Under the Microscope / Prof William Reville: Dr Danny O'Hare, past president of Dublin City University, must have been having a "bad hair day" when he wrote his recent article (The Irish Times, October 27th) addressing the subject of change in our universities.
He wrote that "we are lumbered with a system in which any change occurs only at a glacial rate" . . . and "we must urgently seek to devise tools for change that will deliver what we need".
I am puzzled. Contrary to his assertion that change occurs only at a "glacial rate", our major universities are in the process of reorganising their academic and other structures at breakneck speed. Furthermore, the process is meeting surprisingly little opposition from the "nay-sayers", to whom O'Hare attributes the power to slow the rate of change.
UCC, UCD and TCD have recently effected a radical restructuring. The autonomy of individual academic departments and the power of heads of departments have been eroded over recent years and the emphasis is now on melting departments into large schools.
Traditionally, cognate departments are grouped into faculties. At UCC we have the faculties of arts, science, engineering, medicine, commerce, law, food science and Celtic studies. These faculties have now been re-grouped into four colleges - College of arts, Celtic studies and social sciences; college of science, engineering and food science and technology; college of medicine and health; college of business and law. Budgets, it is promised will be devolved from the university centre to the schools and distributed according to an agreed formula. The overall declared intention is to devolve decision-making from the centre to the teaching and research coalface of the university.
Many other major changes have also been introduced. For example, an extensive quality assurance programme now operates across all academic and administrative departments. Programmes to enhance teaching quality have been established and are rapidly growing. Also, certain areas of the central administration have undergone radical change - eg human resources departments have grown to awesome proportions.
Why are these changes happening and are they good? Traditionally first- and second-level education was mass education, whereas third-level catered for a small minority. However, third-level is now also mass education. The traditional organisation of universities on departmental lines was possibly a bit too rigid to adapt smoothly to the dizzying rates of current social and economic changes. The new system offers some advantages in terms of flexiblity, and I wish it well. However, it is not blindingly obvious that the new melting pot approach is the best way to go.
University reorganisation similar to our own has long since been in place in the UK. However, one rarely hears a UK academic, when speaking off the record, say that this reorganisation has improved matters. It is also interesting to note that Oxford, Cambridge, and some other flagship UK universities retain the traditional departmental organisation.
The Government has realised that economic well-being is closely coupled to third-level science and technology, and has increased funding in this area, although still below average OECD levels. It demands more accountability and transparency as to how this money is spent. Undoubtedly, Government has put pressure on the universities to reorganise. This is understandable. But the universities also have a responsibility to negotiate optimum methods of reorganisation that will at once facilitate national economic development and preserve educational and research values and effectiveness.
Unfortunately universities have always reacted timidly to outside pressures. We must be very careful not to reorganise ourselves with little else in mind other than maximal capacity to respond to the ever-changing short-term targets of Government and industry. Such reorganisation would satisfy neither national economic, educational, research or cultural goals.
O'Hare suggests the introduction of pay for performance as an effective tool to foster academic excellence and points to its "success" in the US. He also suggests we should copy the American tenure system where newly appointed junior lecturers are kept on probation for about six years. If they meet their probationary targets they achieve tenure, ie they are employed on a more or less permanent basis. If not they are dismissed.
Some things do not cross cultural borders happily. American culture is openly competitive and pay for performance sits naturally in this atmosphere. Our culture is different and pay for performance in our circumstances would be merely vulgar. Of course performance should be rewarded, but that can be taken care of by transparent, non-bureaucratic promotion and career development programmes. However, the programmes currently in place are unimaginative, sometimes unobjective and urgently need reform.
In my opinion, the American tenure system places savage demands on junior employees. The collateral damage it inflicts in terms of psychological trauma, pressure on family and marital relations, and the narrowing of personal life would, in my opinion, be unacceptable in our culture.
O'Hare's article fuels the myth that universities are riddled with academics with soft jobs who fiercely resist any changes that would force them to be more productive. I can only speak for the sciences, but, having worked in the university for over 30 years, I have rarely seen an academic who took the soft option. And today the climate has so changed for new young academics that it is impossible to coast through with minimal effort. The vast majority of academic scientists work hard and take great pride in their work. And they do this without the necessity for heavy-handed central systems of goal setting or monetary rewards/punishments.
William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie