Dear all,

With apologies for the delay, here is a summary of the responses I have had from the list regarding academic vs professional services contracts. 

The general consensus was that professional services contracts should be avoided at all costs.

Those on academic contracts and in institutions with senior lecturers or above:

•	De Montfort University
•	Glasgow Caledonian University
•	London Metropolitan University
•	Buckingham
•	St George’s, University of London
•	UWE Business School
•	Plymouth University 

The 3 respondents on professional services contracts who replied all stated why such a move would not be a positive change –  for the staff involved, for the department, or for the institution. Negative aspects for staff included the lack of progression scale and flexibility of hours as well as lack of opportunities to conduct research. One respondent stated “On an academic contract there was definitely a career track. On a PS contract there is none. For us, the only way up is out.”  Another commented that a move to a professional services contract would inhibit outside interest in hiring opportunities for the department, again highlighting the loss of academic contracts as a significant risk for the department and the institution in the longer term. The arguments you all put forward helped me significantly in writing the case for the union to take forward to HR so thank you so much. As yet I have not heard from HR but I will let you know what happens.

Many thanks again to everyone who responded to my original email.
Lizzy



____________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Hilsdon [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 January 2017 11:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What type of contracts are you on?

Dear all


In my view, Lizzy's question gets to the heart of what it means to be a 'learning developer' (LD) in our neoliberal edu-business environment. I agree with what Ursula, Rowena and Allyson say. From a management perspective, or rather the perspective of senior policymakers and HR bods, whose model for higher education is one of the provision of courses as commodities, backed up by 'services', offered to students as consumers in a competitive marketplace, then it makes perfect sense to seek to fragment and restructure traditional educational roles (in other word to resist having LDs employed and treated as academics contributing to research and teaching). This is done in order to 'target' areas of the business (e.g. student compliance with referencing conventions) where it is perceived that focusing attention there will lead to improvements in outputs and performance - and therefore to an improved market position for the university-business.

In educational terms, this is a 'deficit' model; it assumes there are some students (still referred to as 'non-traditional' - a euphemism for lower social class; nonstandard English speakers (or international students); and non neurotypical students) for whom (so the model assumes) a bit of 'remedial' work on language, study, 'key' and employability skills will bring them up to scratch and make them fit to succeed in the system, and eventually become 'good' statistics who will contribute to the kinds of data the business needs. In other words, so they will not drop out, will pass their degree, will give positive feedback in the all-important 'satisfaction' surveys, and will get into some kind of employment after graduation.

This approach - demonstrating the provision of targeted serves using phrases like "effective learning" - is also about ensuring the kinds of institutional compliance with government policies (e.g. on Widening Participation) that will maximise institutional funding.

The fragmenting of roles and increasing of control over the activities of workers like LDs is also about minimising costs; in terms of pensions, pay structure and employment benefits such as holidays, 'professional' contracts are considerably cheaper than academic ones.

In summary then, there are macro-level drivers to this tendency to resist any new appointments on academic contracts for LDs, or to replace them where possible. These drivers are associated with the ideologically-inspired policies of successive governments to 'reform' universities replacing central funding with fees, and policies such as that for WP funding and the TEF, which then lead to the financially-driven business model we see in operation on the ground in our institutions.

I think it is still true to say that most academics and LDs think students should not be seen principally as consumers, and education should not be treated as a commodity. Learning is not about notching up certain behaviours in order to comply with an index of appropriate responses, not about producing employable graduates. Rather, learning is about participating in a community of scholars and teachers who are interested in generating knowledge for the common good through study and research; and demonstrating achievement to their peers and teachers. Where LDs differ from subject academics is that they are focussed primarily on working alongside students in making sense of their study tasks. In the monetised environment that prevails, unlike subject academics, they have no course to sell and students earn no (or very few) credits from working directly with them, so they have low levels of 'capital' in Bourdieu's sense. Therefore, they are vulnerable to cost-cutting and the neoliberal drives mentioned above.

In my experience from undertaking a recent, small-scale study, where LDs are on academic contracts, they are better treated in terms of status and better integrated into the academy. More especially, where they have direct links with academic subjects - e.g. are embedded in departments - they again have a better experience and perceive themselves to be more effective in their work than those in central teams.  (It would be interesting to hear if others agree with this.)

To those who say things like, 'well we don't want a full-blown academic to do a bit of study support' I would argue that this underestimates the importance of the LD role. Of course there need to be stages in academic roles, and career progression routes. In fact, we already have these, both in more traditional roles that often lead to academic jobs (e.g., demonstrators, research assistants), and in newer roles such as coordinators for peer learning schemes and writing centres. In all of these cases, however, I think it is essential to maintain the academic status of the work, which legitimises involvement in research and publication, and offers equality with academic contracts where appropriate, or the prospect of promotion to an academic role for more junior functions.

Good luck in your work, Lizzie - I hope the discussion on the list is helpful.

All the best

John


From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Canton, Ursula
Sent: 25 January 2017 09:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What type of contracts are you on?


Dear all,

Thank you, especially Rowena, for your contributions. It reflects the conflicts we have recently experienced at our institution when our roles were reviewed: we are on academic contracts, but although 2 people have achieved promotion to Senior Lecturer level before this review (the levels in the UK tend to be Lecturer - Senior Lecturer - Reader (more research) and Professor (more management)), career progression continues to be a thorny issue, to the extent that it was excluded for the review to concentrate simply on our profile. Even without this, there was a great deal of conflict about the job profile, as the first suggestion edited out almost any aspect of research or scholarly activity, and our official job title (Academic Development Tutor) does not reflect our the grade of our posts. We were successful in suggesting changes to the job profile, the title was not changed. HR suggested they could look into promotion in the future, but it seems they are thinking about a hybrid model in which, despite being on academic contracts, promotion would mainly be based on more management responsibility.

As you said, opinions among our colleagues on these points are divided as well: while many see being on academic contracts and being research active as essential, a few are very happy with a more professional role and have no desire to do any research.

I would agree with Allyson that the main difference between these notions of what we do, are research and autonomy (and, in many cases: salary). A professional contract limits both to a greater degree, but makes the posts more accessible to staff with a background in teaching and support, rather than in research. I would consider carefully what the aims of staff members and the unit as a whole are: providing a support service or contributing research-based teaching? Perhaps a dual model that allows staff members to choose either path would be the best solution to accommodate different preferences, but then this might lead to other forms of conflict, e.g. how the different contributions are valued (see differences in salary).

For those of us who are trying to defend the idea of us being research active, academic staff (who would like to have an opportunity for promotion based on that criterion) your detailed and nuanced argument about the value of this will come in very handy, Rowena - thank you.

Best wishes


Ursula Canton PhD, MA, HEA
Learning Development Centre / School of Engineering and Built Environment
T: +44 (0)141 273 1177 |E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA

W: http://www.gcu.ac.uk/ebe/staff/ursulacanton/
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Noble, Allyson Fiona <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: 25 January 2017 06:49
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What type of contracts are you on?

Hi Lizzy,

I would urge you to resist the change to your contract.  In my previous job I was on an academic contract, which came with more autonomy and opportunities, than I have in my present role.  In Dubai, those of us on professional contracts are also paid 25% less than an academic on the same grade.

Good luck with you battle,

Allyson


Dr Allyson Noble
Effective Learning Advisor
Heriot-Watt University, Dubai Campus
PO Box: 294345, Dubai, UAE
Tel: +971 4 435 8797
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Web: www.hw.ac.uk/dubai.htm<http://www.hw.ac.uk/dubai.htm>



From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tanguay E.
Sent: 24 January 2017 21:23
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: What type of contracts are you on?

Dear all,

Our institution is currently considering whether our team should continue to have academic contracts, or should be placed on professional services contracts.

I am interested to know what kind of contract others are on and if there are generally any benefits to professional services contracts over academic contracts.  Where staff are on academic contracts, are the opportunities to apply for promotion the same as in academic departments (if you are not based in academic departments)? Are there any senior lecturers out there?

I would be grateful for any replies, on or off list.

Thank you in advance,

Lizzy

Dr Elizabeth Tanguay SF HEA
----------------------------------------------------------
Academic Success Programme Coordinator | Cydlynydd Rhaglen Llwyddiant Academaidd Centre for Academic Success | Canolfan Llwyddiant Academaidd Swansea University | Prifysgol Abertawe Singleton Park | Parc Singleton Swansea | Abertawe Wales | Cymru
SA2 8PP

Phone | Ffôn 01792 604126
Email | Ebost [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.swansea.ac.uk/cas<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/cas> | www.abertawe.ac.uk/cas<http://www.abertawe.ac.uk/cas>

[images.jpg]<http://www.twitter.com/ASP_Swansea>[facebook_logo_detail.gif]<https://www.facebook.com/academicsuccessprogramme>[blog.jpg]<http://academicsuccessblog.wordpress.com/>


________________________________

Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.


Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC021474 ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>

This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
University of Huddersfield inspiring tomorrow's professionals.
[http://marketing.hud.ac.uk/_HOSTED/EmailSig2014/EmailSigFooter.jpg]

This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and will accept no liability.