Exeter’s rankings success gained at staff’s expense

League table success at the University of Exeter may have been gained at the expense of staff, who claim to have experienced “undue stress”, “bullying”, sexism and a “loss of voice”, according to an internal report.

A group convened at the request of management and led by Nicky Britten, professor of applied healthcare research at the institution, has identified a “top-down management” culture as a source of problems at Exeter.

Based on 288 responses from the university’s 3,900 staff, the report says that many people found the senior management team remote, with major decisions being “made by a small group of people behind closed doors without consultation”.

“The tone of communication (described as ‘hectoring’) might have been appropriate for managing underperformance ten years ago, but is inappropriate now,” reads the report, which was presented to the university’s council, alongside the senior management’s response, on 21 February.

Many staff felt their opinions were ignored, “with no acknowledgment or feedback”, it adds. The group also documents “some alarming reports of bullying, manipulative and unpleasant behaviour” by particular senior managers and a feeling among some that the university “is a self-perpetuating male-dominated culture” with policies such as maternity leave not taken seriously.

“There are reports of men making casual sexist remarks…referring to women as ‘girls’, promoting men over women (despite the women having equal or better CVs),” it adds.

The investigation was initiated after the university’s wider staff survey of 2012, which found that 36 per cent reported feeling unduly stressed, compared with a benchmark figure at universities conducting the same survey of 28 per cent.

The survey also found that only 60 per cent said they felt able to voice opinions, compared with a sector benchmark of 76 per cent.

Exeter vice-chancellor Sir Steve Smith told Times Higher Education that senior management would respond to the concerns identified by the group, and in many cases had already made changes.

Expanding student numbers and raising Exeter from an average ranking position of 34th in the UK during the 1990s to the top 10 today had meant being “very centralist”, he said. However, efforts were now being made to try to reverse this.

Exeter had already reinstated academic heads of discipline to decision- making positions on the university’s college executives and was on a recruitment drive that would reduce workloads, he said.

“I could have written to staff saying ‘we’ve got the [2012] survey results and we did better [than] or the same [as the benchmark] in 17 out of 25 [areas]’, but the truth is I know that there are tensions…We’re trying to be as open as possible,” Sir Steve said. The problem would now be working out how widespread the concerns were and whether or not they were historical, he added.

However, co-president of the Exeter branch of the University and College Union, Jo Melling, said the union felt that senior management’s response did “not meet the needs outlined” by the group.

“In particular, we are concerned that the vice-chancellor’s executive group has not recognised the issue about voice and governance that the group clearly flagged up,” he said, pointing to recommendations that the university commission an independent review of distribution of power within the institution.

Management has said that the university’s governance will be assessed in 2014 as part of its regular five-yearly reviews.

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

Aberystwyth University president rejects 'dictatorship' claim by union

Allegations that one of Wales' leading universities is being run "like a dictatorship" have been dismissed by its president, Sir Emyr Jones Parry. The University and College Union (UCU) claims Aberystwyth University managers are behaving like school ground bullies and staff are fearful for their jobs. Sir Emyr said: "I don't believe the views set out are representative and I don't recognise the picture." The union also claims university staff were suspended over trivial matters. The university said it was "perplexed" by the accusations, which it said had not been brought to its attention.

Since new vice chancellor April McMahon took over the role in August 2011, 11 members of staff have been suspended and 13 have had their employment terminated, it has been reported. Martin Wilding, president of UCU at Aberystwyth, said staff were "literally looking over their shoulder," adding there was a sense they were under "constant surveillance".

He claimed there was also no sense of "due process" and "justice" over the suspensions, adding there was a conflict between management and staff that was "a sort of repressive relationship". "If people speak out they feel that they are going to be punished," he said. "There are rumours of people disappearing, and it sounds like a South American state when you say that, but people have sort of disappeared off the radar screen, as it were." He added: "Invariably people are brought into a meeting on a one-to-one basis and suspended and dragged off campus".

BBC Wales spoke to other current and former members of staff who declined to speak publically about their experiences of working at Aberystwyth University for fear of reprisals. But they claimed they were bullied, intimidated and harassed by senior managers.

Speaking on BBC Radio Wales, university president Sir Emyr Jones Parry said the union, one of four representing staff on the campus, had not formally raised any issue, even as recently as a scheduled meeting with management last week.

Sir Emyr Jones Parry said due process was 'rigorously applied' at Aberystwyth University. He said: "I don't believe the views set out are representative and I don't recognise the picture. "If there was any suggestion this was rampant in the university, believe me, I would have been on the case." "I'm not saying I haven't heard of the problems. They were not raised officially in any meeting." He rebutted the union's claim over a lack of due process in management actions. He said: "No-one has not been subject to due process. I can assure you. "Due process is rigorously applied in Aberystwyth."

The most high profile of the alleged suspensions involved two officers from the Aberystwyth arts centre - director Alan Hewson and operations manager Auriel Martin. Mr Hewson has retired and Ms Martin is the subject of an internal disciplinary investigation. Last month a protest stopped traffic on the campus in support of the pair but the university said it could not comment on matters involving individual members of staff. Councillor Sue Jones Davies claimed the relationship between the university and the town was strained.

More info at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23301526

Summer readings...

Update on Denis Rancourt academic freedom case


Bullying of a PhD Student - One Wrong Word/Death by Paper Cuts


Petition: Vice Chancellor, University of Leeds - Stop Treating International Students Like 2nd Class Citizens! 

 Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds

 The University of Ulster

 University of Leicester defies Information Commissioner (and gets away with it)

 Prof. Hassan Abdalla is still at it...
 

Update on Denis Rancourt academic freedom case

Dear colleagues,

As you probably know, the legal case of my 2009 dismissal from my tenured Full Professorship at the University of Ottawa has been on-going for many years:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/52.html

Well, the binding labour arbitration hearings are finally over! The last day of hearings was June 26, 2013. We expect the arbitrator Claude Foisy's decision within 4 to 6 months.

In my opinion, the hearing was a modern Socratic trial, with the University's arguments explicitly alternating between "corrupting the youth" and "insulting important people". The media reports thankfully saw this as a tactic.

Link to mainstream media reports about the final days of the hearings are given in this blog post:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.ca/2013/06/rancourt-arbitration-hearings-end-media.html

For example, this video about anarchists was played during the hearings in the lengthy cross-examination of me, because it was in one of my many YouTube playlists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ScFU0UxKWA&list=PL74C8802F2EB649BE&index=1

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) attended virtually all the hearings:
http://ocla.ca/closing-arguments-in-u-of-o-academic-freedom-battle/

Cheers,

Denis Rancourt

Workplace Bullying in Higher Education

I know the old saying 'don't judge a book by its cover' but somehow I could not help doing just that with this book. An image of a sticking plaster over a bruised apple left me somewhat bemused. I was left wondering, what did this have to do with workplace bullying in higher education (HE).

I did consider the possibility of it referring to knowledge and the damage that is, potentially, being done by bullying in HE  institutions to future generations. That the developers, repositories and distributors of knowledge in society have issues with workplace bullying is not something that is a recent discovery; stories abound of high value, academics bullying doctoral researchers, junior faculty members and support staff in HE establishments. These academics are seen as untouchables because of the income that they generate and the impact that words from an esteemed professor could have on a future career.

HE is not really that different from other sectors and, like other sectors, this perception is being challenged quite strongly through the development of robust policies and procedures, training and management changes aimed at driving out what have been generationally embedded negative behaviours in some areas.

This book is written to help human resource (HR) professionals working in the HE sector understand what the current issues are surrounding workplace bullying. Although set in a USA context this does not limit the appeal or usefulness of the book; topics range from the current, limited, empirical research literature through to the different sub-cultures and biases that exist within financially restrained, historically bound, institutions.

It also provides well-researched observations on the legal and ethical implications of bullying. Of particular interest to me was the development of a model which links the social ecology of bullying with social reproduction theory. In brief, it suggests that bullying does not exist in a vacuum, it reflects the messages that seem to be prevalent in society (for example, the dominance of a subjective capitalism, the primacy of the victim, the demand for tolerance or intolerance) and suggests that HE institutions can fall into the trap of reproducing these inequalities by merely reporting the statistics on bullying rather than actually engendering change.

The authors set out a challenge to the institutions, almost in the form of an ethical demand, to move away from the current emphasis on statistics, characteristics and psychological profiling to a more systemic-based challenge to the societal embedded causes of, and supports for, bullying. The authors are clear that the book should not be read as an answer to the phenomenon of bullying rat herthat it is the beginning of a conversation; a conversation that needs more empirical evidence for it to progress in a meaningful direction. Maybe this was the point of the image on the cover of the book. The contributors seem to recognise that whatever they are offering is a sticking plaster to cover up a bruise as a temporary solution whilst they begin to explore the reasons as to why the bruise occurred in the first place. If this is their aim then, for me at least, the book is a success.

Damian Stoupe
Counsellor and workplace bullying doctoral researcher

Taiwan: University administration extorting payments from faculty members in return for greater job security

A university in central Taiwan has been demanding that its faculty members bring in outside sources of income into the university coffers in exchange for helping ensure their continued employment. Faculty members who do not receive research funding or other grants from outside the university are expected to find opportunities for and establish academic-enterprise cooperation agreements with businesses, while the university collects ten percent of this secondary income claiming "administrative costs," regardless of whether the individual faculty members or the business with which they cooperate require the university's administrative assistance. Those who do not receive research funding or work for businesses off campus are severely penalized by either having half of their customary year end bonus cut by half and forbidden to work part-time off campus as part of receiving a second tier performance evaluation rating, or even receive zero bonus and no customary annual pay rise for having a third tier performance evaluation rating, and will be dismissed altogether after receiving this level of the performance evaluation.

While the budget for research grants has been cut drastically and most faculty members at this university are not very interested in pursuing research opportunities, regardless of whether they could even acquire funding after they had applied for it, very many individual faculty members have resorted to establishing fraudulent "academic enterprise agreements" while the university administration turns a blind eye to this form of fraud while gladly collecting what is akin to extortion.

 This has become a widespread practice in the country, and there has been talk in government circles about how this type of fraud has become prevalent, but it remains to be seen whether anything is going to be done, and there has not been even any talk about confronting university administrations for compelling faculty members to make such involuntary cash donations to their employers.

Anonymous contribution

The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt continues: Blog articles and student spy report introduced into evidence

The public tribunal hearings into the 2009 firing of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa are on-going this May and June 2013.

These hearings will determine if the dismissal of the professor was (1) justified, and (2) whether it was done in bad faith for reasons other than the alleged pretexts given.

The main alleged reason given by the University of Ottawa for firing the professor is that he would have assigned fraudulent grades to 23 students in an advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008, grades that are alleged to have no relation to the students' actual performances and progress in the course.

A recent ruling by the Arbitrator has allowed the university to cross-examine Rancourt on his radical blogs "U of O Watch" and "Activist Teacher", and on any broad question to impeach Rancourt's "credibility" and/or fitness to be a university professor.

Rancourt's union had argued that such questions should not be permitted (HERE and HERE). The University had argued that such questions are proper cross-examination questions (HERE and HERE).

The Arbitrator explained that allowing the cross-examination questions is a distinct step from a determination of the relevance of the questions and answers, and cited the factors for determining admissibility of the thus gathered evidence.

The questions about the blogs appear to be aimed at establishing that Rancourt cannot be allowed back on campus because he incites and/or condones violence (link), because he is an anarchist, because he attacks University administrators with no regard for their feelings (link), because he uses his blogs for vengeance against any University executive associated with the dismissal (link), because he celebrates burning cop cars at G20 (link), because he promotes academic squatting (link), and so on.

On May 23, 2013, the University was allowed to put into evidence a report covertly prepared by a hired student spy about a talk Rancourt gave on another campus in 2007. Rancourt requested that he be provided a complete document rather than an incomplete report, and requested that the source of the report be identified and documented on the record, prior to answering questions about the report. Rancourt's requests were not granted. The Arbitrator ordered Rancourt to answer questions about the report. Rancourt was then cross-examined about the report.

The union will introduce a new witness when the hearings resume on June 5, 2013. The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt will then continue after the new witness is cross-examined and re-examined.

From: http://uofowatch.blogspot.ca/2013/05/the-cross-examination-of-professor.html

Bullying of a PhD Student - One Wrong Word/Death by Paper Cuts

After completing my undergraduate degree, I received a PhD scholarship at the same university in exchange for 15-hours/week research assistance. My undergraduate dissertation was related to the project topic and I had a lived experience of being a member of the social group under investigation. I thought my dreams had all come true; I was to work on a project closely linked to my own research topic and would receive a substantial bursary. That was until the nightmare of working in the most dysfunctional 'team' of people I have ever worked with began.

I remember the day it began. I was early for a meeting. Two members of the 'team' soon arrived and I made polite small talk with them. My mistake seemed to seal my fate for the next three years, particularly with these two people. I casually asked if the two experienced Research Assistants were "just" Research Assistants, or whether they were doing PhD's/research themselves. One wrong word. My innocent question (no malice intended in any way - I have problems with anxiety and sometimes my nerves get the better of me) was met with a very angry response that they were not "just anything!” I was shocked at the aggressive response, so much so that I meekly said that I did not mean to have offended them. I now realise that I would set a benchmark as to how I would accept being spoken to from then on.

Next, the Project Leader (a Social Work Professor) had possibly thought that I was a Social Work graduate, not, in actuality, a Sociology graduate. When I explained this during a one-to-one meeting I was met with silence. I believe that a conflict of ideas and perspectives was potentially key as to why I was bullied, and it came from the top of the project hierarchy. Indeed, it was a gendered hierarchy to say the least, with female members of the 'team' having more secretarial roles than anything else was.

Then, my undergraduate dissertation supervisor (who stayed on as my PhD supervisor) created a scandal at the university. It came to light that he was living a double life and had fabricated a certain amount of malicious gossip about a Professor at the university to deflect from his own highly deceitful behaviour (a close colleague of the Project Leader). I always respected my supervisor and would speak highly of him. I believe that, potentially due in part to my (unwitting) respect for my supervisor, that I was judged guilty by association through gossip and hearsay. I was eventually asked outright if he had ever approached me for an inappropriate relationship, as this was apparently his MO. I absolutely had not, and respected student/lecturer boundaries - plus I was not in slightest bit attracted to him and knew and liked (one of) his partner who was also a PhD student.  

In all honesty, I can only speculate as to why I was targeted, after wracking my brains for almost 3 years, these examples merely serve as potential explanations and potential reasons as to why what happened, happened at all.

The bullying began in earnest; here are some examples (some specific, some general):

1. One of the 'team' was allocated as my supervisor (wholly under-qualified with an MA in Social Work and an insatiable desire to become an academic) - who stole ideas from my research and used it for the project without my knowledge, or permission.

2. The same supervisor would regularly pass off my ideas and contributions as their own.

3. During meetings the two Research Assistants would purposely avoid ANY eye contact with me. Alternatively, they would glare at me, to the point that I became so uncomfortable that I simply had to look away.

4. My contributions in meetings were minuted as 'someone' said/suggested.

5. Whilst sat next to a Psychology lecturer, another member of the 'team', I was repeatedly flicked at below the table (I know this one may sound a tad strange!).

6. Most of my contributions to the project were ignored and/or credit given elsewhere.

7. A child who had been part of the research was asked to attend the university and the Project Leader had bought her some gifts, including a t-shirt.  She, the Project Leader, asked me if I knew whether she had bought the right size for the child.  I said that the child was probably around my size. She exclaimed that she was glad she bought "extra large"...this was in front of two other colleagues who simply sniggered.

8. I was constantly overloaded with work/emails/phone calls (some late at night). Travelled hundreds of miles on weekends, to prisons, alone.

9. I was 'set up to fail' on one occasion - where the data collection and data input (my responsibility) deadline was set on the same day.

10. I was regularly shouted down in meetings, to the point that I stopped contributing.

11.  I was excluded from all publications resulting from the project, even though I was initially promised at least one publication. 

12. The project did not receive certain permissions from the relevant authorities. I was asked to work off campus at the Head Office of a NGO that was working with the project to complete certain tasks relating to those denied permission. I refused.

13. I requested that the supervisor who was stealing my work and/or ideas be removed from my supervision team. Moreover, he did not understand my research. I was threatened with my bursary being removed, as there would be nobody from the applicable School remaining as a supervisor. Thankfully, another of my supervisors, not connected to the project, was.

14. I was regularly ignored and/or isolated during coffee breaks/external meetings/project conferences.

15.  Whilst travelling to undertake fieldwork I was asked if I was "one of those scary feminist types" by a male member of the 'team'.

16. Regularly worked well over the 15 hours/week, causing my own work to suffer.  Either that, or be chastised for not appearing to 'pull my weight'.

17. The Project Leader, toward the end of the project, placed one of the Research Assistants 'in charge' of me, and to 'monitor' certain tasks I was given.

18. I was belittled and undermined in front of individuals from external organisations.  To the point that they eventually ignored me too.

19. At the beginning of a conference (around 200 students in attendance), there were three people who were presenting, myself included.  A close friend and colleague of the supervisor I had had problems with introduced the other two speakers, and completely ignored me. I introduced myself when it came time to present (embarrassing, confusing and devastating all in one go).

20. Made out to be incompetent/a burden/troublemaker to other departments/lecturers/fellow PhD students.

The list goes on, and on, and on and, in all honesty, it is becoming painful reliving it all (death by paper cuts methinks!). Eventually, my partner, friends, and family began to notice that my mental health was deteriorating rapidly toward the end of the project. I didn't go out any more, was constantly lethargic, couldn't concentrate, became weepy, became distant, isolated myself, gained weight, was prescribed anti-depressants and sleeping tablets by my GP, and so on. I also suspended my studies after my second Viva as I had lost all motivation and my work was suffering. Two months before the three-year project was due to end, I attempted suicide.  Thankfully, my mother found me in time. I was released from hospital after spending just over a week under observation on a psychiatric ward. I am sincerely sorry to have put my partner, friends, and family through that.

It has been 8 months since my spell in hospital, 6 months since the end of the project, and my suspension is coming to an end. I still receive emails relating to the project, which does cause me some anxiety and stress, but at least I can ignore them now I am not contracted to reply to them any more. I do feel slightly stronger, thanks to a wonderfully supportive partner, friends, and family. I am due back in a month or so to complete my PhD. I am apprehensive to say the least and truly believe that if I complain about all that has happened, I will not be afforded the opportunity to finish my research. I believe the university would rather me go, than potentially damage their reputation. I simply do not know who to trust, or if anyone is even trustworthy at this university. I just want to finish my research, leave this university, and get on with my life.

Wish me luck!

Anon.

RMIT professor unfairly sacked

Employers have been warned against using redundancy programs to get rid of ''undesired employees'', after RMIT University was fined $37,000 by the Federal Court for breaking workplace laws, and ordered to re-hire one of its professors.

RMIT sacked youth studies and sociology professor Judith Bessant last April, claiming the redundancy was for financial reasons alone.

But in a decision handed down last week, Justice Peter Gray found the university had likely fired Professor Bessant after she made allegations of bullying and intimidation against another professor, David Hayward.

Justice Gray said his ruling would vindicate Professor Bessant's decision to make a complaint against Professor Hayward without suffering retribution.

Professor Bessant was made redundant despite the university having acknowledged that she was a ''very good researcher'', a scholar ''of international standing'' and ''an impressive teacher''.

In deciding the case, Justice Gray also said he took into consideration the ''apparent determination'' by RMIT Vice-Chancellor Margaret Gardner to ''ignore her knowledge of Professor Hayward's animosity towards Professor Bessant''. Professor Gardner displayed a lack of contrition for what the court found to be a blatant contravention of workplace laws.

The National Tertiary Education Union said the ruling was a warning that all employers must not use ''sham redundancies'' to get rid of staff, when the real reasons would not be allowed by the Fair Work Act. Victorian secretary Colin Long said the judgment provided a telling insight into the management culture at Australian universities.

''The approach taken by the [RMIT] to getting rid of [Professor Bessant] will be all too familiar to university staff across Australia,'' he said.

Dr Long said the decision also reflected the ''group-think'' prevalent in Australian university managements, aimed at silencing dissenters and backing bad decisions.

Justice Gray found that, if Professor Bessant had sought damages against the university rather than asking for her job back, she would have got ''significantly in excess of $1 million'' and potentially up to $1.9 million.

Professor Bessant said she was relieved the matter was resolved, and that the judgment vindicated her position.

''Namely that academics have both a right and an obligation to speak out about the concerns they have about the way social institutions are working,'' she said.

RMIT's chief operating officer Steve Somogyi said the university was reviewing the judgment and would consider an appeal. "The university takes very seriously its obligations under the Fair Work Act," he said.

From: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/rmit-professor-unfairly-sacked-20130519-2juso.html