This, the second of what the Subject Centre intends as annual events, was attended by 8 heads of department drawn from all types of institution. The object of the day was to give heads of English departments the opportunity to talk to one another in a focused way about matters of common concern. Much of the discussion took place in small informal groups about which it is impossible to generalise. Nevertheless, it was clear that one of the things valued by participants was the opportunity to share experiences in a way that the role very often precludes.
The form adopted was that successfully trialled last year: that is to say, there were no papers or keynote addresses. Instead there was a sequence of plenary and small group sessions facilitated by nominated colleagues or by members of the Subject Centre staff. A prior trawl of participants resulted in the decision to set up groups on four specific topics. What follows is a very bald summary of rich and energetic discussions.
1. The impact of the Research Assessment Exercise on learning and teaching (led by Morag Shiach, Queen Mary, University of London)
A strong case was made that the RAE was resourced from time rather than from money: we were, argued one participant, doing the research cheaply or even for free. We were experiencing management panic in a climate of continuous low–level anxiety. Admittedly, the RAE was used to legitimise all sorts of management strategy. But bid writing and strategy groups used up unaccounted amounts of time. The discussion dwelt on the impacts on staffing, the pressures to manage or even get rid of ‘nonproductive’ colleagues, the desperation of those on short contracts, the pool of hourly-paid postgrads and postdocs: a system that relied on cheap labour. From another direction a question arose whether research-led teaching (of which in principle most English people approve) in fact led to a quirky and unbalanced curriculum.
2. The changing curriculum (led by Peter Kitson, Dundee)
There was some sense that ‘theory’ was receding, but what was it being replaced with? Drivers for curriculum change included the limited time most students could or would give to reading, and a canon that was shifting in response to market forces – the rise of creative writing and contemporary fiction were both cited – and increased levels of staff specialisation. Newly appointed staff increasingly expected to teach to their specialisms. Those present were strongly in favour of maintaining a spread, at least across the literature curriculum.
3. Funding and financial management (led by Scott Fraser, University of the West of England)
While most felt they had been inadequately trained for their fiscal and legal roles, the feeling was not universal, and examples of good institutional practice were cited. There was an animated discussion of the rising legal pressures on heads of departments (for example in the domain of Health and Safety and of Disability), and the general lack of institutional training and support for this increasingly onerous aspect of the HoD role. Heads of departments needed more legal training and support. Student complaints, disability issues, harassment cases all led to a fraught and increasingly isolating workload. One tried to avoid crisis, but often it was only in a crisis that one got institutional backing. All the while, subject colleagues were apt to regard you as the ‘bad cop’. There was a widely-shared feeling that generic models of management did not fit, that heads of department experienced tension between different forms of leadership, and that they were not rewarded as executives. At times ‘creative failure’ might be the only narrative response to the expectation that you would be good at simultaneously managing staff, students, and finance, while also doing marketing and strategic planning. Delegation was a perpetual problem, and the temptation was always to give tasks only to those who had proved themselves willing. Three years was widely seen as not long enough: you needed five years to really get into the job, though the cost to families could be ‘penitential’. Levels of student complaints and appeals were rising all the time, and here too HoD responsibility faced both inwards and outwards.
4. The impact of variable fees (led by John Joughin, University of Central Lancashire).
Most of the questions were still unanswered or unanswerable. Most institutions were already seeing increased localisation of their student body. We were seeing an implicit politicisation of students as a new kind of educational ‘subject’. Yet pressure from students and their parents might actually lead to improved facilities. We needed to activate learning contracts as a motivator for attendance and commitment. There was some optimism on the grounds that English had always been an adaptable subject that was agile in developing its own practices. One closing suggestion was that the Subject Centre should facilitate a cross-institutional ‘buddying’ system for new heads of department, though it was recognised that it could be quite difficult identifying new appointments. At the end Subject Centre staff were left with a renewed sense both of the enormous commitment of heads of department to their students, their colleagues and their subject, but simultaneously of an unsustainable workload and level of stress. These dual perceptions lead to a third. That is that the professionalism and commitment of those who are willing to take on these arduous roles is exploited by a system which relies on people being conditioned to make their jobs their lives. This does not seem a sustainable way of bringing on the HoDs of the future or of supporting those already in post.
