| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 25 15 June 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. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, accommodation crisis?, graduate beer festival, city-university relationships, community outreach for staff, the Carleton, Wallups's world, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL It seems that many readers share our conviction that the 'town and gown' theme is a pertinent and timely issue. Our approach to the discussion has been deliberately broad - ranging from university-city relations, city architecture and planning, community volunteer work and the nature of the impact of the university and city on each other. In this issue, the discussion is extended further. Marion McClintock writes on the evolving nature of the relationship between university and city, we ourselves pick up on one of Marion's themes with a piece on volunteer work in the wider community, and we also carry a letter from Denis McCaldin on the nature of city planning. As noted briefly in the last issue, the university's Community Prizes recently recognised staff contributions to the wider community. Interestingly, this prize is conceived as recognising community work of two distinct types. It is intended to recognise on the one hand outstanding contributions to the internal university community, and on the other contributions to the wider community beyond the university. Both aspects are, of course, important and although subtext has been talking more about the latter in recent issues, we have also emphasised the former in various issues over the last year or so. Nominations for this annual prize could be more numerous, and this probably reflects the fact that staff simply do not have the time to contribute as much as they would wish either to the university community or to the wider local community. No doubt, the main reason for this is another recurring theme: the amount of time staff spend on needless bureaucracy and in pursuit of spurious 'performance indicators' that detract from true scholarship as well as community service. Indeed, this issue was highlighted again in a recent article in the THES, which observed that 'scholars warned that new systems for judging staff performance are reducing academe to a series of narrow output measurements, including publication volume and research grant income. They say this distracts academics from pursuing truly ground-breaking ideas in favour of low-risk options.' Of course, this process has been underway for some time, and there are fears that this trend will intensify in the post-RAE era. The article goes on to claim that Bert Sakmann, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology in 1991, would have failed to meet Imperial College, London's specified targets during six of the ten most important years of his career. For those who seek a parallel example from the humanities, we need only note that had Ludwig Wittgenstein taken up his appointment today, he would doubtless have failed his probationary period on the grounds of lack of productivity. Happily, Trinity College, Cambridge (which alone has produced 31 Nobel prize winners) was more indulgent of Wittgenstein's apparent sloth, for which the world of philosophy and the wider humanities will long be in its debt. We hope that the drive for numerical targets does not interfere with staff's involvement in community outreach. If the institution becomes a business that does not prioritise its social responsibilities, it would be a loss indeed, for both Lancaster and other areas that would benefit. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Senate Effectiveness Working Group Rumblings continue regarding the last Senate meeting and in particular the handling of the voting on the report and recommendations of the working group. At best it was said to be confused and contradictory, with recounts on some motions being needed and when carried out producing different results. Several participants have since remarked that issues might have been deliberately obfuscated in order to ensure certain recommendations were carried, and it seems clear that all, particularly senior officers, might benefit from a better understanding of Standing Orders and Procedures. Confirmation of what was decided may await an agreed final minute. Interestingly, there is now some debate as to whether the working group had actually signed off the report before it went to Senate. Maybe the members should ask for a further meeting to clarify and confirm what transpired at Senate? None of this, however, seems to deter our senior managers from pressing onward as quickly as possible (see the next item). ****** University Council At short notice the date of its next meeting has been changed to Monday 18 June in order to ensure the Pro-Chancellor can be present to chair it. However, accommodating the latter may mean that attendance is lower than normal, given that other members also have prior commitments. The agenda reveals further evidence of what might be termed 'unseemly haste' on governance matters. The proposals on turning the statutes relating to the Senate are there with a comment that no one has responded to the consultation process - hardly surprising, after a fortnight and at this time of year. Minutes of the Senate discussion are included in the agenda, presumably without Senate members having seen and agreed them. There is also a proposal to reappoint the Pro-Chancellor for another five years. Which group agreed on this proposal and what soundings were taken? If accepted it will be for commendation to the Court in January. The Committee on Relationships between the University and the Students Union (CRUSU) is being turned into a liaison body with no powers of its own and with no scope for dealing with emergency or special situations. One can only assume that LUSU has agreed to this but it represents the loss of an important formal mechanism whereby student concerns and issues could be raised and, hopefully, addressed. ****** Professorial Pay Following the agreement of the Human Resources Committee to the new proposals, the assimilation process to the new bands has commenced. Members of the professoriate have now received letters inviting them to provide a CV and a covering statement indicating why they should be in band 2 (the band formerly known as Senior Professor) or band 3 (Distinguished Professor) and how they meet the descriptors for these bands. Paperwork has to be submitted by the end of this week which has led to complaints that the time scale was ludicrously short given this is an incredibly busy time of year for most academic staff, as they seek to deal with undergraduate assessment alongside other responsibilities. Given the stated expectation that at any one time about 15% of professors will be in band 2 and 5% in band 3 it may act as a disincentive to individuals applying this time round, or it may just be that characteristic modesty is pushed to one side and the 'nothing to lose' argument takes over. Decisions are to be made by a Professorial Review Panel, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and consisting of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and the Director of Personnel. One would expect the process to be transparent and fair, of course, but it is widely predicted that disgruntlement and dissatisfaction will follow their decisions. ****** College Bars Review Group As mentioned in the last issue of subtext, the group's report is now with the Vice-Chancellor. His task cannot have been made easier by the fact that two reports have been produced and submitted. It is understood that the College Principals involved in the work of the group were unhappy with a number of its key proposals, believing they were unworkable and likely to lead to a further deterioration in the trading activities of the bars and eventually bar closures. Their minority report seeks to broaden out the debate whilst engaging with the commercial issues. The wisdom of Solomon may be required in order to move this difficult issue on. What is certain is that College JCRs and incoming LUSU sabbatical officers will be monitoring developments. ***************************************************** There are increasingly worrying signs that the university will be struck by an acute shortage of accommodation for first years in the coming academic year. The root of the problem may be traced back to last October, when first and second years were first given the opportunity of signing up for campus accommodation for the following year. There were many complaints at the time that students were being forced into making premature decisions on their living arrangements for the coming year. But the University's college and residence office was eager to fill all their UPP (University Partnerships Programme) rooms, so as to maximise financial returns. So an early recruitment campaign was thought to be necessary so as to compete effectively with city landlords. Furthermore, there was no specified limit on the number of returners who could be accommodated, given the level of demand in the past. These tactics have turned out to be too successful, however, as there now appears to be insufficient rooms available for incoming first years. Returners have been written to, assuring them that the University will allow them to be released from their contracts, if they so wish. It is unclear what the scale of the shortfall is, but it looks certain that those entering through clearing (without accommodation guarantees) will not be able to be accommodated on campus, and it is quite possible that this may extend to those admitted through the usual channels. It remains to be seen whether students will once again be housed in Lancaster hotels, as some readers will remember happening some years back. Speaking of which, memories of the last accommodation crisis are still fresh in the minds of many, leading us to ask how we could have learned so little from our previous bad experiences. One such crisis in an uncertain world may be regarded as bad luck. But to have to suffer two such similar crises in such a short period of time is surely something else. ***************************************************** GRADUATE BEER FESTIVAL It was with some dismay that subtext has heard news of the demise of the Graduate Beer Festival. Licensee Gareth Ellis inaugurated this popular event back in 2000 and it has remained a highlight in the University social calendar ever since. It was an end of term summer event frequented by staff and students alike, who relished the opportunity to sample a wide array of both popular and more specialised real ale and ciders while sitting outside in the balmy Lancaster sunshine. Apparently, the event is being terminated this year because it is unable to sustain the 65% profit now being demanded by Catering Director David Peaks, although on what authority he does this is not clear to many. It may well be thought that his time would be better spent improving the profit margins of Conferences and Catering. Furthermore, many have commented on the absurdity of this profit margin, which would mean charging customers £3 for each pint of real ale consumed. At a time when the University is making deliberate efforts to increase the recruitment of postgraduate research students, it seems bizarre that popular graduate-orientated events are disappearing into a black hole. subtext editors have already received anguished messages of regret from former overseas postgraduate students - particularly from North America - who look back with fondness on the Graduate Beer Festival as a unique Lancaster experience. Those who are still here likewise lament the loss of yet another opportunity for community interaction in a congenial setting. Once again, quality of university life is being sacrificed at the altar of productivity indicators. ***************************************************** LANCASTER: CITY/UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS By Marion McClintock The recent subtext items about the relationship of the University and the city brought to mind our arrival in Greaves in August 1968. Our next-door neighbour introduced herself as Mrs Lovett-Horn, mayor of the city in 1961 when the announcement of the new university had been made. As a keen supporter of this new development, she was delighted to greet two more newcomers to it. While she and others, including people like Douglas Clift (solicitor) and Don Waddell (town clerk) had emphasized in their bids that there was a supportive local community, keen on the arrival of a new university, that did not necessarily mean local people had taken in the implications of this new departure. One anecdotal reminder is a set of photographs, taken by a percipient student, of a 1960s rag procession in Market Street. It includes one or two of the spectators, with expressions of disbelief, bordering on horror, at the behaviour being exhibited before them. Furthermore, the city council, having willingly agreed a sizeable donation when the University was an aspiration, did not renew it, and there was keen disappointment that the University (to satisfy the University Grants Committee's condition of offering a greenfield site) had been located three miles from the city centre. No one should be in any doubt about the huge and still growing impact the University has had on the city and the district, both economically and culturally. A thorough study of its economic consequences is long overdue, but a recent guesstimate put its annual output benefit to the region at £314 million, and health and higher education have been the two most powerful economic engines locally for some time. Furthermore, because the University was growing as industry was continuing its long local decline, it acted as a safety net in its early years, averting a damaging slump prior to a process of recovery. Culturally, institutions like The Duke's Playhouse would not have opened its doors, nor perhaps the Grand Theatre have survived, without the intervention of newcomers such as Alan and Jill Betjemann, while John Manduell deftly involved local people who had already been organising music into the initial organisation of the international concert series. There are also numerous local people who are proud and pleased to relate tales of their involvement in work on the Bailrigg building site. At an early stage a Commercial and Industrial Development Bureau began to establish contacts with small local businesses, and University staff demonstrated their willingness to carry forward the work of the Civic Society and similar organisations, as well as to invest in and refurbish local properties. An early Town and Gown Club was perhaps rather stilted, and in any case tended to involve the same people as had pressed for the University to come to Lancaster in the first place. Nevertheless, the first open day mounted by the University in 1978 brought 17,000 people to Bailrigg, many for the first time, indicating that there was no lack of interest if the invitation was right. As the employment prospects grew, and the University obtained the reputation of being a good employer, that too helped its integration, and intermittent breakfast meetings in the 80s and early 90s were a useful source of informal exchange of information, ideas and concerns. It is however a measure of the sensitivity of the local community to the University that the mid-1990s cash flow problems sent ripples of anxiety around the neighbourhood that took a long time to settle out, and the more recent concerns about the University's plans for residential accommodation are still fresh memories. That particular issue is a good example of the inevitably double-edged relationship with the city. A recent article about Swansea highlighted the disfavour local people felt about students who are noisy, create litter, and are absent from the area for large parts of the year. The University of Lancaster, wishing to minimise pressure on the traffic system, act responsibly to students, especially those from overseas, and relieve the pressure on areas of the city that were becoming too student-dominated for comfort, increased the proportion of its students in residence. Rather than being commended, however, the University found it was being excoriated for putting private landlords out of business, unduly increasing the size and bulk of its built-up area to the detriment of its near neighbours, and undermining the profits of the local bus company. Thus the relationship can never be easy, and requires constant renewal. The Bailrigg Science Park, fully analysed in a recent subtext, will clearly be a point of contention as well as of potential benefit, and there too often appears to be a remoteness by both parties that makes communication tetchy or worse. The city might do more to advertise that it has a major international institution in its midst, and to take greater pride that it will shortly be one of an elite with two universities in its midst. The University in its turn might encourage its staff and senior officers to become more actively involved with the city and its many institutions. The LU Volunteering Unit sets a good example in this regard, coordinating projects by students for the local community that satisfy both the career needs of the students and the specific requirements of the local organisations. Furthermore, the three knowledge business centres that the University now sponsors, although directed as much towards the region as the city or district, nevertheless give a powerful message of involvement and commitment to local commerce and industry, while there are numerous ways in which local people can participate as visitors or students. The most recent local elections have resulted in a City Council leader with an insider's direct knowledge of the university. This change gives hope for a new beginning, with more two-way contact and interaction, and it is to be hoped the opportunity will be used wisely and well. ***************************************************** COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR STAFF: SUGGESTIONS AND POSSIBILITIES WITH THE LANCASTER UNIVERSITY VOLUNTEERING UNIT What are some of the ways that staff might become involved in community outreach? subtext spoke with the director of the Lancaster University Volunteering Unit (LUVU), Ben Matthews, to explore possibilities as part of a collaborative reflection. This led to several new possibilities, which we share with you now. Several key ideas emerged, first about LUVU's work, but also about the possible ways that LUVU might be of assistance to members of staff. LUVU's work has mainly focused on student volunteering, but the unit is very receptive to helping staff become involved in community outreach as well. There are about 300-350 students involved in LUVU's projects, doing volunteer work in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham, and Blackpool. Since the student population is transient, projects organised through LUVU are often based on activities that can be delivered within a relatively short period of time, such as a one-off activity, or lasting a term or an academic year. The aim is that projects are designed to leave the community organisation or the individuals assisted in a better position than they were in before. After being involved in one project, students come back to do more volunteering. Staff can make use of LUVU's resources, too, although this is a fairly new area for development. Obviously, staff who want to become involved in volunteering can do so without support from the University. Moreover, staff are already involved in community outreach in a variety of ways. At the same time, LUVU can help develop volunteering roles for staff if there is demand. LUVU is developing a bank of volunteer placements, which will be available in November. Community organisations will advertise through LUVU that they have a need for volunteers. This bank of volunteer placements could also be of interest to staff, if they are thinking about ways to volunteer. But there can be other ways of becoming involved, too. If there is sufficient demand, staff from different departments could 'adopt' an organisation. For example, in another town, there was a 'Community Kitchen' in which people from different organisations would volunteer one evening a month at a soup kitchen. The organisations would each raise money as well (e.g., by selling bread in their departments) for the charity. This could potentially happen at Lancaster, too, if people could identify a project or cause. With coordination through LUVU, several different departments could become involved in volunteer work for the adopted organisation. This would require a core group of committed individuals in various departments, and at least a few of their colleagues who would be willing to lend a hand now and then. If there is sufficient interest from readers, LUVU could help get this started by finding contacts and organising activity. Staff could also volunteer in the same LUVU projects alongside students, in the same capacity. For example, staff might work to support a community organisation or social enterprise in developing its ICT capacity, perhaps advising as to what technologies should or should not be adopted. Similarly, staff might become involved in student-led organisations on campus. For example, a model is already widely used in North American universities in which staff serve as 'advisors' to give feedback and support for students working in project teams. The role of advisor would be to assist students in overcoming obstacles they face in their projects and to provide another perspective or their work. Again, LUVU could help set up these possibilities for those who are interested in becoming involved. If staff do not want a long-term commitment, they could lend their expertise in particular projects (e.g., social enterprise, guest keynote speeches). The input can be invaluable as experts in the field, and could be on a one-off basis. One example in which staff input would be most welcome is Voltage, the social enterprise project that sees Sixth Formers start their own trading social enterprise; staff could support University of Lancaster students in delivering challenging and creative workshops to help the Sixth Formers generate their own business concepts, and to plan, market and sell. In addition, a new initiative, Create (http://www.create.lancs.ac.uk), helps students start their own businesses, and staff may also be interested in supporting students with this work. Such ideas are consistent with the University's interest in entrepreneurialism, now combined with community outreach. Last but not least, staff might also want to be involved in neighbouring communities as part of their teaching or research. For example, in one Geography course, students have weekly placements in schools where they carry out special projects while assisting in the classroom. The students gain practical experience with teaching while also serving as ambassadors for the university (http://www.uas.ac.uk), and furthering links between the university and the community. Work on this course led to a community prize for LUVU's Sarah Hinton, and other courses and projects could be developed to further university-community linkages. These are only a few of the possibilities, and we welcome ideas from readers about other ways to become involved in community outreach. This is not just a matter for reflection, but for action. LUVU could provide funding for a particular project by coming up with a 'shell' and then people make it happen. There are obviously obstacles to staff involvement, especially the pressures of numerical targets and esteem indicators that can become priorities for staff time and commitment. Therefore, there is a need for institutional commitment at every level so that such activities can be fully supported. LUVU's web site is http://www.luvu.org.uk. The director of LUVU, Ben Matthews, can be reached by e-mail at b.j.matthews [at] lancaster.ac.uk. ***************************************************** THE CARLETON: AN UNLIKELY VENUE FOR STAFF Staff who teach on Thursday mornings might be familiar with the Carleton - not because they've been to the Morecambe nightspot, but because of the empty seats in classrooms. Students, according to conventional wisdom, often visit the Carleton in Morecambe late Wednesdays and into the early morning hours. But how many staff have actually gone to the Carleton alongside students? Not many, and doing so would not be for the faint of heart. subtext's intrepid reporter ventured into this unknown landscape to find out what it was like. On this night, there were about 500 to 600 students at the Carleton at once, and nearly all seemed to be from the University of Lancaster. There were few if any graduate students, so there was less of a 'bridge' into a student nightspot than at the Sugarhouse. Students seemed genuinely surprised to find one of their lecturers there, with some going out of their way to be very welcoming (one even asked for a photograph - perhaps with thoughts of a novel souvenir for Facebook). Some students - drunk and bumping into their lecturer by accident - had a look of absolute surprise that was, as the Mastercard advertisement goes, priceless. The visit was also like a mini-project since, after seeing the place, the popularity of the Carleton seemed like a puzzle to be worked out: Why do students want to come here? Why had this venue emerged as a regular part of so many Lancaster students' lives? There was no indication from the building or the music (which seemed themeless and inconsistent, at best) to show why it had become any sort of draw. However, it was not hard to find clues. For example, a display monitor had advertisements for cheap drinks, with one of the occasional displays being a public safety message that, incongruously, advised people to 'drink responsibly'. The lure of cheap and abundant alcohol, including fishbowl sized drinks, can be a convincing theory why students go there. And there are direct buses from campus to the venue and back, so there is easy access. (An experience on the return bus can be, shall we say, interesting, but adds to the worry of binge drinking and its aftermath.) Perhaps credit is due (or not) to the Carleton for coming up with a way to attract regular groups of students. The Carleton also offers a variety of incentives to JCRs, clubs, and other groups of students to encourage them to come along. When asked in conversations why they go there, students overwhelmingly replied, 'I don't know.' Perhaps this was just the easiest way of answering. There were other explanations, too, with one student saying that she went because her friends were there, and another added that she liked it because it was 'cheesy'. But again and again, students said that they had not really thought about why they came to the Carleton on so many Wednesdays; they just did it. As a potential venue for staff-student interaction, the Carleton is likely to be considerably less congenial for staff than the Sugarhouse, on which we reported in the last issue. As for its effectiveness in enhancing a sense of community among students themselves, this must remain an open question. ***************************************************** WALLUPS'S WORLD FROM: Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University
(LUVE-U) Walter, I would like to draw your attention to item XR198, performance-related pay. This is not to be confused with XR197C (merit-based pay awards) or XR199-5Q (action plan on amending XR198). This is far different, as it only needs to be filled out in single copy, and must remain confidential. All people who report directly to me should fill out the XR198 form, but in doing so they should ignore the subheading at the top about 'VC Performance-Related Pay'. The form can be used to highlight the accomplishments that they have made, in quotable phrases that can, in turn, promote the University. In other words, their XR198 forms should highlight what WE as an enterprise have accomplished. Their accomplishments are our accomplishments. Our accomplishments are MY accomplishments, and therefore it is only fitting for me to use the best responses towards my own XR198 form on performance-related pay. Please ensure that all appropriate staff clearly detail their contributions under each of the following headings, as taken from XR198: LEADERSHIP. Defined as unilateral decision making, within the overall appearance of having a collective, participatory process in which all parties have been consulted repeatedly. INNOVATION. Defined as creativity in making sure that ideas conform to existing boxes. PEOPLE MANAGEMENT. Defined as the ability to ensure that the development of heterogeneous personalities amongst knowledge producers is managed and controlled as tightly as possible. IMPACT. Defined as numerical targets and performance indicators for institutional, financial gain. ENHANCEMENT OF CAPABILITY. Defined as the prevention of non-profitable ideas from coming to fruition. RELEVANCE AND FOCUS. Defined as matching the priorities of the University to its specified budgets. Staff must also agree to sign away any intellectual property rights on information included in their XR198 forms. As a sign of my appreciation, all staff who fill out this form will receive a ceremonial LUVE-U pen. Staff who do not fill out the form will not receive a pen, and will not be in my good graces. This form will be sent to you and my other staff at some point within the next two weeks. It must be filled out within 24 hours of receipt or else it will self-destruct. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ***************************************************** LETTERS Lancaster - Town and Gown Dear subtext, In the recent editions of subtext I have been pleased to read the sections on Town and Gown. I believe a wide debate on this matter is most timely. When the University was established in the mid '60s, there was an expectation that the city and the region might be entering a new period of vigorous prosperity after an era of relative somnolence. Many of us who came to work at the University believed that 'small is beautiful', and valued the city's heritage and surrounding countryside. But sadly, Lancaster continued to sleep. Changes in local authority boundaries, hung councils, indifferent planning and leadership all played their part in stifling improvement up to and beyond the millenium. And the slumber continues. The Kingsway Baths issue is just the latest in a long sequence of lost opportunities. Is it not time that Lancaster city was given the kiss of life? Do any readers have ideas on how we can help to change things for the better? Denis McCaldin ******* Replacing the traveller Dear subtext, My favourite author is Flann O'Brien/Myles na Gopaleen/Brian O'Nolan. He had a daily [eventually occasional] column, 'Cruiskeen Lawn' [Little Full Jug] in the Irish Times from c. 1940 to mid 1960s. On one occasion in the late 1940s, he heard a man in Dublin on a soapbox rail against 'that ni**er music' [jazz? swing? who knows?] to a crowd. He wrote about it the following day and wondered would this man like to replace the word ni**er with the word 'Jew' ... There were no more rants against ni**er music. I wonder would the University authorities issue a press release replacing the word 'Traveller' with the word 'Jew'? Somehow ... I doubt it. And let us not dwell on what the charming contributors to Facebook would write in such a scenario. Pascal Desmond ******* Not racist against travellers Dear subtext, Criticisms of potentially harmful lifestyles are NOT 'Racism'. Such claims are very dangerous since they provide ready made propaganda for real racists. Max Lazarus, Physics ******* Implications Dear subtext, In his article on 'Travellers on campus', can I suggest that Noel Cass considers the implications of the last two words in: 'The content of the worst threats posted was unbelievable, ranging from the genocidal to infanticidal, from theft and destruction of the Travellers' property to rape of their women.... ' Jane Sunderland, Linguistics [We followed this up with Noel Cass. He explained that the wording reflected the actual threats made, rather than his interpretation, and therefore said that it would have been better to use single speech marks. - eds.] ******* Following advice Dear subtext, Re. the open letter to the Vice-Chancellor in your previous edition of subtext. I think that the professor who wrote it misconstrued the University's motives in telling the students to keep away from the travellers. I reckon that rather than resorting to the use of prejudice in this matter, and deciding to ostracize the people in caravans, the University will have asked the police what they should do. Meanwhile, the student rugby teams can't have been that pleased to have their pitches occupied, and, having been denied access to the grounds will have been confined to the campus bars to discuss the matter. The police will have emphasized to the University the importance in avoiding any circumstances in which a brawl could develop, because maintaining public order is their highest priority. The University took police advice, promptly advised all students to keep their distance - as the police told them to do, for reasons of public safety - and thereby avoided any conflict. I hope that now all the fuss has died down a little, maybe the professor could have the chance to meet members of the rugby playing community, in an atmosphere of tolerance, curiosity and understanding toward their rich culture of excessive public drinking, and rowdy, yet friendly behaviour. Michael Cowie ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |