THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF A SCHOOL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES

THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF A SCHOOL OF

EUROPEAN STUDIES BY STEPHEN HOLT

Professor of European Studies and Chairman of the Undergraduate School of European Studies, University of Bradford

MOST undergraduate degree courses in European Studies include major subjects that have not traditionally been associated together in the same departments. It is true, of course, that university departments have worked together in joint degrees like Economics and Politics, History and Politics, etc. Indeed, some universities allow the student a very wide choice of combination, including some subjects with no apparent affinity. Subsidiary subjects in single honours degrees also have a long tradition. But in both these cases there is rarely an attempt to ‘integrate’ one part of the degree with the other. Accordingly, once the course has been put together, and as long as the departments concerned consult each other about timetable changes, no significant extra demands are made on the staff involved.

An interdisciplinary degree has more ambitious objectives in that it seeks to establish long-term ‘relationships’ between subjects even if these fall short of marriage. In the Arts/Social Sciences area this is a very difficult exercise indeed. The difficulties, moreover, exist on two levels, (a) the charting of the new relationships between the academic disciplines themselves and (b) the forging of new relations between the staff who teach these disciplines. Elsewhere in this Journal, Alan Milward discusses the academic problems involved in the development of European Studies degrees. This article concen- trates on organizational problems, using as a case study the School of European Studies at Bradford University. Here new structures have emerged to meet the special needs of our European Studies degree, over and above those existing already, to cater for other interdisciplinary degree courses in the university.

When the University of Bradford altered its status from a College of Advanced Technology to a University in 1966, it adopted at the

8 1

82 JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES

outset a ‘School’ rather than a traditional departmental structure. This was to provide the flexibility which would be helpful to the development of interdisciplinary degrees. Each member of staff belongs to a School on whose degree course he teaches. This means that most of us belong to more than one School and where our contribution is at all large we are expected to appear at meetings and take an active part in the School’s deliberations.

In addition to belonging to his respective School, each member of staff is attached to a Professor known as his ‘Named Person’. In most cases the ‘Named Person’ will be a specialist in the same subject as his staff or, in the case of interdisciplinary Chairs a ‘neigh- bouring’ subject. He is expected to look after his staff’s interests at promotion time, decide on teaching load, etc. There are 11 staff attached to the Chair of European Studies in the subjects of Politics, Economics, History and Geography. Most of these staff belong to three separate Schools-Social Sciences, Modern Languages and European Studies. They have never been called together as a This has been a deliberate policy so as not to build up any rivaf%:& of group loyalty to that of the Schools. There are in an case too many meetings to attend and in practice staff only attenzregularly the meetin s of the Schools where their major teaching contribu-

from a distance and attend only when something comes up that special1 interests them.

As x e School of European Studies runs two degree courses (European Studies and European Industrial Studies) both of which contain many options, a very large number of staff have exercised their right to be members and the total now is 85. It was clear, when the courses were originally planned, that this would eventually be the case and it presented serious problems in relation to the School’s internal government. How were all these members of staff to be induced to feel that they were participating in the formation of the School’s licy without the whole process of consultation

helpful at this point if a brief explanation is given of the content of our two degree courses, because this gives a broad picture of the complexity of the problem that had to be solved.

When the School of European Studies was founded in 1971, it had to establish itself alongside, or more accurately between, two well established Schools in the shape of Modern Lan uages and Social Sciences. It was to draw heavily on both; in t i e B.A. in European Studies, students specializing in Western Europe study one European language (French or German) and select one ‘major’

tion lies. T a ey keep an eye on the activities of their other Schools

becoming unwie Y dy? Before discussing this problem, it might be

GOVERNMENT OF A SCHOOL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES 83

Social Science subject from Politics, Economics or Sociology. They also study a number of additional subjects like Modern European History, European Cultural and Intellectual History, etc. There is a small group specializing in Eastern Europe whose main language is German, but they alone study a minor language as well (Romanian or SerbeCroat). They take one course less and do not write a dissertation. It takes four years to obtain the degree, the third year being spent abroad in a continental university on a course appro- priate to the students Social Science ‘major’. In the two main ‘pillars’ of his course-language and his Social Science subject, the European Studies student spends approximately the same amount of time as does a Modern Language or Social Science student in that subject. He is accordingly expected to reach a comparable standard at the end. While he has more courses to take (e.g. European His- tory, etc.), h s is possible because an extra year is available. The Social Science School has a three year course with no foreign place- ment and the School of Modern Languages, while following a four year course, sends nearly all its students into industrial placements. The latter placements moreover take place between the middle of the second and the middle of the third years. In sharing some courses with these other two Schools, therefore, the whole matter was complicated by three different degree course patterns. In their language, students of European Studies and Modern Languages follow a common course in the first year and then diverge. This is not only caused by the administrative difficulties just mentioned, but by the fact that some different linguistic skills are taught in each School. In language, part of the curriculum is ‘integrated’ with the Social Science part in that the students learn the appro- priate concepts and vocabulary in the relevant language. On the Social Science side, students take four courses, three of them in common with Social Science students, plus a fourth ‘linking’ course, i.e., in Politics this is European Government, in Economics it is European Economic Cooperation, and in Sociology it is Urban Industrial Society.

While progress is bein made on the integration of the Arts/

exaggeration to say that the degree was yet interdisciplinary. It would be more accurate to call it ‘a multi-disciplinary degree with interdisciplinary as irations’. If, on the other hand, our aspirations

done no worse than a dual honours student at a traditional university, who has taken a language with a Social Science subject.

Social Science elements o B the course, it would be an unwarranted

towards interdiscip F inarity do not fully materialize, the student has


Indeed, even with the limited progress we have made so far he will leave with a considerably more integrated degree.

The degree course explained above is not particularly complex from the student’s point of view. The problems of running the School arise from the large number of staff involved in our various options and the competing claims on them from the other Schools in which they teach and where they are often doing most of their work. It is im ossible to protect the student entirely from the consequences of this situation, although the main area where it affects them is the timetable. Consequent problems for students and staff can only be solved if there is genuine goodwill towards Euro- pean Studies amongst the staff in the constituent subjects of the degree, but whose main work is elsewhere. In Bradford we have been very fortunate that this has been the case. Any university or polytechnic contemplating starting a European Studies pro ramme should first ascertain that there is positive support for k e idea among the staff of the subjects who will have to service it. The willingness to allow European Studies to start is not enough. The small group appointed to teach and promote the new degree are unlikely nowadays to be numerous enou h to manage on their own; they will need a large bod of other co K leagues who are willing to put themselves out to see t i e new venture succeed.

Whether or not suitable conditions exist to develop European Studies in a particular institution can only be judged by those who work there. In the case of Bradford it has undoubtedly been helpful that as a young university with many of its staff newly appointed, there have been no long standing vested interests to break down. The whole period since 1966 has been one of development and change and the atmosphere congenial for ex riment. Other major

Science, Peace Studies, Human Purposes and Communication, etc. But there has been another major factor which has been im-

portant in enlisting the cooperation of other Schools and that is the special constitutional structure of the School of European Studies which is unique in the universit It was approved by Senate to meet our particular needs and, w K; ‘le it is not yet working in practice as well as it should, we are slowly improving Within a few years the practice should more nearly match the theory.

Throu hout most of the rest of the University, the principal

Chairman and the School’s Staff /Student Liaison Committee. Schools normally meet two or three times a term and Staf/Student Liaison Committees should meet as often. While the resolutions of

‘new ventures’ have been proceeding in para I” lel like Environmental

bodies w fl ich a Professor must consult are the School of which he is


both bodies are not binding on the Professor concerned, it is ex- tremely rare for Senate to have to decide between conflicting recom- mendations from them. But whatever the position may be about who has the legal right to make decisions, actual consultation with Schools is statutory for a whole range of issues like changes in course structure or in a syllabus, examination methods, student placements abroad, etc. In addition Senate regularly refers a host of minor items to Schools for discussion and report back.

For the School of European Studies to have followed this pattern would have been impossible. It would have been quite unrealistic to expect 85 staff to devote three afternoons a term in addition to the meetings of their other Schools to come and discuss our affairs. To have sent them all the documentation normal for a School Meeting would also have been a mammoth task for the secretarial staff, not to mention the waste of paper on documents that would not be read. However, if it was agreed that such a procedure would be im- practicable, how could we ensure that those who were interested and had the time to take part in the School’s affairs would not be excluded ?

A series of devices were set up to enable a form of ‘natural selec- tion’ to take place. Each group of staff teaching the main constituent subjects of our two degree courses were asked to elect one of their number to represent them on a ‘Standing Committee’ of the School. In almost every case, the staff concerned elected a colleague who was heavily engaged in teaching European Studies students. It is his job to report back to his colleagues in subject group meetings, some of which are being called an way to discuss other matters. When

versity Senate were persuaded to give it plenary powers, leaving the other members of the School to be called together once a year at an AGM to discuss the Chairman’s annual report. While on the sur- face this appeared to take away rights which School members not on the Standing Committee had in other Schools, a series of safeguards were built into our new Constitution to protect their position. These safeguards act as a check both on the Chairman and on the Standing Committee itself.

A week before each meeting of the Standing Committee, all 85 members of the School receive a single sheet agenda but none of the accompanying documents which have gone to Standing Com- mittee Members. Anyone wishing to take a personal interest in a particular item or wishing to express a view has the following rights. First, he can contact the European Studies ofice and ask for the documentation on one or more items to be sent to him. Then he

this Standing Committee ha B been established, the Bradford Uni-


can contact his elected representative on the Standing Committee and ask him to raise a question or state a view on his behalf. If, for some reason it is felt that this procedure will not suffice, any member of the School, whether he is on the Standing Committee or not, may attend a particular meeting to put his view in person. All he has to do is to notify the Chairman in advance that he will be coming. Furthermore, if a member of the School with or without his personal attendance wishes to circulate a document, then the Standing Committee must receive it.

Once a meeting is over the decisions that have been reached appear in the Minutes. Here again, while copies of the Minutes are auto- matically circulated only to members of the Standing Committee, any member of the School may receive one if he asks for it. Alterna- tively, he can consult the master copy in the European Studies ofice. In practice, the rights just mentioned are very rarely exercised and there has never yet been a resort to one further safeguard-the callin of an Extraordinary General Meetin by members of the

signatures of half the members of the School. (This figure is prob ably too high but we were required to comply here with existing University Statutes). If such a meeting were to be called following a controversial decision by the Standing Committee, the item concerned could not be passed forward to the Board of Studies and Senate until the Extraordinary Meeting of the School had taken place and there had been an opportunity to reverse it.

No governmental arrangements in a university nowadays can be concluded without a consideration of student participation. Ths naturally arose durin the discussion on our new Constitution and

mittee. The latter Committee was meeting each time the School met and the staff members had to give up yet another afternoon to go over the same ground with the students. As these members of staff belonged to other Schools as well, it really did all seem a very uneconomic use of their time. Accordingly, for this practical reason, when the Standing Committee itself was formed it was decided to add the student re resentatives to it from the outset. The students

ing is done’, even though for the time being they are without voting rights. This again was settled for us by university regulations, but these are likely to be changed in the near future. The students in each ear of each of our two degree courses elect a member to the

system of the Alternative Vote.

Schoo B not on the Standing Committee. Sucf a request needs the

was considered by t a e Schools then Staff/Student Liaison Com-

themselves natural P y preferred to be ‘in the kitchen where the cook-

Stan J ing Committee. They are elected by secret ballot using the


Bringing the students onto the Standing Committee has in itself led to no change in the amount of time they spend on committee work. However, it immediately raised the consequential question of whether they should also be re resented on all Sub-Committees

would seem to be yes, it would have led to the individuals concerned devoting an unfair share of their time to these duties to the detriment of their own studies. (This is particularly true in a new, developing School.) It is already the case in British Universities that the academic work of some members of staff suffers because of the time they have to spend on Committees. It could be ar ed, how-

work. Students on the other hand do not and are in a university in a different capacity. We accordingly decided that students would have the right to representation on the School’s Sub-committees and Working Parties but would only be put on them if they actually requested it.

On those occasions when students have sat on Sub-Committeesy it has sometimes been necessary to divide the Agenda into ‘Restricted’ and ‘Unrestricted’ parts as we have to for the Standing Committee. The ‘Restricted’ part is kept to an absolute minimum and is taken in the latter part of the meeting after the students representatives have left. Here we deal with some (but not all) aspects of examina- tions, discuss the progress of individual students, and so on.

Having now ex lained the system and discussed the reasons

and Working Parties of the Sc 1 001. While the logical answer

ever, that they do receive a proper salary for including t 8: s kind of

which led us to a c f opt it we must now consider how successful it has been and what lessons have been learned.

In an organization where those with the day to day executive responsi ll ility have to submit themselves to a legislative/consultative body, it is vitally important that the latter body is truly representative of the wider group of people affected. While this is thought by most people to be right in principle, it is obviously necessary in practice too, because the bargains worked out with the executive have to ‘stick’ when they come to be carried out. In the School of European Studies at Bradford, a Standing Committee of 22 people has to fulfil this function for a School of eighty-five. Accordingly, it was decided that any member of the Standing Committee unable to attend a meeting was personally responsible €or finding a substi- tute to attend in his lace, fully briefed on his views. While the

times the staff have not. This is partly because of competition between too many meetings for too little time. For example, no member of the French Language Group can conveniently attend

students have invariab P y been able to meet this requirement, some-


a European Studies meeting if it happens to clash either with a French group meeting or a meeting of the School of Modern Languages. With so many subject groups involved in an interdisciplinary degree like European Studies, it has been something of a nightmare to find a date for a Standing Committee Meeting when no member is faced with a clash like the one just described.

This kind of difficulty, of course, need not arise in a University or Polytechnic where there is a Department of European Studies containin adequate numbers of staff who have no seriously competing ob 1 ations elsewhere. While this is administratively easier,

students including the range of course options open to him is narrower. Each institution embarking on the development of Euro- pean Studies has to weigh these alternatives in the light of the staff it has and the ways in which they are currently spendin their time.

system concerns the two-way flow of information between the Standing Committee and the constituent subject groups of the School. This is not yet working satisfactorily and there have been a few fairly serious hitches. On these occasions a decision has been made b the Standing Committee and occasionally has become

come aware of it. These have been caused either y the single sheet Agenda not being sufficiently explicit about what is to be discussed, or by the relevant Standing Committee member not reporting back to his colleagues soon enough. Clearly, in the early stages of a new School, with only a small number of students involved, it is not reasonable to expect staff whose major teaching commitments are in other Schools to hold special meetings to consider the affairs of European Studies. Accordingly, the latter have to com many more important matters when the relevant people rte o happen with to be meeting together. Presumably as the number of European Studies students gets lar er and we all get more skilled at sifting the wheat from the chaff this problem will resolve itself.

The same perhaps is true of our third difficulty which should be mentioned, namely, the ability of staff to ‘change hats’ when they are deliberating on the affairs of one School in the morning and another in the afternoon. Our university regulations require both to be given equal treatment, but clearly this is impossible in practice. It is more nearly realizable when the scale of operations of the respective Schools is broadly comparable.

Fourthly, the successful attempts we have made to reduce to a minimum the number of meetings and documentation inflicted on

it may we1 gk be the case that the range of expertise accessible to the

The second problem we have found in operating t i e Bradford

irreversi L le by the time a particular subject grou of staff have be- rl


everyone has meant that the Standing Committee meetings we do have are too Ion If agreements reached between such a small

carry them out, it is necessary to try and proceed by consensus. So far, only one vote has ever been taken and that was on a minor issue when it was very late. In practice, the need for consensus has not led to a collection of unsatisfactory compromises. There is a will to agree amongst all those involved, we just have to sit there until we have found a way.

Lastly, having put together a reasonabl integrated machine for

it is regrettable that time has not yet been found for this integration at the academic level. While several members of the School have more than one degree in different subjects, none of us received the kind of interdisciplinary training that we are trying collectively to impart to our students. It was originally ho ed that time would be

discuss in more depth what they were doing in their courses but might also study specific academic problems together. Not nearly enough of this has been done and it is the next most ur ent priority.

show on the road. In conclusion, it is impossible, in my view, to prescribe one par-

ticular structure in which to develop a European Studies degree programme. Certainly any university or lytechnic embarking on

severe constraints of limited resources. It will not be able to make a dozen new appointments from scratch and set up a Department along accepted traditional lines. If such a departmental unit is to be found it is likely to be done by moving teaching staff from existing departments to a newly created one. The difficulties of bringing about such a reshuffle do not need elaboration. In these circum- stances it may still be possible to use the School method (with or without calling it such) on top of a university wide departmental system. Thereby the staff concerned would not have to sever com- pletely their existing departmental loyalties.

In the European Community we have probably reached the limits of what can be done by making agreements between Governments. If some of the forthcoming policies on the Community’s agenda are to succeed they will need the active involvement of the peoples of the Member States. For this to happen the study of contemporary Europe has to penetrate more obviously into the educational system, particularly in Britain. Now that the EEC Referendum is over, no

group are to ‘stic t ’ with the very much larger group that has to

the organization and government of the Sc K 001 of European Studies,

found for regular staff seminars in which co P leagues would not only

It has been a casualty of the sheer size of the task o f getting the

such a programme from now on is like p“ y to have to do so under

90 JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES doubt more institutions will be developing programmes of Euro- pean Studies. It is to be hoped that all who have been and will be engaged in this field will exchange ideas and be prepared to help each other. It is absurd and unnecessary for each of us to make the same kinds of mistakes all over again. The University Association for Contemporary European Studies has for many years provided an excellent forum for multilateral discussions in this field. Bilateral and informed contacts should proceed in parallel. In doing so we will be reasserting one of the features that has been best in the European university tradition.

THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF A SCHOOL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES

Documents

Transcript of THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF A SCHOOL OF EUROPEAN STUDIES