Taking the HEA to task over accountability

I am writing as a member of the Higher Education Academy academic council. I was elected in October as a representative of the fellows. My platform was highly critical of the HEA leadership. I alleged, inter alia, that the HEA failed to defend academic freedom, values and standards because it listened to "managers" not practitioners. I came first of 92 candidates in the ballot.

Like other contributors to Times Higher Education (Letters, 24 April; 1 May), I am disgusted at the way in which the HEA has behaved towards Lee Harvey. Its leadership has steadily dismantled the democratic checks and balances without which institutional abuses become rife. Shame on it.

An evaluation of the HEA by management consultants Oakleigh Consulting (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd02_08/) is an eye-opener. At the last meeting of council I submitted a paper recommending "that the board invite some suitably experienced fellows to investigate those aspects of the culture in (HEA) York which have given rise to the dissatisfaction among staff noted in the Oakleigh Report ... and to the critical comments ... which led Oakleigh to conclude that 'this is the sort of issue which gives organisations an unhelpful reputation'".

Council refused. It also refused to put the report or the HEA's "action plan" in response to it on any future agenda of council. This is what the HEA really thinks about "academic input" to the board. It has become an organisation of managers, by managers, for managers.

When the academy abolished its former council (30 members; 16 elected fellows; various powers to determine policy) and replaced it with the "academic council" (15 members; four elected fellows; no powers to determine anything), the CEO claimed that this would "increase the input of academic teachers". Such sophistry is risible, but what is happening to Lee Harvey is no laughing matter. As correspondents have said, what example does this set for universities in this country? What example does it set abroad? What is this supposed to teach students about how to treat colleagues decently in academic debate or in employment?

But colleagues threatening to resign their fellowships should think again. Since the HEA abolished the individual subscription (without consulting council), it has made itself financially unaccountable to fellows. Write letters of complaint to the board instead. Copy the THE thread to them. Force them to see how widely our disgust is shared.

The time has come for an independent inquiry into the way in which the HEA has been governed and managed since it swallowed the Institute for Learning and Teaching. The ILT was far from perfect, but it was collegial, democratic and had a culture of respect for academic freedom and individual academics. Academics and students need such an institution. The HEA is not it.

Philip Burgess, Perthshire

See http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comments.asp?storycode=401505
--------------
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
--------------
Extracts from 'Interim Evaluation of the Higher Education Academy', January 2008:

The leadership and management of the Academy also need to be predicated on more effective internal communication and interaction than hitherto. A more open culture underpinned by delegated management practice must be a key objective in this regard.

The Academy serves the needs of a multi-faceted and multi-layered community of interest. Its approach to communications needs to have the same degree of sophistication, and be better directed and more focused and accessible.

The Academy must recognise that, put simply, it has ‘customers’ – primarily HEIs and individual academics teaching in HE (whether located in HEIs or further education colleges (FECs)) – and that they have needs it exists to serve.

All this demands putting in place a more sophisticated relationship management and communications strategy than has been in evidence to date, supported by proportionately more capable systems and processes. It also calls for a clearer and more coherent business strategy...

All staff, led by SEG and the Chief Executive, should address the development of a more open, responsive and effective culture of communication across the Academy...

It was suggested to us by some staff in the Academy (including members of the Board) and some consultees who interact with the Academy that there is residual dissatisfaction across the Academy’s staff base regarding the process of formation and the style of leadership by some senior managers.

Some of the contributory factors to this appear to have included:
• uncertainties over shifts in some staff roles and remits
• a perceived lack of clarity by some staff of the processes through which decisions regarding the continuation/cessation of project funding streams are made, where this impacts on staff activity.

The extent to which staff feel that they are supported through current line management and project management structures may partially depend on the nature of their roles. For example, some staff suggested that the line management structures for senior advisers and assistant directors are less ‘bedded down’ and thus less clear than for other staffing groups...
-------------
It would seem from the above that the HEA is run like any other HEI... favoritism, nepotism, incompetence, lack of accountability, etc.

Cut it out. Enough of this!

"You know what stops mobbings? Somebody saying, Cut it out. Enough of this."

By Sandra M. Stokes, PhD, professor of education and women’s studies, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and Sheri R. Klein, PhD, professor of art education, University of Wisconsin-Stout

The topic of mobbing has recently received media attention, with some experts believing that instances of mobbing on higher education campuses are increasing. Researchers claim mobbing affects only about 2% to 5% of all workers, but the highest number of mobbing incidents takes place in higher education. Women faculty are the majority of the targets.

What exactly is mobbing? According to authors Noa Davenport, Ruth Schwartz and Gail Elliott in Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace (Civil Society Publishing, 2004):

Mobbing is an emotional assault. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace.

These actions escalate into abusive and terrorizing behavior. The victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to the behavior or may even plan or condone it.

As a result, the individual experiences increasing distress, illness, and social misery… Resignation, termination, or early retirement—the negotiated voluntary or involuntary expulsion from the workplace—follows. For the victim, death—through illness or suicide—may be the final chapter in the mobbing story.

Financial consequences also can be a part of the mobbing; personnel reviews often are intentionally used to justify little to no salary increases or lack of retention.

How to recognize mobbing

Mobbing can be distinguished from the ordinary storm und drang that sometimes characterizes life in a university. A major characteristic is that the attack made on the target is not made on the actions or words of the faculty member but instead on the faculty member herself.

Other characteristics:

* The target has a record of success.
* The mobbers make up the rules as they go along and do not follow the accepted university due process procedures.
* The timing usually favors the mobbers, such as choosing to attack after the faculty member has had a serious medical procedure.
* The mobbers protest vehemently against any external review of their actions.
* The mobbers attempt to carry out their attacks in complete secrecy, using such tactics as anonymous hate mail left in the target’s mailbox.
* The charges against the target are for relatively minor instances, such as alleging that a faculty member has said certain things that the mobbers find objectionable.

--There is a unanimity of negative opinion about the target.

--The target is selected first and then the charges are brought.

--The mobbers use “impassioned rhetoric” in attacking the target.

--The mobbers spread rumors and gossip about the target.

Mobbing behaviors

Is it your imagination or is it mobbing?

While behaviors vary in scope and intensity, the most common include:

* not speaking to the target (e.g., when the department is assembled for a meeting, everyone is chatting except to the target; when it is time to be seated, everyone moves away from the target)
* downgrading work done by the target while praising work done by everyone else (e.g., giving the target a satisfactory rating for producing a book while giving exceptional ratings to everyone else for little to no productivity)
* filing complaints through faculty grievances based on “lack of collegiality”
* assigning everyone in a department to teach summer courses except the target
* a department chair taking away a course from the target when students complain of too much work instead of backing up the target
* not passing a major addition to a department’s curriculum because it was created by the target
* not including the target in any departmental planning
* conveying untrue allegations against the target to one and all
* letting untenured faculty as well as academic staff know that they should not interact with the target

Gender in mobbing

Research indicates that about 57% of those who are mobbed are women. According to the AFT Wisconsin Local 3535’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, women are targets in 75-80% of all cases of academic mobbing on campuses across the University of Wisconsin system.

Cases at the Wisconsin union include many instances of mobbing against faculty, particularly women faculty, who are outspoken about unethical and unjust situations. These faculty are quite competent and successful, and they be-come targets of mobbers who are threatened by their competence and professional success.

Other factors that determine who gets mobbed:

* Ethical and just people with high standards
* Independent, skilled and bright people with integrity
* Cooperative, “nice” people
* Marginalized or vulnerable people, such as those with a disability, those from another country or those who are somehow unlike everyone else.

Sadly, the perpetrators of mobbing are also often disproportionately women. In fact, according to researcher Linda Shallcross, the technique of mobbing—in which the attacks on a target are sneaky and collective—greatly appeals to women.

Administrators’ role

One characteristic in higher education that especially encourages mobbing is the tendency of administrators and/or campus leaders to ignore or tolerate the mistreatment of the target. Although mobbing can be instigated by a campus leader or administrator, it is always led by someone who has power over a group.

Administrators who are not directly responsible for the mobbing often fail to respond to it, which allows the mobbing to continue until the target gives up and leaves, develops life-threatening medical conditions (most commonly cardiac complications) or commits suicide—as do some 12% of all academics who are mobbed.

Administrators and campus leaders need to become more aware of this phenomenon on their campuses and take action to end it. A faculty member who has conducted years of research on this topic, Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo, has said: “You know what stops mobbings? Somebody saying, ‘Cut it out. Enough of this.’”

What can be done?

If you suspect that you are being mobbed, document everything that is said and done to make you feel this way. Get help from external sources who are knowledgeable about academic mobbing. Find an ally (a colleague, mentor or supervisor) whom you can trust to be a reality check and source of support.

Outside observers can look at situations where attacks are occurring. Are the attacks on the person or on her actions/words? Don’t stand by idly. Make campus leaders aware of the attacks and insist that they take action against the mobbers. Work for anti-mobbing policies on your campus. Don’t allow any one person or group to circumvent normal university due process procedures.

Those who do nothing and tolerate the attacks are jeopardizing not only their own careers, but also those of other smart, effective campus contributors who are likely to be the next targets.

Doing nothing enables the mobbers, so that academic mobbing will continue. It won’t stop until colleagues and administrators say “NO” to mobbing. The consequences of inaction are enormous for everyone, but the real losers in the academy are the students.

From: http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=18929

When Whistleblowing Leads to Bullying at Work

By Stig Berge Matthiesen (Associate Professor), Univeristy of Bergen, Norway

Whistleblowing can be defined as the act that takes place when an employee is witnessing wrongdoing in the work place (e.g. unethical conduct, corruption, violence or bullying against others, criminal acts etc.) from a fellow employee or a superior (or a group of employees or superiors), and he or she then tries to stop the wrongdoing by informing a leader or someone who is in the position to stop the wrongdoing. This telling about the wrongdoing may be done internally or externally. In the whistleblowing literature it is common to differentiate between whistleblowing and informing. A whistleblower does not take action with the intent to promote their own career ambitions.

Blowing the whistle concerns important ethical or societal issues, and the whistleblower may feel that he or she does not have the conscience to just keep quiet. Lives may be lost, serious pollution may get out of control, human rights may be seriously violated, or the company may get liquidated, if someone does not take action. On the other hand, if you want to get even with your colleague, or express something negative about him or her to your boss, then you act as an informer, not as a whistleblower. Many, including those in the judicial system, find it difficult to differentiate between acts of whistleblowing and acts of informing. Mixed cases may of course also exist.

Some whistleblowers are rewarded, and gain career promotion. An example of this happened when 3 middle managers were appointed as “name of the year” in USA in December 2002 by Time Magazine. They had reported severe corruption (in the World Com and Enron companies) or criminal neglect (in the FBI system after the 11th of September) to their superiors, in order to stop the wrongdoing. First they were ignored, but they never gave up.

However, some whistleblowers experience the opposite of being rewarded. Ingratitude is the way of the world, they realised instead. Some whistleblowers are exposed to severe bullying after they blew the whistle. They can be met with severe intra group or career sanctions that may lead to major health problems, even to symptoms of PTSD. A typical way of punishing or sanctioning a whistleblower is to meet him or her with tough ostracism, to completely isolate the person from others or from work tasks. Many of whistleblowers are simply sacked from their job, or their work contracts are not renewed. They may even experience that rumours about this “disloyal” worker are spread around, to other companies as well, making it extremely difficult for the person who blew the whistle to obtain another job.

One of the whistleblowers I met as part of my job as a researcher and counsellor in the field of occupational health psychology, Mr. X, worked as a prison officer in a sub-unit of a major prison. In this job he was confronted with many episodes of unethical or criminal acts conducted not by the prisoners, but by his fellow prison officers. A relatively influential group of his colleagues constituted the problem. The organizational culture of the unit, with e.g. severe corruption, was in his opinion out of control. At least this was what he realized after several years with gradual decline of the general professional conduct in the ward. He found this negative development impossible to tolerate. When Mr. X took action and informed the management of the prison, he was treated as a Judas or traitor, not only by his fellow colleagues, but also by the union representatives.

He was then socially isolated, being transferred to another job as an industrial guard in the prison system without being asked about his own opinion. In his “new job” he would not have any regular contact with any colleagues or inmates, as a “persona non grata”. When he was met with the impact of all the sanctions imposed upon him, he suffered a nervous breakdown. The break down turned into a long lasting sick leave. After some years, with several episodes of successive long term sick leave, he was granted disability benefit. After some of his old mental strength had returned, he took his case to the court, but lost.

As part of the judicial process, Mr. X was tested extensively by various psychological tests (MMPI-2, SCL-90, GHQ-30, among those) by 2 expert witnesses (I was one). We, as expert witnesses, also conducted several interviews with him. The psychological tests all revealed the same picture. Mr. X suffered from severe mental health problems (depression, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and bizarre imaginations, among others). About 18 months after the trial ended his case was taken to the appeal court. The story repeats itself – he loosed again.

Did his mental health further deteriorate after such an experience? About 2 months after the last court trial, Mr. X , went through the same kind of psychological screening. All tests revealed that he had recovered his mental strength, quite contrary to my expectations in advance. Mr. X’s own explanation was that even if he lost the court trials, and even after being out of working life against his own will, he had been able through this process to achieve a kind of psychological redress. The judicial process, and all the people he had been in contact with therein, gave him access to extensive moral and social support, he claimed. Suddenly Mr. X was heard and understood by his surroundings. He was no longer confused. Thus, Mr. X now recognized the interconnection between the various things that had occurred in relation to him blowing the whistle. Sense of coherence, shattered assumptions being recovered, cognitive dissonance being replaced by cognitive consonance, are but some of the psychological processes that may explain why Mr. X recovered.

In sum, exposure to bullying and harassment may be the consequences of blowing the whistle on your colleagues or your organization. This may be the case, in particular, in organizations that lack experience with how to handle whistleblowing. A defensive reaction when someone blows the whistle is to “kill the messenger”, instead of preventing or interfering with the alleged acts of wrongdoing.

Poor leadership skills should also be considered as an important intermediate factor when whistleblowing ends with bullying. Usually, the leader will have a (high) work task orientation, combined with a minor (low) level of people orientation. Hence, many whistleblowers may realize that they may be exposed to strong work place sanctions following whistleblowing, such as severe ostracism or even risk of losing their job or any positive or meaningful parts of their current job. Such an unfair and destructive process must be prevented. Still, as seen in the presented case, some of the bullied whistleblowers are able to maintain their mental health irrespective of this, and they may recover. The case of Mr. X may illustrate this. Psychological redress may constitute an important explanation of such mental recovery. As occupational health psychologists, we may have a role to play in that respect.

From: http://www.varslerunionen.no/faktatekst_3.html

Leadership or rather the lack of it...

Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers (students, colleagues etc.) stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.

From "A soldier's way" by Colin Powell. ISBN 0091791995

Now think of your own academic leaders and managers and draw your own conclusions...

Kingston University and Student Satisfaction Survey

This is how certain persons (MPEG file) at Kingston University instructed a specific group of students on how to fill in the Student Satisfaction Survey.

More specifically, Fiona Barlow-Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau from Kingston University told students that:

• they will be 'hounded' if they do not fill in the survey;

• they will have to logon to computers to fill in the survey (does this guarantee anonymity?);

• if Kingston comes down to the bottom of the table in terms of student satisfaction, nobody would want to employ them because employers will think that their degree is 'shit';

• if they think something on the survey is worth a '4', students are encouraged to make it a '5' because that is what everybody else is doing (beef up the score); and

• the student satisfaction survey is not the place to provide negative feedback for modules that students are not happy with.

Considering the above statements, it is natural to ask a number of questions:

1. Does the recommendation that student-satisfaction surveys be made public in an effort to improve the quality of institutions, put pressure on academics and administrative staff to 'manipulate' outcomes?
   
   
2. In this survey where the scale ranges from 1 to 5, how appropriate is it to tell students that a '4' should be rounded-up to a '5' because everybody else does the same?
   
   
3. Administering the survey through individual student logon, does not guarantee anonymity. Is this right?
   
   
4. Do employers look at student satisfaction surveys to determine if a degree is 'shit'?
   
   
5. Why is not the student satisfaction survey the place to provide negative feedback for modules that students are not happy with?

Professor Lee Harvey was recently suspended from the Higher Education Academy because he expressed in public his views about the survey. Among other things, Prof. Harvey wrote: '... This valuable source of information [the survey] has been under-exploited...' Judging from the manner Fiona Barlow-Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau from Kingston University briefed the students, could it not be argued that the process of conducting the survey is open to subtle but potentially decisive 'manipulations'?

Lastly, how indicative of the way Kingston University deals with students, is the briefing approach adopted by Fiona Barlow-Brown and Fred Vallee-Tourangeau?

We would appreciate some answers from the HEA, Kingston University, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, UniversitiesUK, and of course the National Union of Students.
------------------
To download and listen to the recording scroll to the bottom of the web page and click on 'click here to download'.

We welcome HEA - we can only hope that they have learnt something

We welcome the visit to this blog by the Higher Education Academy on April 29, 2008 at 5:23pm. We can only hope that the HEA had a good look around and discovered the horror stories about institutionalised bullying in some HEIs. If they did, then they'll know that their suspension of a distinguished Professor follows a sad and normal trend. We recommend that those in power within the HEA read some interesting literature about mobbing in academia. In the meanwhile, this blog will continue to expose HEIs that ignore their own policies about dignity at work.

Academic freedom is a crucial right that must be maintained

We the undersigned wish to express our deep concern at the attack on academic freedom indicated by the Higher Education Academy’s suspension of Professor Lee Harvey as Director of Research and Evaluation. This appears to be an inappropriate use of disciplinary procedures. Many of us have worked closely with Professor Harvey and know that he has always been deeply committed to improving the quality of the student learning experience. To that end he has never been afraid to raise important issues and encourage thoughtful debate. We fear for the future of academic freedom if academic experts in any area are not allowed to express their considered opinions, even in a personal capacity. We firmly believe that academic freedom is a crucial right that must be maintained; free inquiry is not merely a right; it's a necessary element of any system that strives for progress.

Steve Aldred
Matthew Badcock
Professor David Boyd
Dr Joyce Canaan
Veronica Coatham
Matthew Cremin
Dr Haydn Davies
Gary Hazeldine
Professor Ann Hill (NTF; FHEA)
Dr Jane Hill
Professor Howard Jackson
Dave Keefe
Professor Julian Killingley
Anthony Lewis
Barbara McCalla
Alan Mabbett
Dr Bill Madhill
Dr Rob Mawby
Professor Chris Painter
Bill Roper
Professor John Rouse
Professor Douglas Sharp
Greta Shields
Cynthia Slater
Professor Philip Smallwood
Dr George Smith
Dr Neil Staunton
Graham Wright

From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

Of course they do, don't they all?

HEA draws worldwide criticism over suspension, 24 April 2008, Times Higher Education. By John Gill

Academics from around the world have joined in criticism of the Higher Education Academy following the suspension of its director of research and evaluation. Lee Harvey was suspended from the post, pending investigation, after he criticised the National Student Survey in a letter written in a personal capacity and published in Times Higher Education.

It is understood that the HEA is investigating whether he broke a clause of his contract banning him from writing letters for publication without the academy's clearance.

Dozens of academics, some from as far away as South America, South Africa and Australia, have rallied to Professor Harvey's defence after Times Higher Education reported his suspension. Via posts to the Times Higher Education website and letters to the HEA, many accuse the academy of trampling academic freedom. The suspension was "totally unacceptable", said Chris Rust, a fellow of the HEA. "I would suggest that the academy ... needs all the friends it can get," he added.

John Rouse, dean of law, humanities, development and society at Birmingham City University, said he was "shocked, astonished, appalled" by the suspension. In a letter to Bob Burgess, HEA chairman, he said: "This reflects badly on the HEA's attitude to academic freedom."

Carmen Fenoll, former pro vice-chancellor of the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Toledo, Spain, urged the HEA to rethink its position. "This is not in the benefit of this prestigious institution," she said.

Orlando Albornoz, a professor at the Central University of Venezuela, said: "It is devastating news for scholars living in countries like Venezuela ... I feel sorry about what has happened in this case in Great Britain, which we still look upon as a place of academic freedom."

Catherine Rytmeister, a higher education researcher writing from Sydney, Australia, said Professor Harvey "must be reinstated without delay".

The HEA said it had "full and fair" disciplinary procedures and supported academic freedom.

See: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=401505
------------------

Of course they do, don't they all have "full and fair" disciplinary procedures...

Did they or did they not... and 'tick box' exercises

No automatic adverse inference for failing to complete discrimination questionnaires

In D’Silva v NATFHE & Others, Mr D’Silva, a university lecturer and member of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) union, claimed the union had discriminated against him on grounds of race in the way it handled his applications for legal assistance in bringing discrimination claims against Manchester Metropolitan University. His complaints were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. He appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). His appeal included a claim that the Tribunal had refused to draw adverse inferences of discrimination from the alleged failure of the union to fully answer a Race Discrimination Act 1976 questionnaire.

The EAT dismissed Mr D’Silva’s appeal. It held that failure to answer a questionnaire, or indeed to provide other information or documents, does not automatically raise an inference of discrimination. While these are matters from which an inference can be drawn, it held that the drawing of inferences from such failures is not a "tick-box exercise". It is necessary in each case to consider whether, on the facts, the failure in question is capable of constituting evidence supporting the inference that the respondent acted discriminatorily in the manner alleged and, if so, whether, in the light of any explanation supplied, it does in fact justify that inference.

The EAT suggested that if a claimant pursues this point in circumstances where it is obvious that the failings have no bearing on the question of discrimination, he or she runs the risk of being penalised.

From: http://www.mondaq.com and: http://www.personneltoday.com

Timing is everything when you are stating the obvious...

On a day that UCU was in court (see: UCU in court) and a major issue relating to academic freedom of expression has been exposed at the HEA - UCU for the time being does not seem to have an opinion on this, what does UCU do? It releases an important report on college staff dissatisfaction. The report itself is worth reading, although there is nothing terribly new. Some highlights:

• 86% of college teaching staff responding feel they make a valuable contribution to society
• half do not feel valued by their employers
• only 22% believe they are rewarded adequately
• 51% feel they can't achieve a good work-life balance. This compares badly with other workplaces. In the UK as a whole, 66% of employees in all sectors say they can
• 51% of teaching staff say they're likely to leave FE in the next 5 years
• less than a third would recommend their college as a good place to work.
  

And what does Sally say?

'You really have to ask whether talented young people will want to enter, let alone stay, in a profession where dedication and achievement fail to command respect and adequate reward. If the government is not careful, it will find a yawning staffing gap in its skills strategy.

'Learners are very satisfied with their college lecturers. Lecturers deserve the satisfaction that comes from fair treatment, respect and just rewards.

'If the government is not careful... and so we pass the buck to the government after having discovered and stated the obvious when over at THES comments - many from other countries - take on the HEA (a body answerable to Universities UK, i.e. the bosses). What a radical union and how scared HEA must be of UCU! The government is not careful Sally, so what are we going to do about it? Perhaps release another report...