subtext

Home
Archive
Subscribe
Editors
Contact

 

 

 

 

 

subtext

issue 79

20 October 2011

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

'Truth: lies open to all'

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

Every fortnight during term-time.

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/.

If you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'.

CONTENTS: editorial, American studies, linguistic challenges, senate report, mottos, FASS plenary, pictures, square, sports centre, names, poetry corner.

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

EDITORIAL

In universities the summer months have traditionally been a period of relative calm, a time for scholarly reflection, planning for infrastructural improvements, and even holidays. For some staff at Lancaster and Liverpool universities, however, the summer of 2011 must have been largely devoted to a different and more radical kind of thinking, about the possibilities of closer links between the two institutions. So far, the main public outcome of this has been the publication of a 'Green Paper', outlining the case for 'collaboration' between Lancaster and Liverpool, which was made widely available on 19 September.

As we worried in our subtext extra issue of 8 July, the Green Paper envisages a collaboration that goes well beyond the establishment of, for example, joint research centres with a well defined focus (such as the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, for example - see http://www.sccjr.ac.uk). Indeed, key parts of the Green Paper's argument depend on the assumption that Lancaster and Liverpool should be treated as a single institution for purposes of research assessment. This new entity, LLU (or LULU?) appears at number 7 in the Green Paper's 'Rank Order of Research Power', based on the number of 4* and 3* outputs in the 2008 RAE; Liverpool is at number 18, Lancaster at 23. As the report below on the FASS plenary meetings shows, the reaction of many readers has been that the concept of 'research power' is really only a measure of size - a point  made a week after the Green Paper appeared in a lucid and well-informed response by Jim Taylor, Emeritus Professor of Economics. Professor Taylor also argues that research power - or size - is not strongly related to research quality, and is not as important in the international rankings of universities as the Green Paper claims. If research quality and not 'research power' is the right measure of a university's standing, Lancaster would lose rather than gain by being linked with Liverpool in research-based league tables.

In the subtext collective we fully recognise the importance of strategic thinking about the University's future, and we are glad that someone is trying to undertake it. There is plenty to worry about, from the global level - the rise of China's universities - to the national - the decrease in research funding and the coalition government's apparent lack of interest in any research that is not directly oriented towards business. These were the issues highlighted by the Vice-Chancellor in introducing the Green Paper to the Senate on 12 October. The government's attitude to research is also clear in the White Paper 'Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System', whose publication at the end of June was another interesting event of the summer. subtext hopes to return to the implications of the White Paper, and indeed to those of our own 'Green Paper', in future issues. For now, we observe that there are signs of a healthy scepticism at various levels in the University about the 'Green Paper's arguments for LULU, and that it will be interesting to learn what the new Vice-Chancellor thinks about them.

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

REFLECTIONS ON AMERICAN STUDIES

On June 21, 2011, when the University's Press Office selectively circulated the pre-publication Times list of high-ranking subjects at Lancaster, the list included American Studies, which at number 3 in the country was one of the highest-ranked subjects in the University. Ironic then that this achievement was consigned to the memory hole both in the item in LU-text that was published three days later and in the 'Lancaster University News' page that one found via the link titled 'full story' (see http://news.lancs.ac.uk/Web/News/Pages/Lancaster-ranked-9th-in-The-Times-Good-University-Guide.aspx). The achievements listed there did not quite constitute the 'full story' because American Studies had mysteriously disappeared. Why delete the high-ranked American Studies degree and therefore fail to draw attention to the quality of award that the 2011 graduates were still a few weeks from receiving? Possibly because, in their wisdom, having starved it of resources for years, University management finally decided to lay down the degree scheme, which has always punched considerably above its weight given the tiny number of core academic staff (three for the last few years). Nationally, the academically well-respected American Studies degree schemes that survived the downturn in mid-decade are now prospering by picking up applications and student numbers from those programmes that went to the wall. Too bad American Studies at Lancaster won't be among them.

This seems to be one example among many others of the prevalent 'flavour-of-the-month' approach to leadership of this University. Rather than taking a strategic vision of programmes and activities to build and support, managers (both at top-table and faculty level) display a sort of administrative attention deficit disorder. Another example is the Institute for Advanced Studies, which opened to enormous fanfare, lasted for a few years, and then was ignominiously consigned to obscurity. Throwing things at the wall to see which ones stick is not the same as having a strategic vision: it is the opposite. Let's hope the incoming VC continues to devote attention to the institution's physical plant, but gives still more attention to the activities that go on inside the buildings, and that he presides over an intellectual building programme that follows a well-thought-out and consistent strategy.

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

LINGUISTICALLY CHALLENGED UNIVERSITY MANAGERS

Anyone being asked to attend to a meeting to discuss their possible dismissal under the new Capability, Disciplinary, and Redundancy procedures will be bemused to see the invitation referred to as an 'invite' in the subject line of the invitation letter. Indeed, so infectious is this local solecism that even senior managers with perfect command of English, after they come into contact with the Division of Human Resources, begin to send such 'invites'. This trivial mistake has some worrying implications when we realise that the HR staff who draft these 'invites' are the same ones we must rely on carefully to parse the meaning of the new procedures and interpret the application of employment law. Ought our employer to entrust this task to people who cannot distinguish a noun from a verb?

To be fair, though, perhaps the HR staff are trying to make invitations to dismissal meetings less intimidating by relaxing the stodgy formality that might appear at first glance appropriate to such an occasion. Our New Oxford English Dictionary does, after all, recognise the following definition: 'Invite': noun (informal): an invitation.

'Informal': in other words, slang. Readers are invited to think (or, indeed, 'have a think') of other examples of 'informal' nouns in the same family of expressions in which 'invite' as a noun belongs.

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

SENATE REPORT

The first Senate of the new academic year was well attended, with a large number of new faces. A full agenda for discussion and it was straight to business.  First up was a lucid and informative précis of the recent HE White Paper 'Students at the Heart of the System' from the VC.  The 'flexibility' in recruitment of students with AAB grades would benefit Lancaster in that an estimated 500 additional places would be allowed in the 2012 intake, off-set by the loss of 190-200 places for students with lower grades. This would represent a significant increase in fee income.

Next was formal confirmation from University Secretary Fiona Aiken of the appointment of Professor Mark Smith as the new Vice-Chancellor, to start in January. Senate was clearly expected to say something at this point but nobody did. The VC filled the embarrassing silence by stating that he was sure Senate would welcome this appointment and looked forward to working with Professor Smith in his first Senate in February. Senate mumbled its assent (sort of).

Other items in this section included an update from Deputy VC Bob McKinlay on progress on establishing the Guangwai-Lancaster campus (delay in identifying a Chinese private investor to stump up the cash); the establishment of activity planning groups to take forward the Strategic Plan; notification that the University is likely to be affected by continuing industrial action (the University will follow UCEA guidelines) and a preliminary report on this year's student registration figures (very healthy).

Next on the agenda was 'Questions on notice to the Vice Chancellor', Senate's version of Prime Minister's Questions. Joe Thornberry (Bowland) wanted to know if Lancaster was considering abandoning national wage bargaining and going instead for local negotiation of staff pay, as some other institutions were apparently considering. This drew a rather long response from the VC that included a puzzling reference to what someone-or-other from the AUT said at the University Court meeting in 2004, but which in essence said no, Lancaster was not considering this but, given the new fees regime, this may change in the future.

There then followed a paper on arrangements for the conferment of honorary degrees (approved by Senate), and a reading of the list of proposed recipients. Next came a proposal from FST Dean Mary Smyth for the re-establishment of a Chemistry Department at Lancaster, warmly approved by Senate once it had been established that this would not mean any re-allocation of funds from other areas.

Now came the really big item of the day, the much-anticipated discussion of the proposal to engage in ever-closer collaboration with Liverpool University. The VC opened the discussion with a re-statement of the key points in the 'Green Paper' that was now the subject of consultation. Government policy will mean a decline in the 'buying power' of research money, and University accounts for this year will show, for the first time, a dip in research income. The coming government White Paper on 'innovation and research' (the word order in the title was deliberate) will stress the importance of the volume of quality research when it comes to assigning funds. Lancaster performs well in terms of quality but we don't have the volume that will meet government requirements, hence the discussions with Liverpool on closer collaboration. Why Liverpool? Realistically, this was the closest fit for Lancaster from the N8 group of research active universities. Similar discussions were taking place between other universities - Bristol with Exeter, Sussex with Surrey, Aberdeen with Dundee.

Senate was far from convinced. Richard Austin-Baker (Lonsdale) set the tone for what was to follow. He agreed that the future funding environment was uncertain and unpredictable but wondered how a partnership would bring the benefits claimed in the Green Paper. He pointed to other established partnerships now in trouble (Wales and London). Even assuming that a partnership was desirable, why were we confining ourselves to the North-West, to a partner that in many other respects was a competitor? Other players had better research ratings than Liverpool with whom we could form strategic partnerships - York, Bath and Sussex, for example.

Emma Rose (FASS), a Senate rep on Council, followed with a carefully worded statement giving some very revealing information about the Council discussion of the Green Paper that was not fully reflected in the bland public statement issued after the Council meeting the previous Friday. Council members had been concerned about the lack of information in the Paper. In particular, they wanted a fuller exposition of all the options open to Lancaster, each accompanied by a detailed analysis of the risks involved. She was backed up by George Gardiner, the new LUSU President and also a Council member, calling for greater transparency on the risks involved.

Further thoughtful and well-argued contributions came from Derek Sayer (History), Geraint Johnes (LUMS), Sylvia Walby (Sociology), Chris May (FASS), Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad (FASS), Lucas Introna (LUMS), Robert Geyer (PPR) and Peter Ratoff (Physics).  The key themes running through these and other contributions were a) some agreement with the Green Paper's depiction of the future research funding landscape, b) considerable scepticism about the evidence basis of the Paper's claims about 'research power' as being the key determinant, c) questioning of the choice of Liverpool as a prospective partner, and d) concern at the haste with which this one option was now being pursued. What was particularly striking was the complete lack of support from any quarter of Senate for the Paper, even from the traditional loyalists. The silence of the Faculty Deans spoke volumes.

Whether this concerted opposition came as a surprise to the Paper's authors is hard to say but one got the distinct impression of alarmed back-pedalling from the top table. The VC made the unprecedented (for him) statement that he was unsure now of how to proceed. He summarised the key points from the discussion and suggested that the production of a Green Paper Part 2 containing a detailed 'options appraisal' might be the next best step. This would come back to Senate in due course.

The next agenda item began with an analysis from Paul Graves of the National Student Survey results, which show that we have not been performing as well as the headlines might have suggested.   The meeting concluded with a paper from Trevor McMillan on the governance and management of research centres. Senate accepted the proposals.

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

MOTTOS

Subscribers will be aware that the statement at the beginning of each subtext ('Truth; lies open to all'; see above) is the University motto, albeit slightly re-punctuated. After the Vice-Chancellor's characterisation of comments made by the press at the end of last term about the proposals to forge links with Liverpool as 'unhelpful, erroneous speculation', there are moves afoot to change our motto to 'Neque Benevolens, Neque Sagax'.  Comments on both appropriateness and grammar welcome.

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

FASS PLENARY AND FOLLOW-UP MEETING

A special FASS plenary met on 30th September to discuss the proposed (non)merger with Liverpool. The meeting was well attended by about fifty members of staff, and provided a forum for open discussion of the proposals in the Green Paper.  Many speakers noted that the Green Paper is vague on details of the proposed closer collaboration with Liverpool. The use of the name 'LLU' and the presumption that Lancaster and Liverpool would be classed together in league tables suggested that a very close form of collaboration was being planned, but this was hard to square with the Vice Chancellor's explicit denial that a merger is being contemplated. Speakers were uniformly against any merger-like collaboration with Liverpool, noting that the geographical distance made travel between the two sites impractical for students and those staff who lack access to the University chauffeur. The Green Paper makes much of the predicted increase in the 'research power' of LLU, but 'research power' appears to be merely a correlate of size, and is not generally used in league tables.  Given that the Green Paper appeared at a time when one Vice Chancellor is departing, and the new one has only been recently appointed, there was some speculation as to who might be behind the proposals.

A further meeting, this time with Deputy VC Professor Bob McKinlay in attendance to explain the intentions of the proposers, took place on Tuesday 18 October. Unsurprisingly, given that term had started and many staff had teaching commitments, this meeting was more sparsely attended. Professor McKinlay sketched the background to the Green Paper. Anticipated changes to the education market meant that, while currently doing well, in the future Lancaster might become vulnerable. Larger institutions might be expected to be better able to compete in an environment where research income would become further concentrated at 'elite' institutions and competition would be increasingly international. Professor McKinlay sketched a range of options for closer collaboration with Liverpool which ranged from closer collaboration without structural change to a federal university. A federal university could be expected to have one V.C. and one Council, but in contrast to a unitary university (which is not being considered), would still allow for considerable autonomy at university level. Somewhat surprisingly, given his role in drafting the Green Paper, Professor McKinlay expressed some sympathy with those who had found the paper confusingly lacking in detail. More details of the forms that collaboration might take will be announced in due course.

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

LITERATURE AND PICTURES

We trust that subscribers who followed our advice (subtext 78) to take Anthony Marsella's novel 'The Heretic Pharaoh' to the beach with them over the summer will not have been disappointed. (One grateful reader reported that it was the funniest thing he'd ever read that didn't have a joke in it.) It was said of the recently departed Director of Marketing that, regardless of what Marketing problem was brought to him, his response would always be 'Can we get a few pretty undergraduates to pose in front of it?' In this light it is worth looking at the large pictures of graduating students that decorate the building work outside Bowland. Sixteen female faces, three male. Either the gender balance in the University has radically altered just recently, or else Marsella has departed but his spirit lives on ...

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

ALEXANDRA SQUARE

Great fun in the newly refurbished Alexandra Square over the summer.  While it is plain that much attention has been paid to the details such as the glass strips (ok, they were a bit treacherous in the wet, but a bit of sandpaper soon cured that), and the new lift shaft (a bit premature maybe, given that the Underpass shows no sign of opening any time soon), it appears that someone forgot about the drains. During one of the several downpours over the summer (and who could possibly have predicted that?) a very large pool of water appeared outside Robinson's newsagent. Because the concrete is new, the water was transparent to the point of invisibility, and a succession of people coming down the steps to buy their Guardian landed right in it.  A small crowd of onlookers seeking innocent amusement soon gathered, and further diverted themselves by starting a rumour that the firm laying the paving stones had warned that attention to the drainage was needed, but the University insisted that it wasn't. (An FOI request would of course sort that out one way or the other in no time.) Another rumour doing the rounds was that the man who drives the little green sweeper vehicle has been told that under no circumstances should he drive it across the middle of the Square! Some (probably the same trouble-makers) say the Square has already visibly sagged - see where the paving stones meet the wall in the North East corner. It does look a bit odd there - let's hope it's an optical illusion.

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

NEW SPORTS CENTRE

A user of the new Sports Centre sent us the following review, for which much thanks ...

A surprisingly brisk 18 months or so on from the commencement of building works, the University has a shiny new Sports Centre. The tired old centre, with its mouldy changing rooms, back-of-an-envelope booking 'systems', and 1970s equipment, lies mothballed, and the new building - less a Sports Centre, more a highly public statement of institutional intent - sits on the brow of a hill by the A6, demanding attention, if not admiration.

So, just what did we get for our £20 million?

Not a massive space, for sure. The Centre's footprint seems no greater than that of the old building. And, those funky dots aside, the décor is pure 90s Municipal Gothic. However, and inevitably, the core facilities are an immense improvement on what we had before. Though the University's purse hasn't stretched to an Olympic-size pool, the pool is far wider than before (good news for the average customer, for whom fighting through a narrow, desperately over-crowded stripe of water whilst a class claimed the rest of the space was a regular experience). The sports hall is similarly sumptuously proportioned - reasonably enough, as its replaces two former facilities. There are also two, medium-sized fitness suites (though replacing three former such spaces), a nicely appointed dance/exercise studio with a proper sprung floor, a tiny sauna, and four squash courts (squash was very young-executive back when our first Centre was built, but is a minority interest these days).

And on the subject of minority pursuits, the climbing/bouldering rooms are (I'm told) state of the art, but you're left wondering - why? I've nothing against climbing and I recognize that our associations with the Cumbrian mountains and Chris Bonington may be congruent, but it seems that a lot of money and space has been given over to a minority sport, which seems curious. I also sense that the viewing patio will prove a major white elephant; useful only to those who want to watch one and a half rugby games, and a tempting (and potentially dangerous) location for drunks on hot summer nights.

There are pleasing numbers of staff around to provide advice on the use of all the intimidating new kit, yet Reception remains an issue. Queues build quickly, and it's still not unusual to find staff trapped on the phone when there are multiple customers awaiting attention. The computerized access system (wave your library card to get into those things you've paid for) is a major bonus, but the booking of classes and events still seems beset by problems that often feel worse than those posed by the previous use of calendars and carefully sharpened pencils.

Perhaps inevitably, though, most customers' reactions are going to be heavily influenced by matters that relate less to money spent and the broader quality of design than to attention to detail and the proper consideration of customer needs. And, certainly, there are some nice touches to the new Centre. All rooms have air conditioning, with good temperature control, though the humidity seems poorly adjusted, judging by the amount of sweat that dribbles off me as soon as I exert myself at all (though maybe that's just me). The gym gear is state of the art, albeit some of it feels a bit flimsy to withstand the pounding it's going to get. The Sports Hall is highly flexible, and is routinely configured as two spaces, divided by a movable, chest-high wall - I'm not sure if this will prove equal to keeping (say) flying footballs out of a badminton match, though. The mixed changing for the pool (admittedly a big turn-off for some) is a major bonus to those of us with young children, and (how times change!) there are hair-dryers in male changing areas.

Yet, for all that, major gripes persist that take the edge off enjoyment of the new facility. The failure to provide any sort of café seems perverse (not to say a missed commercial opportunity) and is partly responsible for the rather sterile feel of the space. There are flaws in the changing space - it is under-provided with lockers (there are lockers in the main corridor, admittedly, but getting your stuff into them is a faff) and showers. Furthermore, the showers have no towel rails and you can't adjust shower temperature. Presently, one male changing room has showers set to the frisky side of tepid; the fear being that, at the first sign of a cold snap, they'll be readjusted to the A&E end of scalding.

Frustratingly, there simply isn't enough of certain key facilities. The Centre doesn't have enough changing space for regular users but includes substantial Team Changing space (for outdoor student sports) which is presently out of bounds for everyone else. It seems perverse for such extensive extra facilities to sit empty nearly all the time whilst there are capacity problems elsewhere, and I suspect that Centre staff will end up pressing these extra changing rooms into service at busy times. Similarly, the two fitness suites are unlikely to provide enough kit for peak demand. This is particularly true of the weights machines, which are already subject to queuing. The decision not to install any simple equipment - wall bars, benches for stretching etc - forces more use of the more complex gym gear, which means more wear and tear and further user frustration. To give a simple example: the new assisted pull-up machine is glorious (you should try it: it makes you feel like Superman) but there are no wall bars available for more serious body-builders, so they have to use the pull-up machine unnecessarily, which is a waste of the facility.

These issues may be relatively simple to resolve (if some spare cash is available). However, the biggest single problem with the new Centre may prove more intractable: access. For most staff and students it takes a lot longer to get to the Centre (it seems a particular shame for staff to lose 20 minutes of their lunch hour just getting there and back), and the long walk down the hill is on a exposed path with no shelter. You can drive down, of course, but that's hardly very green and the car park is tiny: unlikely to cope with demand from local users, let alone students and staff. (A charge has been imposed this week, in order to help regulate demand - who could possibly have predicted that? - Eds) The provision of a bus stop helps, of course, but is only a partial answer. Most seriously, though, and assuming that most of us do walk from main campus, the main path requires you to cross University drive at its fastest point. There is no pedestrian crossing there and visibility is poor (there is, at least, a crossing by the Centre, but it's on the brow of a hill surrounded by trees, so visibility is an issue there, too).

In short, this is way better than what we had before (not hard, of course) but issues over quantity of facilities and access are likely to take the edge off what we've gained.

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

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

There will no doubt be a lot of interested speculation over the coming months about the new Vice-Chancellor. One aspect of an incoming VC that isn't usually interrogated is his musical tastes. Subscribers whose musical reference points crystallised in the early 80s and who spent too much time listening to the John Peel show around that time may receive a jolt of memory when we say that the new VC's name is in fact Mark E. Smith.  Those subscribers for whom this means nothing will have little difficulty in tracking down someone (not least in the subtext collective) who will explain who The Fall were (and are), and rant on about their singer, Mark E. Smith, by universal acclamation 'the grumpiest man in rock music'.

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

COUNCIL MEETING

We hope to have a report on the recent Council meeting in the next issue of subtext.

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

POETRY CORNER (an occasional feature)

'Merger'

Lankypools or Livercasts

We'll all be called (it seemeth)

But who will be our leader,

Prof. Sewby or Prof. Nemith?

Joe Thornberry, Principal, Bowland

(with apologies to Roger McGough)

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

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Rachel Cooper (PPR), George Green, Gavin Hyman, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden.

Home | Archive | Subscribe | Editors | Contact