Www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw The Management of Academic Workloads: Improving Practice in the...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw The Management of Academic Workloads: Improving Practice in the...
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
The Management of The Management of Academic Workloads: Academic Workloads:
Improving Practice in the Improving Practice in the Sector Sector
Professor Peter BarrettProfessor Peter BarrettDr Lucinda BarrettDr Lucinda Barrett
University of SalfordUniversity of Salford
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Overview Background Current MAW practice in the sector Overview of MAW Final Report
What How
Recommendations Introduction to rest of programme
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Background
Pressure within sector - management of quality and resources, RAE, etc
Sector Surveys - Kinman and Jones, Winefield et al - show staff pressures and stress. Volume and diversity of work problematic
Universities’ difficulties in demonstrating how staff spend time – eg TR.
Problem of tensions between cultural norms of academics - autonomy v managerialism
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
MAW practice in the sector LFHE funded project – 2005/06 University workload policy Each department should develop its own system Should have various features, eg transparent,
equitable, etc And … no-one outside Personnel ever
seems to know about the policy anyway! Great diversity between and within
institutions – some excellent, a lot adequate, some dreadful
Sampling frame on: grouping (1994, Russell, CMU, etc); Size (10,000-47,000) and regional location - total 8 universities, plus 2 non HE orgs x cross-sectional sample of 7 interviews within each case = 59 interviews
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Typology of current practices
7a–2a–6b–7b–3b 8a–8b–6a–2b–5a–5b–4a3a 1b–1a 4b
Ad
va
nta
ge
s
+
Dis
ad
va
nta
ge
s
_
Can be flexible / adaptive to changes
Useful if intimate department with work demands tuned well to individual needs and aspirations
Hard for Head to know all staff / activities if large department and inefficient to do
Hard for individual to measure “equity” and potential problems for transparency, so difficult for Head to “defend” decisions
Problems accommodating large differences in task size
Difficult to feed to faculty level data
Transparency easier to see and equity easier to demonstrate
Model can be tweaked in response to consultation
Good for larger departments – can see outliers
Heads can fine tune
Model can weight elements – such as assessment load
Can work to accommodate employment contract hours
Not inclusive of all tasks
Criteria for Head’s choices unclear
Danger of comparisons / quibbles if very detailed
If using representative hours system may not be realistic
Teaching peaks still not accommodated
Some models may seem inclusive, but cap elements for research or give retrospectively as inflexible in-year
Danger that low R allocations seen as “punishment” by staff with more T, thus danger of polarising staff between T and R
Can limit necessary scope for “local” judgement by Head
Advantages of “partial”, plus …
Equity and transparency demonstrated with a tangible sense of loads
Good for complex inputs and can accommodate different staff role preferences
Ease of linking to faculty level data and other systems
Informal ComprehensivePartial
T T+A T+R
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Further findings
Approaches not discipline specific
But size matters - tendency towards comprehensive approaches in departments over 25-30 academic staff
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
HEFCE MAW Network – 2007/09 - 11
Brunel University Exeter University Greenwich University Kent University Liverpool University Napier University Royal Agricultural College Sheffield Hallam University University College Falmouth University of Salford University of Wales Institute
Cardiff
Focus on implementation
Typically …
•Identifying good practice
•Pursuing action plans
•Sharing experiences
•Extracting general lessons
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Sta
ff N
o. *Development
Comprehensive
Partial
Informal
Academic staff by systems used
Institutions
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Range of Institutional approaches to MAW
University Policy
University Policy and Framework
University-wide system
Schools Schools Schools
Schools pursue local solutions within broad
policy principles
Schools operate autonomously,
but within framework
Schools make decisions within
interactive institutional system
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Social / divergent activity
Technical / convergent
activity
Individual
Uni
vers
ityDepartm
ent
T – monitoring for reasonable consistency
of practice
S – Communicating policy. Training
S – Inputs via Union to steering groups on
policy / model
T – Skill input on MAW models
S – Debate on improvement of MAW model to fit dept
T- improved equity through use of the enhanced system
S – Appraisal discussion re aspirations
T – Allocation of work for given year
S – Debate on articulation of the University policy framework with specific departmental needs
T – Using management information to optimise resources
S – Review sector practice / opportunities
T – create consensual policy / framework and
use data for TRAC, etc
Implementation: levels and activities
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Example Prompt Questions
And so on for two pages and then for each of the other five interfaces …
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Eg implementation plan
Year / stage
Actions might typically include …
Year / stage 1
Creating a Policy
Year / stage 2
Finding an initial point of leverage
Year / stage 3
Establishing a University Framework Model
Year / stage 4
Extending the coverage of the Framework Model
Year / stage 5+
Achieving an integrated University-wide provision
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Example of social dimensions
Res
trai
nin
g
forc
esD
rivi
ng
fo
rces
Actions
R1 Multiple regulation muddying
R3 Lack of senior mg buy in
D2 Improving employee rels
R2 Over-complexity /
lack of flexibility of
model / system
R5 Resources
reqd implement esp people
R4 Differences
between some parts /
desire for autonomy
D1 External factors H+S
etc
D4 Promotion and appraisal
D5 Justify resource
allocations / efficiency gains
D3 Transparency fairness equity
A9 Briefing implementers
reinforcing core objectives
A3 Championing / cultural change
group
A2Staff surveyA7Evidence and discussion
– where are we; why bother;
effective consultation
A8 Risk analysis re
regs etc
A4 Analyse together
A5 Link MAW appraisal, strat
dev etc
A1 Elucidate connection Uni
strat
A10 Training and development
A11 Use to inform decisions eg new
courses
A6 Create a universalising
rationale
A13 Manage model from simple to
complex
www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw
Recommendations Universities should create consensually
agreed policies / frameworks for MAW, centred on equity
Heads of school do not have to wait for an institutional initiative, they can start things locally
Staff and unions should actively engage in the development of equity-orientated MAW systems
The HE funding councils have the opportunity to provide a positive stimulus … by encouraging the use of MAW data to support TRAC reporting.
Bodies like the HSE and ECU see potential in MAW data informing these issues and this deserves to be explored further.