Edict curtailing freedom to work at home 'appals' staff

There is much more than meets the eye to the case of Dr Benveniste. This was a case where a policy was made that would negatively affect her and her alone because she had previously voiced complaints about alleged breaches of her contract. Throughout the University it was and is standard practice for staff to be permitted to work at home without special permission when not giving lectures, meeting with students, or attending meetings. There was a concerted plan to sack her, carefully constructed and executed. All one needs to do is to read some examples of the internal emails among members of management in order to understand what was done to Dr Benveniste (http://www.sirpeterscott.com). Even the Board of Governors recognized her treatment as operating under 'double standards. Her only recourse now is to resort to action in the European Court of Justice, to which she has now taken the matter.

Why, oh why, oh why (oh the ennui), do these ill-conceived/poor management stories always arise from a group of underperforming, low-level universities...who frankly should just be happy they have maintained their 'university' moniker. There is a group of universities, let's say the 'usual suspect's - Kingston, Liverpool John Moores, Manchester Met, London Met - who seem to court bad publicity with their awful management and HR decisions.

The practice of academics working at home is a long held tradition amongst universities, so why an earth would Liverpool Hope think breaking from the norm would be a good idea? Doe the university have heady aspirations of becoming a community college? (where staff are on the premises full-time).

Of course, there is one saving grace - Liverpool Hope's staff will attain international levels of excellence in Freecell, Mahjong, Solitaire and Minesweeper.

It seems to me that someone who has been hired as a lecturer would have been the most qualified person to have applied for his/her position and therefore already have an excellent academic track record and an ability to self-manage time. This kind of an individual would certainly know what kind of environment would be best for maximum productivity.Under these circumstances, I think it would be most insulting to be micromanaged in this way by an administrator.
Furthermore, what I personally know about the kind of low-level institutions cited above by Disgusted, leads me to believe that this kind of invasive micro-managing is often actually done with the intent to reduce the productivity of an Academic because others in the department do not want to be out-shined by a high achiever.
Another important factor to be considered in this day and age is that we are all trying to reduce our carbon footprints, so forcing people to turn up to work when they could be doing the same work as well or better at home is just plain wrong.

Many universities actually encourage academic staff to work from home as it saves them money! - As part of their corporate HR policy, they cram staff into communal offices 'housing' four to eight academic staf where individual research and thought is regularly interrupted by other peoples' conversations, multiple telephones ringing and wandering students wanting to know where office cohabiters are (even if they are teaching). Universities must recognise that if they want factory based education, they will get factory workers, if they want imaginative and creative professionals, they must treat staff in imaginative and creative ways

About time that someone takes a stand against the lazy academics out there! How many are paid for a full time job that they simply don't do? It is time the needs of the students and the HEi are put first. If you can't stand the heat and all that.........

Rebecca, please stop re-hashing the same student consumerism argument over and over again. I have no interest or sympathy in academic tradition, and I find the overly defensive attitude taken by academics rather silly. Even if it were true; how unreasonable are students being? I pay over £3000 for ten hours of contact time a week, and of those hours only six are actual lectures, and half of those lectures were fortnightly... I have never had an issue with the way in which universities function (since I am rather independent anyway), but I find this academic arrogance nauseating. Liverpool Hope's reasoning is completely legitimate, and it seems some people are in need of a reality check. Students are more demanding because they are acutely aware of the financial burden university study entails nowadays, and also because they are academically weaker because of a poorer education system. It is not unreasonable to seek help from those who are qualified, and paid, to guide you...

I'm a research-active lecturer in an institution with a similar profile to Liverpool Hope and I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with the policy, particularly if, as I presume, they mean this only to apply during core teaching periods. I have also worked at one of the other institutions mentioned in this article and absenteeism outside teaching and office hours (which might only total 6 hours per week) was an extremely prevelant phenomenon. Empty corridors and empty offices make for a poor working environment for all concerned and encourage an 'us and them' mentality between administrative and academic staff. Countless timetabling problems were caused by staff placing unreasonable constraints on their availability. I'm all for dedicated research days, but academic staff are going to have to accept that they might fall on days in the middle of weeks rather than the more attractive Mondays and Fridays. A culture of presence doesn't mean that we have to operate open-door policies in terms of contact with students and it would, in fact, go a long way to help all stakeholders in HE engage fully with their institutions. Micro-management a la Liverpool Hope isn't the way forward, but it's time academic staff started to engage fully with all aspects of their workplace life.

An interesting question, About time, albeit one that reveals your poor grasp of the subject at hand. There is, ultimately, no real need for academics to be present at their institutions on a 9-5 basis (unless you take the view that academics ought to be professional babysitters available "on tap" to resolve the often very petty issues of a student population that is, after all, above the age of 18 and ought to be relatively self-reliant). I appreciate that students are consumers these days. However, being a consumer does not give one the right to expect the "product" to be available at all hours, and nor should it. Most academics have clearly defined office hours and will answer other urgent student queries by email or telephone more or less immediately. This arrangement works perfectly well. It seems there is a bit of a reactionary tendency among some involved in HE that academics should teach, advise students, administer departments, babysit, mark essays and then do their world-leading research in a couple of hours over the weekend. Such a view betrays an utter ignorance of the actual purpose of academics.

Richard Armstrong - I couldn't agree more. Academic institutions who refuse to engage with the customer - whether they like it or not students are customers - will be in trouble.

John - how wrong you are. I have worked in HE for over 15 years, both as an academic and as a senior manager. I know first hand the problems that "absentee" lecturers cause for the students and their hard working colleagues. "Clearly definded office hours" - what a joke.

And how, prey tell, do academic institutions currently "refuse" to engage with their customers? Like it or not, the core function of academics (particularly in more prestigious institutions) is ultimately to research. It is precisely the research record of institutions such as Oxford, Durham, Edinburgh et al that gives them such elevated status. Micro-management a la Liverpool Hope in these institutions would (as I think any research-focused academic would vouch) have a negative effect on the research process which (like it or not) functions bets in very quiet environments. I'm sorry that the government is charging students £3000 per year to be taught by PhD candidates rather than leading academics, but at the end of the day it's their mess.

At no point do I deny the existence of absentee lecturers. But I suggest this problem is one that is hugely over-reported, and that the vast majority of academics work diligently and responsibly when left to their own devices. The overwhelming bulk of professional workplaces are shifting toward flexible working practices, and it is widely accepted that this helps productivity. What makes academic managers think that academia is going to prosper by doing the exact reverse?

John, I see no need to engage in discussion with you - I think you are wrong, you think I am. We are facing uncertain times, whether in "prestigious institutions" or otherwise. Unless this sector bucks it's ideas up there will be casualties on a massive scale - students, staff and dare I say it, our country.

I agree entirely that HE faces great uncertainty with the swingeing public sector cuts looming from 2011 onward and the need for universities to bequeath both skills to students and commercially-relevant research findings. But I fail to see how the kind of approach Liverpool Hope has really contributes toward greater professionalism and accountability, to be honest. What counts is how universities perform en masse, rather than a bean-counting exercise that focuses on whether academic staff are in the department at 9 on the dot. Take, for example, research into green energy. This will be a vast market growth area in the next 10 years. How does an enforced 9-5 office culture benefit research into that? George Stephenson (one of my ancestors) didn't design The Rocket by being chained to his desk from 9am. Some of the most brilliant technological concepts are basically devised at home, or on long walks.

Furthermore, in a context in which university research is increasingly undertaken in collaboration with partners from industry and government, and where research results are generated off-site, it really is critical to give academics the flexibility to manage their time as they see most beneficial. Micro-management is well-known as a counter-productive measure in professional workplaces as staff generally find it patronising and mean-spirited; in other words, it tends to facilitate "bare minimum" working far more than flexibility (and thus a climate in which staff are trusted, and thus feel as though they are treated with dignity) does.

Since, in the interests of productivity, I and many of my colleagues have to work at home (sometimes quite a lot) - and since those at home days are almost inevitably longer than the 'in the office' days, I think some transparency about this issue is overdue. We have to have computers, broadband connection and dedicated office space just to do our job, since the facilities at work actually impede us (the computers don't work, office with 24 phones, etc - no air conditioning, etc etc). So we should, by agreement, be charging for the failities we provide - likewise the laptop we need to use, but provide out of our own pocket.

Cobblers. Anyone who actually knows an "academic" is fully aware of the easy ride many of them have. Don't start on about the salaries either....two semesters of 13 weeks, and you don't teach for all 13, a max of 18 contact hours a week? Hard work, you don't know you are born. The real World would not tolerate the lazy ones, heaven only knows why the sector does.

Re: Cobblers. I think one of the problems that academia has historically had is that it is generally quite poor at effectively communicating its working practices to a wider public that tends to assume that academia consists of a bit of lazy teaching and nothing else. The reality is of a 60+ hour working week all year round. Teaching contact is, and always was, only a small proportion of any individual academic's workload. Administration of depts (they don't run themselves, you know) and research duties all take up vast numbers of working hours; academics in top unis are expected to produce 2 or 3 world-leading research papers of 10,000 words per year - the sort of work that would receive about 95% were it to be submitted by an undergraduate. I challenge anyone who calls "easy ride" to do likewise. But much of this is most effectively done at home, particularly in a context of overcrowded departments with insufficient office space to foster that kind of research output.

60 hours a week? Cobblers.

About Time - I am sorry you have to pay so much money for your degree. However, that is an issue to take up with the government, not with your lecturers who are not responsible for the introduction of top-up fees. You may not like this, but the truth is that lecturers are under a lot of pressure to produce high-calibre research and also have to deal with many administrative tasks in addition to teaching. This may surprise you, but we actually have a lot of other things to do in addition to teaching. We are not paid only to teach eight hours per week. If we were devoting all our time to teaching preparation and meeting students, then we would not do our administrative tasks and we would not do research, which would lead us to lose our job quickly. Unsurprisingly, this is not something that rational individuals wish for. As for your comments about 'lazy academics', that's a good one. Many of us work in the evenings and at weekends and do not take all their annual leave, so you may wish to reconsider this. It is not because you do not see lecturers at their desk that they are not working.

Know many academics, do you Cobblers?

Katherine, you clearly have not read my posts properly.

Cobblers - you really have no idea of what you are talking about. For your information, a university is not a primary school and there is plenty of work to do all year round. At the moment, for example, we are not on holiday, but are trying to do as much research as we can as we have got slightly more time because undergraduate students are not around - although some students are still around (the Masters and PhD students, as well as the students who have re-sits). But you would not understand any of that, would you? Far easier to make fun of 'academics' (between inverted commas)....

John. Many hundreds. Having only recently taken early retirement (my choice and not through redundancy either) from a long career in and out of the Academic World - and in both what you might call the 'prestigious institutions' as well as the widening participation ones.

Hey - at least I am not using a blog in work time? No need to get personal. or is there, you feeling a litle bit hot under the collar because I have tweaked a nerve?

What did I not understand - About Time?
"About time that someone takes a stand against the lazy academics out there! How many are paid for a full time job that they simply don't do? It is time the needs of the students and the HEi are put first. If you can't stand the heat and all that........."
You say that academics are lazy and seem to think that universities are all about teaching. I am explaining to you what an academic does, so that you can grasp that most academics cannot be described as lazy by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, Cobblers, your experience is certainly far removed from any that I've known in academia. I think that, say, 20-25 years ago the image of academia as "cushy" was undoubtedly a valid one and if this debate were being conducted in 1984 then I think some of the critical contributors would have a point. But C21 academia is a long way away from that. 60 hours is the norm in every environment I've ever encountered in HE - but as a younger person I've only ever known that.

Katherine, when did I say I was complaining about the cost of my degree - and if you read my posts you will learn I worked in HE for 15 years, so I do know what I am talking about. As Cobblers says....office hours and blogging? Tut tut tut.

People are entitled to the odd break from their work you know. Except academics, it seems...

Now - to get back to the point - how does an enforce 9-5 culture in a context in which office facilities are generally sub-par by the standards of other large, professional organisations, facilitate the production of world-leading, commercially-translatable research, (which is, after all, the core function of a university)?

It seems that some people have not understood yet that there is no such thing as 'office hours' when you are an academic. It is not a 9-5 job. That was the whole point of the debate, I thought.

Ok, so a 60 hour week over 7 days works out at 8.57 hours per day over 5 days its 12 hours. Not sustainable, not realistic and more importantly not believable.

In practice, it tends to work out at around 11 hours per day Mon-Fri (including most evenings, generally spent on research), and around 5 hours at a weekend, on a typical week. Which is perfectly believable. Academics are not FORCED to do 60 hours a week by any means, but anyone who wants to build a serious career in the field (and therefore publish extensively and in very high-qualtiy journals) invariably must.

The background to Dr Benveniste’s complaint against Kingston University and the manner in which it was dealt with by the Employment Tribunals are outlined in her application to the European Court of Human Rights (www.sirpeterscott.com/images/echr.pdf). I think after you read this relatively succinct excerpted history, you will understand that this case had very little to do with actual working practices (i.e. home working) and much to do with allegations of victimisation for having voiced legitimate grievances.

John - 11 hours per day working - not believable. You sleep for 8 (and I include getting ready for bed and getting up and washed in the morning), you must eat, lets say 1.5 hours since working from home you have to prepare your own food, loo breaks, coffee breaks, brain freeze breaks, lets say another hour, that leaves 2.5 hours a day for "downtime". Simply not believable.

A 60 hour week not sustainable? Oh deary me, you've obviously not worked in the corporate world! (nevermind the academic world).

I have worked in both, and yes I have pulled some long days and weekends, but claiming to work 60 hours per week as the norm is not sustainable. Unless of course you have an army of slaves to look after you? Washing your clothes, cooking your food, shopping, cleaning your house, etc etc etc . Oh and before you rattle on even more about what I don't know or have not experienced, don't bother, you would be wrong.

Typical management practise.

Rather than personally deal with the minority of absent lectures or their supposed managers impose a blanket sledgehammer to crack the few nuts.

And whether you believe it or not the current shambles of Government and University management with a bums on seats mentality, customer satisfactoion, business engagement and world class reasearch make 60 hour weeks a not uncommon fact in a modern university.

Actually, 2.5 hours "downtime" feels about right, Mon-Fri anyway, couple of hours cross-eyed in front of the TV and half an hour reading before I go to bed! I easily put in 50 hours a week, but only because I love the job. Plus a few days of field trips every couple of months that need 20 hours a day, admittedly that is quite knackering.
Anyway that's my 18:30 coffee break over, back to this pesky debugging before I make dinner :) Don't let these folks wind you up, comrades!

60 hours per week is definitely not unknown to academics, particularly you have to consider the time we spend in preparation of teaching materials, marking at home and reading research papers. For those who want to do well in academia, it is inevitable that you have to juggle teaching, research and administrative work. We even have to work on bank holidays in my university. What about open days and interviews? Summer ‘holiday’ is usually spent working in the lab for research. How else do you think we would be able to publish otherwise?

I'd say my working week averaged about 40 hours - but with lots of variation including quite a bit of w/e and evening work. . But, although I do take pretty much my full holiday entitlement, I generally spend about half of that time doing research - with an excuse to ignore emails. I have had a fairly busy schedule of work - including marking, exam boards, external examining, schools liaison activities, various committees, conducting appraisals, the odd conference (but so far very little time for real research) since our teaching stopped.

I don't tend to find students very demanding - in fact I wish they would make more use of our office hours. I receive comparatively few student emails and these are generally practical requests for information/clarification. Many of our students commute so I suspect they are more concerned that we answer emails promptly than that we are on site all the time. On that issue I think a balance is important - if every member of staff only came in for teaching / office hours the culture of the department would suffer. But clearly it's also beneficial to take regular days off for research - and (going back to the original article) the idea that one should have to have authorisation from the Dean for such absence seems ridiculous - and makes me feel sorry for the Dean in question!

The deeper issue here is about pay vs. working conditions ... One of the main reasons that many academics (like me) love the job is the freedom to organise your own time and run your own life. It's not just that you do the job better if you're treated like a grown-up (which you do), it's also much more enjoyable. It's because of that perk, more than anything else, that we've accepted comparatively low pay for so long. If you're going to turn us into jobsworths, then pay us what the job's worth. Or lots of us will leave.

Excuse me John!!! Research at such institutions as Durham, Oxford, Edinburgh. I am a senior academic at Edinburgh and have been told by my line managers I have to be on campus 5 days a week. that's probably why the research in my subject and in other related subjects is far from 'world-class'.

Cobblers, I always say "Don't judge others by your own standards". You may find a 60 hour working week unsustainable, but others can sustain this! I get up at 5:45 Mon-Fri, catch a train at 6:50am, get to work at 8:25am, usually work until 16:15 (sometimes until 18:00) which means I get home around 18:00 (but late as 20:30 sometimes). The time I am on the train I work on my laptop or do emails on my blackberry. This means I do anything from about 50 hours to 70 hours of work Mon-Fri. I am a junior manager with a department of 50 people to manage. On top of this, I am a Part-Time Hourly Paid (PTHP) Lecturer, supervising 10 undergraduate and postgraduate students projects as well as taking seminar groups (45 students in total) one morning a week during term time. This means I do about another 10 hours of work per week on top of my normal day job. Yes, a bit tiring, which means I need a lie in on Sunday mornings to catch up, but certainly sustainable. Yes, I have a wife who looks after me, but then even before I was married, I did 60 hour weeks as a programmer for 10 years. Yes, some lecturers are lazy, yes others work hard. That's no different than in any other job or profession. I enjoy being a PTHP lecturer and see academia as a second career in a couple of years time. Enjoy your retirement Cobblers, life is too short to have petty arguments!

'Cobblers', doubting the 60-hour working week, certainly is talking cobblers. An army of slaves to look after you? Washing your clothes, cooking your food, shopping, cleaning your house, etc etc etc? - Don't you think the (indeed) unsustainable burden of work placed upon academics creates a knock-on burden of work for academics' husbands, wives and partners? You'd probably be surprised at the number of academics whose houses are not cleaned, who don't cook for several days in a row, and who have several days' washing up waiting for them on the weekend. Although it may not surprise you, since you already think they're lazy. A 35-hour on-campus week would be fair if academics were required to do no more work than fits into a 35-hour week, but no-one would seriously claim that it can all be fitted into office hours. When I'm writing a research report or a journal article or solving a technical or philosophical problem it is a creative process - I can't just turn it on and off like a tap. I used to work in a boring research job where I was required to work 10am to 6pm in a badly equipped office and got hardly anything done all day because the data did not obligingly turn up during office hours, and thus 3 years was wasted through inefficient micromanagement whilst I did all the important work on weekends and evenings. I no longer work in academia. Last year I taught 8 new adult education courses from scratch for a third of a univerity lecturer's wages, spending 25 hours a week at work and a minimum of 30 hours a week at home preparing classes, marking and processing admin. I do not believe for a minute that I was working more hours than a university lecturer, nor that my productivity or theirs would be enhanced by spending 5 days a week at the office when there would still be work to do when we got home.

I have worked in a University for 20 years and "working at home" always meant having a day off and has always been recognised by everyone as such. Come on guys/gals stop kidding yourselves being a lecturer is not the hardest job in the world. Stop believing in your own propaganda that we work hard! My wife is a teacher ( elementary) now that is hard work.

Well said give us a break - why can't everyone be honest? If every academic was working 60 hours a week our Universities would be at least 100% better than they currently are.

I don't know where "give us a break" works, but it's not an environment I would recognise. Furthermore, I wasn't aware that anyone had claimed being an academic was "the hardest job in the world," nor that other professions were not equally tiring - simply that 60-hour weeks are far from uncommon in the academic realm, and necessary to be able to advance a career. You can certainly be a "jobbing" academic and get away with doing a 35-hour week and get the incremental pay increases at the slowest rate; however, my understanding is that professional workplaces usually benefit when their staff aspire toward career development rather than simply "plod along," and that universities do not want "plodding" academics, they want the best. And to facilitate that, a demand for a 9-5 office culture really doesn't suffice (it is not, for example, practised in the leading US universities).

Richard Armstrong says he is paying £3000 FOR 10 hours contact time per week. This is a common misunderstanding. He is paying a contribution towards the cost of his education, with the rest coming from other taxpayers (all of us). What actually constitutes that education is a matter of debate, but part of higher education is the expectation that students learn to take control of their own destiny, i.e. become independent learners. Sadly, the consumerist agenda encourages the opposite - expecting lecturing staff to continually be available at the drop of a hat to deal with any enquiry. Too many students (not all) become like dependent children. As it is, lecturing staff have a whole bunch of things to do other than be available for students. These other things don't just include their research, but planning next year's syllabi, keeping up with developments in their field, dealing with admin, and so on. The stream of constant interruptions in the modern university workplace makes it near impossible to do some of these jobs properly, so I find it completely understandable that lecturers should not always want to be "in office". One has to engage in a certain level of time management, which means NOT being available to talk to other people.
By the way, unlike many academics I have worked outside of academia, both in a major plc and in London Government. I think academics are often unnecessarily self-flagellating about their jobs. As an academic I have easily worked far more hours than in any other job. I think people in many walks of life would be amazed at what you have to put up with in academia.

Of course there are some colleagues who swing the lead, do the bare minimum, and take the piss. And they can get away with it in academia, where they wouldn't elsewhere. But there are also ambitious industrious colleagues who work in excess of 60 hours a week.
The flexibility of the job is great - and why many of us stay. I can work at home one day a week, and on that day I may pick up the kids from school, and I might fit in a coffee with a friend - these are important work-life balance things! But then I'll work all evening several days a week too. People who know me a little, and see me having a coffee in the day, or picking up my children, will no doubt think lecturers have it easy - but they don't see the evenings, the weekends etc.

Working in academia is either one of the easiest or one of the hardest careers there is, it all depends on the level of commitment to ones area of research. To agrue otherwise just indicates a total lack of understanding of the academic environment. When working at home I personally find that I do a couple of hours more work than if I was in my office so it works for me, but then I would not want to work from home every day it is a matter of balance. The university mentioned in the article has a different culture from the more established research driven universities and their approach should not really be a supprise.

-->the core function of academics is ultimately to research<-- Heaven help us! Attitudes like this are not helping. Surely we should be saying "the core functionS of academics are teaching and research".

Well I'm sorry out of date thinking, but the prestige of the top-end universities is entirely predicated on academic research. Teaching quality simply doesn't come into it, ultimately. Ergo, research is more important in such contexts than teaching. This is not that teaching "doesn't matter," of course it does, and academics are generally keen to use their research to inform the courses they develop and teach, and hopefully inspire at least some of those present to aspire toward success. However, a poor research rating will do far more to kill an academic career at a top institution than a poor teaching rating. This is simply the nature of the beast.

One of my best friends is a distance learning tutor with the Open University. She recently set her students a prescribed assignment, for which learning materials and a module description were provided. Immediately she received a request for 'guidance' from one of her students. My friend's advice to the student was to read the module handbook and course materials again, and attempt the assignment, and phrase future requests for guidance in the form of specific questions. It was too early at that stage for the student to request help with the assignment, which would have amounted to my friend pretty much doing it for her. With more than four weeks available to her to complete the assignment, the student submitted it within a mere 3 days of the work having been set, and was surprised when she received a failing grade and was asked to re-submit. As David Hardman says, students need to take control of their own learning, and too many behave like dependent children. It is for these dependent children that lecturers are expected to hang around at their beck and call all day in case they need their lecturer to individually explain all over again what has been gone through in group teaching sessions. Imagine if every student on your course came to see you to request individual guidance every time you set them an essay question. A course with 30 students and a requirement to write 10 essays per year. That would require 300 individual consultations to discuss work responding to material already presented in class and supported with printed and online study resources. No wonder lecturers think they have better things to do!

"Lecturer" suggests that people can't get away with swinging the lead outside of academia. That's just wrong. It happens in many workplaces - the character Wally in the Dilbert cartoons is the supreme exemplar (for those who don't read Dilbert, it depicts a software development company: www.dilbert.com ). About a year or so ago there was a slew of books about how to slack at work.

There are many points needs that need picking up here. Let me first give my observation on the Open University where I worked as a tutor for over 7 years, and this has some reflection on related issues in "post-92 universities". The Open University is meant to be the place where mature students with less than the entry qualifications required for traditional universities enroll for courses, study in their time and the main driving factor is self-motivation. Wihin the last 5 years, the quality of students in terms of motivation has degraded and as the OU fights for the market share of non-tradiional students ( there are a number of traditional universities who have entered into the open learning /distance learning market and competition is intense in this patch), the tendency is to recruit weaker and weaker students and I found that I was deluged with requests from students on aspects of coursework ( which I discussed in-depth in tutorials) which meant that I was virtually working full-time for a pittance and was expected to" meet the request half way". The OU to me became a joke. I left it after being exhausted for a period.

Let us remember that our post-92 universities are in the game of "widening participation". In my experience of working in one, these so called universities use the "clearing " route to bus in just about any one to the degree course using "widening access" route. In places like London Met for example where clearing runs for weeks and weeks, the UCAS points are manufactured on the spot and students with just GCSE passes and failed A levels are waved in. They are like the OU students mentioned above-sans self-motivation and sans hard-working ethic, besides they are not ready for any higher education level. This forces the academic staff to keep the 9:am-7:00 pm shift every day as he/she is swamped by students coming, in all times of the day.

In defence of students: In some cases which are becoming many academic staff disappeared on Thursday and materialised only on Tuesday which many students in places like London Met complained and complained. The management in every post-92 university wants to fill the seats with breathing bodies ( employing agents in overseas) and that means that academic staff has to change their working habits to the changing situation. As the fee increases so will be the pressure on the staff. One can see in the two big Russell Group universities in London academic staff present in their offices every day for more than 8 hours each day.
In America which is the land of freedom, the academics need special premission to be absent even a day per week which was not eyebrows-raising situation in this country a few years ago.
Hope, London Met, Kingston +.. all other post-92 "universities" will continue to recruit breathing bodies and 8 houtrs presence in the office
per day will become the norm. But if you do not like the kitchen heat.....

Can't real all this as I am working (!!!). It's Friday and I am WORKING AT HOME, trying to make the most of my summer time and actually do some research before the teaching rat race will re-start in September. And guess what, I will be working tomorrow and on Sunday.

And another thing - if you downtrodden students want to complain, you have a right and definitely have a cause. But please don't follow the example of the BNP and blame those who had nothing to do with your misery. Most lecturers, suprise, suprise, care about students (why they would we be answering scores of your e-mails in the middle of the night?). Most lecturers were appalled when the student contact hours were cut. Most of us absolutely loath teaching classes of 200-300 people where there is no chance of getting to know students individually. Most of us deplore top-up fees. If you have not noticed, we stood by your side in the demonstrations against the fees. But the dearest government thinks otherwise. So my advice to you is to stop trying to get bums on seats in the university offices, but vote.

Bums on seats will not change the quality of service that you get. Why? Because besides teaching, lecturers have to do administration and research. And research is the primary activity. This may come as a surprise for you, but, at least in the more reputable universities, nobody asks us about our teaching in our performance reviews. As long as students don't complain and pay the dosh, the deans and vice-chancellors don't care. Research is what counts. Research gives the university recognition, grants and research council funding. When we apply for jobs, it's the "publications" page in our CVs that counts. That's the system. Fight it if you want.

Oh David, how right you are! Yes, we can't. And don't want to. Somebody in society has to take the job of creating independent knowledge that is not tied to performance targets, shareholder value and the price of oil in China. We want THIS job. Lets then appreciate the diversity of people and occupations in our society.

Re: Nature of the Beast's comments: I think there is a tendency to introduce a false dichotomy between old universities (especially Russell Group) and new universities, and I don't think the picture you paint is accurate. First, GfK Financial produced a report for the NUS last year that found that whilst Russell group students had more contact time overall than post-92 institutions, this was largely due to higher lecture time. Post-92 students received more contact in small groups/tutorials. The figures also differed according to topic: for some topics post-92 institutions gave greater overall contact time. Contact time at Russell group institutions (and other pre-92s) vs. post-92s was more often with postgraduates, although Russell group and other pre-92s also gave more contact time with Professors. Compared to other universities, Post-92s gave more contact time with Senior Lecturers. Second, I have a lot of contact with colleagues in old institutions and US institutions, and for the most part we all face the same issues - it's just more pronounced in some places, namely many of the post-92s. I had a conversation with someone at Cambridge recently, who told me he has exactly the same issues teaching his subject as I do here at London Met (cognitive psychology). I've talked with colleagues in prestigious American institutions, who complain that some of their students struggle with basic numeracy and so have problems with the basic statistics that are taught on psychology programmes. A colleague at UCL described to me the problem they sometimes have when the families of female Asian students pressurise them to drop their education and get married.These are all shared problems, but simply more widespread in some places than others. Third, if you look closely at the National Student Survey data, the one thing that all institutions score worst on - feedback - is actually more favourable for post-92 institutions. Of course, the reasons for that are hard to discern, but it's another reason why people shouldn't keep banging on about pre-92 vs post-92. The fact of the matter is that the consumerist agenda is pushing old universities to be more like new ones, and new ones to be more like old ones.

-->prestige of the top-end universities is entirely predicated on academic research<-- It is - but it shouldn't be - not "entirely".

Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's a debate for the govt, Hefce and the funding councils to have, rather than academic staff.

The Liverpool Hope document states that working from home should be an "exception to the norm and can be authorised only by a dean in each instance"... presumably that's if the Dean isn't errrmmm working at home. Frequently in my experience of senior admin, most of the people in my university working at home are those who purport to be in charge. Those of us lower in the pecking order have to make a formal request to do so and have a good reason! I am fine with acadmeics working at home, especially in circumstances as is more and more the cases where offices are crowded and we are shoehorned in like battery hens. Conditions which are not conducive to good research, teaching or administration. Our managers of course often have the luxury of a room of one's own or the privilege or working at home without justification.

I disagree with DH who missed the point completely while defending his post-92 university background. The recent RAE2008 exercise, a flawed exercise in any case awarded generous stars to some post-92 university depts and this does not make them world class by common consent of observers, self-styled may be. The UCL example is also flawed and hearsay. To get to UCL a female (male) student has to score around 300UCAS points ( which post-92 universities can only dream about), my expeirence of intimately associated with UCl as a parent and as an academic is that this notion of Asian girl marrying is the notion of "Raj". It does not happen except in rare cases. My son's class mates 10 of them are Asians and they are not married to a tribal men in India! This is sheer nonsense and does not add to the debate in this thread.

I am not suprised that DH is from London Met holding these views , I found this out after reading the posting. London Met problems are not like Cambridge's and its problems are not even like in any other post-92 university. It is worse much much worse with disappearing overseas students into black market, non-existent home students decamping with loan money and plagiarism rampant even in MSc courses to a degree not found any where etc.. etc.. It is worse and it is making news for the wrong reasons. London Met is an example why RAE2008 is flawed. London Met runs clearing weeks the longest and very difficult to find a student with A level passes in most courses. Its first year drop out rate
borders 40-45%, and it is here one finds academic staff working 3 days a week in office, the rest at home. Any way Alf Morris will downsoze it.

David Hardman

Please let us not bring the problems of London Met here. It is 3rd rate amongst even the 3rd rate universities. Most of us are surprised why HEFCE did not close it down. The desertion of staff from this university ( excluding the early retirees ) runs into 70% into other universities. All who are any good have left London Met. Comparing it with Cambridge? I wouldn't compare it with City and Islington College a 6th form college at a shouting distance from its building in Hollway Road and its pricipal once a London Met governor does not want his students to go to London Met! No academic in London Met wants his/her son/daughter coming to London Met. What about Hardman's?

The Islington residents wants itto be closed. it has become the camp for illegal immigrants in London. I also know the "workinfg at home"
is a rampant practice in that institution, most of the staff hiding at home from the militant students and these shouldn't be in any university.

'And research is the primary activity. This may come as a surprise for you, but, at least in the more reputable universities, nobody asks us about our teaching in our performance reviews. As long as students don't complain and pay the dosh, the deans and vice-chancellors don't care.'

And yet we represent ourselves as Higher Education Institutions, not Higher Research Institutions.

Anna, I agree with you completely. It's an odd state of affairs, as you know. This esteemed organ reports elsewhere the findings of the Student Student Survey - students rate teaching as the most significant influence on their experience.

There are clearly two sides to the argument. Diligent research active individuals who repeatedly produce high-quality publications deserve some flexibility in their working schedule. However, I feel this particular brand of academic is in the minority. In my experience, the higher up one goes in academia, the less work one actually does. In my previous institution, I know a number of professors who are paid top-dollar salaries who aren't seen for weeks on end. Then, when the RAE results are published, they don't feature either. Wasters like this either need a good kick up the rear by their managers (didn't happen in my old university where the dean just wanted to be everyone's mate) or tied down so tight that they have to produce or else face the consequences. Unfortunately the kind of micro-management outlined in this article is all too often necessary and justified these days when has-been professors and senior academics just "play the game".

Richard Armstrong. You live in a market economy so if you don't like the product, don't buy it. It is ridiculous that you'll pay the same for a course at Liverpool Hope as you would at Oxford or Cambridge, but that's the fault of the government. If the cap on fees is lifted then Cambridge will no doubt charge 20k+ whilst the 3rd and 4th rate institutions can stick at 3k. At least then your 3rd rate course will be a relative bargain.

Clive, I'm not sure I'd offer such advice, surely Oxbridge must have the greatest concentration of Cobblers' superannuated Lucky Jims?
Hmmm... actually, maybe if I *can* get 20k off students for a 30-hour week, there might be something in this consumerist malarkey after all...

Since when has price dictated quality? It dictates snob value and a flashy designer product mentality or do we all drive Toyotas?

And how delusional are we actually being, does anyone here really believe there is a meritocracy within academia with regard to promotion or even awarding of research money?

Cobblers - your reasoning is getting more and more bizzare. It is perfectly feasible (although not particularly desirable) for someone in a professional occupation to work 60 hours pw and still function in other areas of life. My academic work tends to stretch over 7 days and I find a 50-60 hour week on average quite usual. I can only assume from your various posts that you really were of that old school academic breed when academic life was truly a relaxed affair. No more, I'm afraid!

Clive,

I am 100% with you. I know a number of professional even doctors working 60 hours a week and find time to play music instruments. My academic life too stretches 7 days a week as I take different assignments and have a happy family life.

You are polite in referring to these fossilised academic breed in much more respectable terms which they do not deserve in 2009/10. Just read postings from Hardman who comapres a 3rd rate university's student problems and issues with Oxbridge and has a bizarre notion of Asian
female students in UCL ( from medicine to Science to Arts...) getting married in the midst of the courses. If one sees hospitals ansd laboratories one can find intelligent Asia female doctors and scientists who disprove his bizarre notion.
If Oxbridge and top layer of Russell Group start charging fees from 20K down to 15K, the market will open up and a huge gulf will form from
1st tier ( Oxbridge), 2nd tier ( top layer of Russlell Group) and then down to the likes of London Met, Leeds Met, UEL and others also ran animals
and immediately employers and the world will start differentiating the value of degrees-a 2/1 from UCL is worth much more than 2/1 from these new universities. It is coming and will atke at most a decade.

I would hope that employers already do distinguish between a 2.1 from UCL and a 2.1 from a brand spanking new university (like one of the Mets, or University of Wales Newport); otherwise I'd feel I'd wasted a lot of time and effort getting the grades necessary for entrance to a redbrick university. I thank my lucky stars I didn't have to pay for the privilege, and got it done before the worst of the betrayals dreamt up and implemented by New Labour, in which the whole higher education system has been complicit.

Apparently some people thought one of my posts above was all about trying to promote London Met. It wasn't. I was talking about the sector as a whole. I just happen to work at London Met... but it seems just mentioning the name of the place makes some people fall to the ground frothing at the mouth! Some of the comments are just beyond ridiculous, so I've nothing more to say.

As a senior lecturer suffering from clinical depression and anxiety, the ability to work from home helps me to actually deliver for my students. I am usually always available online, and ask for e-mails when students need to see me - something can then be arranged that is mutually convenient (not always easy when students' timetables rarely tie up with lecturers'). As I am on a phased return to work, my freedom to choose when I attend outside of teaching time is a godsend when things are not going so well for me.

The policy as proposed by Liverpool Hope would actually discriminate against me, and as my condition falls within the DDA, I should be able to challenge such a policy as meaning I cannot do my job and specifically discriminating against me because of my condition.

Having worked in the private sector, presenteeism does not work. What is achieved is much more important that how long your bum is on a seat. When you have computer software at home that is not available at work, but that means you present things better or provide better support to your students, then you will work at home to get things done to the standard you demand of yourself. I know there are lazy lecturers out there, but they are the exception, not the rule. This policy is a joke and the idiots who put it in place do not understand people management - I presume somewhere they teach it, but like all business schools, teaching best practice never translates into actually delivering best practice.

My support to the union on their rejection of this policy.

Following on from previous post, this policy also discriminates against part time and hourly paid lecturers who appear to be required to attend, although they are unlikely to be paid for such attendance. I think the union could challenge this on the basis of sex discrimination, as well as a breach of the rights of part time and sessional staff. Hopefully, the university will rethink itself, otherwise, all of the part timers and hourly paids, on whom they rely so much, will vote with their feet.

I am aware that if I vote with my feet other feet will come in these days. An advert for visiting lecturer positions ( a few) attraccted nearly 200 applications recently. There is a wide gulf between students who study in shall e say sink universities ( the lower tier in the post-92 ratings list where Hope and Hardman university belongs to) and the UCL and Imperial The students in the latter can work independently and the physical presence of lecturers are not needed every day of the week. These sink universities are really enhanced FE colleges and one can discern this through the general culture that pervades in every place in this category-the attitude of the staff as a whole, the management, the students, the pegagogic environment etc.. Like colleges and secondary schools physical presence of staff expected every hour and every day of the working week. Comparing the issues related to these sink universities, the worst group of universities in our country, with the best group here and in USA is nonsensical.

@David Hardman - I sympathise! I've had a slightly schizophrenic career, having worked at three Russell Group universities (including Cambridge for 7 years) and three post 92s (I'm at one now) and I find the sneers at this sector extremely alienating. Yes there are some broad differences between old and new universities - and there is certainly a striking difference in the social class of the students - but I've never worked at a university - new or old - where there weren't plenty of excellent students - and in my own experience staff in all universities are dedicated both to their teaching and research (with exceptions evenly distributed across institutions). I don't know why a few lecturers (from old unis) feel the need to be so sour and snarky. Cambridge is great (and there can be fewer places where the lecturers work harder on the whole) but my present department has a successful and stimulating research culture too.

These days social class -previlege class works against students as more and
more Russell Group universities, particularly medical colleges ( which offer places to substantial lower UCAS points) use social engineering to admit students with lower grades. It cannot be argued that the issues are the same
in better and less better universities, given that most post-92 universities use clearing, not topping up as primary means of admission. RAE2008 might have
evened things out ( again some engineering here!), but it was a flawed execise. In case there is an army out there to shoot me, I am from post-92 university and worked previously in a very good pre-92 university. The change-the atmosphere is very stark.

I understand that research is a large part of the life of an academic but something needs to be said about the fact that if it weren't for the student, there would be no university. Academics that do not want to have contact with students and refuse to be committed to also fostering an active learning environment for students are welcome to go seek a job at a think tank or research organization where they can focus on their research and not have to worry about contact hours. As a higher education professional, I often find it appalling how many faculty think they can teach their courses (and some even like to make a lot of cancellations on those hours, too) and call it good. I know that research can take up a lot of time, but teaching is part of the job of the academic as well--and even research shows that entails more than just lecturing...it involves availability to the students beyond the classroom.

I also resent the idea that academic having to be in their office is like "babysitting." That's absurd. Having had many faculty during my own education who weren't even available during their "posted office hours" (when, by the way, students pop in, they don't sit on the floor asking for someone to look after them) and seeing many faculty in the college I work in now rarely ever being available, it's clear that a part of the role of the academic to prepare the academics of the future has been lost.

I would think that lecturers would want to be more available to support the need for face-to-face education with physical presences on campus in order to curb the rapid shift to online education in which far less teaching staff are needed to administer the courses. If faculty aren't needed on campus for students to learn, then why do we need so many of them? We can just hire lecturers who are fine administering the online courses or willing to teach a higher load and I can guarantee it's the ones who are committed to educating their students that are going to be kept on, not those who fight for their right to work at home.

It's really a question of line-drawing, Curtis. I don't disagree with what you write, but what sort of hours do you think academics ought to be in their offices, given the multitude of problems and issues that have come to light throughout this thread (the inadequacy of many academic offices; the need to be undisturbed when undertaking research; the growth in consumerist attitudes among some undergraduates, which I'm afraid is very much a real phenomenon, not an imagined one)? Furthermore, the fate of individual academics really does rest on their research performance first and foremost (in the leading HEIs at any rate). Ultimately, it's an unsatisfactory system all round - for depts to continue to be regarded as prestigious they need their staff toi produce world-leading research, otherwise the entry grades for new UGs start to deteriorate. To do that, they need their academics to have as much research time as possible. Those that are kept on in the future will be precisely those with very good research submissions (and also those who can kiss the behinds of the high and mighty in their universities). Teaching standards often tend to come well down the pecking order in depts' decisions to keep lecturer x on, but not y. This is simply how it works. A groundswell of selfless voluntarism on the part of academic staff to spend more time available to UGs is unlikely in such a system.

As for the "academics of the future", the complete absence of any job opportunities for newly-qualified PhD students in academia rather puts paid to that notion, I'm afraid (and I should know, that's precisely the position I'm in).

As John correctly states the career progression of a lecturer depends almost entirely on the quality of their research output. However, I like most of my colleagues take teaching very seriously, and I always make time for students questions in or out 'office hours'. Teaching is important, but conducting world leading research will also be the driving force behind the established universities not only in this country but around the world.

The old/new university thing is more than a little tiresome. Like a couple of other sane heads on here, I've taught in Oxbridge, civics and part-time in post-92. There's good people and bad people everywhere; it may be that there is a huge concentration of talent at Oxbridge and in the senior civics, but there's good people elsewhere too.

Where I break with Curtis - and I really do sympathise with some of your views - is while I wouldn't call it 'babysitting' students have really bought into the idea that they are consumers to the extent that they expect total access all the time. I appreciate that some lecturers don't discharge their duties appropriately regarding contact hours - in all cases depts should enforce this more rigorously. Staff should also always be contactable by email etc, and most of us, I believe, are.

But while students expect us to be there all the time (as they are buying a product - and indeed they are), as an historian I can't do this if I'm going to do research in term-time (which I have been expected to do as part of my job descriptions). I need to go to the National Archives, I need to go to the Bodleian, I need to go to any number of regional and institutional archives. I simply can't do my research on-site. If archives are a historian's lab (poor analogy but you get the gist) then I have to go to them, and whilst you can compartmentalise this to vacations (and most do), most of us like to get there at least some of the time during term to keep things ticking over. That naturally takes me off campus.

Additionally, I've never had an office where I can store all my books, or even a sufficient number of books for my research projects. I've had to share offices on occasion, which whilst great for camaraderie is crap for research. I've even worked in one department where if I worked late security would come knocking to see what I was doing there.

In short, I'm not saying academics should simply be given free rein to disappear; they should maintain their contact hours (both in terms of teaching and office hours, which are usually enumerated in the contract/jd) and they should always be contactable when not on site (not hard in a world of email etc). Equally, depts should come down hard on staff not discharging their responsibilites to students. Having said all of that, Hope's action - to be frank - makes it look as though they don't take research seriously and will deter other good academics joining the high quality staff they already have in many disciplines.

That could be a serious mistake in the long term - certainly in a world where universities' reputations in a competitive market depend almost entirely on their research.

You all work at HIGHER EDUCATION institutions! If you're not on campus, you're not able to communicate with students effectively, allow students full and proper access to you and offer them the support they require. Students pay over £3000 a year for the 'privalege' of your attention. I don't understand why such essential research cannot be carried out on campus - surely you will have better access to the materials you require for such study at a university?
Get over yourselves and remember that you are first and foremost tutors, not overpaid 'researchers'.

@Laura is that really what they are paying for? And so cheaply

Lets say you are doing a science course with 20 hours of contact per week, 24 weeks per year, a reasonably average figure. So 480 hours per year for £3000 = £6.25 per hour. Then add the cost of materials, effort in course planning, feedback, marking, writing references, pastoral input, the equipment, the library, careers, car parking, buildings etc. etc. Does not seem that high for a subject specialist who probably took 6-7 years to get their doctorate and then 3-6 years post-doc work before getting a position.

And be at the constant beck and call of increasingly rude, self-centred children who think the phrase "I really want it" is all that is needed.

Hi Laura - I take a fairly moderate position on this - I like to keep one day a week for research but sometimes that just isn't possible. Thus I'm normally in my office quite a lot of the time - or teaching of course. Some of my colleagues are in more, some less, but the overall effect is that there are normally plenty of staff around to help students. I have 3 office hours a week but students hardly ever come then!

As wittering historian says, it really isn't possible for many of us to do research on campus. My office for example is incredibly hot and noisy.

If I was on campus all day every day (or worked 60 hours a week which some here bizarrely seem to think is desirable rather than just an occasional unpleasant necessity) then I'd be still more available - but I would be less up to date with current research and thus less informed/energized - in other words my teaching would suffer and students would get a worse deal not a better one.

More cynically if the job was 100% teaching/admin it would no longer be so attractive and you wouldn't get 50 or 100 good candidates for an academic post. I'd not dream of applying for a job which expected me to be on campus - even though that's where I seem to end up most of the time!

There's been discussion about whether research or teaching ability is more important when recruiting - in my experience nearly all job candidates are great in both areas - but no one would ever be appointed if they didn't inspire confidence in their ability to teach no matter how brilliant their research.

'expected me to be on campus ALL THE TIME' I meant to say!

Why is it that seemingly hardly anyone in higher education, staff or students, knows how to spell 'privilege'?

Laura you are correct when you say "I don't understand".

Tired lecturer. Oxbridge will be able to charge 7, 8, 9, 10x the going rate for 3rd or 4th tier institutions if that is what the market perceives the 'brand' to be worth. That's mainly what is being bought. And why not, if BA(Oxon) speeds your progress up to partner in a city law firm and 800k pa whilst BA(hopeless) fast tracks you no further than the supermarket checkout, then who, if they can afford it, wouldn't pay the extra? That makes far more ecoonimc sense than doing what many of us do every week, pay 2 or 3x more for for branded cornflakes etc when we could get more or less exactly the same product but in a less familiar box.

We might as well all get used to spelling 'privilege' properly, because we'll be seeing the word a lot more often when only the privileged can afford to study at the top universities after they start charging £20,000+ a year for tuition fees.

I think this is yet another example of the majority not wanting to accept that a working day and a working role is not a "one size fits all" thing. It all smacks of "If I can't have it/do it then why should anyone else?"

You see it everywhere these days. We should accept that in all walks of life, and in all roles at University, we all have our own roles, responsibilities and ways of working.

I have yet to read one post here that talks about "output". I tend to work at home 1-2 days a week in term time and more outside of term. Why not? I am always available to arrange to meet my students and they get my full attention then. I would be more than happy to compare my output (papers, research proposals, etc) with any of my colleagues who prefer (yes, they prefer - I don't) to stay on campus for the working week.

In addition, I am cheesed off with the suggestion (barely hidden) that if I am not in I am not working. Get a life and grow up!
I have many colleagues at my current institution who seem to pride themselves on the "student first" mentality and then can't seem to find a minute to write a paper or proposal - a big part of their academic contract, which is not a teaching only contract!! The question should be asked: what exactly are these people doing for 5 months of the year in out-of-term time?

However, live and let live. I won't pry, I'll rise above it and continue to do my own thing - one of the best attractions of this job, and long may it continue.

Live with it!: I agree with you in general. However, I mention research 'output' in one of my posts :)

Jack Black - you did: forgive me, I was mid-rant.
I'm just getting increasingly annoyed with these growing witch hunts that take place when one section of society sees something they don't like about what another group is doing or is percieved to be "getting away with". You see this is politics, the media, everywhere. We seem to be living in an era where everything anybody does in all walks of life has to be justified to, and judged by, society as whole - when in real terms those who seek to judge and decide if something is acceptable are not always best suited to this task - hey, though I'd better be careful, I might be called elitist! At the risk of that title though, I am happy for my work practices to be judged by my real peers (my teaching quality, my research output, my service to the wider community, etc) but I fail to see how an informed opinion can be reached by groups of people who have never done this job!

Live with it!: I agree... I have found it interesting, if not slightly worrying, to read these posts. I think I will keep an eye on the international job market from now on just in case academic freedom is eroded still further. After all if I had wanted to be a school teacher I would of followed that career path ( I should add that I have great respect for school teachers).

Of the academic contracts that I have had with 3 separate institutions, none stipulated either a place of work or hours to be spent at a certain place. I would imagine this to be commonplace. Academic contracts have traditionally recognised that freedom is important, since in general terms we don't work for anyone else (we might have a head of department, but not in real-world terms a "boss"), we work for ourselves. As rightly mentioned above, our work towards tenure and then upwards on the academic career ladder depends on research and, like it or not, our institutions want us to be research active. I am seeing an increasing number of academics though who seem to be shying away from pursuing research, possibly due to the increased rejection rate of their grant applications. Once this happens, bitterness sets in, and they are sometimes the worst for wanting to micro-manage and control the whereabouts of their colleagues. Its a sad state of affairs when this professional jealousy kicks in. What you also see is the creation of a whole new raft of admin duties that seem to appear, and endless review meetings created. One wonders whose existence this is meant to justify.....these people like to be seen in the office, they like people to see them looking busy, because there is no real and tangible output in research terms that they are producing. If they don't want to do research - fine, the University should offer them teaching only contracts and pay them accordingly, perhaps making a saving since they are probably not needed to contribute for the summer months. Don't some US Uni's do this? Now theres a thought....

Reading about this policy, you have to wonder---what exactly is Liverpool Hope trying to achieve? As John already noted, it has already been established in so many fields that flexible work practices using IT actually increase productivity. The research proves it. In fact, even intro management courses have long included chapters on the virtues of virtual offices, virtual teams and teamwork, in order to make the most of IT and increase productivity. (I taught such courses by the way.)

Also---as many others have already noted---it is extremely difficult in most cases for many reasons, to do the research and work necessary for the university's standing, funding etc.

So therefore, why would any university adopt a policy which pretty much guarantees ---on the basis of everything we know, from research and everyday experience--which will reduce its productivity?

Probably because A. they whoever they are, are not aware of what management entails and successful management practices (either from experience or research) and B. perhaps most crucially, they know that, they simply will not be held to account for what they do the university. If they were held accountable, I bet that their policies would focus on how to increase productivity, and not on policies that seem more geared to disempowering staff even further...(by the way, modern management also teaches that authoritarian management practices lead to reduced productivity as well)

In my previous post, I meant it is extremely difficult to do the research and all other work necessary for the univ. "in the office"...for the many reasons discussed here and others too.

Real academic: I agree with your comments. Regarding getting grants, in my experience this has a more to do with who you are and where you work rather than the quality of the proposal. One thing that all academics can do though regardless of position isto publish work in good journals... Academics using a lack of grant support as a reason to become research inactive is rather weak, they should perhaps be transfered to part time contracts or take on more teaching/admin to free up those of us who want to pursue research.

Plus, in the leading HEIs, academics are entitled to a semester of research leave every 3 years or so, so they need to be doing research in the meantime so that they can use that leave to write up their findings in book form. I think the wider context has a very good point about professional jealousy, though - some senior lecturers seem not to like it much when a more junior colleague comes along and wins a prestigious research grant.

Jack Black: I agree. The problem is that once the research-inactive (or uninterested) become "student-led" or start to quote themselves as a "Higher Education Professional" (a what??!!) they use the fact that they carry (or make themselves appear to carry) an increased teaching or admin load as a self-perpetuating reason not to apply for research money ("I have no time anymore where I can fit research in, I'm soooo busy doing stuff you should be doing, whinge, whinge").
There is a real solution: a two branched system (note I didn't say tiered) with teaching only and research-led contracts. Let the high fliers and genuine triers in each institution focus on research and do minimal teaching and admin, and let the (some high flying) teachers teach. Problem solved. It doesn't mean one side is better than the other, it means we can focus on our strengths and abilities and reduce the in-fighting and bitchiness. What it would mean though is that promotion through a teaching route would require REAL advances and contributions to teaching, not just a list of carrying more duties and teaching a few more courses in term time. Can anyone explain to me what a research inactive academic is doing from June to October??

I dislike how the mooted separation of teaching and research roles presumes greater ability and higher status for researchers relative to teachers, and portrays teachers as slackers. John raises an interesting issue, saying that academics get a semester's research leave every 3 years or so. If only contract researchers on 3-year contracts were so fortunate. Then they might not be obliged by their Principal Investigators (who often think of themselves as an actual 'boss') to waste 3 years on a wild goose chase while their own research data from previous endeavours withers away like rotten fruit. As for what a 'research inactive' academic does from June to October, apart from taking a well earned holiday of a fortnight or longer, many of them have new modules to write and last year's modules to review and revise, and there's keeping up with developments in their field too, which, during term time, has to fit in around teaching and marking. Use your imagination. Don't resent the lecturing staff who actually teach, unless they drag you down by too readily falling in with ill-considered edicts which make presenteeism a matter of policy, which is neither in their interest not yours.

Surely one of the key factors here is that it is Liverpool Hope doing this, not a traditional university. Increasingly, it seems that some of those universities which have most recently acquired that title now have little clue what to do with it. They can't compete in research terms with the elite, lack the brand image to attract the best students yet can't quite bring themselves to rejoin the ranks of FE type institutions. Hence this type of muddled policy, they don't really know whether they are a school, a college of a university. The negative publicity generated within the academic community will ensure that no one with any academic talent wants to join them and current employees with talent will quickly leave. The result, a speeding up of the downward spiral until the institution becomes an FE college whether it likes it or not. The only outstanding question will be whether a future government will have the courage to remove the university title from institutions which no longer deserve it. For the avoidance of doubt, I have great respect for school and FE teachers, but consider their jobs to be very different from genuine university academics.

Quite so, Clive. FE teachers are not academics. Nor are the former IoHE teaching staff who taught my PGCE course, who now rejoice in the title of 'senior lecturer' (there are no mere entry-level lecturers there!). I may yet return to employment in a university and resume my academic role. Chance would be a fine thing! For the time being I shall stick to my non-academic education role of teaching FE. I agree there are too many universities and not enough FE colleges, and there is little to differentiate the weaker examples of the former from the latter.

FE teacher: I do not think anyone is saying that research active staff should not teach, rather that research inactive staff should teach more than their research active colleagues. Regarding your reference to 'higher status' the careers of research inactive staff usually terminate at Senior Lecturer whereas research active staff can rise to more senior positions.

@Jack Black. One (not the only) reason why we research is to improve our expertise - and thus our teaching. I know it doesn't always work out like that - and I know some outstanding teachers - mostly older former colleagues - who are more or less research inactive, though extremely scholarly. But on balance I'd rather not do less teaching because I'm research active - I'd rather do less admin, particularly the kind of admin that spills into the vacations when I'm trying to do research. So - let research inactive staff do more admin, not more teaching.

Teaching is at the heart of what we do, but so is research - otherwise why bother with the Ph.d. I give students a lot of time, and (even in one of the Mets!) teach modules which are research-led. Not that that particularly seems to matter to the substantial numbers of students who only read if they have to write an essay (and not much then). I see my job as a combination of teaching, research and academic administration. I prepare for teaching at home; I write up my research at home; and as an historian also spend time in libraries and archives (the travel to these archives is funded by myself).

I do the research because I am an historian first; I don't want to give this up despite the increasingly difficult circumstances in my university; and despite the fact that we seem to be despised pretty much by the students, administrators and managers (who are then happy to cream off the money they gain from our research).

Hence, despite it being the weekend, and being on leave, I just finished working a couple of hours ago (and worked most of saturday as well). If you are committed to your research, particularly with the teaching and admin loads of a new university (where there is no guarenteed sabbatical) weekend and holiday working are essential. I only book my holiday so I can't be called into work. Nevetheless I'm still answering work related emails.

Since teaching finished - I been doing administration, preparing for next semester, giving conference papers, writing a book, reviewing books, etc...

Laura - I'd have some sympathy with your view, if it was not for the numbers of 'arranged' tutorials I've;sat through (as have my colleagues) waiting for students who never turn up.