A very Stalinist management model

Illuminating thanks. If only the priority of government was the upholding of academic standards.

Professor Brandist summarises what is evident to any person knowledgeable about the workings of the communist systems in Eastern Europe before 1989. Many subtle features of East European authoritarianism have been adopted in the process of creeping Stalinisation by the managers of UK universities. The play Memorandum by the Czech playwright (and later President) Václav Havel from 1967 can in fact be interpreted today as a brilliant analysis of the situation in UK universities, although the author originally intended it as a satire directed against the communist system. The play explores the non-communicative functions of language. In the Memorandum, the communicative role of language has been abolished. Language has been turned into a jargon and its only role is to indicate who is in power. The better you are at using the jargon, the more powerful you become. This seems to capture brilliantly the current situation at UK universities.

I generally agree with the above, but from experience of the various Universities I've worked in and been associated with, there are some areas where what actually happens in Departments often differs very significantly from the official policies and procedures emanating from the Centre. If only Heads of Departments/operational HR in all institutions across the sector WOULD follow the official line and consistently apply their published policies and procedures, there might be substantial savings in legal costs and payouts- see this week's shocking article by Paul Jump. Sadly, the current audit culture in HE does not seem to be applied to these matters. Consistent and transparent audit of HR operational procedures could save money, as well as actually improving both an institution's culture and its reputation.

This article breathes the fresh air needed by our stale higher ed system. The only part I'd argue with is the final paragraph. I'm not sure we do all have the freedom now to resist the Stalinist management that is strangling the proper function of universities. At my institution, the jargon-addled management would take a very dim view of any such challenge. It believes it is right because it is right. One cannot argue with that, not without preparing for the sack.

Craig Brandist offers an admirable analysis of the organisation of many HE institutions in the UK. There is little sympathy between 'managers' (a term unknown 10 years ago in universities) and the academics they purport to lead. HoDs are rewarded for delivering the Vice Chancellor's 'vision' rather than responding to the aspirations of their staff and students. Particularly in post-1992 universities, we have seen the reproduction of a cadre of managers who perceive themselves as a new kind of officer class. Perhaps the best way to preserve the collegial ethos is to rotate the position of HoD among senior academics. Let us see then, if impossible or contradictory edicts are maintained, if managers understand that these will constitute their working conditions in 2 or 3 years time.

It would be very easy to rectify the situation. All that would have to be done would be to introduce democracy into UK universities. Academic staff should be able to elect heads of departments, colleges and vice-chancellors. Incidentally, this is what happens in many European countries, including (this adds insult to injury!) the universities in former communist countries. Not in the UK, though. Why not? Why are academics not fighting for their natural right to elect their superiors? Isn't the UK supposed to be a democracy?

(Today I saw Brandist's essay on Bakhtin on academia and then downloaded Bakhtin's book on Rabelais. That is how I got here, googling Brandist). Amazing. I am stunned by this piece on managerialism, and also by the wonderful comments. The newspaper "The Australian" has an education supplement every Wednesday. I continue to read it because sometimes there are good articles commenting ironically on bureaucracy. But overwhelmingly, the writing by professors and vice-chancellors in "The Australian" education supplement is in a pidgin English (an "English for special purposes") taken out of some managerialist playbook ("The 60 minute CEO", perhaps. Or a book yet to be written, "The 60 minute vice-chancellor"). In truth, I love pidgin English (as it has emerged spontaneously in islands near northern Australia) and have no doubt that it possible to make good interpretations of what vice-chancellors are saying. Perhaps one day we will have wise robots like angels at our shoulder, each with the power of a world champion chess players (or even the power of a billion world champion chess players), who can find good interpretations.