Writing on Writing

I think I’ve linked to this before, but it’s been updated. Some very interesting reflections on writing, organised by Durham University’s Anthropology department, can be found here. Anna Tsing, Tim Ingold, Bryan S. Turner, Harvey Molotch and many others.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

OWS and elsewhere

I’ve not been following recent events in New York and elsewehere especially closely, but here are a few interesting links. Hardt and Negri on ‘Real Democracy’ in Foreign Affairs. Oliver Belcher provides a genealogy and reading list here. Lenin’s Tomb discusses a visit to the one in London here; and Nina Power does the same here. The posters come courtesy of New APPS (here and here).

And also see Cindy Weber’s short film Occupylujah:

Posted in Antonio Negri, Karl Marx, Michael Hardt, Politics | Leave a comment

Zed books sale – if you’re in London tomorrow

Details here.

Posted in Publishing | Leave a comment

UCU exchange

To their credit, the UCU did reply to my message – at 10pm on Sunday, after an acknowledgement on Saturday morning. It came from Matt Waddup who is the union national head of campaigns. I’ve checked with Matt and he is happy for our exchange to be made public.

Good evening Stuart,

As promised here are my answers to your questions:

– I’ve exceeded my contracted hours this week, and yet I don’t feel I’ve moved the current article I’m writing forward sufficiently. Should I leave it sitting for another week?

ANSWER: Our advice is that you finish the task in hand but do not take on new or additional duties.

– a colleague has asked if I am willing to be involved in a grant application. I think this would be excellent for my research, for building links with colleagues at my institution and elsewhere. I would benefit, as would the university, if this was successful. But it would require time this weekend. What should I do?

ANSWER: As above. Leaving UCU’s action to one side, If you are finding yourself having to use your weekend on a regular basis to do these duties you should speak to your HoD about your workload.

– there is an opportunity for a research fellowship, but the deadline is very tight. Where do I find the time to apply for this unless I exceed my contracted hours?

As above.

– I edit a journal. What do you suggest?

As above. Our Leading Counsel describes the essence of working to contract as “refusing to go the extra mile”. If the journal is extra to your duties at Durham and is a separate contract between you and publisher, it is not directly affected by the action. If it is a central part of your duties and you do not have time to do it within a reasonable working week, I suggest you discuss with your HoD.

– should I refuse to do any external review work – grants, journal articles, book proposals and manuscripts – until this dispute is over?

If these are duties of equal weight to those you manage to perform within your normal working week you should discuss your workload with your HoD to ensure you have enough time to do them without overload.

– should I refuse to write job/fellowship/grant references for colleagues, ex-students, people whose PhDs I have examined etc.? Who would lose out then?

If you consistently find yourself doing these tasks in your own time you should discuss your workloads with your HoD.

———

Finally a general comment. It is obvious from your questions that you take your responsibilities as a senior academic seriously – both in helping the next generation with references etc and in taking your subject forward with regard to journals, external review work and so on.

I think, personally, that senior academics also have a responsibility in this dispute and beyond to lead by example with regard to the chronic workloads which are endemic for academics. The last major survey in 2009 showed an average working week of 55 hours, with many working longer.

I do not know your circumstances but I would guess that as a professor it is easier for you to make a stand about excessive workload than it would be for an early career academic and also that many of your younger peers would be influenced by how many hours you work when they try to manage their own work/life balance.

You ask if others have asked similar questions. Some have. Most though recognise the issues at stake and are doing their best to support the union. Five minutes before I started to answer your message I received one from a senior lecturer which simply said: “Thank you UCU. Once I’d racked up my 48th hour this week, I took my kids out for the day on Saturday. What bliss not to feel guilty about not working all weekend.”

Thank you for taking the trouble to contact me and for your support for the union. If you want any further, specific help send me a copy of your contract and any workload model that is current within your department.

Best wishes.

Matt Waddup, National Head

This is my reply:

Thanks Matt. I appreciate the response, although there is a certain irony in you doing this on a Sunday at 10pm.

The advice you provide is fairly generic, and the notion of not taking on more work and discussing overall workload with a line manager is obviously sound. But I don’t think it understands how research actually works. I’ve long felt that the UCU doesn’t really get this, which is unfortunate given the people it is representing.

In particular ‘finish the task in hand’ in relation to research is not something that can be done in a day or two. An article takes weeks or months of work to complete; a book years. Deadlines for grants are inflexible, and not doing the work preparing for them – or doing it rushed – means they are not applied for or not successful. The fellowship would buy me out of teaching and administration for 6-12 months – a deal that feels worthwhile in terms of creating the space to do research effectively. Editing a journal is complicated – yes, formally I am working on behalf of a publisher, but the department takes credit for this in things like the RAE/REF. I don’t get a formal workload credit for doing it, but it is part of my job. It’s an example that doesn’t easily fit your idea of ‘working to contract’. I find the idea of ‘refusing to go the extra mile’ unhelpful. It’s all over your FAQs, and it sounds nice, but it’s facile and insulting.

In sum, if I was to follow your advice, I would talk to my head of department and not take on additional result projects, grants etc. But who would be disadvantaged by this? The people whose reference letters I don’t write; the journals and their authors whose papers I don’t review; my own research career as that paper doesn’t get submitted or the grant not applied for. My formally contracted teaching and administrative work is clear. We have a statement of our workload – attached – which sets this out. It doesn’t yet include new PhD students, level 1 tutees, and exam marking but they too are clearly specified. But it’s the grey area stuff that isn’t stated – i.e. what we do with our time on research. The nature of research is such that – by and large – academics set their own agenda and plan their own time. But that strength – the autonomy it gives us – is also the biggest problem. And it is especially the case when we are told by the union to ‘work to contract’.

The relation between my career and my university’s standing is not separable, but I get a clear sense that my career would be the first to suffer. I can think of plenty of work tasks I could not do while this dispute is ongoing that would set my own research trajectory back; but few that would genuinely have an effect on the university – at least in the short term. This would perhaps be a price worth paying if I genuinely felt that this was effective action and that the Union would fully support its membership through to the end. I don’t feel you did when there was the pay dispute and a refusal to mark a few years ago, when I felt the union ‘suspending’ the action (i.e. we did the marking) completely surrendered our position of strength.

The first stage in fully supporting the membership is understanding the nature of their work. As I said at the outset, I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but I really don’t think the union understands the way that research works.

Stuart

I should note that I am posting about this on my personal blog at www.progressivegeographies.com.

Good morning Stuart,

The irony of timing is not lost on me either!

I think you have slightly misunderstood my advice.  You seem to be saying that a large chunk of your 40% research time has to be done outside “normal” working hours.  What I am saying is that your employer has a responsibility to ensure you are able to do more of that within a sensible working pattern. No one is trying to stop you doing things you enjoy, but I am really concerned that you clearly feel under such pressure to work these excessive hours to do something which as you point out constitutes 40% of your time. 

The union understands the way research works well enough. We understand too that the idea of “not” going the extra mile is, under normal circumstances, anathema to staff.  However these are not normal circumstances – detrimental pension changes have been imposed by the employers – and the fact remains that more than 75% of members voting, supported a work to contract and other actions.

I think you are right of course that autonomy is a double edged sword but the reality of modern academic life means that for many – especially those in early careers – they don’t really have as much control over their work as you suggest. Large teaching and admin loads combined with ever increasing pressure to deliver research deliver the mirage of autonomy but in reality lead to excessive workloads and a disruption of work/home balance.

So far, we are really very pleased with the response from members to what we recognise is a difficult ask.

Thanks for the tip re your blog.  I am happy for you to post our exchange on there.

Best

Matt

Thanks Matt. I do appreciate the replies.

I don’t think I misunderstood your advice. Yes, a lot of the research has to be done outside normal hours. My head of department – who is an active union member, by the way – will say that the research I can do during term time is what can be fitted into the hours left after the teaching and administrative duties. The argument will be that the 40% is over the year, and that in term time it is not always possible to find lots of time to do research. But the deadlines for grants etc. don’t fit with such a workload model. There is a bigger, and ongoing, issue about the department’s lack of recognition of external duties such as journal editing that they do not formally support and yet benefit from. I’ve been working on this. I completely agree with the assessment of what has happened in higher education. And yes, this is in many respects worse for those at an early stage of career.

In sum, you are asking me – and other academics – to make sacrifices in terms of their own research careers in order to somehow send a message to employers. Where there are teaching and administrative duties that fall outside of the contract I will willingly take the union line on this. I just don’t think it works the same way in terms of research.

I voted for the industrial action. I support the union’s cause. I just think that this work to contract policy – in terms of research – is a poorly thought through idea that will have minimal effect on employers and detrimental effect on academics.

best wishes

Stuart

Posted in Politics, Universities | 3 Comments

Polity blog on Sloterdijk Now

 A few comments from me here.

Posted in My Publications, Peter Sloterdijk | Leave a comment

Complete Works of Nietzsche – another volume

Finally! Twelve years after the last volume a new volume of the Stanford Complete Works of Nietzsche is published. This is only the fourth volume of a planned 20 volume edition translating the 15 volume Kritische Gesamtausgabe. The new volume is Dawn, translated by Brittain Smith, with an afterword by Keith Ansell-Pearson. The series is now under the editorial direction of Alan D. Schrift, Keith Ansell-Pearson, and Duncan Large. Let’s hope that the next volume appears soon, and that the series actually gets to the notebooks which have never before appeared in English translation. Then we can finally use The Will to Power simply as a historical document of editorial mispractice, rather than as still the most accessible way to look at some of Nietzsche’s ideas.

Posted in Friedrich Nietzsche, Publishing | 3 Comments

Another writing approach

This is very different from how I work, but it’s interesting so I thought I’d share it. Berit Brogaard at New APPS writes about ‘mental scripting’ before sitting down at the computer.

One thing I would say, of the approach mentioned at the beginning and then transformed through advice: don’t delete anything. Cut it and paste it into a different document. Call that ‘X discards’ when ‘X’ is the name of the working document. I don’t trust my own edits won’t throw away good stuff. The other thing I do is to save each document each day with a new name which is usually putting the date into the title of the file such as ‘X 16 Oct 2011’. Unless you have a graphic heavy text it doesn’t take much memory, and memory is cheap these days anyway. Then you can go back and rescue old formulations etc. at a later point. I don’t trust that the choices I make for rearrangement/reworking are always better. This point also holds for when you start making major edits at any point. Save the old version with a different name; save the new file and edit that. It works better – at least for me – than track changes or undo, because you can be selective. I think this also (perhaps especially) holds  for the approach where you write at speed, having thought about it in detail in advance.

Posted in Publishing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Justin E.H. Smith on Fossils as an Epistemological Problem

Interesting abstract for a paper here. Smith is the author of the excellent Divine Machines: Leibniz and the Sciences of Life, which I’ve mentioned here before. While Smith’s interest in fossils, at least in this paper, looks at epistemology, and mine was in terms of the relation to the world, unsurprisingly both of us relate them to the question of time.

Posted in Fossils, Gottfried Leibniz | Leave a comment

Thought for the day

From here, and there are some more…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Nowhereisland

Nowhereisland is an interesting art project with a political and geographical twist. Retreating sea ice led to the discovery of a previously uncharted island in Svalbard. Artist Alex Harley was given a grant to remove material from the island and turn it into a floating island sculpture. It will arrive in the Bristol Channel next summer around the time of the Olympics. The island has been declared a nation and anyone can become a citizen. The idea is that the project can be used to help with teaching and discussions on citizenship, geography and politics. Lots more information on their website. I heard about this from Tim Cresswell’s blog – Tim is a Professor of Geography at Royal Holloway, University of London, and one of the people asked to join Alex Harley on the trip to get the material for the island. His initial post gives a taster, but he’s promised more thoughts to come.

 

Posted in Boundaries, Politics, Territory | Leave a comment