10. Sociology at Birmingham under the same threat?

News is emerging that sociologists at Birmingham University are under the same kind of threat that psychologists at Surrey were.

Here is a call to sign a petition protesting the University's threatened closure of the Sociology Department.

----------

SIGN THE PETITION TO KEEP SOCIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Petition

READ THE CAMPAIGN WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Protest Website

Background:

In 2002, despite wide spread condemnation and protest, the University of
Birmingham decided to close the Department of Cultural Studies and
Sociology. Subsequent to the closure a new Department of Sociology was
re-opened in 2004 with a long term view to developing Sociology at
Birmingham - staff were told that the University had a 10-year 'strategy for
success'. Following a recent review of this department's teaching and
research activities, the Head of the College of Social Sciences, Professor
Edward Peck, is recommending to Senate and Council that the University
should once again close Sociology (and its associated Centre for the Study
of Ethnicity and Culture)

9. Why was this material removed from Loughborough University's website?

The material on this blog was originally posted on Charles Antaki's departmental web-pages on Loughborough University's site.

It was removed on the instructions of Loughborough University management.

Correspondents have asked for the reasons.

I was able to have a wide-ranging discussion with the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities about his instructions to remove the page (and, subsequently, the link to this blog). Should it be of interest, I reproduce below my e-mail to the Dean, in which I outline my understanding of what was said.

The Dean has not yet favoured me with confirmation of this account of what he said (some two weeks after this message was sent to him), so please treat my version of what he said as merely that.

I will of course post any errors or misunderstandings if and when these are communicated to me.

Dear [Loughborough University Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities] Thank you for the chance to discuss the matter collegially in a phone conversation today. In a sense, the issue is closed, and we can all resume our normal business; indeed, before our discussion, I had followed your instruction, and had removed all traces of the Surrey protest site and its contents from lboro.ac.uk pages, and there remains no casus belli. But I was grateful for the friendly exchange we had about the reasons for the University's instructions, and I would like to record my understanding of our conversation here. I was heartened to hear that you felt that it is in principle be wrong to muzzle protest, and that the idea of the criticising another University's practices - leaving aside whether one agreed with the criticism - is not in itself unacceptable. It was reassuring to find that we had common ground. You were, however, very clear that criticism of another University's employment practices is not acceptable in certain circumstances. One of these is when the criticism is issued by a member of staff using Lboro facilities - in this case, of course, a Lboro website. The reason for that, you explained, is that the criticism may then be construed as in some way representing this University's view, even in the most tangential way. You were good enough to explain that there is no further reason; that this itself is reason enough. You observed that we need not explore the reasons why it would be bad or wrong for Lboro to be associated with criticism of another University. As I say, I'm grateful for the exchange of views, and I hope that I was able to articulate my own position - that I am of course keen to spare Lboro University embarrassment, and am happy to co-operate with an instruction from the Dean, representing the University authorities. We did, however agree to disagree with the very last point of the debate: whether or not there is a need to explain why it is that criticising another University's employment practices is something inappropriate for Lboro to be associated with, even tangentially. I hope I have captured the essence of our discussion? I'm aware that many people will be asking me to explain the appearance and disappearance of the offending pages, and I'm concerned to give a fair account. Charles

8. Forced-out lecturer's work now being offered to part-timers

Evidence has come to light that the Surrey Psychology Department is looking for part-time, hourly paid staff (including research students) to do the work of at least one lecturer who was forced to take 'voluntary' redundancy.

The e-mail below, a follow-up to the announcement of work for part-timers, comes from a senior member of the Psychology department, who asked its recipients to "share this information as widely as you need to."

Note: we have edited out the name of the psychologist whose lecturing is now being offered to part-timers.

The teaching does relate to the restructure, so people should make
considered choices about that in light of their professional and union
commitments certainly. One of the members of staff - [NAME DELETED] - who
took the enhanced voluntary severance package, would have done that
teaching if he was staying after Christmas. Sadly he is not.
To my knowledge UCU are not contesting the restructure at all. Reps
have been monitoring it locally, attending meetings where we have been
told our jobs are at risk etc., and they haven't argued with the process
so far. (Those of us who didn't take the package have been told that we
are no longer at risk, BTW).

Feel free to share this information as widely as you need to.

Cheers,

Points to note:

The author explicitly recognises that the work offered "does relate" to the restructure. What is not said is that this work was the expertise of a member of staff who was so discouraged from believing that there was a place for them in the new structure that they were forced to leave.

To imply that this member of staff somehow chose to go knowing that his course would then need to be farmed out is as hurtful as it is false.

The more obvious implication is that this lecturer's post was known to be necessary, but the Department preferred that her/his teaching be taught by a student rather than an established academic.

The insult and bad faith scarcely require comment.

7. A report on morale in the Psychology Department

This report is from a member of staff who prefers to remain anonymous. It is one view, but is offered as an indication of general morale. The reference is to a meeting between Psychology staff and the Dean.

As predicted, the meeting was interesting.

The way it came across to me was yet more spin, reference to the protest and to the article in the Times Higher. Generally it came across as being an atmosphere of fear driven Stalinism. I observed a scripted presentation followed by an inability to answer questions - I later found out that management and HR were to have the meeting to try and produce some answers the questions that afternoon!

It appears that the HoD and HR will have meetings with the remaining staff to outline the role they have identified for them in the new revised structure and to ask whether they think it's what they want to do! It may be that the passengers in the lifeboat do not feel anywhere near safe enough to negotiate on that. Clearly that is a matter for them - though they are making decisions in an undeniably extraordinary university climate.

It also looks as though the internal signatories on the website will receive increased attention - the Dean expressed an interest in why they have chosen to sign the protest. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody chose to put their head above the parapet and say anything.

It is only those brave enough to speak out or who are leaving who have thus far been willing to speak the truth. It is not difficult to form the view that the others have succumbed to learned helplessness or more worryingly, support the process.

With reference to the external signatories - it was suggested by management that they have apparently 'succumbed to social influence'.

The Dean stated he had spoken with someone from another University (anon) who had said that (from my memory) 'some people like games and people are using this as an excuse to practice rhetoric'. Then the Dean spoke of people playing with our futures. Perhaps unsuprisingly, whichever way one read the situation, there was no dissent on people playing with our futures!

Anon

6. Another anonymous letter from a person leaving Surrey

As one of the people leaving Surrey, I did not want the details of my personal case to be the subject of public debate, but since I have been quoted (anonymously) by Management, in an e-mail to Psychology staff, as one of the people who might feel different about the process to those who felt forced to leave, I feel obliged to join in.



When I first learned that my application for voluntary severance had been accepted, I did circulate a note within the department asking if people could refrain from using terms that might give the impression that I’d been sacked, since this implies I had personally been singled out for redundancy, and I did not want to damage my future job prospects. I did also say it was a positive decision on my part. However, this did not mean I was happy to be leaving – it simply meant I had decided to take control of what seemed to be an extremely uncertain situation rather than leave my future to the mercy of other people.



I am disappointed that this has been used to justify the process, and since the senior Management person suggests when referring to me and another person that: “neither you nor I are entitled to decide for them what they privately felt.  We are, I think, obliged to respect what they say as being what they mean to be understood about their choice”, then perhaps I can clarify what I do actually feel.



As I have already explained at length to those involved in the process at Surrey, I am not happy to be leaving, and made the decision to apply because I was deeply concerned at the odds for a group of people at my level of seniority. Personally, I calculated there being a possible 5 – 7 people (all of whom I consider to be good academics) applying for the 2 jobs which I thought I could apply for given the nature of the job descriptions.

Perhaps my calculations were wrong, but they were all I had to work with. The huge risk was that if one didn’t apply for voluntary severance early (there was a cut-off date before the final job structure was announced), and then subsequently found oneself without a job, redundancy pay dropped to approximately £500 per year of service. In a recession, this seemed like a huge risk to take for me.

Others made their own calculations and have their own differing levels of tolerance to risk.  It was indeed my choice, but it was based entirely on the calculations I made from the draft job structure, the current staffing numbers in various roles, and the rules of the application and severance schemes. Were it not for these, I would not be leaving. My case, and quotes from my email to the department, should therefore not be taken as endorsement for what has happened at Surrey.



Again, I did not want to engage in a public debate about my particular circumstances. However, given I have been quoted, I felt a need to clarify.


Anon2

5. Letter from anonymous staff member leaving Surrey

 
At the outset I would like to apologize for reluctantly having to publish my views in case readers would prefer not to be party to the ongoing Surrey debacle.  However I need to take a principled stance here.
 
I chose to maintain a low profile in this Surrey Affair, but unfortunately, I, like others, feel that I have been misrepresented by Management in their attempt to clarify things from their perspective. 
 
In this process, the terms 'transparency' and 'equitability' have been used by Management in order to ensure that staff within the department feel that the process has been open, fair and appropriate throughout.  As someone who had a conversation / meeting with a senior Management official 'behind closed doors' in which relevant matters were discussed, I was initially given the unambiguous statement from this person - following my direct and unequivocal question - that he did not want me to apply for the enhanced voluntary severance scheme (EVS).  Following that meeting therefore I believed I was not one of those anonymous people that this person had privately stated he hoped would apply for EVS. 
 
Unsurprisingly I was stunned that within a period of a mere 48 hours prior to the immutable EVS deadline to learn that I - and at least two other colleagues - received an email from senior Management recommending us to re-consider our EVS options retrospectively to that which we had been told to our faces.  In response to my request for clarification, Management's stated, seeming reasoning for this was that the job descriptions released five days earlier ultimately increased the potential levels of perceived competition for posts within the department.  Regrettably the senior Management person with whom I had been in contact chose not to advise me of this earlier - particularly when he was the "architect" of the new structure.   

It had been made clear to me that I was a wanted and valued member of staff.  In the light of subsequent events it's difficult to see that there can be any interpretation other than at best there was wishful thinking from Management and at worst downright disingenuity.  Accordingly, is there any wonder that I, and maybe others, could have confidence in Surrey Management and their due regard to employees?  The Internationally renowned Forensic team within the department is no longer seen as the future in the new structure.  It was suggested we 're-brand' ourselves as being  'social', 'individual differences' or 'research methods' psychologists having spent our careers to date at Surrey pursuing Forensic Psychology - jobs for which we were specifically appointed. 
 
I would argue I had little choice in my decision to apply for EVS, despite Management choosing to construe otherwise.
 
I would have hoped that the senior manager with whom I spoke would have been 'transparent' in his clarifications, in order to fully enable an honest debate.  Conversations with myself and other colleagues 'behind closed doors' do not sit well with the impression given by Management to the wider academic community of openness in process.  To find some resolution and closure to this damaging saga maybe what is needed is an open Enquiry as to what has gone on. 

Clearly - for all concerned - it is necessary to have a complete and honest chronology of events vis-a-vis Management's role in this.

Anon1

4. Letter from Professor Jennifer Brown, ex-Surrey

I have felt these to be useful exchanges not least in attempting to clarify what the process at Surrey has been all about.

Trying to make sense of what happened, why and how is important. Articulating the reasoning and learning the lessons are helpful if such an exercise is to be repeated elsewhere.

My observations in no particular order are:

1. The reality of the fiscal pressures on Surrey (and other Universities ) is true.
But there are ways of dealing with this before severing staff, either voluntarily or as a compulsory redundancy. i.e. efficiency savings, unfilled vacancies, looking at associate budgets etc. It seemed to me not enough was done to examine these options fully before opting for the more Draconian severance. I regret more was not done to examine other ways. There was a lack of clarity between the amount of money that had to be saved and how this might translate into members of staff. Questions were not answered about the monetary calculations and costings.

3. Yes other Departments within the Faculty had been re-structured but in these instances some effort was spent in relocating staff in different Departments where they may actually fit better and developing new activity. Whilst this may have been disrupting and upsetting, as far as I am aware in this exercise no staff were required to leave.

2. In the case of Psychology it is of course about more than money. It was made clear that it was as much about performance and the proposed restructuring was presented as confronting Surrey's poor RAE return and NSS results.

3. It was also about "right sizing" the Department relative to other Departments in the Faculty. The Dean presented this as a stark choice between seeing one Department closed entirely or slimming down Psychology and he chose the latter option. Thus 7.2 FTE were identified as the required number of posts that had to go and all to be found in Psychology. This translated into 2 professors, 3 readers and 2 SLs. In the new structure as presented it was easy to see where the resources were being taken from and re-directed to. There were to be no applied areas explicitly covered (except the preservation of health psychology and allied clinical and counselling psychology as these fitted with University wide research and teaching, incidentally the same logic was not applied to forensic psychology which fitted into a pan university Crime & Justice initiative) and resources were to be put into two new areas Individual Differences and Research Methods and buttressing biological bases. Thus the undergraduate programme was the net winner at the potential expense of the masters programmes.

4. We can all argue whether this proposal was appropriate or whether we agreed or disagreed with the logic. It was certainly a surprising and a clever proposal. It looked radical and could be presented as such to the University's senior management. It was flexible enough to allow some MScs to survive and was fluid enough to allow research activity to seep through as individuals could fit a teaching area and have additional and different research interests. It was Draconian in any terms. The reduction of 43 to 36 posts by any standards is a considerable cut in staffing levels. The new job descriptions in effect wrote out several senior members of staff and they were sent emails to this effect. Thus decisions I and others have been faced with was could we re-invent ourselves as different kinds of psychologists as there were more people than posts available. Some posts were obvious, but the contested posts were ones in which some people clearly had a legitimate claim to expertise and reputation and for others this would be contrived and manufactured. It hardly looks credible to have occupants of named chairs of psychology when published research was patently in another area. So did this represented a fair choice to those who were potentially competing for the available posts. Management speak says yes. Others including myself say no.

5. It thus becomes a convenience for "management" to be able to say there were no compulsory redundancies and people made the voluntary choice to maximise their self interest. The inconvenient truth is that the choices were spiked and some people such as myself were designed out.

6. The other factor is of timing. The proposed structure is the subject of consultation. The Enhanced Voluntary Severence choices had to be made before the consultation period was completed and the actual structure confirmed or re-designed. This presented the horns of a dilemma. Making choices in terms of a proposed structure with the absence of certain areas of psychology or the actual, possibly re-designed , structure in which some of the proposed omissions might have been restored. EVS or redundancy? Making a choice under these circumstances was extremely difficult and taxed the integrity of those trying to make choices, actually out of concern for the Department, its credibility and recovery and not simply a maximising of self interest.

7. Yes the language in this exchange has been emotive. These are emotive issues. I regret the management by spreadsheet mentality which avoids and distances "the dark side" from the visceral reality of people's feelings and emotions. Disposing of colleagues' livelihoods and careers is not something to be undertaken casually or carelessly of individual's feelings. Compassionate judgements as well as strategic decision making is called for.

8. Will any of the comments made make a difference. No. Decisions have been made and are irrevocable. The Department of Psychology at Surrey will be slimmed down, it is not yet possible to say whether the consultation will result in any adjustment to the proposed structure or if there will actually be forced redundancies. Will our experience and this attempt to put a human face on the management speak help individuals or other Departments who may have to face this, I hope so.

Jennifer Brown