| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 38 15 May 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, principals, hub space, social space, staff space, council report, posters comp, good at everything, insurance, urban myth, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The provision, character and use of space at the University is something that concerns everyone who lives and works here. On this topic, academics and academic-related staff have been rolled over (and, some might argue, have often been complicit or at least passive in the rolling) to a shameful extent. The use of space in a compact, campus university such as Lancaster is a crucial issue. Management will point to extensive processes of consultation, whereas staff in University House will remember that their response to extensive consultation on the idea of open-plan offices was a resounding negative, and may wonder how far that got them. There is often a visible gap between the agendas and priorities of who provide space and those who use it. To some extent this may be inevitable - there are too many conflicting needs for everyone to be kept entirely happy all the time. But decisions are now being taken which will have long-term consequences. Space, once lost, is seldom regained. These decisions need to be taken after full and meaningful consultation, and the process needs to be demonstrably transparent and disinterested. Space is not purely a 'management issue', however much it would be more convenient and speedy to treat it as such. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF DCE The situation as regards the Department of Continuing Education remains far from satisfactory, and one can only have sympathy with the staff there who continue to progress important activities notwithstanding the threat of job losses. subtext can report that the campus unions held an informal briefing session with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor in late April. It was described as cordial, but as having raised more questions than it answered regarding the reasoning and evidence behind what has been an unprecedented series of actions by the University management. The damage has been done, as staff and students within DCE can testify. The internal review group, chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, continues its work, but few have confidence that its recommendations will do anything other than confirm what has already been announced. The University is keen to emphasise that we are still in a 'not-a-redundancy-situation' situation, but it is hard to accept this when job losses have already been so publicly announced. Why the University did this when it did remains something of a mystery and points to a serious error of judgement. Meanwhile, action in support of DCE continues. The online petition to be presented to the University Chancellor has now attracted over 1000 signatures. There was an excellent turn-out for an open meeting of University staff and students held on 30 April, which heard what were at times emotional accounts of what it is like to work and study within DCE at the present time. The LUSU Union Council have offered their support for the campaign and passed an emergency motion to this effect, notwithstanding ill-disguised attempts to warn them off this matter. Finally, subtext understands that the necessary signatures have been collected to request a special meeting of University Court, where the rationale behind the University's actions can be publicly scrutinized and discussed. The response of the University is awaited with interest. **** Roses 2008 Roses 2008 ended with a victory for York, albeit with the final result being extremely close. At the start of the final day, a Lancaster victory appeared to be at best a very remote possibility, but a strong showing by the home university during the final stretch (particularly in Archery) saw them narrowing the gap, but not, unfortunately closing it. The good news is that the Blue Riband event, the croquet match between the respective Chancellors, Vice Chancellors and Athletic Union Presidents, was won by Lancaster. Hurrah! Our congratulations to them and, indeed, all participants deserve congratulations for their strong performances across a wide range of sports. As is customary, it was also a weekend of socialising and merry-making. The vast majority of this was in good spirits, but it was a shame to hear reports of incidents of campus vandalism and anti-social behaviour. We can only hope that these were things for which the home team was not responsible. **** Ruskin Library Thursday 8 May was the date chosen to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the opening of the Ruskin Library by the university's former chancellor, HRH Princess Alexandra. The new and splendid exhibition on the journeys that John Ruskin undertook through his lifetime was kept open for the full afternoon. Later, a gathering that included the staff of the Ruskin Library, the current members of the Ruskin Seminar, the trustees of the Ruskin Foundation, the honorary graduates from ten years earlier and other special guests heard the incoming Dean of Arts and Social Sciences, Tony McEnery, announce both a personal chair in art history for Stephen Wildman, and the grant of full museum accreditation to the Ruskin Library. A cake expertly created in the shape of the Library was ceremonially cut, and there was a presentation of the results of a five-year project on Ruskin's Venetian Notebooks, creating a hypertext that allows readers to navigate seamlessly between manuscript, transcription, associated Ruskin drawings, and contemporary artefact. Not even the most technologically challenged need to be fearful of following such routes. A celebratory dinner for special guests was planned to follow. The occasion marked the coming to maturity of the whole Ruskin enterprise, and subtext wishes these activities every continuing success, and ever greater use of the Whitehouse Collection. **** Senate The next meeting of Senate will take place on Wednesday 21st May. It is expected that, amongst others, the following potentially note-worthy items will appear on the agenda: * the proposed new constitution for the School of Health and Medicine (with a business plan to follow in October) * the presentation of the draft institutional briefing paper on the QAA audit * presentation of the Lancashire Lifelong Learning Network bid * proposals on assessment policy, anonymous marking and revised plagiarism framework **** New Centre At a ceremony held in the Management School last week, a new research centre was launched, in partnership with, and with financial support from Gulf One Investment Bank, which is based on Bahrain. Nahed Tahir is a CEO of the bank and a Lancaster PhD graduate. The centre, directed at Lancaster by Marwan Izzeldin, will concentrate its research on economics and finance in the Middle East and North Africa region, and particularly energy, infrastructure and Islamic banking. The centre, which will also offer training and consultancy to business, is funded by a philanthropic donation of £300,000 from Gulf One. The venture would appear to be fashionable in the current climate in more than one respect. One the one hand, it is an example of the much vaunted 'business partnership' which we are all now being encouraged to forge, and its research on 'Islamic banking' also fits in with the increasingly high profile of Islamic Studies at western universities, which, as this venture shows, is by no means restricted to Arabic and Islamic and Religious Studies departments. Similar ventures have recently been pursued by Oxford and Edinburgh. **** Sick Building Syndrome? April 2008 saw a complaint from a member of staff in Student Support regarding the incidence amongst staff of symptoms that might indicate Sick Building Syndrome. It's not entirely clear who has experienced which symptoms and when they might have started, but a number of staff have apparently been affected in Student Support and also the Registry following the refurbishment and reoccupation of part of A floor, University House in April 2007. Discussions have been held involving the two heads of sections, the Occupational Health Nurse and the Safety Office. Investigations of the air intake for the mechanical ventilation system that provides some of the fresh air to the area and its staff have revealed no obvious sources of pollution that might be the cause of the problem, but it is understood that staff worries remain. ***** Open Plan Issues It is believed that the Estates Office is also the subject of formal complaints from some staff regarding the levels of background noise in their open plan general office. Background noise is to be measured, but in the interim staff have been asked to reduce unnecessary noise. It apparently has been remarked that they didn't have problems like this at the BBC where open plan design is all the rage for those creative professionals. The reality is, perhaps, that the consequences of a surveillance and control design are all too predictable, even if ignored in this case and elsewhere in University House. ***** PVC Renewal ***** Staff Survey The VC is due to give his summary of the results of the Staff Survey on Wednesday 14th, which is just past the subtext copy deadline. We will be reporting upon it in the next issue. ****************************************************** THE PRINCIPAL OF THE THING These days, getting people to take on College duties - even with a buy-out - isn't easy. All officers of the various Colleges are to be heartily commended. The College system is, most agree, one of the defining features of this University and should be supported and defended. Congratulations and thanks are therefore due to Jo Hardman, who is to be the new Principal of Graduate College in succession to Professor Maurice Kirby, who is retiring this year. No doubt the college will benefit greatly from Jo Hardman's enthusiasm and commitment. Jo's appointment does, however, raise a wider issue, not least arising from his day job as LUSU's Business Development Manager. Against a background of a dwindling supply of academics willing to become involved with the Colleges, it is unsurprising that the Colleges have looked to other parts of the University to fill its posts. Only 3 of the 10 Colleges presently have principals who are academics. However, some feel that Graduate College is different to the other Colleges in that it is comprised entirely of postgraduates, many of whom are doing research degrees. As such, there was a widespread assumption that the new Principal would be someone with a background in a culture of research, probably a senior professor. For the Graduate College to appoint outside the academic community is no doubt substantially due to the various virtues and strengths that Jo Hardman will bring to the role. But is this yet another indication of the paucity of senior academics willing to support the colleges? ****************************************************** HUB SPACE Subscribers may be aware of 'The Hub' in the Management School. This is a large open-plan area provided for students to meet, discuss, work and socialise. It should first be acknowledged that when the idea was originally mooted, there were those who suggested that the area would be a white elephant. These nay-sayers have been proved largely wrong. The area is demonstrably popular with Management School students, and those who pushed it through can regard themselves as vindicated. (And we bet they do.) Over the summer, the present occupants of Bowland A floor (the line of rooms facing into Alexandra Square at the top of the steps) are moving to County or are to be relocated on the other side of Bowland quad. This will involve taking over space currently occupied by Linguistics staff who as yet have not been consulted about their coming eviction. The space released by this is, we understand, to be turned into another Hub. It will be a similar open-plan area, with computers, chairs and tables, (but no books). There will be a café run by Catering. We understand that one mooted possibility is that the Venue is to be relocated, and will take over the Spine side of Bowland that presently houses the foyer, college and JCR offices. (Two cafés, side by side, both run by University Catering. There's a thought to gladden the heart and mind.) However, we are assured that final decisions have not yet been taken, and a full consultation process is promised. The Student Union is represented on the relevant committee; let's hope that whatever plan is eventually arrived at has received full scrutiny. The success of the Management School Hub notwithstanding, there are those who suggest that the rationale for 'Hub 2' is perhaps less compelling. Many students in the Management School are from overseas and there is a suggestion that they are culturally less prone than Home students to gathering in bars. The Management School also does a good deal of group work, which requires its students to meet regularly. These two characteristics have combined to account, at least in part, for the success of The Hub. Some feel that Hub 2 will not have these advantages. A lot will depend on the new café; what it serves, how it is run, and whether it can make itself loved. (See snide comment in the paragraph above.) Permit us to list some questions that the Committee may wish to consider. Some academics will feel that there is no substitute for having learning space in with the learning materials - i.e. in the Library. Will Hub 2 be a substitute for extending and improving the Library? How will Hub 2 be supervised, and what will be the hours when it is available? How flexible will the catering provision be? Will people be able to have conversations, as per the Management School, or will the layout prevent this? Will the place feel adequately airy and luxurious e.g. armchairs as well as desks? Will there be lockers for temporary storage of materials e.g. overnight, and how will this be managed? (One might even mention here the idea of an Off-Campus Student Social Centre - might this be an opportunity here to fill this gap? Just a thought.) The example of postgraduate space for the arts and social sciences that was provided upstairs in what is now the health and medicine area is not encouraging; students hated it, and quickly made it plain they wanted to go back to their departments and be close to teaching staff. Will the new space be intended for and aimed primarily at undergraduates, who will want books and journals, and printers, and photocopiers, and space to walk about and meet friends? It is unlikely that any of these doubts will be allowed to derail plans for Hub 2. Let's hope the doubters are proved wrong again and that the facility is permanently thronged with happy and fulfilled students. It would be a shame if Hub 2 turned out to be just a University vanity project to impress parents on Open Days; clean, well-appointed, and hardly ever used. ****************************************************** SOCIAL SPACE We understand that Hub 2 (see above) will stretch almost the length of the Alexandra Square steps, and will incorporate Bowland SCR, the college library and the off-campus students' room. (It is not at all clear that commensurate space will be given back to Bowland when the other occupants of the college ground floor move out. College Officers are no doubt monitoring the floor-space diagrams closely.) Bowland SCR combines versatility with the sort of wonderfully naff 1970's Abigail's Party décor that surely merits some sort of Preservation Order. Failing that, no doubt it will just be absorbed into Hub 2 and forgotten. The loss of Bowland SCR means that only Lonsdale, Furness and Fylde still have significant, dedicated, college-run spaces. (The Director of Estates has been heard to remark that he does not 'do' SCRs. This may be fair enough; College Officers have been heard to remark that they'd like to 'do' Estates.) The inevitable result is that society meetings, socials and so forth must now perforce he held in rooms which are used during the day for teaching. We understand that the consumption of food and drink in the new teaching rooms is forbidden, which some might think would put a cramp on a social gathering, but perhaps the idea is just to ignore the prohibition, which is what seems to be happening every day anyhow. (To be fair, there does seem to be some confusion on what is and is not allowed in these rooms - but few will think that a couple of bottles of spilt Rioja on the spanking new carpet tiles would improve the colour scheme.) But even if a social occasion has plentiful food and drink, it's hard to imagine anyone going into one of the seminar rooms, with its tubular steel chairs, its grey tables, its screens and overhead projectors, and almost complete lack of decoration, and saying to themselves 'Hmmm, yeah, party on!'. This way of using space is without doubt more efficient, if efficiency is measured simply by the number of hours a room is booked out. Some may think that the concept of 'fit for purpose' is a more realistic measure. The majority of socials and events are held in the evenings and at weekends, which are times of restricted availability for these rooms. Seminar teaching rooms can of course be used for socials, in the same sense that they can also be used for mud-wrestling festivals, archery contests and model aeroplane displays. The fact that something can be done at all doesn't necessarily mean that it is therefore done well. Moreover, there is, as so often, a wider, joined-up-thinking issue here. If the senior common rooms are to be progressively confiscated, then where is the corresponding central provision that is appropriate for a research-led institution that includes lots of visitors, both day and resident, and the need to enable them to interact with staff of all kinds? The days when administrators regularly intermingled with academics forestalled a lot of mutual misunderstanding and perhaps even hostility. Much good and useful work has always been done in informal contexts. Furthermore, the Vice-Chancellor ended this year's Ideas Festival by saying that if even one otherwise unplanned interaction between the speakers, or between them and the audience, took place and resulted in future research collaboration, that would cover the expenses of the day. A wise and perceptive observation, we can all surely agree. How much more, then, would enabling colleagues to meet on a regular basis assist this process? Serendipity, by its nature, needs a setting. Elizabeth Brunner left what was then a large bequest for exactly this purpose; had interest been added to it, as it should have been, there would now be a firm foundation for a proper level of provision. Many past professors, including Terry Mansfield, led sustained campaigns on this issue, especially on the matter of academic visitors. The time has come, it seems, for another one. ********************************************************* STAFF SPACE Following the recent loss of Lonsdale SCR, here's one for a heated debate (and, we should emphasise, one on which the subtext collective has no official line). Should there be a 'Staff Only' Café or what in many other universities is known as a university-wide 'Senior Common Room'? (For the sake of argument let's agree that if the answer is 'Yes' then obviously by the same token there should be a 'Students Only' one too, although arguably such a facility already exists in effect in the various college junior common rooms.) The lack of staff social space was highlighted in the last 2 staff surveys. No-one would argue that all facilities should be restricted, and one of the strengths of Lancaster is the ease with which junior and senior members can meet on a social basis, not least in the college bars. But some would certainly argue that there should be at least one place where staff can go where there are no students (and vice versa). Question: Is it wrong for staff to want to go where there are no students? When, to take but one example, entertaining a visiting Professor from a prestigious University whom one is trying to impress or even simply to engage in advanced academic interchange, should there be the option of going somewhere were there is no jukebox, where the rugby club isn't celebrating in the corner, and where no-one has their feet on the chairs while indulging in mutual labial mastication? (Jukeboxes, rugby clubs, upraised feet and enthusiastic kissing are all indubitably fine things, but one doesn't necessarily want them around all the time.) Or do we? ************************************************************* COUNCIL REPORT The University Council's meeting on 2 May must have been one of the shortest on record. It was enlivened mainly by occasional despatches from the front line of the Roses encounter, as conveyed by Tim Roca. Mary Smyth gave a presentation on the work of the Faculty of Science and Technology. This was markedly less triumphalist in tone than some previous accounts of aspects of the University's work. Mary noted the difficulty of moving from taught postgraduate programmes that reflect the research interests of staff to programmes reflecting student demand, and the variations across departments in A level scores, which meant that the Faculty recruited rather than selected students. A possible but risky response was to raise entry requirements for all departments. Some taught postgraduate programmes, for example in safety engineering and decommissioning, had been very successful in attracting students, but others - for example in micro and nano-technology - had been less so, despite the apparent social need for expertise in the area. There were also strategic questions to be resolved about whether to focus on areas where the 'time to market' for research is relatively short, and whether to appoint more 'technology ready' researchers. The Vice-Chancellor's report included a brief mention of 'substantial issues with the sustainability' of some activities in the Department of Continuing Education, about which he had written to Council members on 19 March. The DCE issue surfaced on a few occasions during the meeting without being discussed systematically. Tim Roca mentioned it in his report on LUSU, and it featured more obliquely in the report on finances by Andrew Neal, who confirmed, in response to a question, that DCE was the department most affected by the new rule on funding for Equivalent or Lower Qualifications (ELQ). A direct question about whether there would be any compulsory redundancies met with the response that it was too early to say. This was from Bob McKinlay, who in reply to another question said that a review of DCE had been going on for several months, and that recommendations would be made to UMAG in about two months' time. The Vice-Chancellor said that the recommendations would not be finalised until the outcome was known of the negotiations with HEFCE about whether the implications of the ELQ changes had been correctly assessed. The DCE issue also featured briefly in Fiona Aiken's report, which noted that UCU had withdrawn from discussions on the new employment procedures and Statute 20 following the announcement of cuts in DCE activities. She said that the University management had 'refuted' UCU's claim that it had not entered negotiations in good faith, and denied that there was any link between the DCE announcement and the negotiations. The Vice-Chancellor commented that at national level UCU had rejected the proposed new negotiating structure, which five other unions had accepted. UCU would presumably want to submit a pay claim in the autumn, but as things stood there would be nowhere for it to submit it to. DCE's final appearance was in the revised risk register, in the form of a new risk: 'Planned reduction in part-time continuing education programmes affects regional reputation'. This was presented as a medium probability, medium impact risk, and one that was 'being actively managed by a senior group and monitored by UMAG'. ************************************************************* POSTERS The usual subtext prize (a lifetime free subscription) will be given to the person who can point out the longest-serving poster in a fully-public place at the University. (By 'fully-public' we mean in a prominent position, not for example in a JCR, or on a departmental or office notice-board.) Here's a start; there's one on the Spine-facing window of Bowland College foyer advertising a talk by David Dabydeen that's been there coming up for 2 years. Can anyone beat that? ************************************************************* GOOD AT EVERYTHING A couple of subtexts ago, as part of the discussion on contact time, we mentioned as an aside that repeatedly trumpeting that Lancaster is a 'research-led institution' was unlikely to inspire undergraduate students, who are likely to be more concerned with the quality of teaching they are going to receive rather than the amount of research going on in parts of the University that were little to do with them. It is probably co-incidental (we don't have any illusions about subtext's influence) that we are now being told that Lancaster is a 'research and teaching-led institution'. Which is fine, but this reminds one of the take-away in Lancaster which announces itself as 'Specialist in pizzas, fried chicken, burgers, Mexican and Indian food'. Which rather suggests that the word 'specialist' has no real meaning in this context. Similarly, if Lancaster is 'research and teaching-led' what's left to bring up the rear? Catering and Grounds Maintenance? ************************************************************** INSURANCE INFORMATION SERVICE Some subscribers may be labouring under the assumption that if, for example, their University office were to go up in flames, that their personal possessions would be insured under the University's policy. They aren't. Given that many academics keep several hundred of their own books in their offices, the replacement cost of which would be hard to guess but which is surely substantial, it might be worth having a look to see if your Home Insurance policy covers them. If not, keep the valuable stuff at home. (We're sure that the lack of cover provided by the University's policy is not designed in any way to encourage you to do this.) ************************************************************ URBAN MYTH Well, not a myth, exactly, more a sort of conspiracy-theory gone wrong. Many people have noticed the large number of 'symbols of power' supposedly 'hidden' in public places and artefacts. This is particularly common amongst Mason-spotters, as the eye and the pyramid on US paper currency are both supposed to be Masonic symbols. Then there are the Illuminati, David Icke's lizards, and so on. In the early 1980's a particularly eccentric President of the Young Conservatives (who were, at that time, riding high on Mrs Thatcher's popularity) noticed that the University's logo based on the design of the Chaplaincy Centre has four points, but the Centre itself has only three. This led him to the idea that there was a fourth, invisible, religion that the University (known as 'They') secretly subscribed to. The President became obsessed with the idea that those running the University were secretly a Satan-worshipping cabal. (This, to him, explained his terrible grades.) He reasoned that Satan couldn't be beaten, and that therefore the Young Conservatives should ally themselves with him. The YC Exec disagreed, voted the motion down and booted their President out. He was last seen in red braces being Something In The City. Coda: there was once a Lancaster University branch of the Hellfire Club, but the Student's Union refused to recognise it on the grounds that, as the Club's constitution stated that Satan and his minions came to all their meetings, it would mean giving funding to non-student activity. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, I thought you might find it interesting to note that we've recently been asked to retire the old Inkytext distribution list. The list, as it stands at the time of deletion contained 915 members, compared to subtext's admirable 870 - only 45 short! I think it's a testament to the work you're all doing that you have such a high number of subscribers supporting and reading subtext. Thanks for continuing the work left by Gordon so many years ago now. Ian. Ian Norton, Mail & Systems Support ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |