Nice new corner! Come and chat!

[NeverEverAnythingEver]

We have our new board! Calling all cademics/aspiring academics/fed-up academics - come and chat!

Oh my. I have to rant here as I can't say exactly what I think on our internal VLE.

Attendance at research seminars is dropping. Life was ever thus. Academics don't go to all of the seminars, and most of them tend to go to the ones that are

Seminars are 4-5 on a Weds, a popular time in most universities so that people can get there to give a seminar from another university where they don't have teaching that afternoon, and so that people can attend.

One of our academic parents (whose partner is also an academic in our department) is moaning that this slot doesn't fit with childcare. It fits fine with campus nursery (which has shorter hours than the other 5 we looked at locally and than the 5-10 or so nannies and CMs we interviewed or investigated). It also fits with all but two after school clubs (one school doesn't

This particular academic parent is moaning that the 4-5 slot doesn't suit them and that this is the case at a lot of universities.

While I would LOVE to clock off at 4pm every day I cannot do that. I already got masses of grief and a very fraught flexible working meeting with Union Star Stalwart in attendance from our not-very-dear-departed* former HoD for refusing to teach till 6 when the nursery isn't open till 6, and had to change my part time contract to officially end at 5.15.

I don't understand how this colleague is managing to get away with leaving work at 4pm every day! They are complaining that I'm assuming that all childcare settings are as flexible as the campus nursery. Honestly, if this couple have a childcare setting that is LESS flexible than campus nursery they should have moved to a different setting long ago!

*Not actually departed sadly but moved on to a higher grade of hiding in his office and ignoring everyone.

Oops "they go to the ones that are in their field"

and "one school doesn't have an after school club".

worstofbothworlds

That's very frustrating! The (staff...) attendance at research seminars in my faculty is quite low but there is practically a seminar every evening, so people quite reasonably can't go to everything that's relevant, even, and they are all post 5pm. But 4-5pm seems to be a very reasonable time. I think there certainly are some work-life balance issues for academics in terms of what's expected of them, but in the case you're describing I'd definitely be inclined to loudly think that there aren't many careers where you'd get away with complaining at not being able to finish at 4pm.

I came on to have my own little rant - an acquaintance on Facebook (a scientist) posted this article with lots of agreeing noises:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/28/science-arts-society

I kind of see its point but I felt that the subtitle and the first few paragraphs were kind of problematic. If there is a 'double standard' between sciences and humanities which leads people at parties to not know how to talk about science, I don't think that's because people feel it's ok to be ignorant of the sciences - more that they genuinely do lack the grounding to have those conversations and, perhaps, the confidence to engage in them. I'm not sure if accusing people of being 'proud' of their ignorance of science is quite the best way to start encouraging a wider public to engage with it...

Also, I was sure I heard the disbelieving gasps of several hundred thousand humanities researchers at the suggestion that their disciplines are prioritised above science.

We have 'core hours' of 9am-4pm in which all things are meant to be scheduled. Fair enough, I suppose, if it has been agreed upon. But what this has meant in practice is that nearly every seminar is a lunchtime seminar now. I had actually been thinking of starting a thread here asking if anybody else actually ate lunch in lunchtime seminars, because I seem to be the only one. But if I'm going to be teaching and having meetings all day, and I want to attend a seminar and it's during lunch, well, then, yes, I'm bringing my food. I feel weird, though, constantly being the only one eating. I think I would prefer a few 4-5pm seminars instead of everything smack in the middle of the day.

Hovis, yeah, the article didn't quite sit well with me. Perhaps because the author is such a bigwig (see his creds at the end!), he may come off a little more overly pushy with his science? I don't think I've ever had anyone in a social situation back away like that. I get some polite-ish questions, and then we talk about something else. And I do stuff that others in my field will actually do the back away 'yeah, that's beyond me' response! Lay people seem to handle it better. Although it is a point that it is socially acceptable to be not up on science subjects, whereas saying "I don't really know anything about music" does get you considered odd. (I can attest - I had a strange upbringing, where all sound-producing devices were not allowed in the home, so I really do barely know anything about music, and find it quite a struggle to avoid social censure when the topic turns to it. I had to pick a favourite singer in high school to stop teasing, never having heard the music. I'm doing my best to catch up, but there is a lot learn!)

We have some "core hours" rules for admin offices only, but there aren't any real rules and the idea is each office specifies their own actual hours.
I'd love to leave at 4 or, ideally, 3 so I don't have to arrange after school care when DC1 starts school. But not get paid less of course (as far as I know this colleague, and the partner, both work full time)

I don't think most scientists feel that this article was particularly helpful.

I was sure I heard the disbelieving gasps of several hundred thousand humanities researchers at the suggestion that their disciplines are prioritised above science.

But you implicitly mean academic research and funding, whereas the article is more about numbers of students and discussion in the media/society, than academic research.

It is very sad at so few pupils in this country study science and that the system makes pupils specialise so early. Currently we produce twice as many history graduates every year as we do physicists. We produce about three times as many law graduates every year as we do mathematics graduates. (HESA numbers for the latter may look larger but they include actuarial and other finance degrees.) Moreover, of our STEM graduates significant fractions are international students. I think it is indisputable that we are underproducing STEM graduates, relative to what we need and relative to other countries. But the article wasn't really discussing this, except indirectly i.e. science is not valued by society.

On the other hand, when people lament the loss of Horizon, Tomorrow's World and science sections in broadsheets, I'm sure they could equally lament the loss of programmes related to humanities and arts, and the general dumbing down of the media i.e. it is not just a science problem.

Finally: humanities funding may well be bad, but so is science funding. My research area gets approximately 1/3 as much funding per academic as it would elsewhere in the world. Meanwhile Mr Osborne, who has no science qualifications beyond O level, is siphoning off large chunks of money to fund his own pet science and science infrastructure projects...

I get annoyed with people who claim to work full-time but then can't ever be scheduled after 4pm or before 10am, or on Mondays or whatever.

Just had a meeting cancelled by somebody with a sick child. Fair enough, except that I know their partner doesn't work...(and it's a minor illness, not one which would usually require both parents staying home).

That's exactly it disquit. I don't work full time so find it hard enough to schedule meetings as it is without people getting paid more than me not being available at times when I make an effort to be at work.

Now I'm feeling weird, because I probably come under that category. Except I don't just claim to work full time, I do (and a bit more). I've been obsessively counting my hours particularly because I don't want to under-work. But I have negotiated 'condensed hours' of full time in 4.5 days for my health. This means I get one afternoon off a week (during which I sleep). I do shift things around, if for example, there's a big event on my typical afternoon off, but I don't do it for everyday scheduling of meetings. And I'm facing in the coming weeks 'big' events on every afternoon of a particular week, and I am going to have to miss one, because experience has taught me skipping my afternoon off is a very bad idea.

I don't think either I or Worst meant taking one afternoon off. I certainly meant people who are never in before 10 or after 3.30, but claim to work full-time.... Or are never in at all on Mondays, only work 10-4 the other four days, but still claim to work full-time. Etc etc.

Condensed hours is completely different: this is an open and honest flexible working arrangement.

Yep, that's what I have, a formal, open flexible working arrangement. This is expecting everyone else to fit round a vague unwritten expectation.

disquit

I was mostly being lighthearted, but I think the issues of funding and perception are possibly connected in quite interesting ways. When I got my doctoral funding I had a conversation with an acquaintance who basically said that work like mine shouldn't be getting taxpayer's money. I think that part of that sort of perception comes from the fact that the subject I do is more accessible to the general public. As it's something most people can understand why should I be paid to do it? People might be more interested / able to converse about history or literature, but that doesn't mean they necessarily understand what they as academic subject consists of (any more than they would know about physics).

The article also got me thinking about impact (sorry!). In my subject, I would think the vast majority of impact case studies relate to public engagement and promoting the subject to a non-academic audience. Obviously, it's very different for sciences, because they can have massive practical impact. But I wonder whether that might have an influence, however slight, in terms of differing public perceptions of humanities vs sciences?

I agree that problems start at school level, though. I think especially at A Level students are encouraged to choose between humanities and sciences - it's presented as pointless to do, say, one science along with two humanities subjects, when actually I think there could be a lot of value in that in general societal terms.

As for George Osborne, when he became Chancellor I had friends who hadn't even finished their undergraduate degrees who were better qualified in economics than he was...

The problem is that, while some sciences do have massive practical impact, many don't, at least in the short-term. For example, think of astronomy or pure mathematics (Fermat's Last Theorem etc). There is huge, huge pressure on scientists who work on areas with no practical impact to move to areas with practical impact. This is true even for scientists who work in research areas which are fascinating to the general public and attract lots of people to public events or TV programmes (so can demonstrate massive public engagement). It is a very nasty side effect of the REF, which I think this country will come to regret.

Even when gravitational wave detection was announced a few weeks ago there were lots of comments on newspaper articles saying that this sort of science shouldn't be funded by the public, as it is not practically useful. (It's very hard to explain to the general public how gravitational wave experiments probably will be directly useful, in terms of both technology and advances in science, but maybe not for a few decades.)

Totally agree disquit. Not all research - in any fields - needs to be impact-generating. Indeed, we need non impact-generating research to provide insights and resources on which to base other research! My topic has a very very obvious popular angle, but in order to do it I'm drawing on the type of work that would never be seen as 'valuable' in terms of the impact it has. Indirect 'usefulness' is just as important as immediate impact!

Confession: have not read the article.
However a PhD contemporary in humanities was moaning about the fact that her daughter was being "forced" to do a science at GCSE despite not being interested in science and the conversation (I can only assume amongst humanities people) degenerated into how this government was promoting science at the expense of humanities because it wanted to build up the military machine a la Japan pre WWII.

Oh the backpedalling when I said that I was an academic in STEM and not a warmonger nor indeed a Tory (it seemed rather surprising to them that anyone in science could be liberal politically).

I also wish that children did not have to specialise so early however this particular teenager wanted to drop all science GCSEs IIRC and take about four arts/humanities subjects. Though of course you can and should count Maths, it is basically only possible to take 3 basic science subjects at either GCSE or A level while the number of Arts/Humanities subjects is more or less limitless* - history, any number of languages, English Lit, drama, music, art, photography etc. etc.

*Apologies to those in Psychology, Geography etc.

Worstofbothworlds I think yabu about your colleague's complaint that a 4-5 seminar slot doesn't fit with childcare. How do you know they clock off at 4? Maybe they have to leave at 4:45 and don't want to be so rude as to walk out of a seminar before it's over? Maybe they live further away than you and traffic becomes impossible if they leave after 5? Maybe they work evenings and weekends just to manage to pick up their kids in time (as they probably do, like most of us)? Unless you live next door to them and have your kids in the same school (or whatever), the childcare options you researched probably don't apply to them.

I know you said you came on for a rant, but it does sound a bit odd that you're so worked up about it. Why shouldn't someone complain that they'd love to attend seminars but couldn't because of immovable reason X? I would.

I admit I'm ranting back, but it's because my former HoD used to give people such a hard time for anything childcare-related that I have no patience with the "I manage it so why can't you" argument anymore. Any sensible department is flexible about these things.

I am ranting because when I pointed out the campus nursery doesn't allow for teaching past 5 I was given two years of moaning and very stressful meetings with the HoD in which I was made to feel like a shirker, and eventually fought VERY VERY hard to be allowed to officially set my finish time at all. And I chose this childcare as the one giving me the very best chance of working hours that don't annoy colleagues.

Maybe this colleague does need to leave at 4.45 not 4 but I have agreed to take less pay so my working hours are guaranteed to fit round my childcare, because of the lack of flexibility of the childcare. This colleague though seems to think that they should be able to get paid full time but fix their hours at less than full time. So why can't I do that? I'd love to do that.

So you just what your colleague has? Understandable, I guess, but not really their fault, especially if you're just guessing what their work arrangements are.

There's a big difference between being present in the university and being "at work", though. I work some evenings when my ds is asleep, take fewer holidays than I'm entitled to, and so on. I know I clock up more than my nominal 1650 annual hours. But I'm rarely in the office before 9:30, usually leave before 5, and work at home as much as I can. I work more hours on days I work from home because I don't have the commute. It was almost the same before I had kids, tbh - I've never worked 9-5. Maybe some of my colleagues think I'm taking the piss and not working full-time, but they'd be quite wrong.

Sometimes I envy people who actually stop work when they go home in the evening (I get the impression you might be in that category worse, but correct me if I'm wrong), but it wouldn't suit me or my situation.

Since there are multiple ways of working an academic job, with no set hours, it makes sense to be as flexible as possible when it comes to departmental events that everyone is meant to attend. If that means earlier seminar slots or staff meetings that don't start at 9am, then do it! Let the maximum number of people attend! It would be counterproductive not to.

But nothing will ever change unless people speak up.

I do know my colleague is being paid full time because there is only one other part timer and I know that when I tried to fix my hours and days informally I was given huge grief and basically told that I can't do that, even if I'm part time, because academics are just supposed to work all the hours there are and "other people manage". So it makes me spit feathers honestly when someone else does exactly what I asked to do but was told wasn't possible.

I can't really work in the evenings, except very occasionally, because by the time the DCs are in bed and have stopped screaming and I've eaten my dinner, and got everything ready for them for the next day, usually including making a meal or two for somebody, I have about an hour left before I need to go to sleep myself, and I'm not fit for human conversation let alone actually making sense on paper. I do squeeze in a bit of marking while vegging out in front of the telly, on occasion, but can't manage anything more taxing without making serious errors.

The DCs are not at all understanding of anyone doing anything on a computer while they are awake, either, so nothing gets done at the weekends, though honestly I don't want to then. Not that I particularly want to during the week, but pre-DCs I didn't mind either staying later at the office or polishing something off in the evenings, but now I have neither time nor energy. Nor childcare to stay late, in fact.

I agree that one has to look at hours in the office in conjunction with other things. So suppose:

• Person A is rarely in before 9.30 and leaves before 4. A produces very little research and hasn't obtained research funding in a long time. Their REF outputs are low 3s or maybe 2s. Their teaching isn't good, according to a variety of measures. They don't contribute much around the department and frequently miss committee meetings they should be attending.

• Person B is also rarely in before 9.30 and leaves before 4. But A produces a lot of highly regarded research, REF scores 3 and 4, has had a grant recently. Teaching is very good and they are always willing to go the extra mile for admin tasks and will attend anything important that happens after 4pm.

• Person C is never seen around the department much. C is a research superstar, REF scores high 4, lots of large grants (although doesn't really look after PhD students/researchers funded by grants). C is on a reduced teaching load but doesn't teach well and C tries to keep away from all admin tasks.

A and B would be viewed very differently, despite working similar hours in the office, as it seems clear that B is working much more overall. In fact I would suspect that most people wouldn't really notice B's working hours, as there's no issue: everything is getting done. A's working hours get noticed primarily because they are underperforming in all areas.

C isn't really behaving as a good citizen but will probably be given a free pass to carry on as they are because of their strong research. Interesting to see whether the TEF will change this.

disquit Exactly! I consider person B a sort of default in academia (at least based on the depts I've worked in), and much more common than a 9-5 or 9-6 set hours.

Person A should be tackled in their annual review purely on performance, not their hours. Person C might be impacted by TEF but my guess is not, as long as the research £££ keeps rolling in.

I consider person B a sort of default in academia.

I think this is very much research field dependent, though. Person B - somebody who works in the department

We had a C but nobody ever spoke to them and they left. We were not surprised. We hope they speak to someone in their new department, but we aren't holding our breath.

My point has very little to do with productivity. If it was all about productivity I would not care when anyone was in the office as long as they were collegiate (which does include: not expecting a reply to an email at 10pm) and generally available to participate in teaching/meetings/seminars when those were scheduled. The rest of their time I care not a jot what they do with it.

My point is that, despite as everyone says academia generally being about fixing your own hours, getting things done when you can/are most productive, I have been put through the mill for not being able to teach past 5 or being able to promise to switch my working days.

I have had disciplinary meetings, I have looked at large numbers of alternative childcare provisions (none would have worked to achieve this), I've been told I'm shirking, that academics never have fixed hours and that I shouldn't expect to be an exception, that "everyone else manages this" (everyone who has a partner on site/on tap, that is), and that my offer to completely re-jig our lab timetable was "putting the cart before the horse" (apparently I'm the cart).

Because I don't feel that my childcare issues are really anyone else's problem, I've kept this to myself and one or two other colleagues. I have not announced to the whole department that the lab classes need changing and please would they all get together and change them for me. I did as I say offer to sit down with another colleague and re-do the whole timetable for our in-department lab but this was not acceptable apparently. The other colleague and I pointed out that our students don't like having labs till 6 either, but again this was not deemed to be relevant.

So I ended up putting in an official flexible working request - which was resisted MASSIVELY, academics can't fix their hours, you have to be available whenever the department wants you apparently - fixing my working hours and days, and reducing my salary.

I probably could have carried on fighting each individual request to teach on a day/at an hour when I didn't have childcare but I decided that it was easier to have all the fight at the same time, and formalise my reduced salary.

Maybe I should suggest this as a tip to the colleague in question. I wonder what they'd think about reducing their salary?

I think the "you have to be available whenever the department wants you" idea is quite dangerous, as it's the opposite of the flexible working standard that all departments have to pursue if they want an Athena Swan award. And since no one will be able to get RCUK funding without Athena swan, it's pretty antediluvian for a department to refuse formal and informal flexible working arrangements. I certainly wouldn't want to work in a department like that.

It sounds like you may have been treated quite unfairly in the past worse, but surely it's more collegiate to hope that your colleague isn't treated just as unfairly?

When enough people flag up childcare and other responsibilities outside work, the culture itself shifts to absorb it as the norm. I've seen it happen in my own department, and it's all to the good. We don't expect colleague X to be around after 4:30 because he's a lone parent and has to make pickup, we don't schedule meetings before 10 because some part-time colleagues don't start til then, we make sure seminars end by 4 so no one is excluded from attending by responsibilities outside work, etc. Teaching is trickier as it's centrally timetabled, but the university itself does nominally support accommodating childcare and other restrictions so if someone is unlucky enough to get a 5-6 slot who can't make it, then we do try to move it.

You might even find that a culture shift would help you renegotiate your own contract in the future, if that's something you want to do.

The university has been really helpful about central timetabling - it was only department timetabled things (really crucial meetings on days I don't work, teaching timetabled for our department lab at late hours) that I got grief over. Including as I say a disciplinary meeting. Of course I can't publicise this because that would mean the department loses out on its Athena Swan which is negative for me too.

I am really, really happy for people to work part time officially. It's great that some people officially don't start till 10; my difficulty is at the other end of the working day, but it means that late starters will be sympathetic to not asking me to teach at 5.

I like working part time. I like that I can say no, I don't work that day/at that time. What is very difficult for me, as a part timer, is when someone who is getting paid full time isn't available for something that I'm really struggling to schedule during MY working hours, because surely part time hours should be a subset of full time hours?

I know I'm being a grumpy old woman but I'm not sure people see how this makes part-timers lives more awkward. I still have to go to 100% of staff meetings and seminars, and a slew of other meetings and some days I entirely fill with meetings because either they are scheduled for my working days (when I'd happily not go!) or I actually set my working days/hours to fit them in (I was told I would not be allowed to set my working days to not work on staff meeting/seminar day).

(OK I am actually doing some paper revisions today as I have no teaching or meetings but sometimes it feels like that!)