| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 12 13 October 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, who owns academic research writings?, Marion's retirement party, 'management-speak of the year', staff responses to university re-location, library cuts and other matters, banners, competition, notice from management, Wallups' world, letters ***************************************************** 1. EDITORS' COMMENT After a summer of focus groups, motivational retreats, and work on corporate sponsorship deals, the editors of subtext are back, more refreshed than ever, and ready to take on the new challenges of an academic year. This upcoming year looks to be exciting, as the University faces library cuts, the usual round of rumours, the challenges of an RAE - and a sudden outbreak of banners across campus. With a new intake of customers, customer service representatives and deposits in book silos, we begin this academic year feeling comforted that Lancaster's priorities are in the right place: income generation. Perhaps this can be the year when the Chaplaincy Centre's distinctive 'swoosh' will be replaced by something more in keeping with Lancaster's modern ethos and growing partnership with private enterprise – imagine, for example, the replacement of the swoosh with the letter 'K', and the placing of the figure of Tony the Tiger on the Chaplaincy roof. This could do much to cement our image as a university that does business for the 21st century. The future looks bright at Lancaster – we know this because we visited the new university web page. We hope that its non-challenging soft pastels will help with income generation. In proclaiming that we provide 'learning for the real world', the web page appears to reiterate that old myth about the difference between university and the 'real world'. It also offers opportunities and a challenge for our readers; if you sit back with a nice cup of tea, peruse the new university web page, and tilt your head a bit to one side, can you see the subtext warehouse creeping out between the lines, where all of our old jokes, company slogans, and mascots are stored? So welcome back. In this issue, we have a contribution from Sol Picciotto that follows on from an item in the last subtext of 2005-6 on intellectual property rights, items on Marion McClintock's farewell, library and other budgetary issues, banners on campus, Wallups' World, an early entry for a management-speak competition, and some letters. ***************************************************** 2. WHO OWNS ACADEMIC RESEARCH WRITINGS? – CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE The rather contradictory concept of `intellectual property rights' has become a fraught question in the Information Age. All written works are protected by copyright, which generally belongs to the author (or authors of a joint work). However, under UK law an employer owns the copyright in work produced in the normal course of the employment, in the absence of a specific contractual provision. Since research-active staff are employed to research as well as to teach, and are expected to publish academic papers, the university could be said to own copyright in this work. However, by custom and practice universities generally leave it to individuals to make their own publishing arrangements. This certainly helps to safeguard academic freedom. The downside is that academics are usually so pleased and eager to see their work reach the public that they happily sign away their rights to publishers, often without even reading the terms of the agreement. They may then find that they have to get permission from the publisher to use their own work, for example making copies for students. What's more, the publishers can set any price they think they can get away with for the book or journal concerned, which means that access is rationed by what other researchers or their institutions can afford to pay. Several means are available to remedy this. Open Archive repositories have been established both for specific subjects and by institutions. Indeed, Lancaster E-Prints has been up and running for a while (http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/). Unfortunately, it has so far been used by only a small minority of staff, though it provides an excellent way of making our research widely known and accessible. Some may worry that this may preclude publication of the work in a `proper' journal or book, which conventionally provide the reputational signals we rely on to evaluate work. However, publishers don't usually want to block themselves off from acquiring work which may already have been published in provisional form. In fact, journal publishers, partly because they feel threatened by the Open Access movement, now generally allow authors to self-publish in an Open Archive the pre-print version, and often even the post-print (though this may be subject to an embargo of 6-12 months). You can easily check the policy of individual publishers at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php. To encourage this, the Research Councils are moving towards making it a condition of research funding that the resulting research publications should be deposited in an appropriate repository. They are also considering whether and how to move towards a different business model for academic publications based on publishing fees, to cover editorial and publishing costs, paid by authors (from research funds). Their latest statement is at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/2006statement.pdf. My own view is that academic employment contracts should be clarified by including a specific provision on copyright. This should reserve the university's right as employer to authorise academic authors to publish their work in an open archive, while allowing authors to deal with publishers for commercial publication (and retain the royalties). In discussions with both the AUT and university officers, both agreed that this would be sensible, but thought that Lancaster could not do it alone. However, the issue seems too difficult to be taken up at national level. Copyright may also be used to try to restrict publication of research findings. Some funders of research may stipulate as a condition that they own copyright either in the resulting report, or even in any writing that results from the research. Resisting such conditions is obviously essential to maintaining academic freedom, although sadly the climate of competition to attract funding may weaken the resolve to resist such pressures. Although Lancaster prides itself on being a research-led university, these important issues are too often passed over in silence, in my view. Sol Picciotto, Law School This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ [Thanks for this advice, which subtext is taking steps to follow. We urge all contributors to do so also! - eds.] ***************************************************** 3. MARION McCLINTOCK'S RETIREMENT PARTY Readers may recall that the last issue of subtext carried a tribute to our retiring Academic Registrar, Marion McClintock. On Friday 22nd September, a large crowd representing all sections of the University community, both past and present, gathered in the Management School to bid her farewell. It was typical of Marion that the event was a thoroughly inclusive one and a tribute to the high regard in which she is held across all sections of the University that the guests were remarkably heterogeneous. It was particularly satisfying to see members of the University who had been appointed even earlier than she, including former subtext contributor, David Craig, with whom Marion worked in her very earliest days here. Gifts, to which most of those present had subscribed, were presented, including a pair of silver candle sticks, which Marion had particularly requested and which, she assured us, would permanently grace her dining table. Even the refreshments lived up to the occasion, with many commenting on the good quality of the canapés. Less impressive, on the other hand, was the quality of the acoustics, although Marion coped with it well, enunciating in ringing tones a characteristically generous speech which reaffirmed the view of many that Marion has seen her own role in the University as more of a vocation than a job, and that what binds us all together as a community is the knowledge that we are all engaged in a common quest for knowledge and truth. But she was also keen to emphasise that this quest would not be possible without the support of those beyond the academic community - security, porters, cleaners, technicians, maintenance workers, administrative staff - to whom she also paid tribute. The speech was received with a long and sustained round of applause from an audience who were aware that they were losing not only a dear friend and colleague, but also a voice that has constantly advocated sincerely-held benevolent principles about the ideals that have traditionally underpinned the notion of a university. ***************************************************** 4. MANAGEMENT-SPEAK OF THE YEAR? If readers have any worries about the upcoming academic year, they can be put at ease by a recent e-mail circulated to all staff from Andrew Neal, Director of Finance and Resources. In announcing a 'process review' of university finances, he states: 'Clearly any change has an impact on the jobs of a range of people and while we believe that this will create positive opportunities for many, we appreciate that change creates uncertainty and there will be a need for ongoing communication and support for individuals. It is inevitable that a project like this will raise questions about the impact on jobs and particularly job security for those affected. It therefore needs to be stated from the start that this project is not targeted to produce redundancies.' With its mixture of vagueness and ominous overtones, it makes us wonder what would be said in straight talk, but it hardly dispels the tension between the final two sentences (raising questions about job security yet not targeting redundancies). We offer congratulations for this early entry into the 'management-speak of the year' competition. Doubtless there are likely to be other unintended entries to challenge the above, and we welcome our readers to send in other examples, for final judging by our special team of assessors during the year. ***************************************************** 5. STAFF DIVIDED ON PLANNED UNIVERSITY RE-LOCATION Staff on campus are still in a state of shock after the sensational announcement that the University is being re-located. The news of this planned move came in the Vice-Chancellor's 6th October e-mail to staff, when he spoke of our new partnership with a Malaysian college and informed people that: 'This is a key step in positioning the University in SE Asia.' Thus far, feelings have been mixed; several staff, whose views have been canvassed, are excited about working in a warmer climate, the availability of better tropical fruit than is found in Sainsbury's, and the proximity of sun-kissed beaches. Yet concerns have been raised by others (as always, someone is ready to moan!) about potential commuting problems, while many staff are worried about whether they will be able to drop their kids off at school and still get to the University by 9 a.m. Concerns, too, exist about the environmental impact of mass commuting, while some people have contacted subtext to ask if the move affects everyone and wondering what will happen to the Lancaster campus. The move has certainly taken subtext by surprise, and we have as yet been unable to formulate a policy (or convene a focus group) on the matter. Hence we seek your help, including any information you have on the move; since the University has apparently not yet decided on the design of and facilities for our new location, we also welcome suggestions from you on these issues. ***************************************************** 6. LIBRARY CUTS AND OTHER CONCERNS subtext has previously raised concerns about issues such as library provision, and the impact this has on issues such as our position in League Tables. Yet still we hear disturbing reports that the library continues to suffer from cutbacks - the most recent being in July, when departmental library representatives and Heads of Department in at least one Faculty were asked to prune their journals' budgets by over 7% - the result, it appears, of recent cutbacks imposed on the library budget because of wider university finance questions. Quite where this leaves our standing as a 'research-led university' we are not sure. We have known for some time that the current period is going to be tight in budgetary terms - which leaves us wondering even more about the expenditures on redesigning the entrance to University House and other vanity projects, especially at a time when the resources upon which much of the academic work - which we (perhaps naively) think central to the university's existence - depends on, is reduced. Also, we learn that the Careers Service is being moved away from the direction of Library Services, to the Enterprise and Commercialisation Division (also referred to in the new phone book as the 'Research and Enterprise Services' section). Whether this will have any effect on Lancaster's ratings on post-university job destinations remains to be seen, although there is concern about whether such a move (not widely discussed, as far as we are aware) will actually bring positive results. This is something to keep an eye on. ***************************************************** 7. BANNERS subtext has a history of moaning about everything that goes on at Lancaster, about under-investment and the like (see above on library cuts). So here's a chance for us to crow and praise the University instead, for we have discovered an area where massive new investment has been made to the greater benefit of all who work here. We refer, of course, to the new investment in banners across campus that proclaim that 'We're investing £200,000,000 – accommodation, facilities, buildings'. Now that is something worth spending money on - spending money, it would seem, to tell us that we're spending money. And of course, a bunch of often slightly wonky banners (one of which fell over shortly after erection, so that visitors only saw that 'we're investing £200') are surely a finer investment for our future than anything so trivial as journals - even if the usual moaners have already started complaining that words such as 'research', 'books' and the like do not appear on the banners. At subtext, however, we wondered about this figure. How did it get to be such a round £200 million? Are the investments really £197,793,232 (or £200,324,107) but neatly rounded up (or down) for the sake of banner convenience? subtext's accountants have failed thus far to advise us on how the figure was arrived at, and our own brains are just not financially capable of working it out, so we welcome any information from readers on this matter. Is it exactly £200 million, and what exactly is it invested in? Is there a breakdown of the figures between accommodation, buildings and facilities? And while we are at it: can anyone tell us who the 'we' are in the banner headlines? We had thought that the investment in buildings and accommodation was being done under some form of PFI, in which commercial firms built (and received rent from) the new residences. So does the 'we' refer to the University or the private sector? Any further information on this score, too, is welcome. Rumours that there will be a follow-up set of banners stating, 'We're investing £25,000 on new banners', have yet to be denied by University management. *For a further view on this matter see the cartoon sent to us by Johnny
Unger and Janet Robinson at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/images/cartoon1.jpg 8. COMPETITION This year again subtext presents a (fairly) regular competition. The theme of our first of the year relates to banners, since they are all the rage these days. What would you like to see proclaimed on a banner on the University's driveway, for visitors to see? Our first entry comes from subtext: 'Lancaster University: Saving trees by cutting journal subscriptions'
9. NOTICE FROM MANAGEMENT University management are conducting an enquiry into the action of vandals who, one night during the summer, defaced the campus with a number of spurious banners bearing the words, 'We're investing £200,000,000 – accommodation, facilities, buildings'. Anyone with information that could lead to the identification of, and possible disciplinary procedures against, the perpetrators, is urged to contact subtext immediately. ***************************************************** 10. WALLUPS WORLD' MEMO: From Roger K. Smith, Head of Consultancy and Profiteering Services,
Lune Valley Enterprise University (LUVE-U) Nigel, since the goal of any self-respecting VC is to gain a knighthood that opens the door to a more glittering job in which you can direct some large enterprise, pocket a bigger salary and not have to deal with academics, we are taking the liberty of sending you some advice on the matter (and of course putting in a bid for us to help you achieve it!). We have been scrutinising options on the above and offer the following possibilities to assist you in gaining a knighthood, with assessments as to their viability, as follows: 1. Be a brilliant success at your job, inspire respect and cooperation from staff and academics, fight for academic freedom and refuse to compromise standards in the face of bureaucratic HEFCE and government plans. Pluses: the academics will love you. Minuses: clearly this whole idea is a non-starter. Displaying a concern for standards and all this other stuff isn't going to impress the government. And who wants to be loved by academics anyway? 2. Cuddle up to politicians and directors of regional development agencies, look hopeful when meetings of the VCs and government ministers are proposed, get on as many national committees as you can, and see if you can get in the front row when the pictures are taken. Pluses: since you've got as far as being a VC, all this should come naturally. Minuses: it comes naturally to your competition, too, and those guys from Oxbridge, Bristol, and elsewhere are already two steps ahead and belong to the same clubs as those who give out the knighthoods. So while feasible, this path alone is unlikely to have optimum results, leading to our recommended course of action: 3. Restructure the university. Pluses: Nothing catches the eye more than restructuring so as to 'turn the institution round'. Although research suggests that most institutions that have been 'turned round' have gone from relative success to chaotic disorder as a result, this really doesn't matter – our last consultancy report indicated that what the government and HEFCE really like are grand schemes to reorganise and reshape institutions, even if they are already working okay. And that's how you leave your mark on the institution! What's the point of just running it properly? Where's the legacy in that? People need to have something to remember you by! Our research indicates that most universities average one Restructuring Per VC (the RPVC quotient, as it is known) and that 50% of VCs get a knighthood. You've already made your mark by having a restructuring since coming to LUVE-U (okay you used someone else's leftover plan but who remembers that now?) so you already have a 50% chance of a gong. However, due to LUVE-U's relatively (how do we put this politely?) less than exalted status away from the centres of power compared to, say, Oxford, this does reduce the chances a little (We call this the PUKING – Provincial University Knighthood INhibitinG - Factor). But our analysis (well, we came up with this over a bottle of wine last night) suggests that by increasing the RPVC you cancel out the PUKING. So we suggest that, unique to VCs in the UK, you engage in not just the one restructuring but two! What better way to attract attention from those on high - to show that not only are you managing your institution and 'turning it round' but that you are doing it twice over, showing leadership, vision, etc. (And if you turn it round again, it might even end up pointing in the right direction!). Minuses: None we can think of! Yours, Roger ***************************************************** 11. EVENT There will be fundraising cabaret in connection with the George Fox Six, to be held at The Gregson Centre, Lancaster, on Tuesday 7th November from 8 pm. For further information see http://www.free-webspace.biz/GeorgeFox/ ***************************************************** 12. LETTERS Among the letters prompted by our last issue (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/archive/issue011.htm) are two that relate to our piece on student employability. We regret the delay in publishing these letters and feel that they are just as relevant now as ever. ****** Dear subtext, Section 5 of subtext 11 finishes with the paragraph '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?' The assumption leading to this is that league table data are correct. Experience tells me that this is a dubious assumption. In 2003 I checked the quality of data in the Environmental Science table of the Times GUG. I compared the ES-table data for RAE and TQA grades with those from the RAE, TQA and specific departmental websites, which I assumed would be correct. The conclusion was: 'Significant errors were found in the Times Newspaper environmental science league table. 20/49 league table entries were not contradicted after investigation. 18/49 league table entries were contradicted, and a further 9/49 could not be confirmed from the sources used. These 27 league table entries are likely to be incorrectly ranked. 2/49 league table entries were judged not relevant to the Environmental Science table.' There are also other worrying aspects of league tables, particularly how individual departments can move several 10s of places from year to year. It seems unlikely that this represents a genuine change in 'quality' over such a short timescale. Such rapid changes seem more likely to stem from artefacts of the methods used, changes in data used, or incorrect data. The subtext article also states: 'Half of our graduates won't have suitable jobs within six months of leaving. The figure for Surrey is 20%.' This raises the issue of what the data mean. It doesn't necessarily surprise me that 50% of our graduates won't have suitable jobs because a good number will be moving on to PG study. Perhaps the same cannot be said of Surrey? I think the university sector would be much better checking the validity of influential league tables, and where errors are found, seeking compensation for any lost recruitment; after all newspapers make money out of this! Better still, the university sector needs a unified, transparent and peer-reviewed league table system. Steve Lane, Environmental Science ****** Dear subtext, In the beginning there was the Plan, And the Assumptions were without form, 'The Plan is a bucket of crap and it stinks' And the Senior Lecturers went to their Heads of Department and said: And the Heads of Department went to their Deans and said unto them: And the Deans went unto to the Heads of Faculty and said: 'It is a vessel of fertiliser and none may abide by its strength' And the Heads of Faculty went unto the SLUMP (VCSAG) and said: 'It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong' And SLUMP (VCSAG) went unto the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and said: 'It promotes growth and is very powerful' And the Pro-Vice-Chancellor went unto the Vice-Chancellor and said: And the Vice Chancellor looked upon the plan and saw it was good, And the Plan became Policy. ****** Dear subtext, I write this letter as a warning to anyone in the FASS who find themselves within a year or two of retirement. Should you feel tempted to ignore your proximity to retirement age and press on with your research plans, my advice is to resist the temptation and put your feet up. If you do not, you will get no thanks since an unstated operating principle of the system of discretionary awards to professors at any rate seems to be that nothing should be given to people who are too old to be worth incentivising. Admittedly this is not a scientific finding but one based purely on my own experience. But my own experience I feel was a strong test of the principle. A single-authored book out from MUP in the year when the increment would be paid, based on externally funded research from a major grant competition two years previously, coupled with a new external award obtained in an international competition to lead to a book-length output the year after the increment would be paid cut no ice. This performance (of course against a background of normal departmental activity) I do not claim was exceptional. I am reasonably happy to think that a book every three years or so and external competitively won research awards at about the same tempo is more or less what should be expected from an active senior member of any social science department. But I was told in black and white that no discretionary increment was due in my case since my recent record of achievement was not only not exceptional (fair enough), but it did not even reach average levels of performance. With about 40 professors maybe the Library shelves are creaking loudly at the 20 or more new books a year on average that are coming from the faculty social science professorate alone, and maybe the Research Office is having to take on new staff to deal with the wall of social science research grant money coming in, but I somehow doubt it. Could it be I wonder that something as simple (and insidious) as ageism was at work here? And if so, this note is perhaps not so much a warning to colleagues but a warning to the authorities. Look again at your procedures or you may find a self-fulfilling prophecy at work - fail to reward older workers properly and they will retaliate by working to rule. Or alternatively they will have you up under the new October 1st legislation which rules out 'saving money' as an 'objective justification' for discriminating against older workers, even if they are 65. Ian Bellany, Politics and International Relations ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical
order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Patrick Hagopian, Gavin Hyman, Ian
Reader, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Alan Whitaker. |
