|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
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. |