This guy goes around telling his support staff that unless they meet the arbitrary targets he set for them, then their position will become untenable. Is this harassment?
Anonymous
January 16, 2009
January 15, 2009
student4justice.com
Following the increased press coverage of my year long fight with the University of Exeter, I have decided to create this website for three reasons. Firstly, to generate greater awareness of my case and the issues that have not yet been reported by the media. Secondly, to raise funds to bring my case to County Court where I hope to finally receive justice. Thirdly, to highlight the plight of postgraduate students who are either bullied, neglected or subject to mounting pressure to accept teaching duties traditionally performed by senior academic staff.
Read more at: http://www.student4justice.com/
Read more at: http://www.student4justice.com/
January 14, 2009
Leeds Met VC Resigns
Simon Lee, the vice-chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University, has resigned after six years in post... (Read the rest of the article at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk)
Among the readers' comments about the above resignation, are the following:
Among the readers' comments about the above resignation, are the following:
- Anon 14 January, 2009
Goodbye and good riddance! I hope this will mean the university be a safer, less stressful and pleasant place to work.
- unfortunately must remain nameless 14 January, 2009
The culture of Leeds Met IS still rife with bullying mainly because Simon Lee has failed to manage his managers (aka his pitbulls), most of whom are sub-standard middle managers with little or no academic background, little knowledge or interest in academic endeavour, and chips on their shoulders about anyone who is involved in the process of scholarly activity. Hopefully, these are the people who will quickly follow suit, following Simon Lee from Leeds Met in case anyone finds out that their inflated salaries do not match their mediocre skills. Simon Lee is not a bad person but he has installed bad people who have made the culture of the place genuinely unhappy and stressful for many members of staff, and then he has been unwilling or unable to remove or discipline the bullies. I feel cautious about him leaving because I do wonder if anyone will want to take on this mess (finances as well as staff relations) and what calibre of person would accept such a post. However, maybe this means we will no longer have to suffer the affront of daily reflections (in which we often learn what he told us a year ago, or hear about his children's privileged educations) and meaningless insane slogans such as 'rubbing shoulders with champions', which can only be a good thing. I hope we can get back to concentrating on teaching, learning and research rather than 'partnering' sport teams. I, for one, will be relieved not to have sport continuously thrust in my face. In fact, maybe staff development can even be meaningful instead of tea parties, sports people as keynotes, and etiquette lessons. (If only his departure could stop the terrible name change!)
- Thank God it is over 14 January, 2009
Many of these posts appear to miss the point. Whether you like the VC's approach or not, or whether you like him as a person or not should not deflect from the fact that he has clearly done a very poor job. There is simply no evidence to support the fact that anything been done has actually enhanced the University in anyway whatsoever. There is plenty of evidence that supports the opposite of course. I work with many staff and students and the fact is that today is seen as a very good day. His tenure as VC has quite simply been a disaster for anyone involved with the University. I only hope that when the truth underneath the spin is revealed there will be something worth saving. Saying you have been a success does not make it so!
Finally tackling the issue...
I see that 'Times Higher Education' is finally tackling the issue head on, they've got a rather interesting blog going that is apparently written by a bullied academic: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404992&c=1
Anonymous
Anonymous
January 09, 2009
January 08, 2009
Reviewers raise concerns about RAE gameplaying
The strategic games played by universities to inflate their ratings in the research assessment exercise have been laid bare by the peer-review panels that judged the submissions.
In a series of subject overview reports published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England this week, a number of the panels, which were responsible for assessing research quality in 67 disciplines across 159 institutions, raise concerns. They say that some universities excluded research-active staff from the exercise to artificially "exaggerate" their strengths, while others drafted in research stars on "unusual" contracts who were not fully integrated members of the research team.
David Otley, who chaired the panel that assessed economics, accounting and business and management studies, says in his report: "Some very strong units chose to submit only a proportion of their staff for assessment, despite the encouragement in the criteria for all research-active staff to be submitted."
Because "the panels had no information on the proportion of staff submitted", this meant that some departments "appeared stronger than others solely for this reason".
The business and management studies subpanel says in its report that it "remained concerned ... about the varying degree of selectivity that was apparent in the submissions".
"Although this knowledge was not used in making assessments, it is clear that some submissions included a very small proportion of academic staff from some institutions. This selectivity probably exaggerates the strengths of some institutions."
Unlike in previous RAEs, the Higher Education Statistics Agency was not able to release data showing the proportion of eligible academics left out of the 2008 RAE because of complaints that the guidance on eligibility for submission was unclear. This meant that there was no measure of "research intensity" in departments, prompting claims that the RAE results failed to show the true picture of research.
Times Higher Education understands that some RAE panels penalised perceived gamesmanship by giving a low ranking in the "esteem" and "research environment" assessment categories to departments they believed had submitted a low proportion of their staff. These categories will be published in RAE "subprofiles" in the spring.
The panels' reports also contain concerns about the recruitment of research stars. The subpanel on sociology is "struck by the fact that a few departments placed a great reliance on the presence of highly esteemed academics on fractional contracts or other unusual contractual arrangements".
It adds: "There was not always evidence that these academics ... made an effective contribution to the research culture."
The Asian studies panel's report notes that "the recent appointment of several short-term contract staff" in some institutions "puts a question mark over the sustainability of certain areas of research in the longer term".
Paul Marshall, executive director of the 1994 Group of small research-intensive universities, which submitted a higher proportion of their researchers than the larger research-intensive universities to previous RAEs, said: "Comments emerging from the panels are of great interest and will, we believe, be reflected in the subprofiles achieved for esteem and the research environment."
Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire and head of the Million+ think-tank, said: "Some universities have selected their most active staff for submission to gain reputational advantage; whether this will also maximise funding remains to be seen."
---------
The games they play... and these are the ones that have come out. There are others...
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
In a series of subject overview reports published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England this week, a number of the panels, which were responsible for assessing research quality in 67 disciplines across 159 institutions, raise concerns. They say that some universities excluded research-active staff from the exercise to artificially "exaggerate" their strengths, while others drafted in research stars on "unusual" contracts who were not fully integrated members of the research team.
David Otley, who chaired the panel that assessed economics, accounting and business and management studies, says in his report: "Some very strong units chose to submit only a proportion of their staff for assessment, despite the encouragement in the criteria for all research-active staff to be submitted."
Because "the panels had no information on the proportion of staff submitted", this meant that some departments "appeared stronger than others solely for this reason".
The business and management studies subpanel says in its report that it "remained concerned ... about the varying degree of selectivity that was apparent in the submissions".
"Although this knowledge was not used in making assessments, it is clear that some submissions included a very small proportion of academic staff from some institutions. This selectivity probably exaggerates the strengths of some institutions."
Unlike in previous RAEs, the Higher Education Statistics Agency was not able to release data showing the proportion of eligible academics left out of the 2008 RAE because of complaints that the guidance on eligibility for submission was unclear. This meant that there was no measure of "research intensity" in departments, prompting claims that the RAE results failed to show the true picture of research.
Times Higher Education understands that some RAE panels penalised perceived gamesmanship by giving a low ranking in the "esteem" and "research environment" assessment categories to departments they believed had submitted a low proportion of their staff. These categories will be published in RAE "subprofiles" in the spring.
The panels' reports also contain concerns about the recruitment of research stars. The subpanel on sociology is "struck by the fact that a few departments placed a great reliance on the presence of highly esteemed academics on fractional contracts or other unusual contractual arrangements".
It adds: "There was not always evidence that these academics ... made an effective contribution to the research culture."
The Asian studies panel's report notes that "the recent appointment of several short-term contract staff" in some institutions "puts a question mark over the sustainability of certain areas of research in the longer term".
Paul Marshall, executive director of the 1994 Group of small research-intensive universities, which submitted a higher proportion of their researchers than the larger research-intensive universities to previous RAEs, said: "Comments emerging from the panels are of great interest and will, we believe, be reflected in the subprofiles achieved for esteem and the research environment."
Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire and head of the Million+ think-tank, said: "Some universities have selected their most active staff for submission to gain reputational advantage; whether this will also maximise funding remains to be seen."
---------
The games they play... and these are the ones that have come out. There are others...
From: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk
January 07, 2009
The Ten Recommended Administrative Measures
1. “Focus on the situation, issue, or behaviour, not the person.”
2. Replace quasi-judicial campus tribunals with administrative decision-making.
3. Unless evidence compels them, avoid forensic words like allegations and charges.
4. Keep the rules clear, fair, and simple; keep policy and procedure manuals short.
5. In the face of demands that a professor be punished, entertain not just the null hypothesis but the mobbing hypothesis.
6. Seek proximate, specific, depersonalized explanations for why some professor is on the outs, as opposed to distant, general, personal explanations.
7. Encourage mindfulness of all the bases on which academic mobbings occur.
8. Defend free expression and encourage dialogic outlets for it on campus.
9. Keep administration open and loose.
10. Answer internal mail.
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/waterloostrategy.htm
2. Replace quasi-judicial campus tribunals with administrative decision-making.
3. Unless evidence compels them, avoid forensic words like allegations and charges.
4. Keep the rules clear, fair, and simple; keep policy and procedure manuals short.
5. In the face of demands that a professor be punished, entertain not just the null hypothesis but the mobbing hypothesis.
6. Seek proximate, specific, depersonalized explanations for why some professor is on the outs, as opposed to distant, general, personal explanations.
7. Encourage mindfulness of all the bases on which academic mobbings occur.
8. Defend free expression and encourage dialogic outlets for it on campus.
9. Keep administration open and loose.
10. Answer internal mail.
From: http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/waterloostrategy.htm
January 06, 2009
Retribution for asserting (or trying to assert one's rights)
Graduate students are at the mercy of academic bul... Graduate students are at the mercy of academic bullies just as professors are. It appears to be a phenomenon on both sides of the Atlantic, as well. In the US, a system of regional accrediting agencies is supposed to ensure students' rights, but in reality these agencies are run by the institutions and do little or nothing to ensure fair processes. In my case, the university administrator in charge of the doctoral program made substantive changes to the program and prohibited doctoral candidates from pursuing their dissertation research until long after advancement to candidacy. She claimed the delay (two full semesters) was for educational purposes, but she provided no rationale and the regional accrediting agency refused to intervene even though such a delay was a clear violation of the agency's standards (WASC, in this case). The university ombudsman offered no relief just as in the case of the post, above. It's a sad commentary on the state of higher education when educated individuals act in such a medieval manner. I'm not a fan of anonymous posts, but you will see that I have posted anonymously. Why? Retribution for asserting (or trying to assert one's rights).
Anonymous
Anonymous
December 26, 2008
The 'best' for 2008...
- News from Kingston University
- A favorite tactic of bullies...
- Not only in America...
- Staff give sector managers low marks
- Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower Bully's Vocabulary of Motives
- A letter to Sally Hunt
- The canary down the mine: what whistleblowers' health tells us about their environment
- Warning: chronic bullying is hazardous to the academy's health
- Academic bullies
- Why does [academic] mobbing take place?
- The Fundamental Question: Do You Side With Bullied Targets or With Perpetrators?
- Avoiding Academe's Ax Murderers
Vote/nominate for the oppressive University of 2008:
The shortlist included: the University of Leicester, Leeds Metropolitan, Oest. Akademie der Wissenschaften (Austria), the University of Nottingham, the University of Wales College, and Kingston University.
And the winner is: Kingston University - the facts speak for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)