| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue twenty 9 March 2007 ***************************************************** '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. CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, bullying of staff, Senate report, Study Group, heads of department meetings with the vice-chancellor, college bars review, urban myth, ten tips for moving into your new office, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL What is a university for? The same question began our editorial in issue 3 (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/archive/issue003.htm) over a year ago. The fact that this question is currently a live one is itself significant. Just as the question of national identity only becomes topical when such identity appears to be in crisis, so too the question of the purpose of a university only comes alive when there is no consensual answer. What universities should be doing has itself now become a contentious issue. At the last meeting of University Court, two senior members, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Judd, expressed a sense of unease, as what they felt to be the central core of a university's mission appears to be dropping out of view. Are the central values of teaching, learning, advancing knowledge and truth and challenging conventional wisdom being displaced by too much concern with finance, funding, profit and serving business and the economy? Insofar as this is the case, it has to be admitted that this is to a large extent caused by external pressures, not least from government. It has also to be said that this phenomenon is by no means unique to Lancaster. But Lord Judd's point was a salient one. Without in any way denying these very real pressures, he encouraged universities to be more vocal in defending their core values to the wider world. In wider terms, this may have been one of the most important comments at Court. It is not difficult to see why. Government has repeatedly made clear its view that an important function of universities (if not their most important function) is to serve the 'wider society' by responding to the needs of business, technology and the wider economy. Ministers have not been afraid to draw out the implications of this, not least in questioning the 'utility' of disciplines that do not appear directly to contribute to this goal (such as classics, mediaeval history or philosophy, for example). But it might well be argued that if this is the 'conventional wisdom', one function of universities is surely to challenge, resist and at the very least question such ideas. But all too often, the response of Vice-Chancellors and academics alike is to accept these pre-determined parameters and achieve the best that they can within them. But is not the purpose of universities more radical than this? Is it not to question these parameters themselves rather than meekly to work within them? Further, it may well be argued that for a university to pursue the latter course alone is tantamount to selling its soul. Of course, we have to recognise that in the so called 'real world', the displacement of complicity by resistance tout court is not a viable option. The politics of our contested society makes it inevitable that there will be an untidy mixture of complicity and resistance. But the fear of many (and this, we suspect, was the fear being expressed by Lord Judd) is that the politics of resistance has been all too conspicuous by its absence, while the politics of complicity has been ubiquitous. This is particularly a question for our Vice-Chancellors, who are perceived to be our spokespersons to the wider world. But it should be emphasised that this is not a question for them alone; it is a question for us all. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF The University has been developing a new approach to professorial pay and review. While this in itself is hardly headline news, the concern continues that important decisions are made without proper consultation. The VC is scheduled to give a presentation of the new system on 22nd March, as though it is already a fait accompli. The method used hitherto for the review of professorial pay has produced substantial ill-feeling because of its manifold faults. The Vice-Chancellor has realised this, and decided a new system must be operationalised. Now, one would have thought, that for a new system to work well and have the support of professorial staff, it might have been a good management strategy to consult early and widely, including with union representatives, in the decision making process. Once again, this does not appear to have happened. ******* subtext readers may have been perplexed earlier last week to see one of the road sweepers rather sheepishly taking down all the posters in Alexandra Square. All was revealed when SCAN was published. It included an article on a recent Union Council debate about a proposal from the university to have all fly posters removed in return for a hundred A3 notice boards dotted around the university. The proposal was narrowly defeated, and so presumably further talks will be needed; but it might be asked why a pre-emptive move was made to remove posters before a policy was in place. In fact, because this week is the time for the sabbatical officer elections, the newly vacant pillars are already being plastered with fresh posters put up by candidates' supporters. It will be interesting to see whether they are permitted to stay in place! ******* subtext is pleased to note a recent birthday party. The Library recently celebrated the fortieth anniversary of its opening on the Bailrigg site in February 1967. Against the background of a busy termtime day, Library staff and guests gathered at a lunch for which many of the former had prepared and brought in delicious additions. Numerous colleagues from earlier decades were present. Arthur Davies (former University Librarian), who gave a vote of thanks in response to Jacqueline Whiteside's speech of welcome, was in particularly sparkling form. Reminiscences triggered related memories, photographs were passed round, and a special cake was cut. All present thoroughly enjoyed themselves and left vowing to return for the fiftieth birthday in 2017. ******* On 16th February, a reception was held to bid farewell to Pendle's outgoing licensee, Guy Downing. What will happen in the wake of his departure is still unknown. Chris Grocott, the Assistant Licensee of Furness, temporarily took over the reins in the immediate aftermath of Guy's departure. Since then, responsibility has been transferred to Andy Shaw, Licensee of Lonsdale, who spends 25% of his time in Pendle. The bulk of the work is being done by Assistant Licensee, Tom Sharman. The Principal, Peter Scullion, has requested the immediate appointment of a permanent Designated Premises Supervisor (licensee). But BRG (Budget Review Group) has noted the interim solution, and has deferred further consideration until after the completion of the work of the College Bar Financial Review Group (for more on this, see below). This is effectively what the Vice-Chancellor stated publicly at Court. So it looks as though the issue has been placed in temporary cold storage. As soon as the Review Group reports, subtext will report to its readers. ***************************************************** DISCUSSION ARTICLE: BULLYING OF STAFF We want to start a university-wide conversation on a rather contentious subject, bullying. It is a social, and not just legal, issue. Here there is a paradox: university rules protect staff against bullying. But because there are rules against bullying, it is harder to discuss it. We think that it can be useful to raise some of the key issues around the social aspects of bullying - not as an exhaustive discussion by any means, but as a way of getting a conversation started. To help promote open dialogue on the issue of bullying, we have also asked for a reply from Personnel, which is given immediately after this article. According to the Lancaster University Report on Harassment Issues 2005-2006: 'There is a perception that bullying is a growing aspect of life at Lancaster - perhaps because of both a general increase in pressure at work, as well as resentment by some staff at a closer more active style of management currently being encouraged by the university. It is also commonly agreed that the term "bullying" is used for a very wide range of situations, and that this variety of usage is not necessarily helpful in finding solutions by which staff may continue to work together. In the 2005 Staff Survey, 10% of staff reported an experience of workplace bullying. Although this figure is well below other sector survey findings which range from 15% to 25%, the University finds this unacceptable.' The comparison to higher rates elsewhere may be an effort to soften the blow, but 10% is still an alarming figure. The 10% figure may be an understatement, and masks variation in bullying across the university. Even one case of bullying is too many. The university does appear to be taking the issue of bullying more seriously, but that may be due to the legal risks and consequences of not being seen as a 'good employer'. There are external factors which have contributed to the spread of bullying as a part of a more active management style or culture. For example, pressure around the RAE can contribute to bullying, as the university seeks to sustain or improve rankings. In a managerial sense, bullying can contribute to issues such as lost productivity, lower morale, problems with teamwork, and damaged working relationships - even though it may also be a response to such issues. The personal implications are far deeper, and can lead individuals to retreat out of fear, to feel helpless and voiceless, to experience stress and psychological problems, or to quit their jobs. The idea of fear is central to bullying, whether or not it is intentionally introduced into the workplace. Bullying thrives on fear. Fear makes it harder for people to contribute ideas, or to feel valued. And fear weakens confidence, and reinforces the uneven power relations that contribute to bullying. Again, the social aspects of bullying need wider attention. Bullying should not be a taboo subject anywhere on campus, but unfortunately it often is. In some cases, those making the claims may be regarded as politically weak or unnecessarily confrontational in raising the issue. The power dynamics in individual departments, and the difficulty in listening to the needs of staff, can be part of the conditions that make bullying possible. Colleagues may need to be politically skilled at expressing concern without putting themselves at risk of bullying, retaliation, or otherwise interfering with their own working relationships. It can be shattering to morale to see colleagues get hurt. The issue of bullying becomes more complicated by the simple fact that staff are not all the same, and perceive interactions differently. Staff also come from a range of social and cultural backgrounds. What seems like standard practice in a forceful management style might come across as bullying to many. Perhaps there might be lessons for all of us from schoolchildren who realised that some bullies did not know that they were being bullies - and developed a scheme to tell their tormentors about it. This led to a reduction in bullying. Many of those who bully staff at Lancaster might not realise it either. They need to know, and we all need to be open to listening to one another. We need to look out for one another, no matter how we view the politics within our departments or in the university as a whole. There needs to be the beginning of a conversation, in every department and across the university, about bullying. Lancaster can and should do better on this issue. ******* RESPONSE FROM PERSONNEL We would like to thank 'subtext' for continuing the conversation about this important issue and for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We agree wholeheartedly that the issue of bullying is a social and not solely a legal problem however the reality is that the legal aspects cannot be ignored. We also agree that just one case of bullying is one too many and that the university community must focus on creating an environment where such behaviour simply cannot thrive. The causes of bullying are complex and are a mixture of individual, organisational and social factors. The People Strategy 2006 - 11 outlines some of the key activities that we hope will over time address some of these factors. The People Strategy builds on the expectations detailed in the Staff Charter that all staff can be expected to be treated with respect and trust and that the University will have a zero tolerance to 'discrimination, violence, bullying or other forms of prejudice or harassment'. Specific initiatives flowing from this are:- The University is committed to the Dignity at Work initiative a national project between AMICUS and the DTI to 'encourage employee representatives and employers to build cultures in which respect for individuals is regarded as an essential part of the conduct of all those who work in the organization'. Through this project the University will work cooperatively with trade union representatives and staff to find tangible ways of promoting dignity in the workplace. Another important initiative is the Stress Management tool kit that is currently out for consultation. The tool kit is designed to help staff and managers identify factors in the work environment that lead to stress and which can undermine healthy working relations. By identifying these issues early and addressing them, damaging situations may be avoided. The People Strategy also focuses on supporting Heads of Department by providing them with the skills and development associated with good management practice and effective change management. Work will also begin to provide consistent tools to support effective management of performance; these will help to set and communicate standards of behaviour for staff and for these expectations to be transparent and understood. Finally work is underway to update key employment polices and procedures. Our current policies are cumbersome and difficult to administer and can deter staff from raising complaints about bullying. It is hoped that once agreed a new set of policies will provide the proper protection for staff while at the same time establishing clear expectations for behaviour. We trust this provides a flavour of the kind of initiatives that are under way to address some of the issues raised by incidents of bullying. None of these provide a magic solution but we hope that together they will go some way to shaping a culture where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Finally any members of staff that feel they are being bullied can contact the harassment network, their trade union representative or members of the personnel department for a confidential discussion about how to deal with the situation and their options, including raising a complaint. Individual formal complaints of bullying are taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. Throughout this process the needs of both parties are recognised and every effort is made to support everyone involved. Val Walshe, Director of Personnel ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT Another very short meeting of Senate was held on 21st February (42 minutes according to the reckoning of some). It began with the usual reports by the Vice-Chancellor and others on 'matters of significance'. These included the Management School's excellent showing in the recent Financial Times MBA League Table and successful negotiation of PQRs by IPPP and Physics. Amanda Chetwynd, PVC for the Colleges and Student Experience reported early findings from the student survey - general satisfaction along with desire for some changes including better catering and healthier food choices. Section B (the 'items thought to require discussion') began with the recommendation to lay down the existing Institute of Women's Studies and launch a new 'Centre for Gender and Women's Studies'. The latter will be fully interdisciplinary and headed by a Director who may be drawn from across the university and who will serve for three years, assisted by a management committee which also has members drawn from across the university. However, there will be a special connection with FASS by way of Sociology in particular. The latter will house existing members of IWS, and will administer the undergraduate and postgraduate activities of the Centre. The proposal was introduced by the Dean of FASS, Tony Gatrell, and accepted unanimously. Acknowledgement was made of the longstanding success of women's studies in Lancaster, the contribution of those who have been part of this, and the importance of retaining and building on existing strength in this area. It was reported that a new Graduate Employment Policy Committee is to be set up. Finally, the V-C introduced an item on a new link with Olashore International School, Nigeria, which was presented by Bob McKinlay, Deputy V-C. The V-C told senators that this item had been included in Section B (discussion items) at the request of Gavin Hyman in his capacity as a member of the senate steering group (why this was said was not clear; members of the committee routinely request that items be moved from one section to another). There was a useful discussion of the item, which approved it in principle, and raised issues about language training and financial support of students. ***************************************************** MORE ON STUDY GROUP ... Rumours have reached subtext that the likely location of Study Group staff as and when they are recruited is the ground floor of Bailrigg House, now that the estates Division staff have vacated it and returned to their newly refurbished and rule bound working space on B floor of University House. Who makes these decisions? The international foundation year students, we understand, will be taught elsewhere and space is being sought. It is now expected that the original steering group on this project will be laid down, to be replaced by one chaired by the Academic Registrar, Lesley Wareing, which will look at the many remaining issues to do with implementing this initiative in the short time available. For example, Study Group was proposing to provide support services, including welfare, but only during working hours. It seems evident to date that the Students Union and the Colleges have been giving more thought to these important issues than our senior management, concerned as they are with the high level aspects and not the detail! ***************************************************** HEADS OF DEPARTMENT MEETINGS WITH THE VICE-CHANCELLOR For some time, the Vice-Chancellor has met with Heads of Department at regular informal luncheon meetings which happen around five times a year. These meetings have never constituted an official university body, but are intended to improve communication between senior academics and administrators. Lately, many HoDs have become increasingly dissatisfied with the format and conduct of these meetings. In particular, they have become unhappy with the way in which the VC and other senior administrators make a series of reports, on which HoDs comment to greater or lesser degrees, but where the participation of HoDs is minimal and essentially reactive. They have therefore collectively written to the VC, requesting that the format be changed, so that HoDs may raise any matters of common concern to be discussed collectively with the VC. Thus far, the VC has been resistant to any change, quite reasonably pointing out that the opportunity already exists for any HoD to raise any matter of concern, but that this opportunity is rarely taken. Needless to say, the HoDs concerned have been unhappy with this response and want to pursue the matter further. What are we to make of this? In some ways, the whole issue is a microcosm of the predicament faced by Senate. For those who seek a more open, collegial and enjoyable forum for the discussion and resolution of University business at Senate, it has been traditional to blame the heavy-handed, aggressive and defensive attitude of the members of senior management. This is no doubt partly true and, indeed, we have said as much before in subtext. But this is only part of the problem. Senators also have a duty to exercise their undoubted constitutional right to question, criticise and discuss. Within the currently existing format, Senators can do this (and should do it more often), even if the atmosphere is not such as to encourage this. The same may perhaps be said of the HoD meetings. HoDs are no doubt right to want to change the atmosphere and, perhaps, format of their meetings. But perhaps they should also have been doing more within the currently existing format which in itself would have helped to make the current situation less problematic than it obviously is. ***************************************************** COLLEGE BARS FINANCIAL REVIEW The college bars financial review group established by the Vice- Chancellor has commenced its work (see issues 18 and 19 for the background to this). As expected, its remit is narrowly focused and will include a review of recent and projected college bar income and expenditure and related issues. This will include the financial performance of the Bars over the period 2004/05 to 2006/07 as well as out-year projections. The group will formulate recommendations for preferred models for running the college bars which secure a bar in each college whilst ensuring that the bars operate within a clear and sustainable financial model for the future. This seems all well and good but any recommendations need to take account of the simple fact that the bars are much more than drinking places for the students and staff. They are key social spaces for each college and their students, and are much valued as such. Models for running them must start from this premise if they are to be successful. Bar Wars have been a recurring feature of campus life at Lancaster, often as a consequence of inept attempts by the centre to exert tighter control in the belief the bars could be run more efficiently. Putting aside the fact that currently the bars collectively are tasked with producing a 65% gross profit - and get very close to it - they need to be seen as a key element of service provision for students. Furthermore, we understand that the net profit tends to average out at 22 or 23%, which compares favourably with the net profit of conferences and catering of around 18%. Hopefully the group will take these and other wider considerations into account. The group expects to report to the Vice-Chancellor by the end of May. Given his previously expressed views on these issues, it is to be hoped the group will assert their independence if needs be. **************************************************** URBAN MYTH It has long been said that the old Fylde College offices are haunted. Several people have told us this, though no one has actually seen a ghost, or knows anyone personally who has. It is a classic 'friend of a friend' myth. (For anyone who wants to spend the night in the room with a flask of coffee in the interests of research, it is the room at the corner of Fylde and the Spine, opposite the coffee bar.) ***************************************************** TEN TIPS FOR MOVING INTO YOUR NEW OFFICE Recently, a number of university departments have relocated to new buildings on campus. In some cases, this can lead to a bewildering set of 'tips' about moving into new offices. To our surprise, something similar is also happening at Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U), as detailed in this memo. From: Russel K. Windmarth, Director of Estates Dear all, Welcome, everybody, as you finish your moves. To help you manage your new offices in the most appropriate way, here are ten bits of practical advice: 1. Clean wall policy. No photographs, posters, calendars, or signs, except
by special permission (see form HW344-90R). No blue tack, tape, or nails
under any circumstances. Enjoy being in your new environment, and welcome again, everyone. Best wishes, ***************************************************** LETTERS We're Well Chuffed: How to Recruit Students Dear subtext, Thank you for your article about the admissions circular to applicants which reads 'We're chuffed that you're considering Lancaster as your University for next year'. It is indeed useful for us older folk in the Linguistics department to learn something of the young peoples' lingo these days, although I have it on good authority that 'we're well chuffed' would be slightly better stylistically. What we need now is an initiative for recruiting research students, so I propose that we have the following message sent to all mobile phones in the country which are known to belong to graduates: Y b a mr or ms when u cd b a dr? Wiv a phd from Lancaster Uni u cn earn £££ more & impress ur frenz! Just txt ur thesis (max 1000 chars) 2 [PREMIUM RATE NUMBER]. (Call charge £3168 per text). Top profs will chk ur thesis & txt back ur degree certificate in 24 hrs. R U UP 4 DA BIG D? GET 1 NOW FROM LANCS UNI!!! I trust this will have the desired effect on recruitment. Mark Sebba, Linguistics ******* Wikipedia Dear subtext, I note your discussion of the Lancaster University entry in Wikipedia in the last Subtext. In case the discussion goes further and more rigorous investigation of Lancaster entries ensues, I want to 'come out' to admit that, although one of the dimmest lights in this university's firmament, I actually have my own separate entry in Wikipedia under Geraldine (Gerry) Harris. In case this looks like appalling hubris on my part, my purpose in pointing this out is to indicate that I did not create this entry myself (nor was it created by friends, family etc.). In fact, I only discovered it by accident just after Xmas (I admit I was googling myself ... but there was a good reason - honest) and was surprised and puzzled as to this sudden rise to fame. After reading the entry history, it became clear that it was actually put in on the insistence of the partner of a much more illustrious Geraldine Harris and in the face of protest by a Wikipedia editor, who does not think I actually merit the distinction (fairly enough). What he says is something on the lines that they don't think they should include the 'average don'. In short, I am in Wikipedia simply to differentiate my publications from those of the Geraldine Harris who is an Egyptologist at Oxford but not an 'average don' because she is also a successful and highly productive writer of children's books. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been mistaken for her but I assume that her concern is that should confusion arise, some of my work on feminism and performance is definitely not suitable for children. I do have to admit that having discovered the entry I then got someone to update the entry for me.(o vanity)... Nevertheless, I'd like to state that fame has not gone to my head, nor unfortunately has it had any effect on my career or my daily existence, so that any other 'dons', average or otherwise who do not appear in the Lancaster entry but feel they should, can be assured you are not missing anything. I am available for autographs during office hours. Gerry Harris, Theatre Studies [See also this story on how hard it is to get an entry deleted from Wikipedia: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,,1882183,00.html. Part of the problem seems to be that the more you argue that you shouldn't be on it, the more well known you become, so the more worthy of an entry - eds.] ******* Recycling Dear subtext, To follow on from the letter in subtext about the new recycling bins in University House.... well, there is at least one for confidential waste as well. Unfortunately, it's in the middle of a corridor so anyone who is passing could get to it. Given that it is on C floor, which has a fair passing trade, then I'm not convinced this has been fully thought through. Catherine Pacey, Communications and Marketing ******* Carbon capture Dear Fellow Travellers, Academics are encouraged to travel, and of course it's one of the perks of the job, but in the context of global warming it looks increasingly problematic. The RAE could simplify its approach to assessing the international standing of departments by just requiring them to submit their collective carbon footprints. Maybe some of those distant conferences aren't actually worth attending, but if we decide a journey is necessary, then we should presumably consider carbon offsetting. However, an hour spent googling the subject reveals a bewildering range of schemes, together with critical reviews claiming that many are little more than scams, or that the whole idea is misguided. There must be colleagues whose research touches on these matters. What would they would recommend? What are the best schemes? (And can we include offsetting fees in our expenses claims for business travel?) Andrew Sayer, Sociology ******* Junk mail Dear subtext, The last three subtext mailings have all gone to my 'junk' mail folder. They are not marked as spam. Is there a reason for this? David Andrew, Biological Sciences [When this problem first started, we checked with ISS. Since the e-mails are not marked as ISS-Detected Spam, it is not due to ISS filtering of messages. We welcome suggestions from readers on how to address this problem. You can also read past issues of subtext by visiting http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext - eds.] ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Alan Whitaker. |