| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 29 16 November 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. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: in this issue, clarification, news in brief, curtains for science park?, RAE countdown, the naming of buildings on campus, university space, career-stages of the vice-chancellor, saying and not saying, a future urban myth ***************************************************** IN THIS ISSUE Welcome to another subtext, now on sale at all good retailers. We are writing this from the comforts of the subtext warehouse, now refurbished thanks to new corporate sponsorship deals. The renovated warehouse comes complete with new carpet tiles, which mysteriously showed up this weekend and we can't figure out how or why. Perhaps light will be shed on this puzzle later in the issue. Below, we write more about entrepreneurialism at the University, and note the travails of the planned science park. We also have a variety of reflections on the University, on topics ranging from the RAE to the naming of buildings, from the career stages of the Vice-Chancellor, to proposing a campus-wide dialogue on academic freedom. All of these items are downloadable online as subtext podcasts, exclusively available for a small subscription. Enjoy the issue, and, please, sign up for one of our new corporate membership subscriptions. ***************************************************** CLARIFICATION ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Dean of Faculty * Eds: we subsequently received a letter from Tony Gatrell pointing out that the correct name is the School of Health and Medicine. **** Professorial Pay Review **** Protests over HR award Paul Sparrow, Director of the Centre for Performance-led Human Resources of the University of Lancaster Management School, has caused controversy by shorlisting the Automobile Association for a Human Resources Award. The Rialto Consultancy Award for Excellence in Business Partnering, according to Personnel Today magazine, is 'for organisations that can prove they are aligning HR and business strategy' (see http://tinyurl.com/2s6lbl). Amongst the reasons given for the AA's shortlisting by Professor Sparrow, who served as the judge for the award, is the way that its post-2004 restructuring gave 'clear evidence of improvements in business metrics around profit and added value per employee, with cost savings resulting from the use of business partners in negotiations'. subtext understands that Professor Sparrow arrived at his judgement after reviewing anonymised 1000-word submissions from various organisations, against specified criteria provided by the awards organiser. However, the GMB ('Britain's General Union') appears to be unimpressed by this 'blind marking' procedure, and has expressed strong opposition to the shortlisting, not least because of what they see as the AA's targeting of disabled and sick workers for sacking during the restructuring (see http://tinyurl.com/2tfjg8). The awards ceremony will take place at Grosvenor House, Park Lane, London on 22 November. The GMB say that 'sacked AA disabled staff will protest at Lancaster University and in London to say that AA profits were increased by sackings, prices rises and reduction in service to customers, and that AA has been asset stripped and burdened with debts'. subtext awaits further developments. ***************************************************** In a surprise move over the weekend, the Outline Application for Bailrigg Science Park was removed from the agenda of Monday's meeting of Lancaster City Council's Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee. subtext readers will recall that the planned 'science' park is a joint venture between the University, the Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) and Lancaster City Council, to be sited on the agricultural land just north of the campus and adjacent to the A6. Readers may also recall our analysis of the issues raised by the proposal, in terms of its economic viability, its benefit to the University and its environmental impacts, especially in terms of extra traffic (see subtexts 23 and 24). We might also have asked how such a significant development for the University had got so far without substantial discussion in Senate or Council. Since we last reported on the issue, objections to the proposal from environmental organisations and local citizens have been building (see pages 22-42 of the papers for Monday's planning meeting, which summarise the proposal, its history and the objections received, at http://tinyurl.com/2hmhla). In response, advocates of the proposal at the University and the NWDA have been working to keep the project on course: for example, University managers were seen gladhanding the great and good of Galgate on campus over the summer vacation, presumably in order to try to soften their opposition to the development. We do not know how successful this PR strategy has been; but certainly those radical environmentalists at the Highways Agency seem to be immune to such things. Earlier in the year the Agency took out a 'Holding Direction' on the planning application, blocking it from consideration by the Planning Committee due to their concerns over the effects of increased traffic. As we reported in issue 23, the Agency argued that traffic at peak times would overload the crossroads at Hala Road in Scotforth and in Galgate - and even tail back onto the M6. The Agency lifted their holding direction only last Thursday, in order to allow discussion at Monday's meeting. But pressure from them and from Lancashire County Council has resulted in stringent new conditions being placed on the development. subtext understands that these include the stipulations that no more than 72 extra vehicles should approach from the South in peak periods, and that the project would have to fund road revisions in Galgate to ease traffic flow. But in addition the Agency insisted that, until the worst fears about its effect on traffic flow - especially at Junction 33 of the M6 - could be allayed, the park should be limited to 11,000 square metres of floor space. The proposed final floor area of the park had already been reduced in August from 38,910 to 34,720 m2, in order to try to pacify the Agency, so the further reduction to 11,000 m2 clearly represents a serious blow to the ambitions envisaged for the park. In the revised application even the first of the three phases of the development was going to be 15,000 m2. It may well be that the NWDA has pulled the plug on the proposal completely, deciding that they had no interest in using public funds for such a modest development. On the other hand, they may have withdrawn the application tactically, to avoid a humiliating rejection at this point. However, if the park proposal is still alive, the papers for Monday's meeting contain a message which should make the University think seriously about whether it is such a good idea to site it adjacent to the University, rather than on a brownfield site in the city as others have proposed. On page 35 it is reported that 'County Highways have clearly stated that the Science Park development, should it be granted permission, would put the Hala and Galgate crossroads at over-capacity. This means that any further major development at the University, or other significant proposals in the South Lancaster locality, would need to prove they would have a positive or neutral impact on the level of traffic to be supported by Highways.' There are clear implications for the University (and for Tesco, who have their eye on Lawson's field on the other side of the A6). If the science park goes ahead on the proposed site, this will be the last major development in this area for some time to come. The roads are filling up. We have to start making choices - for a start, between a highly speculative 'science' park and other possible large-scale projects such as a new sports centre. ***************************************************** RAE COUNTDOWN ***************************************************** THE NAMING OF BUILDINGS ON CAMPUS An innocent question raised at the last meeting of the Estates Committee as to how buildings were named seems to have revealed continuing confusion and institutional amnesia, affecting the University Secretary and others. For the record the position is as follows. The formal process for naming buildings had always been that Council took that responsibility. For example, when the South West Campus and Bowland North and County South were to be extensively renamed the then Academic Registrar channelled all the proposals through the Council Executive Group for student residential accommodation. Following discussion and endorsement, a complete schedule of names was placed into the Council papers. Our third Vice-Chancellor, Harry Hanham, was always exemplary on this matter. His successor, Bill Ritchie, in the main didn't have to think about it. More recently, for reasons that are not clear to subtext, it seems to have been agreed that the University Secretary should take this function. Though unnecessary, given a process already exists, it might seem sensible and less bureaucratic. However, names of buildings are important and a part of our legacy and so one would hope there would be a report of what decisions have been made and the rationale for these. There should also be an opportunity for wider involvement and comment. Because buildings in this university rarely keep still for very long, it is hard enough already to keep track of choices that have been made; for example, Tom Lawrenson, a distinguished and much respected member of the academic staff in the early years, was commemorated within a Lonsdale catering building for many years, but that has now vanished without any sign that the naming ever existed. Perhaps this is a somewhat sad illustration of the university we have recently become. ***************************************************** UNIVERSITY SPACE: WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS? In a recent meeting with the County College to discuss college communal space in the soon to be refurbished County Main building, college representatives were apparently informed what they would be getting. This seems to amount to considerably less than they have now, notwithstanding the much increased size of the college. The Director of Estate Management took note of what was said but the outcome is not yet known. The occasion was also used by the Director to announce that no college will be allowed to retain space for a Senior Common Room and all such existing space would become centrally bookable, though what this has to do with him is far from clear. Both examples, however, raise important questions about how and where such decisions are made. The answer it seems is by some kind of University Space Committee, though few seem to be aware of its existence, who sits on it and what its remit is. It is thought to be chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Understandably, the college is unhappy at what appears to be a 'fait accompli', though it might of course be that the Director was merely testing them out to see what they would accept, rather than discussing what they need. It is an approach which has had some success on previous occasions. At Lancaster, the colleges do not 'own' space. As with academic departments, what they possess is allocated to them by the University. What is important though is that the process which decides who gets what should be transparent and genuinely consultative. The colleges have supported the freeing up of space for academic use within the perimeter road, even when it placed them under considerable strain. With limited resources they have sought to cope with the repercussions. However, it was always understood that communal space for relocating and refurbishing colleges would at least be comparable with what they already had, and preferably enhanced, given the increased size of most colleges. For this not to happen now is likely to be interpreted as the University acting in bad faith. Watch out for a student reaction! It is understood that motions are already being prepared for Council and Court. ***************************************************** CAREER STAGES OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR According to Tom Kennie of the Ranmore Consulting Group, the average length of a Vice-Chancellor's tenure is five to seven years ('From ages to stages: Some career transitions for Vice-Chancellors/Principals', http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/publications/engage6.pdf). The realisation of this simple fact led to a whirlwind of activity in the subtext warehouse. We immediately hired consultants and held focus groups to discuss the implications of the five to seven year tenure for our current V-C. He has, after all, been at Lancaster since 2002, over the five-year mark. Kennie listed seven categories that, in his view, depicted the career stages of Vice-Chancellors. We asked our consultants which one applied most to our Vice-Chancellor, and this is what they told us: Clearly, the V-C is no longer in his honeymoon period (Stage One), which would have occurred during his first three to six months on the job. Nor is he going through Stage Two, a period of strategic positioning in the first year to 18 months in office. Perhaps the V-C could be considered a Chief Executive Officer of the University, so Stage 3 ('The Chief Executive Principal') may be a good fit. However, Kennie reported that a V-C might fail to move beyond Stage Three, becoming a 'Perpetually Politically Paranoid Principal'. So our consultants were not yet satisfied with the fit between our V-C and this stage either. As explained by Kennie, Stage Four - The Progressive Principal - marks a period of mergers, restructuring, and new investments. Our consultants also noted that this stage begins around the middle of the first five to seven years of a V-C's tenure. In some cases, Stage Four might also be a time when self-doubt begins to grow, when V-Cs return more and more to their research interests over those of management. While there is no sign of the V-C returning to entomology over management yet, subtext will be looking closely at any passing insects for clues about the V-C's future. Stage Five ('The "Serial" Principal, or the "Reinvented"
Principal') takes place within the first five to seven years of a V-C's
tenure. This would also be a time when, according to Kennie, 'a siege
mentality begins to be apparent'. Moreover, Kennie points to a 'property
response' Our consultants also looked at Stage Six, a time when a V-C builds larger and larger 'portfolios', for example by taking on a leading role in Universities UK, or becoming involved in new entrepreneurial ventures to expand his or her profile. And Stage Seven refers to V-Cs who have stayed on too long, becoming 'a caricature of their former selves'. Once again, the consultants had trouble matching the criteria with our V-C. And so the work from our consultants was, sadly, inconclusive. They promise to hold more meetings, and hire their own consultants, so we will eventually find out the current career stage of the V-C. ***************************************************** SAYING AND NOT SAYING A recent article in the Times Higher Education Supplement reported that the 'right to speak is threatened' in academia (http://tinyurl.com/ysubjw). This concern came out of an event organised by the Institute of Ideas. According to the article, Frank Furedi of Kent University noted at the meeting that some academics 'are waiting until they retire so that they can speak out. They are in the business of self-censorship'. Consequently, many academics might avoid controversial issues because of a fear of backlash. Richard Reynolds, an undergraduate at the University of East Anglia who founded Student Academics for Academic Freedom, referred to the idea of 'castrated academics'. He was quoted as saying, 'It's not good enough to say, "I wish I could say that."' The THES article referred to ideas from Alex Gourevitch of Columbia University,
in stating, 'The recasting of students as vulnerable people who need protecting
from potentially offensive speech was one facet of the erosion of academic
freedom'. This leads us to an older news item, from the Ford Foundation,
in announcing nearly two years ago that they were promoting 'difficult
dialogues' around issues of academic freedom. Perhaps, if we are living in a time of heightened self-censorship, it would be useful for Lancaster to support a similar initiative, at least in proposing campus-wide dialogues on issues of free speech in a learning context. These dialogues could take the form of public meetings, each focusing on specific controversial topics selected by staff and students. If the challenging of ideas is fundamental to the process of learning, then staff might be doing a disservice to the University if they sanitise or avoid controversial topics. Then again, it might not be a question of whether difficult subjects can be discussed, but how, why, and under which circumstances. In a 'difficult dialogue', there might be open discussion of the boundaries to the expression of ideas at Lancaster. For example, are there ideas relating to race, religion, gender, or politics that are off limits in a learning context? How should controversial topics be approached in our teaching and what is to be gained or lost by discussing - or not discussing - controversial topics? At what point, if any, does academic speech go beyond the bounds of acceptability, and who, if anyone, should have the right or authority to draw the boundaries between permissible and impermissible speech? If implemented at Lancaster, a series of difficult dialogues could help build a culture in which we focus on discussion, delve deeper into the reasons why some speech is offensive, and examine whether and how controversial speech may have a role in a learning context. ***************************************************** A FUTURE URBAN MYTH? Apparently last week in University House, carpet tiles were laid on all four floors. However, when staff arrived on Monday morning, all the tiles were gone again, and staff had to walk across floors sticky with yellow tile glue. The story goes that the firm contracted to do the building work sub-contracted the tiling, and neglected to pay the sub-contractor, who took direct action over the weekend to retrieve their property. For the Vice-Chancellor, the timing could not be worse. The head of the Funding Council was about to pay us a visit Tuesday of this week to open the newly refurbished academic accommodation in Bowland North. At short notice, carpet was found and replaced, at least for those walkways likely to be used by this important visitor. Rumours that it came from the Vice-Chancellor's residence are being discounted. All good fun. But if the story is true, there is a slightly more serious question: how did the subcontractor get in the building to retrieve the carpet tiles, and why didn't anyone try to stop this from happening? ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical |