A better researched post than normal, folks, given I had to write it twice – because our (expletives deleted, sometimes more than once) blog server saved only a small portion, despite my repeatedly clicking “Save Draft”…ah, well.
Anyway, a most interesting exchange of correspondence, these couple of weeks past, in the Tuesday paper: an Aggrieved Goose bemoaning the lack of any incentives given by UCT to do research here; replies by a Dean AND two senior professors, which don't really address the central issue raised, to my mind at least - and then another letter from Professor Johann Lutjeharms, which brings up another interesting question about Our UniversityTM. I reproduce the letter below:
"In his/her letter to the Monday Paper (18 February) Aggrieved Goose claims that "there is no incentive (for individuals at UCT) for (writing) high-level publications". In her reply the Dean of Science argues instead that: "The value placed by the university on these outputs is evident in our ad hominem promotion process, including excellence level payments". This statement is relevant to the complaint by Aggrieved Goose and the ensuing debate, but otherwise may be quite misleading.
Ad hominem promotions and academic excellence are judged by a considerable number of criteria at UCT. These include teaching, learning, leadership, management, administration, social responsiveness and research. Research is therefore only a small component of the total number of criteria. Even if Aggrieved Goose does outstanding research, but does not reach the same level of excellence in the category, say, of social responsiveness, the rigid numeric formula being used may well block any access to an ad hominem promotion or academic excellence notch to which he or she might aspire.
In theory then, an academic at UCT who wins the Nobel Prize for their research, but does not reach a high numeric score in the category of management and administration, would not be judged as being meritorious by UCT. Personally I fail to see how this policy fits the claim that we are a "research-driven" university.
Professor Johann Lutjeharms
Department of Oceanography
Well said, Prof JL! Although I think the phrase used is “research-led”; no matter, the argument still works.
How are we a “research-led University”? How does UCT manifest this policy in its doings and proceedings? While this may be true for our postgraduate teaching and actual research activities, as indeed so it must be, is it remotely true for our undergraduate teaching, or – most importantly – our financial and other administration? And if it is meant to be so, who checks?
The facts around promotion policy appear to be exactly as Prof JL has outlined them: far from being “research-led”, Our UniversityTM (hereinafter and in perpetuity referred as “OUTM“) persists in a promotions policy in at least the Faculties of Sciences and Health Sciences which in fact penalises the kind of obsessive and focussed activity which is the hallmark of a world-class researcher – which is engaging mainly or even exclusively in research. In Science at least, there is no obvious differentiation in career path between the generalists who do some of everything while trying to publish, the dedicated teachers who do very little research, and researchers who do very little of anything else. There is one mould to fit all; folk who do not achieve an average score befitting the rank to which they aspire, with teaching, research and administration all being counted, with little differential weighting between research and teaching being possible – do not Ascend.
Why do we not – as a research-led University – have a clear differentiation between “Teachers” and “Researchers”? In my experience at least, a dedicated teacher who publishes little is considered a failed researcher, and will find it almost impossible to rise above Senior Lecturer. Equally, a really good researcher who publishes well but teaches badly and is an administrative disaster – can’t get above the magical “7” or “8” and be a half or even full Professor.
It should not be like this.
Consider: a dedicated teacher just may be making the difference in many cases between under-prepared students failing, and carrying on. If they can justify their salary in terms of subsidy brought in to the University AND fees paid, then why should they not aspire to the dizzying heights of Professor? Equally, if a good researcher brings in enough publication unit subsidy to cover their own salary – and I know many who do – why should they teach undergraduates, if they don’t do well at it, AND may in fact be damaging the prospects of struggling students?
OUTM needs to bite the bullet and actually implement policies which lead to it becoming a “research led University”. Otherwise, it is an empty piece of sloganeering. Much like the “world-class African university” we used to hear so much about: I am sorry; I do not see that 200 - 250th in the world university league table is much to be happy about!
Until and unless OUTM actually makes a genuine effort to BE research-led, my feeling is that the phrase "research bled' - heard a couple of years ago in Senate - may well be a better descriptor.
06/03/2008, 16:31
That post was really on the nail, Retroid - but of course the research-led mantra is hardly unique to OU(TM)- and nor are the rather unclear translations of its meaning. It's a little like 'research -led teaching' (a regular in higher education development journals): like happiness of old, it means different things to different people. Saleem Badat (who took over at Rhodes from an UCT export) made the point you have made about the need to recognise that universities need to recognise the different contributions that different forms of scholarship make to the university. Especially when it comes to rewarding contributions. In fact this was a point made in the 19th Century at Oxford - then made to provide for researchers, whose occupation wasn't considered scholarly at all, but rather a "gentlemanly past-time". One of the problems of course becomes (for the bean counters) is "how do you measure teaching", given that teaching is often measured against not so much the actions of its practitioners, but the actions of those who receive it? Teaching and learning are related, but not in a strict causal relationship of constant conjunctions. At best one could argue that good teaching is necessary but not sufficient for effective learning, surely?
On another research matter: how do our colleagues in the sciences experience publication lag? In the social sciences, directly as a result of the obsession with research outputs, the lag between submission and reviewer's comments can be anything up to six months, followed by anything up to 12 months further delay between acceptance and final print publication. Meaning that you can "produce" two papers in a year (which for social sciences is not bad), but you never catch up with the lag, and can have some ugly lean years!
07/03/2008, 10:27
Someone I know well pointed out in an inaugural lecture that every time he changed fields, the publication lag was about three years - so his output loked like a roller-coaster, with regular dips and rises.
As fro how long it takes: well, in mol biol sciences tehse days turnaround is pretty quick GENERALLY, so a couple months from submission to acceptance of a paper, couple of months more and you see it online. Unless it's an online journal, in which case it SHOULD be quicker.
Having said that, you can wait a lot longer for quite reputable journals to process papers: called "paying for the brand"...B-)