A managerial or collegial college?

Just saw a letter in the Times today by Prof. Jane Ohlmeyer, Head of the School of History & Humanities. In it she commented that "I have found the culture at Trinity to be highly collegial."

Just from my personal experience in college, this image of a united college agreeing everything is a bit of a false image. I remember hearing many many dissenting voices about some changes that were being made in Trinity, but which were whispered for fear of job security. I agree that a collegial atmosphere exists, but the letter seems to whitewash the truth somewhat.

Take for example the comment on the 'shotgun marriage'. While some departments happily went into bed together, other areas which were left in the limbo of vice-deaneries had no option but to jump in with someone or they'd have missed the ship.

Similarly, the senior academic appointments are, I think, the chairs of Latin and Greek. I'm unsure if there were others, but I'm sure someone will correct me on this.

So what do you think? The letter is quoted below.

Irish Times 01/06/2007

Letter to the editor

www.ireland.com/newspaper/letters/2007/0601/index.html#1180483618556


Speaking out at Trinity

While I am unable to comment on the situation in other Irish universities, Fintan O'Toole's claim that a "managerialist" culture pervades Trinity College Dublin is highly incorrect ("Afraid to speak out about universities", Opinion, May 26th). On the contrary, I have found the culture at Trinity to be highly collegial. Unlike many universities in the UK, it is an institution that welcomes full and frank debate and one that consults its academic staff regularly.

Mr O'Toole (and his anonymous correspondent) also need to get the facts straight. It is claimed that the departments of "history, sociology and political science have been forced together in Trinity in a way that threatens the identity of all three". Nothing could be further from the truth. At Trinity the departments of classics, history, history of art and architecture and the centre for gender and women's studies came together in 2005 to form the school of histories and humanities ( http://www.histories-humanities.tcd.ie). This was not the product of a "shotgun marriage" but of extensive discussion and full consultation.

The creation of the school has strengthened the academic integrity of the constituent departments and has facilitated a series of key senior appointments in areas regarded by some as of "minority" interest, namely Latin, Greek and medieval history. In short, this institution of learning is neither narrow nor fearful. - Yours, etc,

Prof Jane Ohlmeyer

Head of the School of Histories and Humanities

Trinity College

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Myth wrote:

I remember hearing many many dissenting voices about some changes that were being made in Trinity, but which were whispered for fear of job security.

Just selectively choosing part of your post!

Were there many layoffs in TCD??!!

Surely job security is something that almost no-one here has to worry about? That's for those private sector heathens.

Well, some contracts 'somehow' haven't been renewed is what I'm saying.

Tacitha

And there is also promotion - no-one wants to be stuck on Junior lecturer level all their career. And the process is not terribly transparent

Danger Bob

I'd agree with Myth's point but think that worries of job security are more to do with the individuals who possess the fears rather than the atmosphere of college. We both know of fellows and Board members who have incredible security but will talk a good game outside of the meeting and then just nod and smile during it.

There's been a fairly clear acknowledgement this year that things have been pushed through in the past, with negative consequences, and I really have felt that there's been a lot done this year to avoid that, which is why these new articles are puzzling me so much. I don't think college's consultation processes are anywhere near perfect, but they're considerably more inclusive than they were in the past couple of years, from what I've seen. However, it seems that there are a lot of people who take a sort of "Well they won't listen to me anyway, so why should I bother" attitude to it and then they end up talking to the papers when things don't go their way. Maybe this attitude is based on substantial reasons from the past but it still seems a bit regressive.

Basically, what I'm saying is that before people blame college officers for any lack of collegiality or for any fears, they need to take a long hard look at the people who are supposed to be representing their areas of college at the top table, because the blame lies just as heavily with them at times.

Tacitha

I agree with a lot of that. It is infuriating when people won't speak up at meetings, and makes debate harder for everyone else. People representing any sector of college need to look hard at how much heat they can take before agreeing to take the job. On the other hand, if you're afraid that your school, research area, project team - or, we're not all heroes, your career - is going to suffer if you say too much, you may have reasons to keep quiet. Having senior fellows, who were untouchable career-wise, as a majority on board had some advantages.

As for things being different this year - well, the acknowledgement that things have been pushed through in the past is not a public one. I've heard both the senior lecturer and the Provost, in the last twelve months, say that consultation over restructuring and ARAM was exemplary. If they're saying something else privately, that's not much use to college at large.

More importantly, saying now that they're going to consult more in future is really not much help. They have already changed financial and authority structures - without due consultation. Saying they want to know what people think now is not very credible (they're the same people, by and large) and not very useful - much of what they are doing follows logically from the changes that were pushed through, and can't necessarily be opposed in isolation.

Look at the decision over acting - school level, and board and council said they couldn't touch it. Now they are talking to 'external stakeholders'. Do you really think these people care what college at large thinks?

Sparks

And anyone who's seen the way that CS is taught in TCD would laugh at the idea that it's a collegial college. It's become more and more industrial and market-driven in nature. Which would be great - if it were a company. Pity it's an academic institution which is charged with basic technical education and basic research really...

punka

The creation of the school has strengthened the academic integrity of the constituent departments and has facilitated a series of key senior appointments in areas regarded by some as of "minority" interest, namely Latin, Greek and medieval history.

So let me get this straight. The hiring of a new Regius Professor of Greek and a new Professor of Latin, two long-established Chairs, are to be attributed to the creation of the school of Histories and Humanities? Is it, then, to be assumed that if this School had not been created those Chairs would not have been renewed?

The simple fact of the matter is that the renewal of senior appointments (and it is "renewal" and not "creation", in the Classics department at least) should not be dependent on departments kow-towing to the College administration and following orders. These appointments should have been made even if the whole restructuring business had not gone ahead. To imply that they are directly thanks to the restructuring of academic departments suggests, to my mind at least, that the renewal of academic positions was put forward as an incentive for departments to agree to restructuring (or that non-renewal was put forward as a threat for those who were resisting restructuring, if you prefer). A number of Chairs in the humanities are currently vacant and have been for some time - not least the Chair of Irish. Why is the Chair of Spanish vacant, while we have two associate Professors in that department?

RuggieBear

Sparks wrote:

And anyone who's seen the way that CS is taught in TCD would laugh at the idea that it's a collegial college. It's become more and more industrial and market-driven in nature. Which would be great - if it were a company. Pity it's an academic institution which is charged with basic technical education and basic research really...

research is going the english system too...publish or be damned

Sparks

RuggieBear wrote:

research is going the english system too...publish or be damned

There's a difference between "publish or perish" and "be economically viable in the immediate short term or be closed down despite your exceptional viability in the long term and enormous benefit to society", not least of which is the point that "publish or perish" doesn't place constraints on the field in which you publish - it says "Do research", not "Do research in X, Y or Z".