Queens UCU: probation petition

Probationers and early career colleagues are the future of our universities. These unrealistic expectations have the potential to destroy careers in their earliest days, to break confidence at the very moment it requires creative reinforcement and to put at risk the health and well-being of academics committed vocationally to teaching, research and publishing. It creates a climate of fear and patronage which has no place in an environment that can only thrive through fundamental principles of shared experience, cross-disciplinary collaboration and mutual respect. Ironically, all the modest achievements in my academic career, including most of my books, three research-based texts on prisons, the Hillsborough research and the VC's inaugural award for research impact, could not have been initiated, let alone realised, within the current operational framework.

These unjust standards reinforce a culture of competitive individualism rather than fostering a collaborative research culture within our institution. Individuals scrabbling to meet funding targets will not be able to engage in the kinds of interdisciplinary collaboration encouraged under Vision 2020. These standards represent a failure on the part of senior management to recognise and understand the nature and levels of funding needed in the context of Arts and Humanities research in particular.

The senior management at Queen's remind me of the captain of the Titanic. Full speed ahead into disaster! Queen's needs external senior management who understand modern methods of managing human resources.

Those who have an excellent CV will leave Queen's for a university that prioritise knowledge rather than profit making - thus the new policies of this university such as this one will only keep it at the lowest ranks of British HE institutions. That is actually 'management 101'...

evidence-based, effective management draws on the use of 'soft skills': mentoring, enabling, coaching, developing. It is not about creating a climate of Orwellian fear.

I totally agree that the expectation that people on probation must be awarded research grants is totally unrealistic and clearly undermining the very same ambition the University is said to have. Successful university in the world do not adopt strategies to make their staff feel demoralised . They know that humiliation does not make you be more productive or more successful. On the opposite the strategy is that of supporting and enabling people realise their potential.

Students must stand united with staff. The University are exploiting staff, and creating unworkable conditions in the name of research. Yet, it is clear, this is about costs and the lifestyle of those at the top levels of pay.

In addition to the statement, I would like to add the following concerns that need clarification: 1) How much money should be obtain, and what are the consequences of partial success? It states 'disciplinary standards' but were do we find/access the specific £ amount? 2) How does the requirement for research income fit with the recent memo discouraging us from applying to smaller grants and from foundations? In addition, how does this fit with norm that early career scholars are told then cannot buy out of teaching; again limiting the types of grants we can apply to? 3) How can the teaching requirements (e.g., peer observation within the School) be met retrospectively? 4) How was the cut-off of 4 out of 5 determined? Are there are data from the university and the schools that could demonstrate that this is a reasonable target? If so, could those be made publicly available? If not, again, what steps will be taken to consider possible bias toward lower scores for required courses (e.g., statistics). Thank you for sharing these concerns and attempting to provide answers where possible. Two final points of concern: A) The expectation of funding income while on probation will turn away qualified staff who are savvy and realize in this funding climate, that is not necessarily obtainable in three years with potentially all new, and ever-changing, teaching loads. 2) The qualified staff who DO obtain these grants may be more likely to leave QUB for more welcoming institutions, thus taking their research income with them.

Not only are the retrospective application likely illegal and the expectations unrealistic. In the long run, such measures will reduce the ability of young academic staff to develop the intellectual quality of their research.

UCU Member #A199296 - Remember Joe Hill. Only by organising as a campaigning UNION that represents all members and strives unremittingly for justice for all in the work place will the unlimited power of university dictators be corralled. ORGANISE!

A very worrying development.

These new probationary standards are simply not achievable and will result in a massive staff turnover problem in future. Queen's will become a very unattractive place for junior academics to start their careers. We will be left with only poor-quality applicants. This new unrealistic standard will also reduce the incentive for existing probationary staff to do well in other aspects of their job, like teaching, as they will start to treat their time at Queen's as being only short-term. Students will be harmed directly by the actions of senior management. Senior managers must learn that grant income is only an input into good research and is not an output in and of itself. The research of junior academics in particular is usually much less costly. Senior managers must start to think about the consequences of their decisions on the entire university. They must in future seek advice, talk to experts on human resources and personnel economics. This is a mistake that they will live to regret.

I reflect the sentiments of my peers and colleagues who have stated how problematic these changes to employment are. Please reconsider and reinstate the original criteria.

Be careful. Never confuse with quality with targets.

We are all in it!

Down with this sort of thing!

Don't be the mill owners lackey.

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically.

This will add to the problem of researchers feeling pressured to "cook up" research ideas in order to apply for grants, rather than applying for grants in order to support great research ideas. That is not a wise or efficient use of public funds - research funding should be a means to an end; not an end in itself. These standards are likely to have the perverse effect of driving some of our best people away (or deterring good people from appllying in the first place). An elite university starts with attracting AND retaining the right kind of people.

An additional injustice is threatened by the fact that the currency of Research Funding is not universal across disciplines: humanities are not as one with sciences, and 'lone researchers' in particular are disadvantaged in current structures. An assumption that grant funding plays an equal role in all fields will build unfairness into the profession. If all probationers are competing, prematurely in many cases, for a dwindling supply of funding, presumably hardly any of them will get it.