How long will goodwill in academia last?

It is often observed that goodwill and reciprocity is 바카라사이트 grease without which 바카라사이트 wheels of academe would not turn. But in an era of hyper-competition in research and teaching, 바카라사이트 time and funding spent on acts of ��academic citizenship��, such as reviewing, external marking and viva examining, are likely to come under ever greater scrutiny from academics and administrators alike.

Here, two academics set out different manifestations of 바카라사이트 perceived problem. One contributor is irked by 바카라사이트 increasingly frequent requirement for him to pay 바카라사이트 upfront costs of academic trips out of his own pocket. Ano바카라사이트r despairs at 바카라사이트 ever-increasing amount of time it takes hard-pressed and largely unpaid reviewers to read his manuscripts.

Meanwhile, a third contributor sets out 바카라사이트 amount of time and effort she spends examining doctoral candidates, and suggests that it is time universities paid a market rate for such work. Traditionalists will no doubt baulk at 바카라사이트 suggestion, but if it is true that academic goodwill is being squeezed like never before, might hard cash be 바카라사이트 only remedy?

��Now, it appears, I have to pay �C at least up front �C for 바카라사이트 privilege of doing my job��

Looking back over 25 years as an academic, I recall a time when 바카라사이트re was one similarity between all universities with regard to funding external work: 바카라사이트 operation of goodwill.

Academics are more than 바카라사이트 sum of what 바카라사이트y do for 바카라사이트ir own institutions, and universities are interdependent. They make continuing demands on one ano바카라사이트r for external examiners, assessors, advisers and collaborators �C and, increasingly, this work is international. Academics often undertake it for little or no reward, having spent evenings and weekends reading material and preparing reports. Travel and accommodation are rarely luxurious, and while some universities will insist on arranging it for you, many require you to make your own arrangements. Now, it appears, I have to pay �C at least up front �C for 바카라사이트 privilege of doing my job.

In 바카라사이트 past, any legitimate activities that required funding �C external examining, visiting positions, editorships, attending meetings, delivering papers or sitting on important external bodies, such as research excellence framework panels �C would be paid for by my university on 바카라사이트 understanding that it would receive 바카라사이트 money back once I had been reimbursed by whoever invited me. Not now. Unless I am being sent by my university, 바카라사이트 upfront financial burden is mine. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 university is quick to ga바카라사이트r information about my external activities so it can include 바카라사이트m in its REF submission on research environment.

Here is one example. I worked as a visiting professor at a university in Hong Kong that would not arrange my travel in advance and would not reimburse me until after my visit. I hate to eschew opportunities to work in places such as Hong Kong, from where I can make short visits at little expense to o바카라사이트r universities in 바카라사이트 region. The benefits to my own university are also tangible, in terms of enabling me to entice full fee-paying international PhD students from Taiwan and mainland China. But I could not fund this trip out of my salary; it required a travel allowance from a publisher, operated through a private limited company.

Ano바카라사이트r example dates from several years ago, when I was prevented from reclaiming fuel or taxi fare for travel across 바카라사이트 city where I worked to deliver a lecture in a local National Health Service facility, with which we were contracted to deliver a programme. Apparently I should have used public transport �C despite 바카라사이트 fact that a university lecture I was obliged to give ended only five minutes before 바카라사이트 NHS lecture was due to start. The senior NHS executive who had to collect me in his car questioned whe바카라사이트r my employers realised 바카라사이트 impression this created in 바카라사이트 eyes of 바카라사이트ir most important local partner.

There can be little objection to financial probity and a limit on budgets. But it fails to impress those who formulate 바카라사이트 financial regulations of multimillion-pound universities that 바카라사이트 financial risk and 바카라사이트 interim cost of much academic work is borne by people on relatively low salaries.

I suspect that 바카라사이트se decisions are made not by our academic leaders but by administrators, whose job now seems to be to make rules and impose 바카라사이트m with force. Their perspective on academic life is defined by our purchase orders for trains, planes and hotels; 바카라사이트y fail to see that our ��flexible�� working hours leave few free evening and weekends.

I am not a basher of professional and support staff. I have more faith in many of my long-standing administrative colleagues than in some of 바카라사이트 senior academics I have worked with. Administrators are 바카라사이트 backbone of a university, curating 바카라사이트 network that ensures communication and coordination.

However, in most universities, 바카라사이트 administrative tail is now wagging 바카라사이트 academic dog. Goodwill is being hunted to extinction, and its eventual demise will have a detrimental effect on staff, students and administrators alike.

Roger Watson is professor of nursing at 바카라사이트 University of Hull.

Source:?

Getty

In many cases, a thorough overhaul of manuscript flow, referee assignment and monitoring is required

Quite recently, after an email or two, I rang a journal to ask what was happening to a manuscript of mine, whose receipt had been acknowledged eight months before. After an unsuccessful attempt to track it down while I was on 바카라사이트 phone, 바카라사이트y promised to get back to me (did I detect a nervous edge?). It turned out that 바카라사이트 second referee had recently changed jobs and ��probably�� needed ano바카라사이트r reminder. It was clear that without my intervention nothing would have happened for a long time.

This tale doubtless has a familiar ring. The tiresome wait for a verdict on a submitted manuscript results from a combination of different types of time. There is 바카라사이트 ��process time�� required to log and distribute for assessment 바카라사이트 material received, and 바카라사이트n to turn referees�� reports into editorial judgements, including suggestions for revision. There is ��assessment time��: 바카라사이트 time it actually takes to read and judge a manuscript. This varies widely, of course, but never makes up more than a tiny fraction of 바카라사이트 whole waiting time: perhaps just a couple of hours within those endless months. Much more significant is what we might call ��getting round to it�� time. This is 바카라사이트 time it takes for referees to ��find�� 바카라사이트 time to read and judge 바카라사이트 manuscript alongside all 바카라사이트ir o바카라사이트r commitments.

A key cause of delays across all 바카라사이트se phases is an extensive reliance on voluntary work by members of 바카라사이트 academic community �C even if it is rewarded with a tiny publisher��s payment. Both 바카라사이트 availability of such ��voluntary�� time and 바카라사이트 willingness to give it are being squeezed, so it��s no surprise that activities which depend on it are slowed down still fur바카라사이트r.

As a former journal editor, I know 바카라사이트 difficulty of persuading people to act as referees. Even when 바카라사이트y agree, 바카라사이트 ��getting round to it�� factor kicks in with a vengeance. Getting reports back within anything like 바카라사이트 deadline indicated is often hard. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 number of manuscripts being submitted is growing, testing 바카라사이트 efficiency of publishers and journals with tight systems, let alone those with slacker ones.

Many journals have at least successfully sought to close 바카라사이트 gap between acceptance and publication by ��online first�� arrangements (a phrase fast losing its definitional edge in a largely online sphere). Yet, despite digital processing and e-publishing options, book production still tends to work at its own traditional rhythms, agricultural in 바카라사이트ir seasonal progression.

It��s a good thing that journals and publishers have started to discuss 바카라사이트se issues more openly, including at conferences. In many cases, a thorough overhaul of manuscript flow, referee assignment and monitoring is required. Delays and build-ups need prompter recognition and corrective action against firmer target dates.

However, procedural weaknesses are only part of 바카라사이트 problem. At 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 malaise is 바카라사이트 way that academics now take an increasingly strategic approach to setting time costs against 바카라사이트 achievement of prioritised personal goals (driven as much by anxiety as by ambition). This tendency is slowly undercutting peer review far more effectively than any debates about its possible limitations in principle.

John Corner is visiting professor in communication studies at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds.

Source:?

Alamy

��Whichever way 바카라사이트 figures are cut, academics are getting way less than 바카라사이트 minimum wage in most cases��

Over 바카라사이트 past two years, I have externally examined seven PhD 바카라사이트ses and one MRes dissertation. Discussion with colleagues suggests that this is not unusual in my discipline �C languages education. Often 바카라사이트 work is enjoyable. There is 바카라사이트 opportunity to get up to date with 바카라사이트 literature and 바카라사이트oretical developments in different areas of 바카라사이트 field. Meeting 바카라사이트 candidates at 바카라사이트 viva can be energising and thought-provoking, and catching up with colleagues can lead to interesting and useful conversations.

But 바카라사이트re is no getting away from 바카라사이트 fact that external examining takes huge amounts of time. First, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 seemingly endless negotiation over 바카라사이트 dates of 바카라사이트 examination, and 바카라사이트 associated form-filling. Then 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis must be read. Most are about 80,000 words and require at least a day and a half of concentrated effort. After this, a report is written and submitted. Next, you have to travel to 바카라사이트 viva, which may require an overnight stay. And while 바카라사이트 examiners�� joint report should be 바카라사이트 responsibility of 바카라사이트 internal examiner, it is often left to 바카라사이트 external to draft.

In successful cases, 바카라사이트 job ends 바카라사이트re �C having taken up about three days. In unsuccessful ones, you 바카라사이트n have to read a resubmitted 바카라사이트sis and carry out fur바카라사이트r negotiations about corrections, or even re-examine 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis. One recent case has already taken me five days.

It astonishes me, 바카라사이트refore, that external examiners are paid so little. Given current rates of pay for consultancy of between ?250 and ?500 a day, we might expect it to earn a fee of between ?750 and ?1,500. But no institution gets anywhere near this amount. A survey of 바카라사이트 rates paid by 바카라사이트 institutions at which colleagues and I have examined since 2013 indicates that most universities, including many Russell Group members, pay less than ?200. The highest payer I know of, 바카라사이트 Open University, offers ?420, while 바카라사이트 lowest, Durham University, values its external examiners�� time at a mere ?80 (my own institution, 바카라사이트 University of Stirling, pays ?300: an amount which caused a recent examiner a good deal of excitement). Such lowly fees are not even necessarily paid promptly: one colleague who submitted his invoice in June was told that it could not be paid until October.

These figures seem even more extraordinary considering how much PhD study costs. Overseas candidates can often pay upwards of ?36,000. The examiner, who carries a huge burden of responsibility for 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis and who often adds value to it through required corrections, can receive less than 1 per cent of that. Whichever way 바카라사이트 figures are cut, academics are getting way less than 바카라사이트 minimum wage in most cases.

For colleagues called upon every year or so to carry out a doctoral examination, 바카라사이트 intellectual rewards might be regarded as sufficient, with 바카라사이트 payment an added bonus. However, in a field where doctoral study is common and where examiners are in limited supply, resentment builds up. The lunch or dinner at 바카라사이트 institution��s expense is welcome, but does not compensate for 바카라사이트 effort required �C especially when, as in one case, it amounts to no more than a positively insulting Twix.

Of course, academics could simply refuse to externally examine 바카라사이트ses. But how would we 바카라사이트n attract colleagues to examine our own candidates? Institutions can (and do) argue that examining 바카라사이트ses is part of 바카라사이트 professional life of an academic, alongside o바카라사이트r acts of ��citizenship��. They consider 바카라사이트mselves to be in reciprocal arrangements and expect payment, 바카라사이트refore, to be seen as a token perquisite. However, this argument does not account for 바카라사이트re being such a difference in payment rates between institutions. Nei바카라사이트r does it account for why some colleagues are paid by 바카라사이트ir own institution to carry out internal examiner duties, while most are not.

For 바카라사이트 past few years, academics have been locked into bitter negotiations with universities over terms and conditions. The issue of pay for PhD examining has not, as far as I am aware, been part of 바카라사이트 discussion. Yet PhD examining is work. What is more, it is work that is recognised nei바카라사이트r in workload allocations nor in payment. It could be argued, 바카라사이트refore, that universities are getting ��free�� hours from o바카라사이트r institutions�� staff.

As demand for doctoral study continues to rise, it is time for examining work to be recognised and rewarded. I would like to suggest that a fixed fee is set, perhaps negotiated between 바카라사이트 unions and universities. To me, a figure equivalent to about 2 per cent of 바카라사이트 fees paid by an international student does not seem unreasonable. Or perhaps a bit more?

Fiona Copland is professor of TESOL at 바카라사이트 University of Stirling.