| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 15 28 November 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: preview, league tables, Senate report, UMAG structures, Oxford, publicity, news in brief, urban myths. **************************************************** A mixed subtext bag this week and, as so often, we ask many more questions than we have answers for. An exception to this tendency is the article on UMAG structures, a sequel to the article in subtext 14. As the University moves more and more towards a business style of management, UMAG has become increasingly central to the way that the institution is run. Most people who work here do not know how UMAG functions or what its significance might be, so this article is offered as a corrective, at least in part, though much more remains to be said. Similarly, the rest of this issue concerns itself largely with matters relevant to the governance of the University. The People Strategy mentioned in the Senate report will affect us all in due course. It is a pertinent reminder of the sort of policy document which often emerges out of UMAG and is subject to little if any wider consultation before going on to the Human Resources Committee and then to Council for adoption, thereafter to be imposed upon us. We'll be going into the issues surrounding the People Strategy in more detail in the next issue of subtext. Suffice to say that it is a revised version of what we used to know, if not love, as the Human Resources Strategy. 'Human Resources' being so much less cuddly than 'people', presumably, though when you read that the 5 key areas within it are: 'Talent Management', 'Total Reward', 'Professional and Leadership Development', 'Employee Relations', and 'The HR Function', a certain indefinable dread may begin to creep over you. Watch this space next issue. ****************************************************** subtext has in the past touched on the anomalies of League Tables – a phenomenon that casts a shadow over so many areas of life, from NHS trusts to how well our students perform in arbitrary assessments relating to careers. Yet another example of the problems involved in League Tables appears in the THES of 17 November (http://tinyurl.com/ygnwu2). This involves a re-assessment of the League Tables relating to Total Quality Assessment (TQA) scores. Under the existing TQA table (drawn up on the basis of TQA scores during the period 1995-2001, based on an expensive country-wide assessment process), York sat proudly at the top of the table, followed by Cambridge, Oxford and Warwick, while Lancaster came in 7th. A study by academics from Scotland has revisited the data on which the TQA table was based, but adjusted to counter what was seen as an inherent bias towards pre-1992 universities and to take account of other factors (including departmental size, grade inflation during the process and so on). It focused on what the TQA was meant to be about - assessing actual performance in the context of each department's stated objectives - while implying that in reality TQA visits had taken into account a number of other empirically problematic factors (e.g., the type of institution and so on). The published results are quite startling. Oxford is the only one out of the Top Ten in the TQA table to appear in the revised Top Ten. York (Number One in the old table) plummets to Number 57, Lancaster is down from 7th to 41st and LSE a massive drop from 9th to 72nd. Meanwhile the Number One spot goes to Sheffield Hallam (up from 48th in the old table), Number Two is Middlesex (formerly Number 54) and so on. We report this not to bemoan our sudden drop (quite frankly, there is something almost appealing about finding that being seventh in reality translates as being 41st) but simply to reiterate just how deeply absurd these tables are. The authors of the current revised study note that the TQA cost £30 million to implement up to 2001, and yet, based on their research and the indications it provides that the TQA did not actually offer a balanced account of teaching in relation to objectives, they argue that the money was wasted. Those of us who have undergone the processes (and idiocies) of the TQA - the vast amounts of energy spent on creating paper trails – have long been aware that it was in no way about teaching quality, and that it did little if nothing to improve teaching. We now know, too, that it might have produced highly skewed results while wasting large amounts of money that could have been spent on something innovative, like improving quality in universities by providing more resources for research and teaching. We do not know whether the revised table is any more empirically or academically sound than the old one. Yet the vast amount of variability implies that one should not put much faith in the old table - and maybe not in the new one either. subtext has now revised the revised tables, however, factoring in important elements overlooked by the academic revising the original. These include proximity to Morecambe, the provision of good canal-side pubs where teachers can refresh themselves, number of members of staff who go to Blackburn Rovers home games, and the distance between the central University administration building and the nearest Post Office. Taking these vital factors into account, surprise, surprise, none other than Lancaster University heads the revised table, Cambridge goes down to 66th, York remains at 72nd and LSE has been disqualified. *************************************************** A thin-looking agenda produced more discussion than might have been expected. The meeting began with reports from Fiona Aiken on the membership of the Working Party to review the effectiveness of Senate, which will have its first meeting on 29 November, and on new student registrations, judged to be generally satisfactory. Andrew Neal then reported on developments in the Phase IV Residences Project, saying that unless a solution could be found in a meeting to be held that evening, the construction of the new residences for Grizedale College would be delayed, probably for a year. The problem was that UPP, the company which will own and manage the residences, and the likely constructors, NorWest Holst, had failed to agree a contract, and the University - a bystander in this commercial negotiation - needed to be satisfied that any construction plan was feasible in terms of delivery while guaranteeing acceptable quality, a process which was likely to take time. Father Hugh Pollock, Principal of Grizedale, described the delay as a 'disaster' for the college, and after a sharp exchange received assurances from the VC that the college would be supported over the period of the delay and would be kept fully informed of developments. Andrew Neal agreed that the extra time could be used to attend to social and administrative resources for the college in the new building, which had been outside the original 'funding envelope'. Following a question from a LUSU representative, Senate was assured that no students had signed up for non-existent rooms. There were brief, pertinent and generally supportive discussions on proposals for revisions to the packages of financial support for undergraduates, planned for introduction in the 2008-09 academic year, the draft of new disciplinary regulations produced by Professor Rowe, who was present to introduce them, a paper on the university's E-learning strategy, and a paper on disability equality, with an accompanying action plan. The proposals for a People Strategy aroused more contention, a number of senators expressing worry about their implications for collegiality and morale, and for the role of heads of departments, particularly when it came to delivering on the key actions. Others commented it was hard to recognize a university in all of this. Professor May remarked that he had previously encountered the term 'talent management' only in the record industry, where it reflected a conception of talent as innate and finite. The senate agreed to note the document after receiving assurances that it would not be implemented without full consultation with relevant groups, including the trade unions. **************************************************** AND SEGUEING NEATLY INTO THE UMAG ARTICLE ... Below is the next part of subtext's introduction to UMAG. Before we glide smoothly into that, an aside. An interesting question was asked at Senate by the Fylde JCR President. He enquired what the acronym 'UMAG' stands for and what its exact constitutional position was. The VC answered, but some Senate members were left with the impression from his reply that UMAG is actually an extra-constitutional body, with no authority or official status. Can this be true? UMAG is a quango? Perhaps an expert in the structures of the University will enlighten us. ******************************************************** UMAG AND THE UNIVERSITY'S COMMITTEE STRUCTURES In the last issue questions were raised about what UMAG is and its constitutional position and legitimacy. subtext readers were promised some thoughts on its relationship with other committees. What is it, are there dangers, and what predictions might be made about the future? UMAG has some formal monitoring roles. For example, the Audit Committee clears its annual programme of work in advance with UMAG and all draft internal audit reports are considered there before being seen by the Audit Committee. Implicitly, Council expects that proposals it receives will have been thought about by UMAG as well as by Council committees, and it would be a strange situation, even if UMAG in its current form did not exist, if items such as annual budgets and final accounts, risk registers and performance indicators, and major building plans, were not discussed by small groups of senior officers before seeing the wider light of day. UMAG also has explicit responsibility for dealing with breaking news, and for routing immediate action, and in that capacity is acting as a wider version of the Vice-Chancellor's office. UMAG sees early drafts of all major policy and operational documents on their way to key bodies, in time for them to be substantially re-written if necessary. This process has several advantages. The final versions of documents should have greater clarity and precision. Non-viable ideas can be kicked away without damage to reputation and agreement reached about what should be sent round. The dangers are equally obvious. Tedium can set in for those people who see the documents several times on their passage through the committee cycle and there is the potential for some impatience, not to say open irritation, if later significant changes are suggested, it perhaps being felt that if UMAG time and thought has been invested, there may not be much left to say. Options may become more bland, and there is a danger that disadvantages of proposals aired at UMAG might not see their way into the final version, while at the same time those round the UMAG table are not expected to challenge in public proposals that have been considered there. There may also be a tendency to make report items out of policy issues, on the grounds that they are merely operational. A deeper problem relates to how business for discussion is generated. Readers of UMAG minutes will be aware that most business comes from either the Academic Division or the Finance and Resources Division. Some reaches UMAG from the Vice-Chancellor, the four pro-vice-chancellors or the Director of Research and Enterprise Services. The missing element is agenda items from the deans, who appear to be reacting to business generated by others. It can mean that potentially divisive and explosive proposals, such as those for professorial scales and distinguished professors, or the recent 'People Strategy' (see the Senate report), do not have the benefit of being fully considered by faculty policy and resources committees before going off to the Human Resources Committee. This apparent passivity might not matter, were it not that the framing of the UMAG agenda in turn plays such a major part in determining what the key bodies of the university will be considering. The consequence is that the key areas of the university - teaching, research, new ventures and partnerships, external reputation, the future student body and present student experience – all of which are being separately shaped in the three faculties and the School of Lifelong Learning are proceeding silently, uninformed by input from the major bodies of the university, and lacking the means to share experiences between them. Over time these local practices and procedures could form ever deeper and unbridgeable channels; and while the work of the faculties could be unheard and unknown, the input from UMAG, and predominantly from administrative colleagues, becomes all - encompassing and focussed mainly around resource management. The danger for the future is therefore that this partitioning of the university's business into sealed compartments will intensify and there will be less and less shared understanding of issues and opportunities; those 'up there' will make sure that the university is running smoothly and without risk, and those 'out there' pursue the key functions of the university. The two need scarcely interact, and each faculty will pursue its own agenda in relative isolation from the others and from the centre. The vaunted multidisciplinary openness between areas will shrink, and the problems of internal communication, a difficult issue for all large and complex organisations, may intensify. Optimists might remark that the very open-endedness of UMAG's remit gives it the ability to contribute to the remedy as well as the problem. It has the means to rebalance its own agenda to reflect better the full range of purposes of the university – though opinions may differ about these - and to present its own business in terms of options for debate rather than confirmation. It can, if it has the will, empower the other bodies of the university rather than weaken them. Can it rise to the challenge? Currently, the signs are not good. *************************************************** subtext readers will probably have noticed that there are convulsions
at Oxford University at the moment. It may have struck some readers that
the debate there is not dissimilar to the one presently occupying ourselves.
Consider the following: The central problem appears to be twofold: that proposals from the academic body could be vetoed by the ruling Council, and that 'academics propose, but Council disposes' - the academic body can decide what it likes, but if the Council refuses to fund a decision then it is difficult to see what recourse they have. As is so often the case in business, the holder of the budget makes the decisions. This is, of course, a mere sketch of a complex issue, and The Guardian Education website is worth a look for anyone interested in pursuing it further (see http://tinyurl.com/ym8bux). It is worth noticing that the VC of Cambridge put up similar proposals a few years ago, which were overwhelmingly rejected by the academics, and the VC departed soon after. Cambridge's new VC has decided, at least for the moment, not to pursue the issue. The Oxford decision will plainly be crucial for developments in Cambridge. The parallels with Lancaster are striking, and subtext will be keeping an eye on developments. We leave you with an observation from Nicholas Bamforth, a leading opponent of the reforms at Oxford. 'Oxford and Cambridge are Britain's only two world-leading Universities. It is no coincidence that they are Britain's only two democratically structured universities.' Now, we may well consider that it isn't as simple as that, but it's an interesting thought ... ********************************************************** The 'News' and 'People In the News' columns in LU Text have always been a subject of fascination. Some names crop up every week, some never. It is always amusing to see how, particularly at times when Promotion Committees are preparing to meet, a passing allusion on page 7 of the Upper Westphalia Gleaner And Advertiser free-sheet can become 'News', and how a really dedicated publicity junkie can present the exact same item in both 'News' (this has been done by so and so) and in 'People in the News' (so and so has done this). Of course, much good work is done at Lancaster, and much of it probably deserves to be more reported and isn't. What is interesting is the way that it has come to be assumed that almost any mention of almost any activity or statement of almost any description in almost any part of the media is, by definition, A Good Thing. There are, however, occasions when items somehow slip through the fine mesh of the LU Text net. We offer you one such recent omission, perhaps all the more surprising given it relates to our (by some distance) most-referenced colleague, Professor Cary Cooper. Apparently he has been quoted in the Evening Standard regarding 'psychologists' claim to have developed a mathematical formula which allows them to grade the nation's sporting triumphs'. His erudite remarks, however, found little favour with Ben Goldacre in his piece on Bad Science (Guardian 18 November - http://tinyurl.com/tdj83) who rails against such research work and the academics that seek to publicise it. Goldacre's article was not mentioned in the list of Lancaster worthies for last week. Apparently there is such a thing as bad publicity. Some feedback here from subtext readers would be useful – do we, as a community, feel that such 'soft' research adds to the gaiety of nations, or does it just make us look daft? ******************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF 1. STRIKE ACTION AT EDGE HILL? As the repercussions of the recent pay modernisation agreement and its implementation at Lancaster continue to reverberate, subtext noted with interest developments at Britain's newest university, Edge Hill. University and College Union (UCU) members appear set to take strike action beginning on 29 November unless talks to resolve a dispute over the imposition of a new contract on staff are successful. Edge Hill VC John Cater – a person not previously associated with hard line management tactics – apparently has attempted to impose a unique contract as part of the process of implementing the national pay framework. The new contract seemingly would mean effective pay cuts for many staff over the length of their careers. In response, UCU members have voted to take strike action and action short of a strike. Additionally, 60 members of staff are considering taking legal action against Edge Hill for their dismissal and re-engagement on inferior contracts. Edge Hill was recently awarded undergraduate degree awarding powers and is no longer an accredited college of the university. However, one wonders whether Dr Cater has been consulting with our senior managers? *************************************************** 2. CAMPUS RENTS There is every sign that we may be shooting ourselves in the foot with the latest rent increases for residences on campus. Although the proposals have yet to be formally agreed by the Finance Committee, a 6% increase is in the offing as the university seeks to cover rising costs and also – belatedly – place additional infrastructure and utilities costs for southwest campus onto the student body. As one cynic remarked, 'after all, who else can be expected to pay for the university's miscalculations and change of direction'? Institutional amnesia seems to have set in regarding undertakings previously given to students when these projects were being discussed in Council and elsewhere, but this is for the student body to take up – and there are indications they might be doing this. More pragmatically, there is the (much improved) standard and availability of local housing and how competitive our accommodation is compared to it. Set alongside the growing levels of student debt, it might very well result in more empty rooms on campus, which in turn will result in further pressure to increase rents. It's no wonder there is an air of desperation as residence officers seek to persuade students to sign up for rooms next year. ****************************************************** BAILRIGG URBAN MYTHS – AN OCCASIONAL SERIES It is unsurprising that there are a fund of stories told around the University that are the equivalent of the 'alligators in the sewers' stories that went around New York in the '70s. We hope that one day a PhD thesis will collect and discuss them as a contribution to folklore. subtext hereby inaugurates an occasional series of Bailrigg urban myths, and will endeavour to investigate and de-bunk (or, indeed, where appropriate, to bunk) them. Here are a couple to start with. 1. MYTH: Students used to have a race from County to Grizedale without
touching the ground, rather like the race around the cloisters at Oxford. If you have heard any good stories then let subtext know and we will investigate. Future issues will deal with smashed pianos in County, prostitution rackets in Pendle and a whole lot more. Watch this space. ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Ian Reader, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Alan Whitaker. |