The Management of Academic Workloads: Improving Practice in the Sector

1. The Management of Academic Workloads: Improving Practice in the Sector Professor Peter BarrettDr Lucinda BarrettUniversity of Salford www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 • Can be flexible / adaptive to changes • Useful if intimate department with work demands tuned well to individual needs and aspirations • 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 Advantages + T T+A T+R _ Informal Partial Comprehensive 7a–2a–6b–7b–3b 3a 1b–1a 4b 8a–8b–6a–2b–5a–5b–4a • 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 • 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 Disadvantages Typology of current practices www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

6. 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

7. HEFCE MAW Network – 2007/09- 11 • Focus on implementation • Typically … • Identifying good practice • Pursuing action plans • Sharing experiences • Extracting general lessons • 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 www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

8. Academic staff by systems used Institutions www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

9. University-wide system University Policy and Framework University Policy Schools operate autonomously, but within framework Schools pursue local solutions within broad policy principles Schools make decisions within interactive institutional system Schools Schools Schools Range of Institutional approaches to MAW www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

10. S – Review sector practice / opportunities T – create consensual policy / framework and use data for TRAC, etc S – Debate on articulation of the University policy framework with specific departmental needs T – Using management information to optimise resources Technical / convergent activity S – Debate on improvement of MAW model to fit dept T- improved equity through use of the enhanced system T – monitoring for reasonable consistency of practice S – Communicating policy. Training Social / divergent activity S – Inputs via Union to steering groups on policy / model T – Skill input on MAW models S – Appraisal discussion re aspirations T – Allocation of work for given year Implementation: levels and activities University Department Individual www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

11. Example Prompt Questions And so on for two pages and then for each of the other five interfaces … www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

12. Eg implementation plan www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

13. Example technical system www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

14. R4 Differences between some parts / desire for autonomy R2 Over-complexity / lack of flexibility of model / system R5 Resources reqd implement esp people R3 Lack of senior mg buy in R1 Multiple regulation muddying A10 Training and development A4 Analyse together A7Evidence and discussion – where are we; why bother; effective consultation A2Staff survey A9 Briefing implementers reinforcing core objectives A13 Manage model from simple to complex Actions A11 Use to inform decisions eg new courses A3 Championing / cultural change group A6 Create a universalising rationale A1 Elucidate connection Uni strat A8 Risk analysis re regs etc A5 Link MAW appraisal, strat dev etc D3 Transparency fairness equity D5 Justify resource allocations / efficiency gains D4 Promotion and appraisal D2 Improving employee rels D1 External factors H+S etc Driving forces Example of social dimensions Restraining forces www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

15. 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. www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

16. Programme 1:school emphasis www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

17. Programme 2:institutional emphasis www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw