|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext issue
74 24 March
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/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS:
editorial, news in brief, international links, ethical standards in research,
union-management relations III, LUVLE to Moodle, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL UCU,
like its predecessor union the AUT, takes strike action rarely - the last
occasion was five years ago - so it is reasonable to suppose that there seems
to many people a good reason for doing so this week. It is true, however,
that the meaning of strike action by academics and related staff is different
than in most other professions. A minority of members take visible action in
the form of picketing, hoping that not too many drivers will decide to
accelerate at the sight of them (related reminiscences this week included one
by a senior academic (ex-Lancaster, but a long time ago) who recalled the
experience of seeing his foot disappear beneath the tyre of a car driven by
an irate professor). The majority who take strike action probably stay at
home - or perhaps, given the remarkably clement weather for this strike, go
for country walks. In either case they will make a conscientious effort not
to think anything that might be a relevant academic thought - and will in
almost all cases fail. This is because contrary to what is the case in most
other jobs, and contrary to what Lancaster's management evidently believes is
the case for academic and related staff (see below), the part of the core
'business' of the university that consists of thinking, reading and writing
is not a five-day a week activity. It involves a broader personal and
professional commitment to the development of one's subject and of one's own
understanding and capacity. And we say this not in a spirit of pompous
self-aggrandizement, but as statement of fact. ***************************************************** NEWS
IN BRIEF Mystery
Yellow Sayings All
round campus there are small yellow pieces of card tied to railings and lamp
posts with uplifting thoughts on them. We like them. But who put them there
and why? ****** University
Twitter-Feed One
of the problems with LU-text is that often one only gets to hear about
exciting opportunities when it's too late. A new University Twitter-feed
promises to rectify this problem. There are 3400 followers already. You too
can sign up at http://twitter.com/lancasteruni
and hear the news as it happens. Recent highlights include 'Chinese Consul
General visits Lancaster campus' (Tweeted at 2.44 am on 7th March) and 'The
Management School is looking for companies to host placements and student
consultancy projects - interested?' (Tweeted at 2.27 am on 24th Feb). Who is
the dedicated 24/7 tweeter? We hope his or her sterling efforts are richly
rewarded! ****** The
Work Foundation Few
jobs have been advertised at the University in recent years, but it looks
like other parts of the Lancaster Empire are doing better. The Work
Foundation has recently been advertising for new staff, including a Head of
People Effectiveness and Head of Big Innovation Centre (each on £73,500)
along with an unspecified number of researchers and assistant researchers. Readers
will remember that The Work Foundation was bought by Lancaster University in
October 2010, having become insolvent. Mainly, the Work Foundation owed money
to its pension fund. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/396bf3aa-ddcb-11df-8354-00144feabdc0,s01=1.html#axzz1GqnS45kR. Few
details about the deal between the Work Foundation and Lancaster University
have been made public. In particular the sum paid for the think tank has not
been disclosed. As a charity, the Work Foundation is legally obliged to file
annual reports with the Charity Commission, and so subtext went to have a
look at them. Unfortunately, the last report was filed in 2008, and the
current report is listed as being 321 days late. For any charity to fail to
file a report is bad, but for one whose 2008 report describes it as being
dedicated to showing how 'world-beating organisational and individual
performance derive from successfully blending both economic and productive
efficiency with personal growth, voice and fairness' it suggests a lack of
organisational and individual effectiveness that is almost funny. Maybe it's
best to do as the Work Foundation says, not as it does. subtext hopes that
all is not as it appears, and that the Charity Commission has for some reason
exempted the Foundation from having to file reports - or maybe it's in the
post. ****** Forecasting
fees At
the time of writing there is still no definite news of what level of fee
Lancaster intends to set. Rumour has it that an announcement is imminent, but
in the meantime there is a convincing and straightforward prediction, at http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2011/03/forecasting-university-tuition-fees.html,
that what will be announced is the full £9,000. The author's argument is that
Lancaster, ranked in this table as 14th in England for research, would be out
of line with what are usually regarded as similarly prestigious universities
if it did not charge the full whack, and thus risk becoming less prestigious.
Since Exeter (26th in this table) and Surrey (32nd) have already declared
their intention to charge £9,000, it would indeed be strange if Lancaster
were to do anything else. Only two universities, London Met and Liverpool
Hope, have so far said that they will charge less. The
implication is of course that price is to be the criterion by which the
quality of a university is to be judged. As we argued in subtext 72, however,
there is no obvious linkage between a university's research ranking and the
level of fees imposed on undergraduates, who can very reasonably argue that
their fees should go to finance the teaching of their degree courses, not to
support research. Equally, it would not be right to use fees to pay teaching
assistants so that academic staff can avoid teaching undergraduates - in
which case, what price 'research-led teaching' (a too handily available
mantra, but one which universities like Lancaster have traditionally aspired
to)? ***************************************************** INTERNATIONAL
LINKS As
reported in subtext 73, Senate recently voted to support in principle the
development of a new campus in China in collaboration with Guangdong Foreign
Studies University (GDUFS), though for the first time Senators raised some
doubts about the wisdom of collaborating with institutions in States that
might not respect academic freedom. The list of key officials at GDFSU
suggests that there may indeed be some cultural differences - for example,
Secretary Jin Yaoguan is listed as being 'responsible for propaganda,
political education of the teaching staff and the development of campus
culture' (see http://english.gwnews.net/article_show_notime.asp?ArticleID=2121). Lancaster
has collaborated with GDUFS for some years, and the two institutions already
offer a number of jointly taught undergraduate degrees. Lancaster is far from
alone in developing international collaborations with China. A 2006 QAA
report found that 82 UK Higher Education institutions have established
partnership links with Chinese institutions. However,
though they have become commonplace, international links with China, and
other states that do not support liberal academic values, can give fair
grounds for concern. The LSE has been forced to distance itself from its
Libyan links, and this should be seen as a warning rather than as the opening
up of a market opportunity. The
university committee responsible for overseeing international partnerships
appears to be the Collaborative Provision Oversight Committee, which is a
standing committee of the Senate charged to 'take an overview of the
university's development of collaborative provision ensuring that this is in
line with appropriate aspects of the university's strategic plan, and, where
necessary to make recommendations to the Senate'. Given that international
collaborations have regularly been announced over the last few years, the
committee must have been busy, though minutes have not been posted on the
University website since the meeting on 6 May 2010. ***************************************************** MAINTAINING
ETHICAL STANDARDS IN RESEARCH The
Ethics Self-Assessment checklists that must be filled in prior to applying
for externally funded projects help ensure that research at Lancaster is
ethically sound. The current checklist goes some way to maintain ethical
standards, for example, by prompting researchers to think twice before
subjecting 'cephalopods or decapods' to 'intrusive interventions' or
'deception or trickery'. The checklists have proved of particular use to
researchers in the arts and humanities, where the traditional belief that
research in such subjects raised no ethical issues meant that the welfare of
cephalopods was previously sometimes overlooked. However, despite the
successes of the current ethics checklist, it has recently been noticed that
there remain some possible bad acts that the checklist doesn't cover. Thus,
from next year, researchers will also be asked to declare that their research
does not involve i. inventing weapons of mass destruction, ii. cavorting naked
with Satan (or minions), or iii. collecting sensitive information concerning
decapod sexuality or religious beliefs. Researchers whose research may
involve any of i.-iii. will be asked to complete an additional and in-depth
ethics review form and will be advised on the correct procedures to follow by
the relevant ethics committees. ***************************************************** UNION-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS III: THE STRIKE In
recent issues of subtext, we have been commenting on the recent marked deterioration
in the relationship between management and campus unions, and have been
suggesting that this has to a large extent been caused by an increasingly
aggressive and confrontational approach on the part of management. Further
evidence of this was provided in the official management statement on the
strike issued in LU-Text a couple of weeks in advance. This message signalled
a new management response to strikes on campus that is in marked contrast to
the stance it has taken previously. First,
it declared that pay would be deducted from the wages of those on strike at
the rate of 1/260 per day. This is the first time this has happened. At all
previous strikes, pay has been deducted at the rate of 1/365. As the new line
is evidently based on the assumption that people work only from Monday to
Friday, it has prompted many to ask whether they should apply for overtime
pay whenever they are required to work on Saturdays for Open Days, Visit
Days, new student college Arrival Days, etc., not to mention when they
undertake research at weekends.
Perhaps the union will take up the issue of overtime pay in light of
this? Second,
it declared that a full day's pay would be withheld for each day that someone
participates in action short of a strike.
Again, this is the first time that this has happened. Furthermore, given that action short of a
strike has yet to be declared, it is difficult to know what purpose this
statement serves other than to intimidate.
Although there has previously been talk of deducting pay for action
short of a strike, this has never before actually happened. As the proposal is to deduct 100% of pay
for the day in question, this has prompted many to insist that they will do
no work at all on days when 100% of pay is being deducted. After all, staff can hardly be expected to
work for free (there are echoes here of 1930s coal mines). In other words, this measure is likely to
turn action short of a strike into a full strike. Third,
it declared that the university would withhold USS pension contributions for
staff on each day they are on strike.
Yet again, this is the first time that this has happened. Numerous colleagues have pointed out that
according to the 1/260th calculation, neither we nor the university are
contributing at weekends either, as we're not being paid - but presumably
we're covered if we die on a Saturday or Sunday? This is a clear inconsistency here, and, as
with the proposed USS pension reforms themselves, the inconsistency arises from
the tipping of the balance of favour away from employees and towards
employers at every conceivable stage. Reactions
to these measures have been fierce.
Academics are not easily cowed, and it soon became abundantly clear
that people's attitudes had been stiffened by this announcement. Some who were unsure whether to strike were
persuaded to do so when they read the LU-Text announcement. Those who were planning to strike anyway
were moved to volunteer to join the picket line. It is evidently the case that there will be
more people on strike and more people on the picket line as a direct result
of the LU-Text announcement. It
is not easy to see why this strike is so qualitatively different from
previous ones that it requires these increasingly punitive measures. If it is not qualitatively different, one
can only conclude that university managers are being deliberately
confrontational, which only confirms what subtext has been saying
recently. Given that the
Vice-Chancellor meets very few academics other than Pro-Vice-Chancellors and
Deans, one wonders if he is aware at the depth of feelings on this
issue. The chasm that exists between
academics - from lectures to professors - and managers has never been wider. ***************************************************** LUVLE
TO MOODLE? Lancaster
University's Virtual Learning Environment (LUVLE) is set to undergo
significant changes over the next eighteen months. The Next Generation LUVLE
project will see the service move from the current Lotus Notes software to
Moodle 2.0. Responsibility for the
project will lie with a board including Gavin Brown, Dean of Undergraduate
Studies (Project Executive), Rich Ranker of LTG (Project Manager), Ellie
Hamilton, Associate Dean at LUMS, and Robin Hughes, LUSU Vice President for
Academic Affairs (both Senior Users).
The technical work of developing and supporting the new LUVLE will be
contracted to the spin-out company Lancaster University Network Systems
(LUNS). The
current LUVLE has been evolving since 1996, and uses IBM's Lotus Notes client
programme and the associated Domino server programme. LUVLE was created in-house by a small team
known as the Learning Technology Group, which was initially based in
Information Systems Services (ISS). In
2002 LTG became part of the new Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and
Teaching (CELT), which enabled them to work more closely with staff involved
in teaching quality assessment and effective learning. However, during the controversial break-up
of CELT in 2009 LTG was reorganised back into ISS. The
tipping point against the current Notes-based LUVLE seems to have been the
serious technical problems experienced by staff and student users during the
Michaelmas term: upgrades to the Domino server software provided by IBM
turned out to be 'buggy', resulting in a stream of interruptions to service
whenever demand got high. Though
University staff were not to blame for this, ISS received a string of
complaints, especially from LUMS, which seem to have triggered a decision to
move quickly to different software. It
will be good to see the University investing properly in this area at
last. Using in-house technical
expertise to construct our own VLE using Lotus Notes was a cost-effective
option that made sense when e-learning was the preserve of only a handful of
academics. But when VLEs became part
of the bread and butter of university teaching, the lack of resources and
personnel put into this area started to become a false economy. Not least, it created a risky dependence on
the technical skills of a tiny number of in-house technical experts who
actually understood how it all worked (rumours that they were not allowed to
catch the same bus home or choose the same baguette filling at Spar have not
been confirmed). Some
readers may recall that funding for e-learning at Lancaster was significantly
enhanced in 2005 when the University received its share of the funds
redistributed to universities after the collapse of the UK Electronic
University (UKeU) in 2004. This was
used to fund Lancaster's E-Learning Project, which gave a boost to online
learning capabilities and take-up. But
the money was only ring-fenced for that initial year; in subsequent years,
the money was simply rolled into the general teaching grant, so e-learning funding
on campus returned to its usual desultory levels. It's
also sensible to consider moving to another platform, but has this been
decided in the right way? At
February's meeting of the Learning Technology Advisory Group (LTAG), concern
was expressed about the way that Moodle - as opposed to Blackboard,
Sharepoint or Sakai, or even staying with Lotus Notes - had simply been
announced as the platform of choice, with no prior consultation. Could
this unfortunate start to the project be anything to do with the fact that,
whereas the last review of Lancaster's e-learning strategy came under the
auspices of the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee, the new project
will just be part of the University's general ICT strategy? Might the current organisational
arrangements for the project mean that learning and teaching requirements
will not always receive the attention that they deserve? We hope not. It's certainly more encouraging that a
period of consultation has now been agreed - although the Moodle decision is
apparently non-negotiable. The
decision to use Moodle 2.0 seems to have been made in October or November at
a meeting of the Business Process and Applications Group (BPAG - see
https://gap.lancs.ac.uk/Committees/BPAG/Pages/), and it seems likely that one
factor in making the decision was the existing commitment to Moodle of LUNS,
who will be contracted to deliver the new LUVLE, and has as its directors two
members of BPAG and a number of other University officers. A key part of LUNS' business has been
providing low-cost broadband and Moodle VLEs to schools in rural areas -
until very recently it had a large rolling contract with Cumbria and
Lancashire Education Online. Designing
a new VLE for the University would go some way to fill the gap left by the
loss of the CLEO contract, and also enable LUNS to create a shop-window
product that might help its ambitions to get into the lucrative business of
selling VLE services to other universities. Moodle
does have its supporters: it is an open source platform, which means 100s of
developers are working on improving it, fixing bugs and developing 'modules',
'blocks' and 'filters' with different functionalities. It is thus also far more configurable than
LUVLE. However, there are concerns
about the smoothness of future upgrades.
Proprietary platforms such as Blackboard and Notes have clear 'upgrade
paths' which ensure that local modifications of the software will still work
even when centrally provided upgrades are installed. However, because Moodle is open-source,
this cannot always be guaranteed. Another
big challenge will be to build a new reliable infrastructure around the
Moodle 'instances' (the equivalent of individual LUVLEs). Over the last 10 years LTG staff have used
Notes to develop a complex architecture of tools that link into LUVLE -
MyPGR, MyPlace, but above all MyModules, which integrates with the LUSI
student records database in order to ensure that lists of modules,
permissions and so on are automatically refreshed daily. As far as we know,
so far no decision has yet been made about who will be responsible for
developing and maintaining whatever will replace this, and what software it
will use. Some
have expressed unease about contracting the technical side to an outside
company, in case circumstances outside the University's control left it high
and dry without VLEs. The original
language used when the decision was announced was that the service was going
to be 'outsourced'; when the wisdom of this was challenged, the language was
changed, emphasising that LUNS is a 'wholly owned University subsidiary
company'. Whatever the legal niceties,
subtext hopes that we don't find ourselves relying on a VLE software platform
in which we do not have significant in-house technical expertise. The
timetabling of the project has also attracted criticism. The initial plan was very compressed,
allowing little time to develop the VLE, test it, and train people in using
it. The latest plan still leaves
little room for overcoming any unforeseen problems, but is at least a little
less frenetic: to spend a few months gathering information from staff and
students about what they want from the user interface; to have a working
example soon after that; to run pilot instances with a few departments during
the academic year 2011-12; and to have full delivery from October 2012. It will be important that the piloting
academics are chosen well, to include not just Moodle early-adopters but also
the reluctant majority. But more
widely it is really important that a broad cross-section of the university engage
with the process, to increase the chances of the new VLE being just as LUVLE
as we would want it to be. So we urge
readers to take advantage of any opportunity to participate in the
consultation process. In the interim,
the number of technical staff supporting the existing LUVLE will drop even
more in 2011-12, so expect a noticeable degradation of service. Some say that
this is in order to make the new LUVLE look better by comparison, but that is
surely too cynical a thought, even for us. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear
subtext, Professor
Emeritus Michael Dillon, whose inaugural lecture at Lancaster I attended a
dozen or so years ago, is reported by subtext to have made the following
claim in his recent talk on "The University in Crisis": He
called into question the idea that truth-telling can ever be wholly
autonomous; while truth is a remainder that cannot be collapsed into power,
neither is it ever wholly separate from power, since every politics invokes
truth, and every form of truth is a form of politics. To
begin with, the relationship between knowledge and power was not the
discovery of Foucault, who is apparently Dillon's hero. The Sophists claimed
the same in fifth-century BC, and were refuted by Plato and others. It
is one thing to argue that knowledge can be used politically. Who would
demur? It is another thing to argue, as Dillon does, that knowledge is
inseparable from power. Perhaps he will tell us in a future public foray what
the political ramifications are for those who, like me, studied dead
languages or those whose specialty is medieval philosophy or particle physics
or proctology. No
one denies that, to take the most conspicuous examples, the Nazis
appropriated even the most abstruse disciplines for their political
ends. There was, for example, the use
of Indo-European linguistics to espouse Aryan racial policy. There was the
notion of a non-Jewish, Aryan Christ.
There was, to cite the title of a wonderful book, NAZI SCIENCE. But to
give EXAMPLES of the political use of even the most seemingly apolitical
specialties is not to establish what Dillon claims: that "EVERY form of truth is a form of
politics." I'd be curious - though
no more - to learn what his justification for this claim is. Presumably,
this one truth of his is immune from his otherwise universal claim. Otherwise
we'd surely be entitled to dismiss it as just one more politically infested
truth. Finally,
if, as we are told, truth is inherently political, then it has always been
so. Why, then, is Prof. Dillon so disconcerted by the contemporary mixing of
capitalism and truth? If Dillon is right, then nothing is new. By
the way, Marx himself exempted science from ideological contamination,
including contamination from capitalism. Therefore not even he deemed every
truth political. But I suppose he was just insufficiently forward thinking. Robert
Segal Prof.
of Religious Studies University
of Aberdeen (at
Lancaster from 1994 to 2006) ***************************************************** 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. |