the World, or Hello! Magazine). As for the others on the wikipedia list, we must have inadvertently overlooked them. The German version of wikipedia's page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_University) lists five 'beruehmte Persoenlichkeiten' (famous personalities) for the university, including Princess Alexandra, but no notable current professors. This ought to change. Are any readers willing to create wikipedia pages for the University of Lancaster in other languages - perhaps in Esperanto or Latin? Would different personalities at Lancaster be listed, depending on the written language on the page? It will be interesting to see how the current wikipedia pages grow over time, and what information will be included or excluded. ************************************************** DESIGNED FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER In a previous incarnation at another university, one of the subtext editors taught in an amphitheatre that had a special area for the lecturer to stand. It was behind a low fence, like a cage. This spoke volumes about conceptions of teaching and learning; i.e., that a lecturer transmits knowledge from a fixed location while students sit, in chairs bolted to the ground, and receive wisdom. While there is no equivalent 'teaching cage' in classrooms at Lancaster (at least none that we know of), the design of many classrooms is troubling. It is as if they were constructed for the one-way flow of knowledge. Think of it: students showing up for a lecture in an amphitheatre, looking down a steep incline at the lecturer. Often there are no aisles except on the sides (to get in and out), reducing opportunities for interaction with one another and with the lecturer. Seats are bolted to the ground, lest students might fall off, tumble down over one another, or decide to move ever so slightly away from facing the lecturer. Whether we use lecture or non-lecture formats, the design of our classrooms poses problems for our ability to engage with students. Why must such unconstructive classroom designs be a norm or expectation? One explanation might be that we are stuck with the classrooms that were built many years ago, and their shape or design has nothing to do with the university's conceptions of teaching and learning today. We simply have to make do, and try to work within the constraints of each classroom. Yet such explanations are not convincing. Imagine, if you had £200,000,000 to spend on updating facilities and buildings on campus. Better yet, don't imagine - just recall the signs that were erected around campus, advertising the mass expenditure. Then look again at the classrooms. There have been some improvements, but not enough to indicate a changed view of teaching and learning. The Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching was not consulted on the designs of new classrooms. The lack of consultation with practitioners is worrying, not only considering the costs involved, but also the importance of teaching and learning for the university. With all of the work done to revamp Bowland North, it is disappointing to see seminar rooms that are about as innovative in design as meeting rooms for corporate board meetings - space enough for a long table, for example, with little room for anyone to move around. In recent years, Lancaster has received and spent considerable HEFCE monies on updating and refurbishing campus lecture theatres such as those in Fylde and Furness Colleges and elsewhere, but all too often it has simply reproduced what was there before and, in the process, reinforced a traditional view of teaching and learning. The new lecture theatres within the Management School are exceptions to this, but then they may have been designed and built with a more demanding audience in mind. Many of our lecture theatres seem to be designed (or left unchanged) to fit a business model based on receiving information. The design may add emphasis to a centre of power, concentrated in the person in charge of the session. It can seem like the university is systematically denying students' roles in constructing knowledge by centring so many classrooms on the lecturer. It is often as if lecturers are expected to think of division, of separateness, of us and them, teacher and student. Classroom design can pose challenges for interaction, flexibility, and participation, although all of these are still possible. From the physical structure of our classrooms, it could be easy to assume that learning was a fixed or concrete entity to be transferred to consumers. Lancaster is clearly not alone in having these problems, and no doubt people who have taught at other universities can reveal similar stories there. There is not 'one way' to design a classroom, just as there is not one way to learn or teach, in lecture or non-lecture-based formats. Moreover, since most learning takes place outside of the classroom, it may be that the problems with classroom design have only a limited impact on student learning. People can still teach effectively in poorly designed classrooms, but perhaps they could teach so much better in environments designed around more support for teaching and learning. If you had £200,000,000 to spend on facilities and buildings on campus, would you leave the classrooms the same as they are now? Or would you change any of them and, if so, in what way? Your comments on this matter would be welcome. **************************************************** SENATE EFFECTIVENESS WORKING GROUP: AN UPDATE The working group established at the invitation of University Council to review the role and effectiveness of the Senate held its second meeting on 5th February (see subtext 18). One of the outcomes is that we are a little clearer on the anticipated timetable. A verbal report only is to be made to this week's Senate meeting, presumably by the Vice-Chancellor, followed by a similar report to Council in March. The first and only report of the group is then to go to Senate in May, with the outcome to be reported to Council in June. There had been concerns that Senate would be asked to vote on formal proposals at its meeting on Wednesday but more time is needed to produce the group's report. One might reasonably have expected the Senate to receive a written interim report and to have the opportunity to discuss in principle before determining particular recommendations. Certainly this is what has happened in the past on matters such as this, but is apparently deemed no longer necessary. Unless a member raises the issue, there is likely to be total silence this Wednesday, which for some is only further confirmation that Senate is indeed largely supine and ineffective. We understand that Gordon Johnson, Deputy Pro-Chancellor and Council lay member on the group, suggested that perhaps we should start with a blank piece of paper. Imagine what might happen to Senate's role, composition and authority if this actually happened! subtext is still analyzing the reports of the various focus groups and will return to these in due course but already it is clear that the way Senate is currently managed seems to be a recurring theme, with participants commenting that individuals feel inhibited from contributing and others that all too often members simply receive items for information and report only, rather than for discussion, from senior management, even when they contain new or controversial business. It is worth reflecting on one of the findings of the so-called CRILL (Committee to Review the Institutional Lessons to be Learned) Report that was established following the financial crisis of the mid-1990s. It considered that the Senate had not been kept adequately informed of the strategic decisions made on its behalf by the Council and recommended that key strategic issues to be decided by the Council are first brought to the Senate so that its views are made known and that the Senate act vigorously in defence of the academic life of the University (pp.14-15). This recommendation was accepted, and the revision of the Statutes completed in 2002 made this responsibility explicit. However, for it to be something other than words requires senior academic managers to engage with the Senate and treat it with respect. It also requires Senate members to insist it should happen. **************************************************** URBAN MYTHS There is a myth that is becoming confused with reality. The University used to own the land on the other side of the M6, but sold it in the 1980s. Rumour right now has it that the land is about to be / has already been bought back again, and that those who are eventually sent to live on on the other side will have their own pedestrian bridge over the motorway, from which they can presumably pelt passing lorry driver with examples of their learning. The details here are confused, so if anyone can help... We are amazed that no one has yet brought up the famous trashed County piano incident from back in the 1970s. Apparently it earned someone the nickname of 'piano tuner'. Seems it has passed from fact to history through myth and out into the forgotten already. More myths? Send them in. *************************************************** WALLUPS' WORLD From: Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LUVE-U) To: All LUVE-U Staff It has recently come to my attention that certain of my fellow VCs in the UK have more than one title. Scottish VCs are also titled 'Principal', while one fellow VC not far away is designated as 'President and Vice-Chancellor' (apparently on the grounds that Americans don't understand the office of VC but do know what a 'president' is). Recently, a report by our consultants studying why we, as a university, have been losing out in the HE stakes, has come up with the finding that our institution suffers from a lack of gravitas when its head can only term himself as Vice-Chancellor of LUVE-U, when so many competitors can have more prestigious titles such as 'Principal and VC' or 'President and VC'. Yet even these, to my mind, only convey some of what I do here; I am, indeed, a VC, and if my fellows, doing similar jobs, can be Principals and Presidents, then so can I. But my role, requiring managerial leadership, vision and fiscal prudence, is surely also akin to the Chief Executive Officer of some great business company as well - a role that also ought to be included in my titles. And therefore, as of today, I have decided to re-title myself - for the greater good of the institution as a whole - as follows: Professor Nigel Wallups, President, Principal, Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chancellor of Lune Valley Enterprise University. Such a designation will, I am certain, raise the prestige and profile of LUVE-U across the globe, while indicating to all who do business with us just how clued in to the world of commerce we are. I remain, humbly, the academic world's first President, Principal, Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chancellor. Naturally, henceforth, all staff will be required to address me as such during meetings and in memos, although in private conversation I will remain, as ever, Professor Wallups. Professor Nigel Wallups *************************************************** LETTERS Recycling Dear subtext, Some nice new indoor rubbish bins are appearing in various places - the ground floors of Lonsdale North and University House, for example. They are differentiated into general waste, and two types of waste for recycling - paper and bottles. (They don't specify whether the bottles should be plastic or glass or both. The pictogram suggests a plastic bottle, but how can I be sure?) When we asked whether the Institute for Advanced Studies could have similar facilities, we were told they represented a pilot scheme and would in due course be rolled out to other buildings. I was reminded of the pilot scheme which provided office paper recycling bins made of eco-friendly brown cardboard in University House and the Library, which has been running for some years now with no sign of it being rolled out anywhere near me. I eventually gave up asking about this and continued doggedly to carry my office paper to the library from time to time to place it in one of these paper recycling bins, until recently when some large new office paper recycling bins appeared between Bowland College and the entrance to the Conference Centre (the entrance nearest the Chaplaincy Centre, for other recycling enthusiasts). They take cardboard there too. Yippee. Shortens my paper recycling expeditions and I no longer have to pretend I haven't seen the funny looks from library users and staff. The new indoor paper and bottle bins display recycling logos, which is very encouraging, although pessimists point out that the cleaners can't possibly have the time to deal with three different types of rubbish - so I wonder idly what actually happens to it. Does it all get emptied into the same old trolley and eventually ferried to landfill anyway? I hope not. Another very encouraging development is the appearance of a small recycling bin for used batteries down by the bus stop in the underpass. But I would never have known it existed if I hadn't had to take the bus for a while, when I was too poorly to use my bicycle. I'm sure there are many non-bus-using recycling enthusiasts around who would be delighted to hear about this. Of course there are recycling setbacks - such as the misuse of recycling points by people who just chuck general rubbish into them. Sigh. As the saying goes, 'the stupid will always be with you...' Sure, recycling takes more effort than tossing everything into the nearest bin. And sometimes there just isn't time or it takes more energy than can reasonably be justified. But a friend once pointed out that if we had any idea how much greater the energy cost is to produce aluminium from raw materials compared with the cost of recycling aluminium products, no-one would ever throw away even the smallest scrap of aluminium foil, ever again. Since which time I have really tried to do my bit whenever possible. I would really welcome the University's progress on recycling to be given a higher profile, together with a reasonably accurate map of where the recycling facilities are sited now. Jessica Abrahams [At the risk of doing an LU Text-style instant letter rebuttal, there is a map and list of (at least some) recycling facilities at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/estates/division/environ/envrecyl.html - eds.] ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Alan Whitaker. |