Queens UCU: probation petition

The idea of applying such "standards" to staff on probation, or retrospectively to staff in post, implies a worrying misunderstanding of the scale of external resources available to academics (particularly in the Arts & Humanities). It is managerialism disconnected from economic reality. Given that Vision 2020 is designed to contend with the current economic climate in HE in N. Ireland, one would expect a more supple, imaginative and situation-specific response. Any response would also benefit from genuine consultation with the academic body (there has been none to date) in keeping with the rhetoric of transparency and inclusivity that is repeated throughout Vision 2020 documentation.

If the University wishes to recruit and retain the very best staff, these individuals must be allowed to embark on their careers without the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

The top Russell Group Universities do not place these funding expectations on Arts and Humanities staff, well aware that they would fail to attract the best researchers if they did so. The lack of consultation about Academic Standards with the staff to whom they apply is nowhere more apparent than in these changes to probation.

This is unrealistic and unreasonable requirement; completely out of kilter with comparator univeristies, and will not only be punitive but counterproductive in terms of driving good staff away

I believe that ECRs should be given time and support to build up grant writing expertise rather than being required, as a matter of principal, to attract research funding. We should motivate our ECRs as much as we can, rather than put unnecessary pressure on them.

This policy is a terrible mistake. Queen's is going to lose a lot of talented young staff because of it. Moreover, those in search of a good university in which to start their career will look at other institutions: those with sensible approaches to HR and mentoring.

These academic standards are unfair, punitive and counter productive for both staff and students. They do not reflect many of the factors on which funding for research projects depends. The new probation criteria is damaging the reputation of QUB as a higher education institution.

Probationers, who are selected on the basis of their outstanding academic abilities, potentially represent the future of the University. It should be in the University’s interest to support and develop their talents, not to impose unjust targets that will potentially drive away the best.

The expectation that staff on probation should attain funding and act as a Principal Investigator on a project is out of line with probation requirements in other universities. The award of research funding is dependent on a range of factors, including funding resources, stage in funding cycle, topic area etc. It is inherently unfair to assess someone on factors that are outside of their control.

An unrealistic and unfair change. Good early career applicants will avoid QUB and the longed-for rocket up the league tables will fail to materialise

Counterproductive targets that focus on income rather than quality of outputs creates an unpleasant working atmosphere of fear, drives current staff away and fails to attract the caliber of staff needed as those who are discerning will go to our comparators that have not implemented such punitive standards. Universities have NOT been run as businesses for 2,402 years and they've fared alright.

These standards will lead to a haemorrhage of talented young staff.

Not only are these changes unlawful and unrealistic, they are counter-productive in a myriad of ways. They will also have a detrimental effect on recruitment; what promising ECR will ever decide to apply for a position in such a Draconian institution?

This is a sure-fire way of losing promising new academics, who will simply chose to take their skills elsewhere.

Retrospective changes to employment conditions are unfair and unlikely to achieve management objectives with respect to research income and reputation. Establishing a supportive rather than a punitive academic environment is much more likely to be successful in both respects.

I do not agree with retrospective application of new rules.

These changes to probation are clearly unfair, punitive and unrealistic. If implemented they will effectively dilute the principles and point of probation, and dissuade early career researchers from coming to (or staying in) Queen's. To apply these changes retrospectively to staff (unilaterally, without consultation) amounts to a de facto (if not de jure) change of contract,and is palpably unjust. Please reinstate the original criteria.

Not only will this lead to our best young colleagues leaving Queen's, it will also deter scholars of international importance from applying for, or taking up, jobs at Queen's. This is precisely the wrong impact that we will have on our institution, our international research standing, and on the students we teach.

A counterproductive move that is already causing our best young staff, with the best publication records (and therefore mobile) to start looking outside of the institution and to consider moving at the perceived injustice of having the goalposts moved, retrospectively. Very capable staff have been needlessly antagonised and upset by the tone and blanket application of the recent letter.

The new probation (and academic) standards represent a fundamental and unacceptable change to our conditions of employment.