DVC proposal on a research excellence framework for La Trobe
The DVC(Research) has released a proposal called 'A research excellence framework for La Trobe' which is intended to set up a new Research College.
Membership of the Research College is intended to be automatic for those academic staff who are making a substantial contribution to the research effort of the university, defined as a quota of publications that are at world standard.
Members of the Research College will be given a standard 40% or more of their time to undertake research, while the majority of academic staff who fall outside of the College (estimated to be 55-65%) will be given a starting point of a 20% allocation of time to undertake something called ‘scholarship’, which will cause further intensification of teaching loads.
This approach to improving research productivity is likely to be divisive and counterproductive. We have been told that only academic staff on research committees and on Academic Board will be consulted about the proposal, when all academic staff need to be included in a conversation about research productivity.
Representatives of the Branch were called into a meeting with little notice and made to read the proposal during the meeting. We object to this pretence of consultation especially as it is clearly a matter involving significant organisational change.
We have produced a discussion paper and suggested questions for members to ask during any consultation meetings.
Please let the Branch know what you think about the proposal by emailing: nteu@latrobe.edu.au and come to the next general meeting of the Branch where we will facilitate a discussion on the proposal. For union members who want a copy of the DVC's paper, please contact the Branch.
GENERAL MEETING OF THE BRANCH - PLEASE SAVE THE DATE
Thursday 14 April 2011 @ 12pm by videoconference
Bundoora - Agora Theatre
Bendigo - Bus 1-33
Albury Wodonga - AW 3116
Franklin St, City - 324
(137 KB) - PDF
Comments
[ -2 ] @afflicted
Like • Dislike •Do you honestly imagine it will play out with more teaching from D and E staff? Rather than unrealistic loads for junior staff? This model reflects reality in many cases - but will prevent change in most instances
[ -19 ] sounds like a great idea... those lecturers who do no research should be made to teach more.... it's that simple.... i'm tired of working alongside level C and even level D employees who do next to no research. They should teach for their money. And the more they are paid the more they should teach ie. a level D that does no research should spend 20hrs in the classroom per week. Those level A and B employees who are research active are tired of working their asses off in teaching, research and service while the babyboomers kick back and collect a huge paycheque with no PhD or publications and often with no aptitude for teaching or service.....
Like • Dislike •[ -6 ] I think we need a robust discussion around the impact of the proposed Research College on teaching and learning, and on the perceptions in the universities on the rewards, value and prestige of being an excellent teacher.
Like • Dislike •So, for those staff who do not end up in the Research College -- presumably their focus will be on teaching rather than research.
This means that junior staff will be focused on teaching rather than research until they can get a foothold and start churning out some quality publications. We already have a scenario where junior staff are the workhorses of our teaching system, while they are expected to complete PhDs and publish articles. How are we going to encourage senior staff, who have had the time to establish themselves as researchers, to take leadership roles in undergraduate teaching? What incentive is there for a Level D or E academic to be in front of a large cohort class?
Under the Research College system I think there is a great danger that they will be further discouraged from being involved where we need them most, and our most valuable knowledge resource, the brains of our discipline leaders, will be focused on the production of publications rather than inspiring new learners.
[ +2 ] Words fail me - given the stress levels arising out of the need to balance; teaching/assessing large classes within poor and crowded facilities; constantly failing technology (including a ban on the buying of new staff computers); the imposition of DfL which seems lack direction and leadership (although much hard and relevant work is being undertaken by staff on the ground); the lack of office space and increasing numbers of shared office space; constant delays in decision making as everything is sent to a central site first; increasing numbers of courses and students )and the expectation to add to these); increasing expectations that academics will also provide material for marketing, (including undertaking marketing activities such as organising displays for Open Day and visits from school students throughout the year); participation in the constant reviewing of faculty and other structures (9 restructures in the last 20 years in my faculty and another proposed); developing relationships with OS universities; applying for grants; with one's research, I can only wonder how anyone in their right mind could then think that creating a two tier system of staff - the 40% staff and the rest. Why would anyone want to work at this institution????? What happens when the exclusive "college" staff retire - where is the succession planning in this place? The goodwill staff show La Trobe management must surely run out soon.
Like • Dislike •[ -1 ] An issue I take with this proposal, is the effect on new, and early career academics.
Like • Dislike •It is extremely unfair to expect world class research from a new Level A academic, but unless one can do this they will be pushed into a 20% research load.
It seems very counterproductive for developing one’s research capacity.
[ -1 ] I think this is an appalling idea which has the capacity to create a two-class system within the university and fundamentally undermine research quality. It will undoubtedly penalise those who for a variety of reasons (heavy workloads, family care responsibilities, illness) were not "research-active" for the last five years but want to be (keeping in mind here that publication of articles is not the only way we can measure research outputs). Being bracketed into a 20% research load will effectively ensure these people remain unable to increase their research outputs. I think this has a real capacity to work against women's interests, who are more likely to find their research careers disrupted because of care responsibilities. The burden may also rest heavier on mid-career researchers who have worn much of the brunt of increasing workloads in recent years.
Like • Dislike •The retrospective nature of the agreement is also completely unacceptable - why should people's performance for the last five years be judged according to a standard set in the present? How can people effectively plan a research career when the goals and standards keep shifting?
Finally, is this proposal being linked at all to workloads over the last few years - the university has been notoriously vague in this regard. I don't know anyone who has been able to devote 40% of their working hours to research given the ever-increasing teaching and admin pressures the last few years.
Frankly, I think this shows a distinct lack of respect for academic staff who have been asked to do more and more with less and less over the last few years, are suffering from reform exhaustion, and may now have to suffer the indignity of losing their research status as well.