| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 36 20 March 2008 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please 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, council report, businesses on campus, up the junction, hods, gender equality, redundancy policy, time allocation, independent studies, games, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Sharp-eyed subtext subscribers may have noticed that the election posters for several of the candidates for sabbatical student officers promised that they would campaign for 'more contact hours'. The issue goes back far beyond the recent LUSU elections - there is an extensive background to this, originating with it being discussed at Senate. subtext wonders if there are indeed a majority of students who are actually in favour of more seminars and lectures. subtext feels that the student analysis is more subtle than just 'more seminars/lectures' and indeed, this is reflected in a recent article in SCAN which raised some important points such as; a) 'student experience' should be measured in terms of quality, not just crude quantity; b) more contact hours may lead to more spoon-feeding and less independent research, which is what university-level study is all about; and c) what would happen to research if contact hours are significantly increased? This is, we feel, intriguing, particularly in the light of the acrimonious debates in Senate recently (see subtext 35) on the proposals to increase contact time. One point that perhaps needs highlighting is that study of the discussion reveals an element of cross purposes. When the university says 'more contact time' it means seminars, lectures etc - formal teaching time. When students say 'more contact time', they mean that they want their tutors to be available more readily outside formal teaching time. Some students feel that their tutors hold their research to be their most important function, with teaching and students a distant second. The University speaks of itself loud and often as a research-led institution. We should perhaps remember that students could be forgiven for hearing the proud announcement that 'research is our priority' as also meaning that students are anything but. One additional thought - the point has also been made that the Office Hour, which is often held up as the visible symbol of the caring sharing available academic culture at Lancaster, is actually potentially counter-productive. Academics like to think of themselves as an approachable and student-centred group, but the hard fact is that some of them are not. Because academics are required to be in their office at particular times, (often without any visits from students), they may feel that their responsibility is then discharged. A student attempting to talk outside those times can therefore be referred to the office hour. Naturally, some students have other commitments at those times: what are they supposed to do? The old system, where a student would contact their tutor and ask to come and see them, and the tutor would arrange a time of mutual convenience, seems much closer to what students actually say they need. The office hour may be a useful blunt instrument with which to cudgel a small number of misanthropic academics into being available to their students, but it may also be poisoning the water for the rest of us by encouraging a 'work to rule' mindset. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Freedom of Information We understand that members of our community are increasingly seeing the Freedom of Information Act as a way of finding out what's going on around them. A post-graduate student tells us that he has put in an FOI request following several unsatisfactory experiences with the Catering Dept. We will of course keep subscribers posted of any other requests in the pipeline, and would encourage anyone with an FOI request in the works to let us know what happens to it. Meantime, interested subscribers who feel uninformed may like to investigate the link on the University website - just type 'foi' into the search space. ****** Trees and Travellers Subscribers who remember the temporary occupation of the rugby pitch last year may have wondered what plans the University has to prevent a similar recurrence this year. Now we know. Several dozen saplings have been planted across the space where the travellers gained access to the pitch. Very nice, and no doubt very effective. Let's just hope that the travellers don't look about twenty yards further up the drive, where there is a space through which a fair-sized truck could travel without harming a single twig. ****** Sharing Space Speakers at Open Days talk a lot about the way that academic departments and student living space exist side by side. We've always been rather proud of that down the years, and have presented it as a distinctive feature of the University. Except, of course, it isn't true any more. The re-building plan has in every case that we can think of meant a separation of the two. This is surely a change of policy? It may even be a better way of doing things, but did we miss a memo? ****** Floor Plan After the excitement of the opening of the Maths and Stats building reported in the last issue, (and see Letters, below) subtext can reveal that more mundane matters have now come to the fore. It is reliably reported that the ground floor covering is peeling away and is going to have to be replaced. It is understood that cleaners have been told not to bother cleaning it until this has happened. How one wonders did this escape the attention of the Director of Estate Management with his acknowledged, obsessive attention to detail? Will heads (of contractors) roll? ****** Bomb Squad Tuesday 11 March saw the discovery of a potentially explosive chemical in one of the laboratories within Biological Sciences (BS). The laboratory was being cleared as part of the planned refurbishment of BS. The chemical, cellulose nitrate, was old and though in an unopened jar had dried out and hence was now potentially explosive. When hazardous waste contractors and then the Fire Brigade were unable to assist with its disposal, a decision was taken to make enquiries about involving the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) Regiment. It resulted in two members of the 'bomb squad' arriving on campus in the early evening and the chemical was made safe. It was left in a fume cupboard overnight whilst the laboratory remained locked and was then transferred to the Safety Office waste store for subsequent collection and removal from campus. The two members of the EOD Regiment may be more used to dealing with bigger incidents, but all seem to agree that the situation incident was dealt with professionally and speedily by all involved, particularly our own Safety and Security staff. ****** Congratulations subtext readers may find it hard to believe but there remain members of the University who have been employed at Lancaster for forty years or more. Recently a small and select gathering was held at the Croft for two such individuals, Clive Barker (Psychology) and Dr Alan Thomson (Biological Sciences) and their partners. As of September last year, both had forty years of work and contribution behind them. Alan has since retired but Clive continues to make his presence felt. subtext congratulates both and wishes them well. We would be delighted to hear about others who may be approaching - or have passed - this threshold. ****** Health Matters Has anyone had any health problems, been referred to 'Health Matters', and can tell us about them (http://tinyurl.com/2t36cr)? It's not just a website or portal - a colleague currently off sick has been called in to see them and sent a load of documents asking her to consent to share her info with them ... a contracted out occupational health service? ****** Links From next term, subtext will feature an occasional column where we will publish links to things that we feel may be of interest to our subscribers. If you have any links that you think people might want to know about, send 'em in. ***************************************************** COUNCIL REPORT The Council met uneventfully on 14 March. Members were treated to an upbeat presentation on the Management School by its Dean. Among the encouraging messages for the future was the news that China is short of a million auditors. (The Director of Finance later remarked that this was the first time he had heard a complaint that there were too few auditors, anywhere.) Discussing the risks that might threaten continuing success and future growth, Professor Cox mentioned a general economic downturn, but even this might have the benefit of increasing postgraduate recruitment. She stressed the need for LUMS to acquire the same kind of brand identity as INSEAD and IMD, which apparently everyone knows are in Fontainebleau and Lausanne respectively. She said that if the rest of the university wanted to be as successful as LUMS it ought to concentrate on increasing its non-HEFCE income, and thus gain the freedom to grow. The Vice Chancellor supplemented his written report with an oral commentary. The County Council had become more willing to discuss the traffic problems that would be caused by the projected Science Park. The Academic Planning Committee had met over two days in the previous week to discuss as strategic issues research after the RAE, enhancing productivity and efficiency, and prospects for growth. Replying to a question on the second of these, the Vice Chancellor said that he would put the issues before Council in June, after presenting them to a meeting of Senate. He outlined recent government policy statements on higher education. There are to be seven reviews, to be completed by September, which will inform planning for the next decade or so. These will cover demographic change, the development of different measures of success, teaching and the student experience, how to get faster policy out of research (to be reviewed by ex-PVC Janet Finch, now VC at Keele), globalised competition, links between universities and schools, and intellectual property (to be reviewed by present VC Paul Wellings). He also mentioned the dynamically titled White Paper 'Innovation Nation', which he saw as generally good news for Lancaster, with its focus on engagement by universities with SMEs, especially high tech ones, and the role of universities in regional development. Presenting his report, the Director of Finance noted the 0.4 per cent reduction of the university's HEFCE grant, a result of the withdrawal of funding for students taking second or subsequent courses at a level equal or lower to qualifications they already hold, and the possibly consequential reduction of funds for widening participation. He said that the grant allocation should be regarded as provisional and that he would start discussions with HEFCE about the basis of the settlement, which he thought might result from inaccurate data. He seemed modestly optimistic that a better settlement could be obtained. He then presented a Finance Strategy, which differs from the 2005 one in proposing a 'somewhat more aggressive stance...in pursuing growth opportunities'. Among the 'challenges' in the implementation of the strategy were inflationary pressures from pay and pensions (subtexters may wish to refer back to remarks in issue 34 on this subject). Councillors approved the Strategy, no doubt unanimously confident in their grasp of, inter alia, the relative advantages of on-and off-balance sheet borrowing. The University Secretary reported that negotiations on key employment policies and procedures, and on changes to Statutes, were progressing, although more slowly than she would like. She noted the possibility of the break-up of a national negotiating structure following the decision of UCU to reject the employers' proposals for single table bargaining. She did not think this would be in Lancaster's interests. UCEA, the employers' organisation, was meeting UCU representatives informally to see what their problems with the proposals were. Stanley Henig presented the Report of the Court Effectiveness Working Party. This is a clear and thorough document, slightly altered from the version that was discussed at the January meeting of the Court in the light of points raised there. The number of College Syndicate representatives remains at one instead of two, however, which Tim Roca, LUSU President, observed with regret. The only item in the Risk Register that provoked comment was 'Failure to improve entry standards'. Asked about the scale of this risk and the scope for improvement, the Vice Chancellor said that the range across departments was too great, and that lower grade departments needed to work at improving their scores, since Lancaster's league table rating of 35th in the country was too low for a university of our standing. ***************************************************** Subtext learns that many of the lease-holding businesses on campus are deeply unhappy about ongoing and protracted negotiations with the University management over their leases. In some cases, the University is asking for a doubling of rents; in others, for an inclusion of a percentage of turnover which could render them unviable. Some leases expired a year ago, and proprietors have had to repeatedly extend them (with consequent legal costs) while they wait for the University and its agents to move negotiations on. Proprietors also complain about the tone of some discussions, which have been described as 'aggressive': in what was a rather difficult meeting with leaseholders, head of estates Mark Swindlehurst was reported to have told one leaseholder that if he was not happy with the terms being proposed, he knew what he could do, and that there were plenty of other people who would take his place. However, the proprietors insist that their campus location means that it is not appropriate for their leases to follow commercial norms that might apply elsewhere. They point out that businesses on campus, such as shops and cafes, the garage and the travel agent, cannot rely on passing trade like those in town and on thoroughfares, and are particularly quiet on Saturdays and vacations. Campus cafes and shops face competition from outlets run by the University and LUSU, which are not run on strictly commercial grounds and can exert an influence over the activities of the private businesses. The turnover in some shops and cafes has dropped in recent years due to competition from the University and LUSU, deliveries from off-campus, market stalls, disruptive construction work and the shifting of the centre of gravity of campus southwards. Above all, many of them understand their primary role in the campus community as providing a service to University members, even when not strictly profitable. The move towards turnover-based leases might seem to suggest that the University is starting to take an interest in supporting campus businesses and helping create favourable conditions for them to flourish, but there is little sign that this is the case. On top of this, many businesses are being asked to sign new and unfavourable leases as a time when there is considerable uncertainty about their likely location. The University Masterplan 2007-2017 will involve major alterations in Alexandra Square, with many outlets being relocated onto the Spine. Similarly, the creation of new administrative buildings on Tower Avenue will mean the relocation of the garage. However, requests for information about likely locations have not yet resulted in any clear information, and the likelihood of years of disruptive construction make this a strange time to be proposing massive rent rises. The original plan for businesses on campus was to allow a carefully selected and stable set of outlets to offer a range of useful services to University members. Sustaining this requires good working relations between the University and the leaseholders, and an adequate understanding of the nature of the businesses involved, both of which seem to be sadly lacking at the moment. In the late 1990s an attempt by an external agent to renegotiate campus leases in a more brutally commercial direction - and similarly confrontational rent reviews - ended up with many shops lying empty until common sense prevailed and more reasonable deals were struck. If the current impasse is not resolved soon, will we once again see the departure of many current leaseholders? Will retail sites on campus have to be let to whoever is prepared to pay the rent - for a while? Can we look forward to a string of miscellaneous here-today-and-gone-tomorrow shops? Sunglasses anyone? ***************************************************** subtext has been perusing with great interest the latest presentation from the consultants Faber Maunsell to the Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board. The Vision Board, charged with developing an economic vision for the Lancaster district, was established in 2005 with the support of the North West Development Agency (NWDA), and draws its membership largely from major local employers in the private and public sectors. It is currently chaired by our own Vice Chancellor (http://www.lancaster-morecambe-vision.org/). Their 'Vision', published in June 2006, was a far-reaching document which included many recommendations that might be of interest to subtext readers, including 'strong' support for the proposed Canal Corridor retail development for the area east of the current city centre (see subtext 23); the enhancement of local tourism and cultural activities, including an arts and cultural industries centre at the Storey Institute; and a knowledge-economy strategy focused on the proposed Bailrigg Science Park (see subtexts 23 and 24). But a key element of the Vision was an emphasis on the need for a number of 'transformational' projects in order to improve ease of movement within and between Lancaster and Morecambe, and thus enhance the cohesion of the district. It was to advance this part of the Vision that the consultants were appointed by the Vision Board in 2007 to develop a Lancaster District Transport Vision and Strategy. Faber Maunsell's report should be available later this month, but their final presentation in February included a number of proposals that are likely to be of particular interest to University members. Among these are proposals for enhanced cycling facilities, and a road-based rapid transit system from Morecambe through Lancaster to Bailrigg, and a proposed solution to the problem posed by congestion in Galgate. Their proposal for the 'Galgate Problem' is the full or partial resiting of Junction 33 of the M6 two miles northwards to Hazelrigg Lane (the lane that runs along the south end of campus and under the motorway towards Caton). Faber Maunsell present four different options, ranging from resiting the northbound exit only, up to creating a whole new junction with a roundabout. Subtext readers might find themselves feeling rather supportive of this proposal. It might be rather nice for the University to have what is in effect its very own motorway junction - it would certainly make life easier at times, especially for those University members travelling to and from directions north. But of course as with most things it is important not to see any decision in isolation, but in terms of its wider ramifications - and that is certainly how Faber Maunsell, the Vision Board, the University management and the NWDA are looking at it. The resiting of Junction 33 would place it next to a proposed Park-and-ride facility to the south of campus, linking to the rapid transit system to take commuters into Lancaster and Morecambe. But perhaps more crucially it is clearly designed to remove the main obstacle to further major development in South Lancaster, including Bailrigg Science Park. As we reported in subtext 29, the Highways Agency and Lancashire County Council were blocking plans for the science park on the basis that during rush hours it would overload the already strained A6 south of Lancaster, and cause major tailbacks onto the M6 at Junction 33. Are the NWDA, with their University friends, planning to divert public regeneration money in order to move the motorway junction, and thereby push forward their own vision for south Lancaster? Will this open up the floodgates for other developments south of Lancaster, including the proposed Tesco supermarket on Lawson's Field, resulting in an unbroken development from Lancaster down to Galgate? How will this fit with the insistence in the 2006 'Vision' document that the Board 'does not support urban sprawl'? And will it not just recreate the 'Galgate Problem' at Hazelrigg Lane anyway? ***************************************************** WHO'D BE A HoD? In subtext 26 we discussed a drift in the definition and purpose of HoDs from a 'first amongst equals' situation to a more hierarchical 'line manager' responsibility. The fundamental role of a HoD for most of the university's existence has been to ensure that leadership and collegiality were based at departmental level, where the core academic discipline is practised. An unanswered question is, if we agree as it seems we must, that there has been a significant shift in emphasis and responsibility, where are those original functions now exercised? Is there a place where the core discipline, and the interaction of colleagues within that setting, is safeguarded? In subtext 35 we suggested that Heads of Department who doubted our opinion on the drift in responsibilities might well have a look at the University's Health and Safety Policy on the Human Resources web page (http://tinyurl.com/2dfb77) After reading this, it would be hard to do other than conclude that there is indeed a tide carrying increasing responsibility in their direction, with HR being left with what might seem a rather non-proactive role. This shift in responsibility takes place against the perennial discussion about how the University can make the post of HoD more attractive. (Does anyone know any colleague who is actively seeking to become HoD? We don't. In fact, some colleagues believe that a desire to become HoD should automatically disqualify the holder from doing it.) Whatever else is true, putting additional (and potentially legally punitive) responsibility onto their shoulders is unlikely to enhance the attraction of the job. But is this shift useful, appropriate or even sensible? The idea seems to be that the HoD is the line manager of a Department, and therefore is the person best placed to make sure that staff are protected. All well and good, if we ignore the fact that the phrase 'line manager' here means something rather different to that in a business administrative context, but there are still two major problems, Competence and Time. The law now places the onus on the University to prove that it took all reasonable steps to safeguard a member of staffs' physical and mental well being. The HSE takes a particular interest in the issue of stress. Now, if a member of staff comes to their HoD and complains of stress, are we to suppose that HoDs are legally competent to assess their colleagues' state of mind, the justice of their complaint, the likely impact on their work and that of others, their medical situation, what constitutes an appropriate reaction and so forth? These questions might, to some, seem to be what used to be called 'Personnel' issues (or as we have been instructed to say, 'Human Resource'). One HoD has already contacted Prontaprint to make up some printed cards, so that when a colleague comes to him with a stress-related issue, he will hand them a card that says, 'You have my utmost sympathy, and I have made a note of your visit. I refer you to Human Resources, and will be contacting them shortly to find out what they are going to do about your problem.' Something to look out for: if the line manager is the problem, is there an alternative mechanism that a complainant can use? And then there's the Time issue. Those who know their Health and Safety law point out that the core of a Stress Policy will involve a Risk Assessment of every job and every member of staff in the university. This is a legal necessity; it is also time-consuming and requires a close reading and knowledge of the relevant legislation. A good deal of training will be needed at the very least. If the University believes that this work should become the responsibility of HoDs, one of two things must be true. One: HoDs presently have time on their hands, which could be usefully spent in this way. We at subtext know of two recent HoDs who became ill with the stress of the job. (Ironic. Perhaps if they'd been trained...ah, we think see a hidden pattern here.) Or, Two: HoDs are presently spending their time doing work that can be deferred, delegated or dumped without difficulty. Unless we're missing something, isn't that the message here? Similar questions arise around the issue of Appraisals. Policy is now that Appraisal should be done annually. Some may feel that this is too frequent, particularly with regard to senior staff - their plans are likely to involve longer gestation periods. One might argue for a policy of, say, a triennial Appraisal, with opportunity for either the member of staff of the HoD to request an interim Appraisal depending on circumstances. If Appraisals happen too frequently there is the danger that they won't be taken seriously. And again, Appraisals take time, and Appraisers have to be trained. Where exactly is this time to be taken from (see HoD article above)?
GENDER EQUALITY DUTY It is now virtually a year since the new duty to promote gender equality came into force (April 2007). As readers may be aware, the duty affects the University, as it is a 'public body'. Previously, an action could only be taken against the University if the applicant could demonstrate that the University discriminated against them on the on grounds of gender. The University must now take steps to proactively promote equality between women and men. Thus, the University must now take account of different needs when making policies and providing services (such as recruitment and flexible working) and not just react to complaints when things go wrong. According to the University's policy, this means that the university needs to 'gather information on how their employment policies and practices impact on men and women, whether they have a gender pay gap, what the causes are and consider what action they need to take to address this' (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/equalopp/docs/GenEquPol.doc). This same document refers to 'data collected in March 2007', which will help to inform future policies. subtext has as yet, been unable to find data relating to the 'March 2007 data'. It is understood that the University Equal Opportunities Committee (chaired by Cary Cooper - and readers thought that Prof Cooper would escape mention this week!), has overall responsibility for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Gender Equality Duty and that a working group will be established during 2009 - 2010 to produce the next version of the policy. It is understood that the Committee will be discussing a report on progress on gender equality at its May meeting. The Committee aims for 2007-2008 can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/hr/equality-diversity/files/GenEquAP.doc. Watch this space. ***************************************************** MORE ON THE REDUNDANCY POLICY Last subtext had an item about redundancy. So important do we think this issue is, that we feel a few more words are justified. Subtext is still concerned regarding the secretive nature of the revised redundancy policy and wonders whether staff are fully aware that any change in the redundancy policy will necessarily mean changes in individual terms and conditions of employment. As readers will be aware, a redundancy situation occurs under two main circumstances; when the actual job disappears or when the need for that job diminishes. If the University is to make people redundant, it obviously has to choose who goes and who stays. The most commonly used selection criteria are: 1. Last in, first out. According to ACAS, the criterion needs to be 'objective, precisely defined and capable of being applied in an independent way.' It is the last two which may be of greatest interest to staff - how will the Human Resource Department or a Head of School demonstrate that selection for redundancy is based on objectively justified criteria? What if staff are selected for redundancy on the basis of an appraisal done by stressed out and overworked HoD's? ***************************************************** TIME ALLOCATION SURVEY It is understood that Heads of Departments are being severely pressurised to make sure that staff complete the time allocation survey (previously known as the Transparency Review). As readers will be aware, completion of the survey is a statutory requirement for all universities. The aim of the Time Allocation Survey is to provide information on the costs of activities carried out by Universities and this information is returned to the Higher Education Funding Council each year. The data produced will inform the review of public funding teaching methodology by HEFCE in 2009-10. It is understood that if the University does not get a 90% return funding will be affected. Perhaps if staff were not so busy with huge workloads, there might be time to complete it. HEFCE expect an 80% response in order to consider the data collected as 'robust'. Speaking of HEFCE, readers may have seen that Lancaster is listed as one of the 'Top 20 losers in 2008-09 grant allocation' from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (http://tinyurl.com/3dk9ek), with a -0.4% change in total recurrent grant. ***************************************************** INDEPENDENT STUDIES: GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN As trailed in subtext 31, the end of this academic year will see the closure of the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, formerly known as the School of Independent Studies (IS). The time thus seems ripe for a brief memoir. We hope very much that readers - not least, the large number of IS alumni who still live and work in Lancaster - will write in with their own memories, anecdotes and corrections. The School had a complex history, which reflected both the struggles within the University over the relevance of different educational models and income opportunities, and the shifts in the dominant discourse in wider society. It was the brainchild of the colourful Wacek Koc, one of the first (l964) appointees of the first VC, Charles Carter. His radical idea, which he developed from similar initiatives in the USA, was to offer a degree which allowed students far more control over the structure and disciplinary spread of their degree, and far more freedom in their amount of independent research, and in their chosen topics and methods. After months of informal discussion, and heated debates at various meetings of Senate, the Independent Studies Part II was finally approved in March 1973, and started that October. Lancaster was thus the first UK University to set up such a School - though others such as North East London Polytechnic were soon to follow suit. Frank Oldfield was its first Director, followed by Jane Groves (later Routh), Vernon Pratt and then John Wakeford. At the end of the 1990s the School was renamed the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, signalling a growing focus on the University's 'third mission'. Following Wakeford's retirement in 2002 Janet Clements held the fort for a year until the appointment of the present Director, Frank Dawes. Bill Fuge was the longest serving member of staff, working there from the beginning of the School almost to its end. What exactly did IS do? The core of its activity was grounded in the five key principles of student responsibility for learning, deep learning, critical thinking, transferable skills, and freedom of learning experience. From 1973 it ran the Part II in Independent Studies, which allowed students to assemble their own undergraduate degree with modules chosen from any scheme across the University, with up to 2/3 being done as research dissertations supervised by relevant University academic staff. This allowed students to assemble a BA in Independent Studies on a particular topic, in which they approached that topic from various angles under specialist academic supervision. In 1990 the School started its own Part I, designed to help students develop a range of transferable skills related to independent research and reflection, mainly through group-based projects. At its peak in the mid-1990s the School offered not just the Part I and Part II in Independent Studies, but also an MA in Critical Social Psychology with the Psychology department and a professional postgraduate programme. It ran the £1m, 5-year Enterprise in Higher Education programme, where students in all departments engaged in community and commercial projects, and published a series of books on Innovation in Higher Education. It also contained the Centre for Science Studies and Science Policy (CSSSP) with its own MA in Society, Science and Nature and a PhD programme with ESRC quota studentships, and the ESRC-funded research centre the Centre for Study of Environmental Change (CSEC). After CSEC and CSSSP left to become separate departments, it started its own MA in Applied Research and Consultancy. The School was always an object of controversy within the University. When it was first proposed there was strong opposition, particularly from Bill Potts of Biological Sciences and Alec Ross, the first Professor of Education. When its Part II scheme was approved in 1973, this was initially only for a five-year probationary period; students at this time were also required to register for a standard Part II scheme as well, on which they could fall back if their IS proposals did not work out. These fears were to prove groundless, but nevertheless, throughout the School's existence it encountered resistance and opposition from many throughout the University. Many academics, especially in the science faculties, saw the School as encouraging students to pursue self-indulgent and non-academic projects. Indeed, it was identified by John Patten, then Secretary of State for Education, as an example of the decline in standards in HE. The University management was uncomfortable with the scheme from the outset, and successive pro-vice-chancellors, including Nick Abercrombie in the mid-to-late 1990s, paid lip service to the concept while exposing IS to a level of sustained critical review not experienced by any other equivalent academic activity. They took the view that, although the skills learnt by IS students were valuable both educationally and to future employers, these should be being taught by every department, and didn't justify the continued existence of a separate IS. For others amongst the University management IS simply offended their tidy-mindedness: it didn't seem to fit anywhere, and they found it difficult to understand. With its conversion into the Innovation and Enterprise Unit it lost its status as a separate department, and therefore its place on Senate, and the quarrel over whether it should have its own UCAS code and student quota became even more entangled. However, IS's academic achievements were impressive. Its undergraduate cohort tended to fall into two groups: one consisted of those who were struggling at Lancaster and went to the School as a last resort, but the other consisted of often mature students who were highly motivated, thrived on independent study, and did exceptionally well. Continuing prejudice against the School led to repeated academic reviews - the first as early as 1977 - but these produced reports which were uniformly supportive of its work, as were those of the School's external examiners. The School was commended in 1993 by the HEQC Quality Audit Report on Lancaster for the staff development opportunities it offered to academic staff, and the National Review of Science and Technology Studies carried out by the SRC-SSRC Joint Committee in 1989 classed CSSSP as a 'Centre of International Excellence'. With a stream of talented graduates and many supporters, the University could not kill IS by frontal assault; instead it seems to have resorted to the death of a thousand cuts. Nevertheless, spin-offs of IS will outlive its demise, and can be found scattered around the campus. CSEC is now based in Sociology, and CSSSP became the Centre for Science Studies, which is now a 'virtual' centre involving staff from many departments. Similarly, even after this academic year some of its innovative teaching activities will continue, with the MA in Applied Research and Consultancy being taken over by LICA, and some of the Part II modules by Combined Sciences. Discussions are still ongoing about where the Part I in Independent Studies will reside. What will be lost with the final demise of the School? Some might say its time has passed - that its original radical ideals have long since mutated into the ubiquitous buzzwords of our new managerial culture. But for others IS represented an essential part of the spirit of our University. Either way, Independent Studies is dead; long live independent studies. IS alumni will be marking the end of a fine Lancaster institution in an End of Department Party on 30 June (for more information, contact s.mahon [at] lancaster.ac.uk). Do write to us with your memories. Here's one from an IS graduate from a while back. 'Here's a piece of trivia - through a quirk of fate, the novelist Dick Francis is indirectly responsible for me coming to Lancaster Uni. I was reading 'Straight' (1989), and came across the bit where the main character mentions that he left Lancaster University with a degree in Independent Studies, and immediately headed for the racetrack, instead of getting a normal job. I wondered what Independent Studies was, so I sent off for a prospectus, and here I am! I'd never have even considered coming to Lancaster if I hadn't read Straight. Ain't life weird?' ***************************************************** GAMES Word reaches us of a game played in some bars on campus of a Friday afternoon. It begins with the publication of LUText. Players search for mentions of Professor Cary Cooper, and drinking takes place on the following scale. A mention on local radio; 1 drink. National radio; 2 drinks. Local TV news; a short. National TV news: a cocktail. That's the warm-up. Then it gets sophisticated. If CC is mentioned both in 'People in the News' and 'News' for the same comment, that's a double short for everyone. We understand that the patrons of one bar plays a more sophisticated version of this game, where the degree of academic seriousness of the comment comes into play - if the topic is, shall we say, popular culture, then players drink their pint with three cherries and a plastic cocktail umbrella in it, whereas if the issue is, let us say, more conventionally academic, then the barman puts three shots of vodka into one of the players' drinks and doesn't say which one. Finally, in the (hitherto unheard of) case that Prof Cooper is not mentioned anywhere in LUText on a given week, then there will be no drinking and everyone will go to confession instead, for the world has surely come to an end. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, Your editorial in ST35 about the staff survey reminded me of the irritation I felt when filling in this year's offering. I've been trying to figure out why I was so annoyed by it. I thought of two things: the pointedness of the questions asked, and the lack of feedback. I can't do anything about the first of those, but I can take a bash at the second one. We've had surveys like this for a few years now but it's never clear to me if they're worth the money and work -- total work of all staff filling them in -- they must involve. 'What', I found myself asking, 'were the outcomes of previous surveys?' I just got my fourth reminder to fill in this year's survey. (Folks, I heard you the first time.) Staff are obviously not responding with alacrity. If the cause is 'voter apathy', here's a proposal: the request to fill in each year's survey should include a list of things that resulted from the previous year's survey: employment contract terms amended; bike sheds installed; services to departments improved. If I care about just one thing that happened, I'll be encouraged to fill in this year's survey. If it turns out that I don't care about anything that was done, then I'll know that too. This is, after all, merely what a sound business plan would involve: do something, see what benefits accrued, and if it wasn't worth it, don't do it again. The university is telling departments and faculties that each initiative must be supported by a business plan, so it should welcome the idea for its own activities. Simon Slavin ****** Dear subtext, ****** Dear subtext, Yours, Impressed of Furness. ****** Dear subtext, A colleague was recently knocked off his bicycle by one of the many dangerous potholes in the campus roads. It might be better to avoid future litigation for damages if these were repaired rather than spending so much on grandiose concrete. Name and Address Supplied
The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |