| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 44 17 November 2008 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term. 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. subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld. 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; performance and development review; people deficit; professorial review panel; Wallups's world; letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL While the euphoria of the American election will quickly fade, subtext nevertheless thinks that its readers should take heart from the results of the Presidential election - not just because Bush is out and Obama is in, but from the clear message that people in the USA and across Europe are hungry for high principles and idealism. The unprecedented levels of involvement by people all across the country, it seems to us, are hugely significant for what they say about underlying values. It appeared, looking at the faces of those listening to his election acceptance speech, that many were moved to tears by what they heard. Much of Obama's address was about reaching out to opponents, to people across the world (including those 'huddled around radios in forgotten corners'), and to opponents (John McCain shared in this sentiment by not baiting Obama in the last few weeks). Inclusion and change are at the heart of Obama's agenda. Much closer to home, the creeping sense at Lancaster that aetiolated languages of efficiency and productivity are displacing those of shared values feels, for a time at least, both outmoded and barren beside the sense of change and a new beginning. We might draw some lessons, particularly working in a sector that is not invulnerable at a time of recession. subtext looks to its razor-sharp Senators, its keen-eyed students, and its sagacious management, revivified by this powerful Transatlantic example, to take the institution through the approaching bumpy ride with its values intact. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF 'Greylisting' of Nottingham Trent University (NTU) Preparations are underway for the 'greylisting' of NTU by the University and College Union (UCU). The dispute is over the recent derecognition of the union by the university. Further meetings are planned with the senior management at NTU but at this point in time few seem optimistic that a satisfactory outcome will emerge. If it does not then, from 1 December, UCU members across the country along with other union and labour movement organisations and the international academic community are being asked to support UCU members at Nottingham, in any way possible. This could include actions such as not attending, speaking at or organising academic or other conferences at NTU, not applying for jobs at NTU and not taking up new contracts as external examiners for taught courses. In the recent past 'greylisting' or its threat has proved an important measure in bringing hard-line university managements back to the negotiating table. It remains to be seen whether it will be sufficient to achieve a negotiated settlement at NTU. Further information can be found at http://www.ucu.org.uk/unionattack. ****** The Vice-Chancellor's next job? Readers might be interested to know that his name continues to be bandied around as one of two possible contenders for the top job at HEFCE. The other is Professor Steve Smith, currently VC of Exeter University and chair of the 94 Group of universities. An announcement is expected before Christmas. Follow the link: http://tinyurl.com/5q34dg. subtext can't help but infer that Professor Wellings is on his way out. That reinforces the need to scrutinise the decisions he may now be considering since we shall after all be living with them. And there's still time for suggestions as to his legacy at Lancaster, (see the last issue). ****** Student employment on campus It is understood that the Commercial Director has begun to authorise the use of catering staff to work behind the college bars, rather than student members of colleges, which has been the default position. It was always suspected that he would. Cartmel College Bar is the first to experience this. When so-called meal 'deals' are being offered, catering staff are now in evidence serving drinks as well as food. Apparently, catering staff are more 'efficient', though they are also likely to be less expensive. If the practice spreads it will mean the loss of an important source of valuable employment income for many students on campus. The reaction of college JCRs and LUSU is awaited with interest. Current bar staff appear to be considering their options and possible action via a Facebook group. ****** LUSU sabbatical posts LUSU has been unable to appoint an Education and Welfare Officer for 2008-09. When the elected officer failed his Finals, and was unable to take up his post, a call for nominations failed to elicit any. Given the importance of this post for students, this leaves other LUSU officers with a heavy load, and may limit their ability to mount campaigns this year. There is also the little matter of the QAA audit early in the New Year to manage. However, with the major overhaul of posts envisaged in the current LUSU review, the allocation of duties will in any case be shifting considerably - and the changes seem to circumvent neatly some rather tired arguments about the current line-up. subtext wishes these imaginative proposals well. ****** Campus wildlife The recent absence of rabbits around campus has been commented upon. It is understood that a cull was requested and took place some months ago and numbers have yet to recover. The request to the local authority to have them removed allegedly came from the highest level, but this cannot be verified. Can anyone recall whether rabbit casserole became an established menu item within University catering outlets at that time? After all, income-generation opportunities are rarely scorned. ****** Plagiarism (again!) This is something that subtext has featured previously, but now it appears that the plagiarism is taking on a slightly different form. Apparently, students are now using Facebook to cheat. This and other social networking sites are being used to copy from each other when discussing coursework. See http://tinyurl.com/6cku9g. Let's hope that this doesn't apply to our own 'MyPlace'. ****************************************************** PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW How much do you know about 'Performance and Development Review' (PDR), and how much does it alter the system of appraisal that it is to replace? Given that many subtext readers will be expected to adhere to the new procedures, we have some concerns that far-reaching changes, while undergoing formal consultation with HoDs and campus unions, are probably not sufficiently widely known but are certainly of more than passing interest. Appraisal has often been honoured in the breach, but the new procedure will be required of staff. In place of a conversation to consider progress to date and agree some developmental activities for the future, leading to a report that was confidential between the appraiser and appraisee, the PDR will be formal and annual, and will provide the opportunity to 'reflect on, clarify expectations and standards and agree current and future performance and development needs, leading to production of appropriate plans'. The discussion is to 'support performance', objectives or targets can either be 'objective-led or standard-led' and should be based 'on SMART principles, so that each is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound'. While there may be pleasure that, '[i]n line with the University's Total Reward approach and faculty/divisional practices, reward and recognition' might follow in the form of financial rewards, career progression or development opportunities (all of which must be affordable within the relevant budgets), this statement follows on from a perhaps less welcome section on what happens if there is a 'gap between an individual's performance level and/or standard of behaviour and the level expected', when 'performance improvement plans will identify actions to be taken, with improvement and review dates'. Furthermore, a summary of the annual meeting will be copied to the HoD and 'be available on request to the Dean/Director, and the relevant HR partner'. If all this sounds contrived. a visit to this document will show you we haven't made it up: see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/hr/development/files/PDR_policy.pdf. Appraisal for staff in the University was first introduced as part of the Jarrett process in the mid-80s, and has been widely and variously put into practice. At its best, the system has meant that staff have had time devoted exclusively to them and their current needs and future development that would otherwise have been spent elsewhere. Particularly when follow-up action has been taken to assist with problems identified, or opportunities exploited, there have been positive outcomes for the individual and the department/section etc. Nevertheless, take-up has been low, often because the appraisee has not been confident of there being scope for development, or simply through time pressures on appraisers; and because in practice most staff are highly conscientious and self-critical, growth and development evolve through more informal processes. subtext is concerned that the more draconian approach, presented in a document that is prolix and inconsistent, will inhibit an opening out of concerns by the reviewee, who can justifiably feel that only positive messages are acceptable. The reviewer may also hesitate to probe as deeply as might otherwise have happened; for example, if a person is not sure whether he/she fits into a university role, there are certainly difficulties about setting a 'performance improvement plan', and the subject may therefore best be avoided, or wrapped up in other issues and so become obscured. The draft PDR policy and guidance document is accompanied by another, overarching document which sets out an integrated approach to supporting and enhancing performance: the Performance Partnership Programme - a framework for unlocking potential. It provides the vision, if you like. However, this discourse of partnership rings somewhat hollow when set against what is currently proposed under section 11 of the policy and guidance document. For it is at this point that it connects with the University's Capability and Disciplinary Procedures, (both are currently being revised and streamlined to give management greater flexibility), which will be used to 'support and manage problems with performance and conduct'. subtext cannot help but wonder why this was felt to be necessary. On the one hand, it is clear the Lancaster is a very successful institution and is so because of its hard working and committed staff. However, on the other, we keep being told by senior managers that the Staff Surveys, including the most recent, have demonstrated that staff perceive that people who perform badly are not dealt with effectively and therefore we must have more appropriate mechanisms to address this. It is surely time to challenge this kind of muddled, contradictory thinking and the reliability of the data upon which it appears to be based. Moreover, in the order of priorities for investigation and further action subtext suggests it might be more useful to examine why so few of the 2008 survey respondents agreed that management decisions are consistent with the (core) values of the University. Finally, the last paragraph notes that '[t]he Human Resources department will collect qualitative and quantitative data on participation and effectiveness of the scheme at regular intervals and take appropriate actions based on this information'. subtext would very much like to know the methodology that will be used - who will be asked? What will they be asked? Against what criteria is the success or otherwise of this policy to be evaluated? And what might the 'appropriate actions' be? Let's hear a public debate. The web-based consultation exercise has been extended to the end of this month. subtext encourages everyone to visit the HR web page and make sure their views are known. ****************************************************** THE PEOPLE DEFICIT. While student welfare is much discussed, the welfare of the University's staff is equally vital. It is often said that when people are at their most unlovely - fractious, stressed, verging on the paranoid and irrational - is the moment that they most need a helping hand. Within higher education most people discover that research excellence, high intelligence or even seniority are no safeguards against downturns in their careers from time to time. Lancaster, with its many informal networks and collegial atmosphere has been good at enabling staff in difficulties to go offline and share their problems in ways that lead to effective results for them and the university. The campus trade unions and their representatives have often carried a heavy and unsung load of personal cases, and until recently there was both a post of pro-vice-chancellor with staffing as part of the portfolio and senior staff in post who were prepared to assist when colleagues were adrift. There was also the Counselling Service which offered valuable help to staff, even when resources were stretched. The recent emphasis on formal procedures, coupled with the relabeling as human resources of what was previously personnel services, is proving unhelpful. More and more often the question is being asked of where and to whom colleagues in difficulties, especially those involving several dimensions, can be guided. Instead of access to informal help that, used constructively, leads back to standard procedures, there is a vacuum and a growing sense of an uncaring and impersonal institution. Conversations with individuals often bear this out. subtext is watching with the keenest interest how the incoming Chief Operating Officer intends to square various circles and make the University the effective and efficient place he would doubtless wish it to be. The deficit in the care and welfare of its staff, given the level of its investment in them and the rate of return expected from them, must surely be high on his list of priorities. ****************************************************** PROFESSORIAL REVIEW PANEL Last Friday saw the formal announcement of three more colleagues being added to our small band of Distinguished Professors. subtext would also wish to offer our congratulations to Professors Beven (Environmental Science), Glazebrook (Management Science) and Hutchinson (Computing). You may recollect that December 2007 saw the announcement of our first group of 11 such awards (ten male and one female). The Professorial Review Panel met on 5 November to make final decisions on some four candidates (no female candidates this time). As ever, the membership and deliberations of bodies such as this are of interest. With this in mind and in the interests of transparency and openness, members of the collective have pulled together information from a variety of sources within the warehouse for the benefit of our readers. The Professorial Pay and Review Framework is to be found on the HR website. Minor modifications have recently been made to the original version. There is now a general statement on how the university values research in many forms - blue skies, applied and translational research and policy development, and how it looks across all three for marks of distinction and genuine impact. The importance of referees and references is also further clarified, particularly for promotion to Band 3 (Distinguished) professorships. Referees are vetted by the panel and eight have to be identified: two by the candidate, three by the Faculty Dean and three by the panel; and six of the eight possible reports need to be made available for each case. Thus, significant support is required for what is a significant promotion. Referees must be independent and have appropriate, eminent status in the field. What we are not told is who the members of the panel are. subtext can reveal that, unsurprisingly, it is chaired by the VC. It also has the Deputy VC and the PVC for Research and, interestingly, three other members, all of whom are already distinguished professors, (Professors Diggle, Jessop and Peasnell). Why these three out of the current eleven is not clear but it does allow some kind of faculty representation (dare one suggest advocacy?) and coverage. So, hopefully, no conflicts of interest exist and of course, the argument goes, given they have already been awarded this accolade, they will know what they are looking for, presumably because they can recognise it in themselves! This year, in addition to a smaller number of candidates to consider, the panel have busied themselves with the matter of citation data, (now required for all promotions to Band 3). We understand there is general agreement that it can be useful within disciplines but not especially across them. Given this, it would seem that Google Scholar and other web- based data sources, such as Publish or Perish, may have a useful role to play, though some might question the reliability of these and other similar sources. What of the other members of the professoriate you might ask? Within the framework the expectation remains that at any one time 80% of professors at Lancaster will be found in Band 1 and 15% in Band 2. The scheme is intended 'to provide an equitable and open system for the reward and recognition of academic leadership that offers incentive for exceptional achievement'. subtext has previously raised the question of whether it misjudges and risks distorting the nature of academic motivation at the highest level. It is also potentially divisive. An equality impact assessment is presumably planned and we will await the outcome with interest. Oh, yes, we almost forgot. In case you are wondering what levels of salaries Lancaster professors might possibly earn. As of 1st October this year the Band 1 range runs from £58,401 to £74,536, and has six points. Band 2 is £80,499 to £84,524 with two points, and Band 3 has a minimum of £91,285. It's worth noting that movement within and between bands is not automatic. ****************************************************** WALLUPS'S WORLD MEMO: From Nigel Wallups, Vice-Chancellor, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LUVE-U) TO: All staff, LUVE-U SUBJECT: Re: Panopticon online space-booking system Dear all, While you were sleeping last night (some of you at your desks, we noted), a button with the Panopticon logo has been automatically added to the toolbar of your web browsers using Windows Active Directory. Panopticon is the new University-wide online space-booking system, which must now be used by members of staff to book any space that they wish to use on campus. You can access the system by clicking on the button. You should find it easy to use, as it uses a similar interface as the Leave-Of-Absence booking system that was introduced last year, LOAfers. However, for your convenience, here are the main menu options you will see on the system: - - - - - - - - PANOPTICON TYPE OF SPACE: * lecture theatre * seminar room * broom cupboard (N.B. - maximum capacity 35 students) * corridor (click to specify: left/right side; slow/medium/fast) * toilet (click to specify: urinal/stall; 1-4 sheets/5-8 sheets/8+ sheets and appointment at Doktors-R-Us Kampus Klinik) * your office (click to specify: sitting at desk/crossing to filing cabinet; N.B. - knock when entering in case being used for teaching) * the spine (click to specify direction: northbound/southbound; N.B. - no stopping to talk to colleagues) * spar supermarket (click to specify queue: hot meal/baguette/stiff drink) DATE REQUIRED: (N.B. - please book at least 1 year ahead) PREFERRED START TIME: (00.00 - 23.59) DURATION: (specify to the nearest second) - - - - - - - I'm sure you will all agree that this state-of-the art system will allow us to use the space on campus far more efficiently, resulting in considerable cost savings and productivity gains. In conjunction with 'Operation Brownshirt', it will also enable us to fully monitor use of space by citizens of the Village - I mean LUVE-U members - and will incidentally provide an automated way of completing the Time Allocation Survey, which has had such a poor response. We want information. Information! Do not attempt to leave the campus without trying to book the single bridge to the mainland. And remember, if our student Brownshirts discover that you fail to use any space that you have previously booked using the system - or that you use it for a different purpose than originally specified - the Panopt-Icon on your tool bar will spray knock-out gas in your face and you will wake up finding yourself being chased across a beach by a giant white balloon. Be seeing you ... Nigel 'Number One' Wallups ****************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext An excellent issue (43). Keep up the good work. With all good wishes. Professor Denis McCaldin, Music ****** Dear subtext Consensual relations at Oxford For many years, from its founding in the 12th century to 1879, Oxford was an entirely male institution. After that date the five female colleges appeared although all but one (St Hilda's) are now mixed and St Hilda's is about to mix. The statement in subtext 43 'This was inevitably so given that, for many years, Oxbridge colleges were exclusively male domains.' is therefore true but misleading, particularly as the writer refers to an incident in the 1940's when there were also exclusively female domains. Alan Thomson ****** Dear subtext, Once upon a time, in a land of dreaming spires somewhere east of Eden, universities were happy and innocent places. Academics roamed free as self-governing professionals devoted to the single-minded pursuit of truth and the publication of scholarly monographs. Loyal support staff served piping hot tea on silver trays, as academics discussed the issues of the day in smoke-filled senior common rooms. No more than five percent of our young people went to university. Not only were they able to spell, they thought themselves lucky if they caught the eye of a craggy, tweed-suited tutor. Staff and students rutted lustily, with nary a thought about Val Walshe, masculinity, or the thin partition walls between their half-sized offices. Fast forward to 2008. Post Thatcher (spit) and New Labour (sigh) over forty percent of our young people attend university. There are as many women as men. Standards have collapsed. Academics have to account for every move they make. All trust has gone. Even a quick grope is likely to result in some ridiculous charge of 'harassment'. The senior common rooms have become seminar rooms, and academics have to queue with students and 'administrators' (assistant staff in the good old days). Meanwhile, the Wicked Wellings, assisted by his team of unsmiling UMAGers, plot new and fiendish ways to undermine the integrity of the academic profession. Even the charming old boulder in Alexandra Square has been removed; for all we know a statue of Bryan Gray will soon take its place... Oh come on Subtext, get a grip! It's great to have some loyal opposition to call us all to account when we forget what universities are really about. But simple binaries between 'management' (bad) and academics and t'Union (good), combined with sentimental nostalgia for some imaginary golden age, is no substitute for solid investigation, serious analysis, and inspiring suggestions about better alternatives. Linda Woodhead, Religious Studies ****** Dear subtext Re the letter last issue from J. Thornberry It is noted, on http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/, that 'Built into Outlook is a 'junk mail filter', which is a set of spam-detection rules and actions that Microsoft have defined. They don't tell anyone what the detection rules are, or how it works, and there are only three things an Outlook user can do to control it', upon which the three options are outlined. However, this clearly misses the better solution: don't use Outlook. Martin Pederson, Philosophy ****************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |