issue 41

30 June 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, university court, rebalancing the wheel, postgraduate pressures, more on gerundives, shelving, age discrimination, Wallups's world, letters

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

With our ocean liner trunks strapped prior to departure, those of us still left in the subtext warehouse pause briefly, reflecting on the pluses and the minuses of the past year. One piece of good news (as the Vice-Chancellor will keep reminding us) was the sharp rise in the University's rankings across the UK league tables. Whether this effect comes from more appropriate data analysis, or by falling in line with less scrupulous practices elsewhere in the sector, is for those closer to the point of analysis to say. Nevertheless, it's certainly good news that undergraduate admissions are on track, and that postgraduate admissions are rising up the agenda. Surely an appropriate tribute ought to be made to the efforts made by staff across the institution: recruiting students at all levels, caring for them while they are here, ensuring our positive word-of-mouth reputation ripples across the world - and indeed offsetting the fickle vagaries of the league tables. Perhaps a suitable slogan could be emblazoned in gold letters at some very public site? Do send in your suggestions for wording and location, please.

But another strong candidate for the year's biggest positive might be the establishment of the new School of Health and Medicine. An aspiration of the institution since its beginnings, the current developments can be traced back to a gleam in the eye of the previous Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and the steady efforts of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, who both persevered while others were doubtful at best. In the end, it looks like Lancaster may have avoided the worst pitfalls of other medical schools, especially their inordinately priced buildings and equipment, while gaining access to good students and new sources of research funding. There is, however, no prize for identifying the biggest negative: subtext readers know already all there is to say about DCE, and the only point to be added is to remind university management that it is still not too late to draw back, rethink, and avoid following through (no scatological pun intended, though on reflection it feels curiously appropriate) on a serious misjudgement.

The University's first moat, around the new Postgraduate Statistics Centre (see subtext 35) is clearly an occasion of special importance, and we await with enthusiasm the accompanying half-timbered buildings that will surely follow (as well as the restoration of the one we already have). Nevertheless, the fate of the erratic removed from Alexandra Square (see subtext 27) is still not resolved, and we trust that the store room where it is being held is at least as secure as the subtext warehouse (by the way, Mavis, the key is under the mat as usual – do give the Gaggia a thorough clean). More controversially, there continues to be a population of contractors that at times seems to equal the student population. They too have a job to do, but is subtext alone in wishing the University to return to being a place of learning and living rather than a perpetual building site? We hoisted a small flag when car parking regulations were at last enforced on these visitors; we trust this effort will be sustained.

And so, as subtext readers also disperse near and far, grateful thanks are due to all contributors and letter writers, acknowledged and unacknowledged. The subtext agenda for next year is already shaping up (oh yes, could someone keep an eye on that (non)decision making body that is UMAG while we're away?), and we look forward to our, and your, return.

*****************************************************

NEWS IN BRIEF

Department of Continuing Education (DCE)

The report of the Review Group on DCE, chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, is expected to feature strongly at today’s meeting of the senior management group (UMAG). Whatever the recommendations, serious questions continue to be raised regarding the process by which this situation has been handled (see the University Court report below). It is becoming clear that the University’s simplistic approach for a quick opt out from Open Studies is not feasible, not least because there are moral and potential legal commitments to those students who have a legitimate expectation of completing their course. It would appear to be a classic example of shooting ourselves in the foot. In the meantime, it is understood that 12 staff out of 39 have now left, at what is acknowledged as being one of DCE's busiest periods, as over the next two months some 18 summer schools are due to be run at Lancaster. The message seems to be 'sorry about the uncertainty and possible loss of your job, but thank you for your support and continued hard work'. If the University was to be judged on its performance and handling of the situation and treatment of staff to date, then few would see it as anywhere other than bottom of this particular league table.

*****

Statute 20

The University, it seems, remains determined to change Statute 20 (the statute which contains a definition of academic freedom as well as a number of key employment procedures and protections which apply to academic and related staff). However, at present, progress has been limited because of the refusal of the Lancaster branch of the University and College Union (UCU) to engage in any further discussions, pending the University entering into meaningful dialogue regarding the situation in the Department of Continuing Education. At the time of writing the impasse remains, though it is likely that over the summer the University may seek to formulate its own proposals and bring them to Senate at the start of the next academic year. The issues are complex and of major significance for staff at Lancaster. subtext will be following developments over the summer with the intention of reporting on them in good time.

*****

The VC's future, or two and two make ...

Rumours continue to reach subtext that the Vice-Chancellor once again has been testing himself in the HE market place. Those in the know point to periods of 'personal leave' as one indication of job interviews, and the 7-11 June saw the VC so occupied. As ever, the 'where' is intriguing campus gossips, and it is believed that this time the Vice-Chancellorship at the University of Birmingham may have proved the temptation. Who knows? However, it was announced in the Times Higher two weeks ago that the successful candidate for this post is Professor David Eastwood, currently Chief Executive of HEFCE (and previously Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia). He leaves barely half way through his term there and will be taking over the reins at Birmingham in April of next year. It does, of course, leave a vacancy at the Funding Council which might prove attractive to some of its current Council members. Professor Wellings' name is already being bandied around as one of a number of potential successors (see http://tinyurl.com/4syqyx).

*****

College Bars Review

In a recent communication to the College Principals the Vice-Chancellor reminded them that it was time to assess the plan of action they put forward for the college bars in August last year. Amongst other things, one key aim was to achieve a net profit of £290k for the current financial year. As the recent management accounts reveal, this now appears increasingly unlikely. Achieving the target cannot have been helped by the changing drinking habits of students (see 'The Party's Over', Education Guardian, 3 June 2008, where research from Lancaster academics in Criminology and the Management School is cited: http://tinyurl.com/62ddo2). Nor can the extended closure of Fylde College Bar for refurbishment have helped. However, few feel the Budget Review Group, when it meets on 9 July, will understand or be ready to acknowledge the complexities, and most college officers seem resigned to the bars moving to a different, centralized system of managerial control. The likely recipient of this poisoned chalice is the Commercial Director, David Peeks. The memo makes clear that each college will still have a bar, and that bars will remain an important element of college identities - though how this will be achieved is not clear. It also makes the obvious point about the desirability of reducing the alcohol culture on campus, so, presumably, we might see attempts to discourage the sale of alcohol through campus outlets such as the Spar Supermarket and LUSU stores. How college JCRs will react to the changes is unclear but the fact that any new system will be implemented over the summer when students are away is likely to defuse opposition.

*****

Clamping on campus

Readers may be aware that car parking regulations are now to be strictly enforced over the vacation periods, starting this summer. For those of you who prefer the excitement of pitting your wits against security staff or hiding cars in secluded corners of campus, subtext can reveal that a major investment in additional wheel clamps is about to be made with the purchase of a further 55. It is also understood that responsibility for enforcement may be shifting to the Environment and Travel Coordinator. Rumour has it that he will bring a zealous enthusiasm to this aspect of his role, though it is to be hoped there will be some respite during graduation week as anxious and harassed parents and relatives attempt to get to the Great Hall in time for the ceremony.

*****

Staff Prizes 2008

subtext congratulates all the nominees and recipients of the various staff prizes for this academic year. What is acknowledged as one of the friendlier and sociable of our formal occasions took place on 16 June in the Management School. A short ceremony was followed by a pleasant and relaxed reception where winners with their supporters and guests chatted with colleagues and others. On this occasion speeches are usually short and sweet, which is why the Vice-Chancellor's overlong recitation of how well the institution is doing seemed to miss the point - namely that the occasion is all about individuals and their outstanding contribution. The Chancellor, who gave out the awards, seems to understand this: for him, too, Lancaster is a very good university, but it's all about the staff who make it so.

*****

Bailrigg Science Park

In his speech at the staff prizes ceremony, the Vice-Chancellor seemed rather more bullish about the feasibility of Bailrigg Science Park, saying that the traffic problem that was preventing its development may now be capable of resolution. What can he mean? Have his friends at the NWDA found the money needed to move junction 33 to Hazelrigg Lane (see subtext 36)? Residents of Lancaster who have bemoaned the lack of funds to carry out other transport improvements in the area may not appreciate the fast-tracking of such a speculative venture.

*****

Consultation in action

Readers may be aware that for some time now a consultancy firm has been retained by the University to work with the colleges on a re-branding exercise. Opinions vary as to the value of this initiative but it is reputed to be costing tens of thousands of pounds in fees alone. Some of the work they are doing involves the redesign of college logos. Problems arise, of course, should individual colleges not like the consultants' proposals. It seems that this recently happened with one college to the south of Alexandra Square. When it did, subtext understands, it was subsequently made known to the Principal by the Director of Estates Management that a further refusal would mean the college not receiving any of the monies available for branding work over the summer - i.e. that they would get nothing for the necessary minor works. This is surely further evidence of the emptiness of consultative processes about which many staff and students complain.

****************************************************

SPECIAL MEETING OF UNIVERSITY COURT

Members of Court gathered in the Faraday Lecture Theatre last Wednesday (25 June) to discuss recent developments regarding the Department of Continuing Education (DCE). Given the timing of the meeting, quoracy was always going to be difficult to achieve, as senior management knew only too well, but it was a close run thing. Informed that 92 members were needed to make it quorate, in the event 89 was the closest the meeting came to this figure. Documentation for the meeting was also sparse, though helpfully a brief background note had been circulated to members by the local branch of the University and College Union (UCU), and prior to the meeting members of the Senior Learners Society and others gave out more information on DCE and its activities. Deputy Pro-Chancellor Gordon Johnson, in the chair, obtained agreement for the meeting to proceed informally, unless made quorate by further attendees. A written report of the discussions could still go to the DCE Review group and to University Council, which in his view meant the outcome of the meeting was the same in practical terms. One important difference, though, was that any prepared motions, critical or otherwise of the University's actions, could not be put and voted upon. The University Secretary was called upon to outline the respective constitutional positions of Council, Senate and Court as regards any future decisions about DCE - interestingly, no mention was made here of the role of UMAG - and off we went.

Or rather not. The floor was given over to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who proceeded to insert two barriers between himself and the audience - the top table for the senior officers and the teaching desk at the front of the lecture theatre. He cut a lonely figure. His presentation was detailed, complex and lasted for some twenty five minutes without a visual aid in sight. It ranged over the national picture as regards adult education, government funding priorities and the challenges confronting DCE. Some in the audience must have wondered what they had walked into; a tour-de-force it was not! In the comments and questions which followed, the President of the Students Union neatly described it when he congratulated the Deputy Vice-Chancellor on an effective filibuster. The University and its regional role and obligations got barely a mention and, ultimately, it seemed to boil down to opportunity-cost considerations as regards DCE's Open Studies activities and whether we should or could afford to be involved. As one speaker later remarked, the financial dimension is important, but insufficient by itself: the University was in danger of 'knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing'. It might just be that many members of the Court, having heard many times how successful the University is, financially and educationally, and how much it values the region, are somewhat perplexed by the University management's actions in this case.

Process issues were another constant theme of many of the contributions from the floor: the manner and tone of the internal email announcement from the Vice-Chancellor in March to DCE staff, and the subsequent press release which meant many part time tutors and students first heard the news from media reports; the subsequent woeful communications with LUSU and the campus unions, the ongoing strain and demoralisation inevitably inflicted upon staff and the damage to the University's reputation - all of these were commented upon and seemed to produce some discomfort at least amongst those members of senior management at the front. How many would share the Deputy Pro-Chancellor's defence of the Vice-Chancellor - namely that there are always choices to be made in such situations and that the Vice-Chancellor's decision was reasonable in the circumstances - is not clear. Certainly, it came over as somewhat lame. At least the Court received an unambiguous assurance that there was no intention to close the department. It is to be hoped that the Review Group, who were committed to reporting to UMAG on 30 June, will have framed their recommendations accordingly, and taken due note of a meeting of the Court, well populated and widely representative, that was strongly supportive of a positive outcome for DCE.

*****************************************************

REBALANCING THE WHEEL

In the subtext warehouse, much emptying of cupboards is taking place to prepare for an eagerly-awaited research-intensive summer. Of the key issues that this process has thrown up, the present and future organisation of the faculties and central administration seems to be a matter on which too little has been heard. Any rebalancing will presumably involve choices between centre and faculties, and faculties and their departments, in both directions, and the process reviews (see subtext 40) partly address these questions. But the arcane administrative structures of the University are a great mystery to many, which suggests the need for a little scene-setting. So let's go back to the beginning.

In the beginning was the University. And the University was not exactly without form and void - there were departments, and there was a centre - but the two interacted quite cheerfully on all matters, both great and small. But then God (or someone anyway) created the faculties, which increasingly served to divide the matters which were under the faculties from the matters which were above the faculties. Then on the third day (in 2005, actually) the faculties were consolidated into three great lights - one to rule knowledge of nature, one knowledge of the human world, and one the things of Mammon. These megafaculties brought forth abundantly people of the professional ranks - and not everyone thought that this was good.

But the evolution continues. An interesting review report, initiated from within FASS, had been lying in a cupboard since the early spring. The faculty, it is said, needs more financial and more research support, as well as improved postgraduate procedures (but see below) and an improved web facility. The intention is to create some new faculty-level posts and, over a three-year period, to make them cost-neutral within the faculty. This will be done by relocating some current departmental support, while achieving reductions in departmental load, e.g. by the operation of a more commodious Agresso system, or by departments offloading current work to the faculty. This self-denying ordinance seems admirable, especially since student contact will mainly continue to be at departmental level. The position may be helped by a major turnover of senior faculty posts, in which newcomers more readily adjust to changed expectations of their roles and their support mechanisms. subtext will watch with considerable interest to see whether these virtuous intentions are achieved, whether the departments feel adequately supported in the future, and how deft faculty officers are in managing the sensitivities and concerns of the people concerned.

subtext receives word of a less happy situation in the central administration. Persistent mentions are made of staff being repatriated to space that has been refurbished not in accordance with their suggestions. Additionally, Senate has approved a review, to be led by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, but with decisions reserved to the Vice-Chancellor, which appears to be getting off to a slow start but with a tight September deadline. In contrast with the net neutral rebalancing that FASS is attempting between departments and the faculty, the reorganisation of the central administration may involve both more radical change and a net reduction of resources (or, in the way of these things, reductions in some places while other functions multiply). There is an expectation of realignment of central administration in relation to the three faculties, and perhaps some impatience that more change has not been internally generated already. Issues about spans of control, the setting of priorities, areas of perceived ineffectiveness, and the relative autonomy of different levels, will all be important. subtext waits to see how these issues play out and particularly to what extent those who are most directly involved are able to make choices about the operation of their own functions.

*****************************************************

POSTGRADUATE PRESSURES

On the subject of process reviews, that of our postgraduate admissions procedures seems to be rumbling along, with numerous small but immediate changes to be made, as well as some strategic choices to be faced. More use of IT is seen as a priority - when it becomes available - and generally the push is to facilitate decisions and the flow of paperwork at all stages. Lancaster's postgraduate population is vital to its academic health and success, and the institution's record to date on recruiting and managing postgraduates seems not to match its academic standing, so improvements are to be welcomed.

subtext is left curious about how the distribution of authority on postgraduate recruitment between centre, faculties and departments will be handled, particularly given the requirement for consistency across the institution, and whether sufficient priority is being given to bringing in more research students, with their greater investment in their subjects and potentially in the university. And, given the propensity for increases in electronic transactions to lead to impersonation and falsification (in this area of qualifications, references and financial guarantees), what percentage will be built in for applications that are fraudulent? Doubtless some enlightenment will be forthcoming in the new academic year.

*****************************************************

THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE GERUNDIVE

Many thanks to all the subtext readers who wrote in response to last issue's editorial ruminations on the gerundive, prompted by the word 'graduand'. You will remember that the gerundive is a particular verb form, used to indicate when a noun needs or deserves something to be done to it (so that 'graduand', for example, describes a student who needs a degree conferring on them). While praising the gerundive, we lamented that there were so few gerundives in English – indeed, we don't seem to have any of our own, but have simply inherited a few wholesale from Latin, and they're starting to look a bit tatty.

A few of you wrote to suggest that gerundives were far more common in spoken and written English than we implied, and listed a few. Bob Jessop reminded us of referendum and referenda (things that need to be referred back), and explanandum and explananda (things that need to be explained). Sam Barnett-Cormack suggested operand and multiplicand (things to be operated on or multiplied, such as in an equation – you see, not all subtext readers are arts graduates), referendum (again), Miranda, (worthy of admiration) and Amanda (worthy of being loved). Jessica Abrahams wrote in to say that in her schooldays her favourite grammatical constructions included things like 'for the asking' and 'for the taking', but admitted that she wasn't sure whether these were gerundives or gerunds.

Maybe we can help here, Jessica. Gerundives are passive, and tend to sit around waiting for an act to be done to them. Gerunds, by contrast, are active – they name the act of doing something ('walking by the canal', 'filling in the staff survey', etc.), so that we can say something about the act (whether we like it, hate it, dread it, don't have time for it, or whatever).

As you can see, gerunds in English (yes, we have our own, yay!) typically have an –ing in them. So, yes, Jessica, it is as you feared – your examples sound suspiciously like gerunds to us. And they're a darn sight more common than gerundives. It's easy to spot them around the campus – at the swimming pool, on the playing fields, and especially when you contemplate marking the exam scripts that you've put off too long.

For anyone who wants a quick graphic guide to telling the difference, see Ronald Searle's illustrations for How to be Topp: A Guide to Sukcess for Tiny Pupils (http://tinyurl.com/58j3w). What is most striking here is Searle's illustration of the moment that a rather supercilious gerund 'cuts' a gerundive in an act of 'social snobbery'. This rather lends weight to subtext's claim that the gerundive is undervalued. Perhaps their apparently passive nature is just deeply unfashionable in these entrepreneurial times. This is a state of affairs that surely needs correcting. (Now, did you see that? I needed a gerundive there and there really wasn't one to hand.) On the strength of her first name alone, we propose that Amanda Chetwynd, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for colleges and the student experience, should have gerundival affairs added to her portfolio.

Readers will also remember that we called for suggestions for new gerundives. Rising to the challenge (no, don't get excited, that was just a common or garden past participle – they can look just like gerunds, especially in their summer plumage), Sam Barnett-Cormack suggested 'masticand' for food that is to be eaten and 'potand' for liquid that is to be drunk, and Ian Saunders suggested 'studand' for 'that all too common person who is just about to start studying right up to (and often beyond) their appearance before the Standing Academic Committee'.

In a similar vein Robbie Smith suggested the following:

'Essayendum - a student essay that, at the point of deadline, is in that state of limbo consequent upon the student discovering, just as s/he was about to print off the work that the printer had run out of ink (this could also imply the related 'extendum' - an extension that has not yet been granted, but the student knows will be as soon as the above sad state of affairs is explained to the weary and stressed-out tutor an hour after the deadline for submission of the essay).

'Redunduand - someone (possibly the aforementioned weary and stressed-out tutor) who is still technically employed by the university but whose department is being closed, has no firm assurance of what their future role will be/whether they will have a role; and expects the axe to fall any day now ...'

Finally, Mike Wright responded to our suggestion of 'divorcand' for a married person who has committed adultery but has not yet got their just desserts with a query as to whether the latter meal might involve humble pie.

Yes. Hmm. Maybe we should call time on this topic for now. After all, gerundives may be lovely creatures but they don't last for ever: they tend to have whatever they need doing to them, done to them, and poof, they're gone. But of course their demise can be far more dramatic than their quiet existence. So the subtext collective looks forward to seeing many of you at and around congregation next month, when graduands, masticands and potands galore will be cheerfully losing their gerundival status. Congratulations to all our graduates-to-be!

*****************************************************

THE SAFE LOADING OF SHELVES

A recent memo from the Safety Office to heads of departments and sections and area safety officers has been drawn to our attention. It concerns the safe loading of shelves and recounted a recent incident where a set of shelves had collapsed because they were overloaded. No one was injured it seems, but the memo went on to indicate that the supports and brackets were not of the type normally installed by Estates. The brackets which had failed it seems were 'simple right angle cantilevers of unknown quality'. A helpful link was provided to advice on the safe loading of shelves (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/safety/download/loading-of-shelves-guidance.pdf) and it was recommended that departments should examine any shelves used to store heavy matter to ensure the loading is within safe limits.

One recipient of the memo from the Management School offered the following comments:

'And yet Max Weber once spoke of the need to feel "crushed by the weight of work". From the moment of reading that I have always felt how fitting it would be for an academic to die in an avalanche of books'.

However, on reflection, the subtext collective wondered whether the memo says more about overburdened heads of department than about overburdened shelves. Of course, it might be argued that some HoDs are themselves 'simple right angle cantilevers of unknown quality' - but we'll leave such speculations to our readers. But might it be the case that HoDs who just can't keep up with their overflowing in-trays have been fitting unauthorised shelving installed into their offices, on which they have been sleeping overnight to save time? If so, subtext cannot approve of such practices. Surely Estates will have special brackets for installing such facilities? Do write in with your own thoughts.

*****************************************************

AGE DISCRIMINATION

subtext readers may be aware of the University of Manchester's decision to force into retirement two of its most outstanding scholars, Professors Sheila Rowbotham and Terry Eagleton. It is a decision which has attracted considerable criticism from international scholars, (see Guardian letters, 20 May - http://tinyurl.com/5slfnw). 'Financial constraints' is the reason offered by the university. It is an incident which reminded us that Lancaster has an Age Equality Policy and Procedure. Part of this is a fair retirement procedure whereby individuals approaching their normal retirement age can request to work beyond it. Have such requests been made at Lancaster? How many have been successful or unsuccessful and on what grounds? Are we likely to see similar decisions to those at Manchester being made here, now that the RAE submission is in? subtext would welcome information on this important issue

*****************************************************

WALLUPS'S WORLD

From: Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U)

To: Dirk Le Swanthrums Director of Estates, LuVE-U

Re: Micromanagement

Sensitivity: Confidential

Dirk,

Now, you know how much I appreciate your role as my representative on earth, as it were, but a joke's a joke.

No, I'm not talking about the Beckhamesque photo-ops on campus with your latest sprog strapped to your front (is it true they're all named after campus driveways, by the way?). I mean all this micromanagement of yours that I keep hearing about. Let me give you some examples.

First I heard that you'd insisted on all the switches in Ribblesdale College being turned upside down at great expense because the switches were up instead of down when the lights were on.

Then I was told that your office has got a two-week turnaround on decisions on baked potato fillings in the Venue – apparently students are complaining they can't wait that long for their lunch – they've got lectures to go to!

Now I find out that you've been talking to the chaps in environmental sciences about weather control – something about the clouds over campus not being the right shape or exact colour of grey to match the university logo? Is that right?

I know you persuaded me to give you right of veto over any minor works on campus, but that's before I realised what lengths you were going to take it to. It's not so much the logjam of work in your office that's annoying me here. Come on, Dirk, you know micromanagement is MY middle name – stop upstaging me!

Yours,

Nigel

*****************************************************

LETTERS

Podcasting

Dear Subtext,

Podcasting already happens here at Lancaster, indeed Prof Geraint Johnes was ahead of the field in this matter.

You may be interested to read more at: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/news/thesjohnes06/

Best regards,

Bob Lauder

*****************************************************

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker.