| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 99 24 January 2013 ***************************************************** '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, news in brief, applied social science, public relations, subtext commemorative issue, Hans Redlich, senate, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Reviewing Marion McClintock's Shaping the Future in subtext 91, we quoted her remark in the chapter on 'Academic culture' about the 'propensity at Lancaster for frequent alterations to structures'. Part of her evidence for this was that relatively few academic departments were still in existence in their original form: of the 16 'founding subjects', only four had retained their original departmental structure. Of the 21 'second generation' subjects, established between 1967 and 1978, 17 had disappeared, merged or been rebranded. 'Third generation' subjects had proved if anything even more unstable. The propensity Marion identified is still very much in evidence. subtext is unable to judge if it is stronger at Lancaster than in most other universities; contacts with colleagues elsewhere often suggest that it is dynamically present throughout the sector. If it is stronger at Lancaster, as Marion implied, would this be a good or a bad thing? Obviously there is nothing sacred about any pattern of departmental organisation – times and circumstances change, and the original arrangement may not have been the best possible. (Some of the departments set up in Lancaster’s early years had names that suggest in hindsight that they were likely to be short-lived.) So the issue is not whether reorganisations are bound to happen – they are – but how they are managed. There is a huge literature on the management of change in organisations. In the subtext warehouse we can't claim any particular expertise on the subject, but a quick review suggests that there is, more or less, a consensus on how change should be managed. It is best if those involved are consulted, have an opportunity to give their views, have time to consider what the proposed changes mean for them. And so on. The wrong way to do it is to keep those who are going to be affected in the dark and then try to impose the change on them from above. Unfortunately, judging by what experts say informally as well as personal experience among the subtext collective, in practice managers habitually plump for the wrong approach when bringing in changes. The management literature advises one thing; actual managers usually do the opposite. So even if the change proves in the longer term to have been good for the organisation, it is likely to have been brought about in a way that entailed distress and enduring ill-feeling that a more careful and considerate approach could have avoided. This seems, regrettably, to apply to much organisational change at Lancaster, and the case of Applied Social Science, on which we report below, is very much to the point. Do colleagues in the Management School, with a well deserved international reputation in the field, ever reflect that their work seems to be treated with cavalier disregard by colleagues in other parts of the campus? ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Branding The University has a new branding strategy. Staff can download the guidelines, of which there are many, at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/current-staff/brand/. The guidance on photography in particular deserves close attention: the brand values are to 'form an overall theme of enlightenment', which refers not only to 'lifelong learning' and so forth, but from 'a practical point of view...also refers to the clarity of light found on the campus'. The authors of the guidelines must have picked a good day for their visit. subtext understands that another part of the branding strategy is to drop the words 'Faculty' or 'Department' on headed notepaper, which in some cases at least is liable to lead to a conflation of discipline and departmental name (e.g. consider what message is being conveyed by a letter headed simply 'Engineering'). ******** Global food waste The national press and media gave quite a bit of publicity recently to a report on Global Food Waste, which stated that up to 50% of all food produced is wasted in current practice. It may have surprised many that the report originated with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - George Aggidis, of the University's Engineering Department, contributed to the report, writing on the energy and mechanical engineering aspects. Why are engineers writing about food waste? As the report says, food is wasted in all kinds of societies, whether in third-world, developing or developed nations, although the reasons for the waste vary. In developed nations, people often prepare too much food and throw away the excess, and supermarkets set very high standards for their suppliers - any fruit or vegetables that are less than perfect tend to be rejected. But in developed and developing nations, the waste generally occurs at the harvest itself or during subsequent transport, and this is where engineers can help to reduce these losses by developing better and cheaper machinery. ******** UCLan 'privatisation' latest Readers may like to know that there is a UCU petition on the privatisation of UCLan (reported in subtext 97) at https://www.ucu.org.uk/uclanpetition. ******** Help in this dark hour Subscribers who feel that the University system nationally is in danger of going down the pan for a variety of reasons may at times feel that they are all alone. Where, they may be thinking, are the great and the good? Who will be our advocates in this time of trouble? Those troubled with such thoughts may like to have a look at the Council for the Defence of British Universities: http://cdbu.org.uk/. Their list of patrons is a collection of everyone you've ever heard of. Their aims and intentions are, you may feel, unimpeachable. They have produced short position statements on, inter alia, the REF, early academic careers, open access to journal articles and the closure of departments. You may find yourself seized with an overwhelming urge to join them, but even if not it's nice to know that they are out there pitching for us. ******** Lancaster UCU AGM The UCU AGM on the 23rd January was quorate but sparsely attended. The minutes from last year's meeting, with references to the 'Business Process Review' and the 'Liverpool-Lancaster merger', acted as a reminder of how much has happened in a year. Chris Mason, the UCU national pension support officer, gave a presentation. At present, USS operates two schemes. New staff are enrolled on a career-average scheme, while the final-salary scheme continues for those who have been employed for longer. Chris Mason expects that over the medium term (10-15 years) the final salary scheme will become unsustainable, and that all academics will have to switch to the career-average scheme. For this reason he stressed the importance of current negotiations which aim at ensuring the career-average scheme is as good a deal as possible. The meeting closed on a familiar note: negotiations with the university regarding employment procedures, in particular on redundancy and redeployment, remain ongoing. ******** The Vice-Chancellor's visitations subtext subscribers will be aware that Professor Smith has embarked on a journey which will take him round all the departments. In keeping with his desire for wide-ranging consultations, he clearly intends to make himself available to individual members of staff. The exercise seems wholly commendable, though some might quibble that it could have been conducted sooner (especially given the critical period which the university had entered before he arrived here a year ago). Although subtext has received encouraging early reports, it would be prudent to reserve judgement until the visitation is complete; in the meantime, though, we would welcome any reports from colleagues who have already encountered Professor Smith in his circuit of the campus. ***************************************************** A KICK UP THE ASS subtext understands that rumours – around for some time - of a drastic reorganisation of Applied Social Science are rapidly turning into facts. This department, founded as Social Administration in 1974 – and thus a 'second generation' department in Marion McClintock's scheme (see editorial) – has since its beginning provided undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in social work, and for the past 20 year or so a popular undergraduate degree in criminology. While most members of the department think that this combination of subjects has been productive and mutually stimulating, it now looks certain that there will be a split, with criminology moving into the School of Law and social work either moving somewhere as yet unspecified or staying where it is, in a seriously diminished department of Applied Social Science. We say 'looks certain' because these changes are being imposed very much in the top-down style deplored in the management literature. The 'top' here apparently consists of the head of Applied Social Science, the Dean of FASS, and the head of the School of Law. Students have been informed that from next year the criminology degree will be administered from within the School of Law and that social work will remain where it is. Academic staff in Applied Social Science only saw the relevant emails when students forwarded them. Nobody in HR knew anything about these changes in advance; nor did the campus unions (no surprise there). The management approach has thus been to create faits accomplis that cannot be unravelled. Criminology staff are being told that they can become members of the Law School – and that it is probably in their interests to do so. For some staff this creates a real dilemma, since their research and teaching have productively straddled the disciplines of social work and criminology. Virtually no-one seems to feel that they have been adequately consulted or given an opportunity to express their views in an atmosphere of open, rational discussion. subtext is prepared to accept that it is sometimes sensible and even necessary to make changes quickly. It is also possible that in, say, two years' time the reconfiguration (to adopt a term from management-speak) of Applied Social Science will turn out to have had positive results for the subjects concerned and for Lancaster as a whole. But it is not at all obvious why these changes had to be made so quickly, and certain that their immediate effect has been to create anger and unhappiness among all grades of staff, who feel their views have been disregarded and their work devalued. ***************************************************** PUBLIC RELATIONS Colleagues in the Department of English and Creative Writing were made aware in week 1 that their faculty has hired a PR company to help raise FASS's profile externally. This awareness came in the form of an email enquiring if there were any academics in the Department who were willing to comment on the following: 'Valentine's Day: Anyone who can talk about love! This could be our reliance on tradition, the history of love poems'. The email was met in the Department with a certain amount of resistance, not to mention disbelief – more than one colleague asked if it was April Fool's Day yet. A senior academic characterized it as 'an abuse of our calling as well as of public money', a reaction that was fairly common. Long-term subtext subscribers may remember the halcyon days of Prof Wellings' Vice-Chancellorship, when it seemed that anyone who got a mention in a magazine like Take a Break was automatically at the top of LUText, while much good and serious research didn't get a mention. The nadir of this sort of thing was perhaps when Lancaster's own very distinguished Professor Cary Cooper was asked to project his profound understanding of personal psychology across the Atlantic in order to diagnose the mental state of his good and personal friend Britney Spears, who had recently shaved her head. A request for comments on love poems for Valentine's Day is exactly the sort of banal piffle that one would expect a PR company to come up with to increase the profile of academia. The question is, surely: are the places in which such comments are likely to appear actually the sort of places we should be aiming for? Not all publicity is worth the candle. One wonders (and one is fairly sure one will not be able to find out) exactly how much FASS is paying the company that dreams up such stuff. ***************************************************** SUBTEXT 100 The next issue will be subtext's 100th – though to some members of the collective, and perhaps to some subscribers, it feels like more. To mark the occasion, we invite readers to submit their thoughts on subtext and what it has meant to them over the years since its first issue in December 2005. Praise and blame will be equally welcome (well, not equally, but you know what we mean). ***************************************************** THE HANS REDLICH COLLECTION The tribulations of the Music Department and the BA in Music must ultimately pose a threat to the future of the collection of music books and scores in the Library. This is particularly so when the Library is reorganising itself to concentrate more on electronic materials and less on printed books - and of course music scores take up quite a bit of room. Probably few people are aware that Lancaster University possesses a rare musical resource, in the shape of the Redlich collection. Hans Redlich was born in 1903 in Vienna into a cultured and convivial Jewish family. Gustav Mahler, the composer and conductor, was a family friend, along with other members of the musical fraternity in Vienna at that time such as the critic Guido Adler. The young Hans Redlich met and knew Mahler. At the end of the First World War, at the age of sixteen, he published a booklet on Mahler. He studied the piano with Paul Weingarten in Vienna, and musicology with Carl Orff in Munich. He wrote a dissertation on stylistic changes in the madrigals of Monteverdi at Frankfurt. In 1939, he emigrated to Britain, where he had a distinguished career as an academic, ending as Professor of Music at Manchester University. Redlich died in 1968, a couple of years before Lancaster University set up its Music Department. In those far-sighted days, Lancaster was able to buy Redlich's collection of books and scores, to form the nucleus of the music collection in the Library. As a condition of the sale, the University agreed to house it as a complete collection, some of which is now kept on the open shelves and some in the stack in the basement of the Library. Many of the scores are annotated in pencil in Redlich's inimitable handwriting. Its origins in the time and location of the Viennese school make this a unique collection, which surely should have formed the basis for some fascinating research - but much of it appears to have been under-used. The requirement to keep the collection together (if it continues to be heeded), means that we either keep all of it, or sell the lot. It might fetch a good sum. But let's hope the University will recognise the academic value of its collections, and not just the price it can get for them. ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT 16 JANUARY 2013 Before the commencement of business in this meeting of Senate, the Vice-Chancellor noted that the Chancellor, Chris Bonington, had asked if he could see 'democracy in action', so would be observing proceedings. The first item on the Agenda was the question for the VC posed by Joe Thornberry, Principal of Bowland College, which asked what steps the University had taken to ensure that the land obtained for the Guangwai-Lancaster University campus in China had been obtained without the violent evictions that Amnesty International report are being increasingly used in China to obtain land for development. Pro-VC (International) Professor Steve Bradley reported that the land, in Nansha, south of Guangzhou, was part of a larger plot set aside as a Special Development Zone. Part of this had already been developed with a high-speed rail link, and it was a piece of land adjacent to this, already dedicated to educational purposes, that has been given to Lancaster University in a decision taken by the Mayor of Guangzhou and others. Professor Bradley reported that delegates from Lancaster had since then paid two visits to the site, which was currently unoccupied and with no signs of cultivation, and that there had been no talk of evictions. Mr Thornberry then asked whether Lancaster's partner in the venture, HongFa Investments, was known to have engaged in such practices. Professor Bradley and the Vice-Chancellor reassured Senate that 'due diligence' had been carried for the University by KPMG, and had given HongFa a clean bill of health. Professor Smith said that, while it was not possible to give a 'cast-iron guarantee' that forcible evictions had not occurred in this case, all efforts had been made to ensure that the reputation of the University was not being put at risk. The VC then gave his 'update'. After picking out and commenting on a few recent research-funding successes at the University, he reflected on the recent departure of four more universities from the 94 Group, suggesting that the group was weakened but still had influence, and – for the moment at least – was worth sticking with. He then reported that the University had signed up to be involved with the UK MOOC platform set up by the Open University (MOOC stands for massive open online courses – see http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=422137). While it wasn't yet clear what this will mean for us, Professor Smith said, this was 'the right company to keep'. He then reported that the University expected the letter from HEFCE about student numbers later that week, and that there would be more flexibility for universities over over-recruitment. He closed his update by announcing that the University's 'commitment to academic endeavour' would be underscored by an investment of £3.3 million in new posts across the faculties, which would be used to develop new strategic priorities and to even out staff-student ratios. Senate then turned to the task of discussing the 'refreshing' of the University Strategy. As well as receiving a report on the activities of the working groups charged with assessing progress in the seven thematic areas set out in the Strategy, Senate discussed at length the strategic goal referred to as '1:10:100' (to be first in the North West, one of the top ten universities in the UK, and in the top 100 in the world). Professor Smith summarised a paper he had written on this as saying that the '1' was largely meaningless, the '10' extremely important, and the '100' hugely ambitious. He suggested that what it meant to be a 'world top 100 university' was complex and open to interpretation, but that we needed to come up with a 'Lancaster answer' to that question. And crucial to that, he suggested, was size, his research suggesting that even if our turnover doubled, we would still be much smaller than the great bulk of universities classed as top 100. The VC's paper had suggested that we would have to be 'ambitious and brave' if we seriously wanted to join the ranks of the top 100 universities, and the discussion explored what that might mean. It appears that City University of Hong Kong had achieved that goal very rapidly, but only through very draconian approaches to staff performance. There were no clear precedents amongst the top 100 universities who had got there through merger – though some in the middle of the table did say they were looking for partners. What seems to be necessary apart from size to ensure a place in the top 100? Should we seek to 'marry up' or 'marry down'? If the latter – if we merged with an institution with a bigger resource but one that was 'underused' – would we be capable of the 'robust management' needed to make that work? Would merger threaten the brand identity of Lancaster, and its attractiveness in terms of UK undergraduate recruitment? What is it about being in the top 100 that we want anyway? Such issues are likely to inform the draft Strategy which will be presented to the next Senate meeting but one. A discussion of our NSS scores – they're good, and improving fast, but we need to better understand how the students interpret the questions – was followed by consideration of the proposal to change the University's Statute 9. This item was prompted by Lancaster City Council choosing Paul Aitchison as their appointed member on University Council (see letters below), even though he is also a Lancaster University student here as well as a councillor. Last year, University Secretary Fiona Aiken presented to Senate a proposal to change the constitution so that it expressly stated that the City Council appointee should not be a student. This was voted down at the time; but here Senate was being presented with a revised version for consideration. The new proposal seemed to have the backing of the VC, who also commented that the Chief Executive of the City Council reported that the Council was 'entirely happy' with the proposal (though see letters). In fact the proposal before Senate suggested two revisions to Statute 9 – to change the City Council 'appointee' to a 'nominee' that would have to be approved by Council, and to stipulate specifically that this nominee cannot also be a staff or student member of the University. The former change was said to be to ensure that the University is not compelled to accept any person whose political views or reputation were so unsavoury that it might cause reputational damage to the University. Joe Thornberry argued that it was unwise to base a statute change on an unusual case, unlikely to be repeated, and to use a statute change to resolve what was fundamentally a a relationship issue. He also suggested that combining the issue of the City appointing a student councillor with the desire to avoid University Council members with extreme political views was confusing and unhelpful. Fiona Aiken argued that the proposal was necessary to protect the 'carefully balanced' constitution of University Council. Ste Smith, LUSU President, disagreed; he argued that there still a clear lay majority, and that the City Council should be free to choose whoever they feel can best represent their point of view on the University Council. Other senators argued that having a student appointee was inconsistent with the need for the City Council to have an experienced appointee on University Council who can represent the views of local people. One expressed worry that the proposal gave too much power to Council to vet appointments – but the VC insisted that there was no intention to turn other appointees to Council into nominations. When put to the vote, the proposal was passed, 43 for and 14 against with 3 abstentions. There followed a brief and uneventful discussion of the new college constitutions, which have been drawn up on the basis of a standard template, and checked by the Secretariat for any disadvantages to students. The Vice-Chancellor then gave a personal thank you to retired Deputy VC Bob McKinlay, explaining that the only reason for the lack of a lengthy, glowing testimonial at Professor McKinlay's last Senate in October was that the Deputy VC had insisted that no fuss be made over his retirement. Professor Smith said that Professor McKinlay had been hugely important and influential in the University, and would continue to be called upon for advice. Chris Bonington left just before close of play. subtext trusts that he was not disappointed with his visit; he will certainly have seen some robust debate. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext Had Dr. Samuel Johnson attended senate last week, he'd have likened amending Statute 9 to knocking over a child's sandcastle with a bulldozer - gratuitous and cruel. The right to reject the City Council's nomination to the University Council was justified as an 'extreme circumstances only' measure, to stop us from ending up with a BNP member or similar. To my mind, this demonstrates an incredible lack of faith in the city council, with whom we should be maintaining good relations. The university secretary said that the amendment ensures we have a 'top class' University Council - was I the only person on senate to be insulted by this? It was never really explained how student/staff city councillors could be detrimental to Council's quality as a body. The amended statute bears no significant positives for the university, and many negatives for student councillors who, in future, could be deprived of a fantastic opportunity. Ronnie Rowlands (Students' Union) ******** Dear subtext Just a minor correction on the previous subtext issue regarding university council: the representative from the city council is Paul Aitchison - although we are both ward councillors for the university. In the December city council meeting this was brought up in the leader's report which caused quite an uproar with members from all political backgrounds being unhappy that the university was forcing the elected members to change their appointment to a nomination. It's no surprise the city council see its best member to represent them on such a board is a ward councillor of the university; there is no threat to lay-majority. Although this wasn't the meeting for it to be debated by city council, members certainly made it apparent that they were unhappy and see it as a kick for town and gown relations. The vice chancellor even considers this ordeal a minor one. Of course as stated in subtext, it has to pass through senate first and last time it did not. Regards, Jonathan Dixon City Councillor University ward [Apologies for our mistake. As the Senate report and Ronnie Rowlands' letter make clear, the proposal has now been passed by Senate. Eds.] ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sam Clark, Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor, David Smith, and Martin Widden. |