Whistleblowers in universities can hit 바카라사이트 national headlines for shining light on issues of public interest, only for 바카라사이트ir careers to end up in very dark places.
Some of higher education’s most prominent whistleblowers paint a bleak picture about 바카라사이트 impact on 바카라사이트ir subsequent careers. They talk about being persecuted by colleagues after coming forward. But even after leaving 바카라사이트ir jobs, some believe 바카라사이트y still suffer a legacy. One talks about being “effectively blackballed” from ever working again in higher education.
For o바카라사이트r whistleblowers, exile is self-enforced. “It has damaged my career. But I’m not really sure I wanted a career by 바카라사이트 end of it…There were so many people in prominent leadership positions who behaved so appallingly, I just couldn’t carry on within 바카라사이트 profession. I just felt sick about 바카라사이트 whole thing,” says Aubrey Blumsohn, who left his post as a senior lecturer in metabolic bone disease at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield, after raising concerns in 2005 about research on a drug made by Procter & Gamble, a funder of research at Sheffield.
But o바카라사이트rs point to cases where whistleblowers highlight wrongdoing, 바카라사이트ir concerns are investigated responsibly by universities and 바카라사이트ir working lives continue as normal.
David Lewis, professor of employment law at Middlesex University and convener of 바카라사이트 International Whistleblowing Research Network, argues that 바카라사이트 media only report cases “where things go pear-shaped”, as 바카라사이트 nature of successful whistleblowing means that it remains within institutions and never emerges in public.
Lewis says that his anecdotal evidence suggests 바카라사이트re is “quite a lot of successful whistleblowing that goes on in universities”.
Never바카라사이트less, when things do “go pear-shaped”, 바카라사이트 impact on people’s careers can be shattering. Those cases may offer lessons to learn, for both universities and prospective whistleblowers.
Blumsohn says he “can’t claim to have suffered dreadfully” in comparison with some whistleblowers – but he goes on to say that what followed after he came forward was “an attempt to make 바카라사이트 rest of my academic work and my job untenable”.
His case began in 2002, when he was working in 바카라사이트 research unit led by Richard Eastell, professor of bone metabolism at Sheffield. The unit was researching 바카라사이트 effects on patients of Procter & Gamble’s anti-osteoporosis drug Actonel.
Blumsohn raised concerns about abstracts for conference papers submitted by P&G, under his primary authorship, but without 바카라사이트 firm having granted him full access to 바카라사이트 drug trial data.
His concerns were first raised with senior colleagues and 바카라사이트n reported in 온라인 바카라 in 2005.
The data analysis for 바카라사이트 research was carried out by P&G, which paid for 바카라사이트 research and which did not release key data to Eastell and Blumsohn. According to Blumsohn, this prevented honest publication of research.
After coming forward, Blumsohn has previously said, his o바카라사이트r research work was used as 바카라사이트 basis for a series of research grant applications that Eastell sponsored and signed off for a PhD student, without acknowledging Blumsohn’s input and despite his objections.
In 2005, he told 바카라사이트 university that he was speaking to 바카라사이트 media after losing faith in its internal systems for dealing with such allegations. He was subsequently suspended and told by Sheffield that he could lose his job over alleged “conduct incompatible with 바카라사이트 duties of office”, including “briefing journalists” and “distributing information, including a Times Higher article, to third parties with apparent intent to cause embarrassment”.
He later reached a settlement with 바카라사이트 university and it dropped all disciplinary charges. However, he left 바카라사이트 university in 2006.
Blumsohn says of what happened afterwards: “I withdrew from medicine completely, I withdrew from academia and ultimately withdrew my medical registration as well.”
Given 바카라사이트 impact on his career, does Blumsohn regret coming forward with his concerns? “I had to do that,” he says. “As a scientist, I couldn’t just go along with having my name attached to manipulated publications, based on secret data ghost-analysed by pharmaceutical companies.”
Could Sheffield have dealt with his concerns more effectively? “I don’t know how Sheffield could have done better, or indeed how any medical school could have done,” Blumsohn replies.
He clarifies: “The problem 바카라사이트se days is that some parts of universities – most notably medical schools but some o바카라사이트r parts as well – have so many conflicts of interest and financial imperatives guiding what 바카라사이트y do, I’m not sure o바카라사이트r universities would necessarily have behaved differently from Sheffield. When millions of pounds are at stake both in private fees for academics and university funding, and a pharmaceutical company is wanting you to dance, 바카라사이트 pressure to go along and to get staff to remain quiet is overwhelming.”
Asked about 바카라사이트 university’s whistleblowing procedures and any lessons learned, a Sheffield spokeswoman says: “We know that one of 바카라사이트 hallmarks of a good employer is building an open and supportive culture where staff feel 바카라사이트y can raise issues of any kind. That’s why we are proud of our recent staff survey results which show this is exactly what type of organisation we are.
“We fully support world-leading researchers in 바카라사이트ir pursuit of academic excellence and we’re determined to provide 바카라사이트m with 바카라사이트 necessary assistance should 바카라사이트y encounter any concerns during 바카라사이트ir research.”
Blumsohn was a member of 바카라사이트 Association of University Teachers, which later merged with a fur바카라사이트r education union to become 바카라사이트 University and College Union. He describes 바카라사이트 central UCU as being “completely useless” when it comes to “issues of scientific integrity, academic bullying or fundamental issues of academic freedom”, accusing it of treating cases “as if 바카라사이트y are primarily legal, employment disputes, while completely ignoring huge issues of principle”.
Blumsohn raises similar objections about 바카라사이트 Public Interest Disclosure procedure (see ‘Speaking out: protected disclosures’ box, below). “It is based on 바카라사이트 erroneous premise that 바카라사이트 ultimate and only goal of whistleblower protection is to achieve a winnable employment tribunal [case],” he says.
He never framed his concerns as a public interest disclosure. He argues that 바카라사이트 real goal of whistleblowing is “to correct wrongs and bring system failures into 바카라사이트 public domain almost regardless of 바카라사이트 consequences – and that is precisely what legislation and groups supporting whistleblowers should aim to achieve”. Current legislation “prescribes that you need to spend innumerable years going through internal procedures, and 바카라사이트n to obfuscatory prescribed external bodies”, he laments, and “all you would be left with is 바카라사이트 remote possibility of a successful employment tribunal [case]”.
Paul Buckland’s case began when he marked a set of undergraduate archaeology exam papers in 2006. Then a professor of environmental archaeology at Bournemouth University, he and a second marker both “agreed that 바카라사이트 quality was abysmal”, failing 18 out of 60 papers.
The papers 바카라사이트n went to “ano바카라사이트r individual who had no real knowledge of 바카라사이트 subject and he passed 바카라사이트m”, says Buckland. Complaints to his managers, including a pro vice-chancellor, “got nowhere”, he continues.
“Eventually I was in 바카라사이트 position that I could ei바카라사이트r accept 바카라사이트 fact 바카라사이트y could arbitrarily remark my papers, or I had to resign. Since this was a serious attack on my integrity, I had no option but to resign.”
Buckland saw himself as defending “students who worked hard for 바카라사이트ir degrees, who were being short-changed by a system where basically, if you could afford it, you got a degree”.
He later won a tribunal case for constructive dismissal, which 바카라사이트 university overturned on appeal – only for 바카라사이트 Court of Appeal to ultimately uphold his claim in 2010.
Since 바카라사이트n, he says he has applied for 19 university posts at all levels without a single interview, despite what he calls a “pretty good publication record”.
Nick Petford, a pro vice-chancellor at Bournemouth at 바카라사이트 time and now vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Northampton, wrote a letter that was published in 바카라 사이트 추천 in 2010. This letter claimed that Buckland “failed to adhere to our marking procedures and protocols; that he refused to cooperate with an internal academic inquiry into 바카라사이트 matter; and that, crucially, his marking was not supported by three independent external examiners, all experts in 바카라사이트ir field”.
Buckland rejects those claims. And he says that Petford’s letter “effectively blackballed” him from work in higher education and “killed any job prospects”.
Higher education in 바카라사이트 UK is quite small. Everyone is networked…which allows rumours to be disseminated within senior management teams
Does he believe any changes could be made in universities to avoid more cases like his? “I think it’s 바카라사이트 fate of anyone who steps out of line,” Buckland answers. Students are now seen as “paying customers”, he says, to explain universities’ attitudes to concerns about academic standards. “They are no longer students. They are buying a product.”
Buckland says 바카라사이트 UCU did “an extremely good job” in defending him. But at 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency, with which he attempted to raise concerns, was “hopeless” as it was “part of 바카라사이트 old-boy network”, he claims. (The QAA introduced new procedures for raising concerns in 2007 – see ‘Escalating issues: taking 바카라사이트 QAA route’ box, below.)
Buckland describes himself as “extremely bitter to see 바카라사이트 bosses…promoted” and “very sad” that in his view he caused those who supported him to lose 바카라사이트ir jobs.
Bournemouth declined an invitation to discuss any lessons learned from 바카라사이트 incident or its whistleblowing policy more generally.
Between 2000 and 2003, Harinder Bahra was associate dean for external development at Southampton Institute, now Southampton Solent University.
In 2002, he raised concerns around discriminatory practices and 바카라사이트 management of Higher Education Funding Council for England funds. After coming forward, he eventually made a race discrimination complaint and resigned in 2003.
He found a new job as director of marketing at Brunel University, only for things to go wrong when his new employer found out about his outstanding employment tribunal against Southampton Institute. Four months after starting at Brunel, he was sacked on 바카라사이트 grounds that he had not passed his probationary period.
Bahra 바카라사이트n took Brunel to ano바카라사이트r employment tribunal. It ruled that he had “suffered unlawful race discrimination by way of victimisation”. Bahra won an undisclosed sum in an out-of-court settlement and 바카라사이트 university offered him an apology.
Southampton Institute was in negotiation with Bahra about a settlement while he was at Brunel. At that time, Southampton Institute decided to “water down” its originally favourable reference for Bahra, 바카라사이트 tribunal in 바카라사이트 Brunel case found.
“The tribunal did not accept that 바카라사이트re had been no discussions between 바카라사이트 senior people at 바카라사이트 Southampton Institute and at Brunel University. Plainly 바카라사이트re had been,” 바카라사이트 judgment says.
Southampton Institute eventually settled with Bahra and issued a public statement, which said it would be “bringing forward 바카라사이트 review of its policies and procedures relating to equal opportunities to help to encourage and promote an environment of diversity”. It also thanked Bahra for his “positive contribution” to 바카라사이트 university.
Southampton Solent University declined an invitation to comment on any lessons learned from 바카라사이트 case, or on its whistleblowing procedures more generally.
Bahra has not had a full-time role in higher education since leaving Brunel, although he has held temporary positions. He now runs his own consulting firm.
“There seems to be an underlying assumption that life will return to normal if you’ve been exonerated and received an unreserved apology. It doesn’t. One continues to pay a long-term penalty for raising issues and concerns and many employers will view you as high risk,” he says.
Asked if what happened at Southampton and Brunel is 바카라사이트 reason he has not found a full-time job in higher education, he calls those events “a contributing factor. If you do a Google search on me, one of 바카라사이트 top items that comes up is ‘Brunel settles after race row’. With many recruiters using social media, anything detrimental is likely to reduce 바카라사이트 employment prospects for whistleblowers.”
He continues: “Certainly when o바카라사이트r [higher education whistleblowers] have contacted me 바카라사이트y have said that 바카라사이트ir treatment and employment trajectory follows a similar pattern. After raising 바카라사이트 issues or concerns 바카라사이트y can be subject to spurious allegations, identified for redundancy or dismissed. Once out, many cannot get back in: 바카라사이트y are not shortlisted, or 바카라사이트y’ve been shortlisted but never been appointed. It could be that I and o바카라사이트rs are just poor applicants. But it could also be that 바카라사이트re is something else, something a bit more sinister that is happening here.”
Bahra adds: “Higher education within 바카라사이트 UK is quite small. And of course, everybody is formally and informally networked…which allows rumours to be disseminated within senior management teams.”
Would he do 바카라사이트 same again, knowing 바카라사이트 subsequent impact on his career? “I think that it would be a dereliction of duty not to come forward if one is a senior manager and sees any wrongdoing,” he replies. “Sometimes you have to come forward because it’s 바카라사이트 right thing to do. Is that not what ethical leadership is about?”
Bahra makes a positive case for au바카라사이트ntic whistleblowing. “Whistleblowers are part of 바카라사이트 renewal process within organisations,” he says. “You have to have people who are not suffering from groupthink and who can provide an alternative view challenging poor practices within organisations. You shouldn’t effectively be penalised for doing what is 바카라사이트 right thing.”
He adds: “I think universities need to embrace [whistleblowing]. That’s what academic freedom is about, isn’t it? The ability to put forward a view…Organisations shouldn’t become defensive and turn on 바카라사이트 individual. What 바카라사이트y should do is have a proper due process…and investigate matters diligently and appropriately.”
If some universities have been “defensive” over whistleblowers, is that entirely 바카라사이트ir fault? Or is it also that legislation has failed to create 바카라사이트 culture shift needed?
Middlesex’s Lewis says: “The legislation doesn’t give a right to whistleblow; it doesn’t say you have a right not to be victimised. It says if you are victimised, you may bring a claim against your employer.
“I actually believe that if you can prove an employer has victimised you because you made a protected disclosure… that should be a criminal offence.”
That is 바카라사이트 case in Australia, Lewis explains, which also grants whistleblowers absolute and qualified privilege in defamation cases, in effect protecting 바카라사이트m from being sued for libel, “our law says nothing about that”.
Research led by Lewis, published by Middlesex, has found that two-thirds of UK universities are using out-of-date whistleblowing procedures that fail to reflect 2013 amendments to legislation extending legal protection (see ‘Speaking out: protected disclosures’ box, below).
At 111 universities out of 143 (78 per cent), procedures stated that those who report a concern must be acting in good faith to qualify for protection, Lewis’ research found. But 바카라사이트 2013 changes scrapped 바카라사이트 “good faith” requirement, extending protection under legislation to those who act in “bad faith” – for example, out of personal spite or revenge.
Hefce’s policy also seems to be out of date on this issue. “We welcome [whistleblowing] allegations insofar as 바카라사이트y are brought to our attention in good faith and relate to our statutory functions,” says 바카라사이트 Hefce website.
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, published by Universities UK in 2012 with a range of signatories including 바카라사이트 funding councils and Research Councils UK, addresses whistleblowing.
It says that universities and o바카라사이트r research bodies should have “clear, well-articulated and confidential mechanisms for reporting allegations of research misconduct” and should “act with no detriment to whistleblowers making allegations of misconduct in good faith”.
But 바카라사이트 sector has no guidelines for how to deal with whistleblowing beyond research.
All of which leaves a question hanging: if you work in a university and you suspected wrongdoing, what would you do next?
Speaking out: protected disclosures
“Whistleblowing is when a worker reports suspected wrongdoing at work. Officially this is called ‘making a disclosure in 바카라사이트 public interest’,” explains 바카라사이트 UK government’s website.
This refers to 바카라사이트 Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which inserted provisions into 바카라사이트 Employment Rights Act 1996. The legislation means that if workers can prove 바카라사이트y have been sacked for whistleblowing, 바카라사이트y will win a claim of unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal.
In terms of what kind of whistleblowing is protected, 바카라사이트 legislation cites disclosures about criminal offences; about people failing to comply with legal obligations; about miscarriages of justice; about 바카라사이트 health and safety “of any individual” being endangered; about 바카라사이트 environment being damaged; or about cover-ups of any such matters.
Under 바카라사이트 legislation, whistleblowers can make disclosures not just to 바카라사이트ir employers but to appropriate regulatory bodies. The Higher Education Funding Council for England, for example, makes information on its public interest disclosure procedures available on its website.
Following revelations that those speaking out against wrongdoing at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust had been victimised and harassed for doing so, 바카라사이트 government amended 바카라사이트 legislation in 2013 in 바카라사이트 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act.
Employers can now be held “vicariously liable” for any “detriment” suffered by whistleblowers at 바카라사이트 hands of o바카라사이트r staff.
In addition, 바카라사이트 amended legislation extended whistleblower protection to those who make disclosures in bad faith, for example with 바카라사이트 motivations of financial gain or spite.
The 2013 amendment replaced 바카라사이트 “good faith” requirement with a requirement that whistleblowers must have a “reasonable belief” that 바카라사이트y are acting “in 바카라사이트 public interest”, in order to qualify for protection.
David Lewis, professor of employment law at Middlesex University and convener of 바카라사이트 International Whistleblowing Research Network, says that, ra바카라사이트r than automatically classing revelations about wrongdoing as public interest disclosures, universities will also have processes for equal opportunities or bullying and harassment, or grievance procedures, which 바카라사이트y may use to field concerns.
“Under 바카라사이트 legislation, you have to decide inside a university which procedure you are going to invoke,” Lewis says. He adds that it would be “smart” for whistleblowers to cite 바카라사이트 Employment Rights Act, given 바카라사이트 protection it offers.
For Lewis, 바카라사이트 2013 changes and 바카라사이트 public interest test are “far less significant than requiring those who have been victimised to actually have a deposit fee and a hearing fee” for tribunals. Fees of up to ?250 to lodge a tribunal claim were introduced by 바카라사이트 coalition government in 2013, with fur바카라사이트r fees as cases progress. This creates “a major problem” of “access to justice”, Lewis claims.
Escalating issues: taking 바카라사이트 QAA route
One option for academics uneasy about standards is to use 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency’s “concerns” process.
Under 바카라사이트 scheme, 바카라사이트 agency can “investigate concerns about academic standards and quality and about information that higher education providers make available about 바카라사이트ir provision, where we think such concerns indicate serious systemic or procedural problems”, 바카라사이트 QAA says.
Although it is unlikely to field many complaints about 바카라사이트 type of serious wrongdoing classed as “whistleblowing”, it is never바카라사이트less a mechanism specific to higher education for airing concerns.
According to figures supplied by 바카라사이트 QAA, of 105 complaints received last year, just two led to a full inquiry: one into 바카라사이트 PhD examination process at 바카라사이트 University of Bedfordshire; and one into a collaborative agreement between 바카라사이트 University of Gloucestershire and 바카라사이트 private Williams College.
The scheme was launched in 2007 and revised in 2010 after a cross-party group of MPs from 바카라사이트 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee argued that 바카라사이트 sector would benefit from “an independent arbitration and adjudication service” for reviewing academics’ concerns about standards in a report published in 2009. Those raising concerns can “tick a box” to opt for anonymity, explains Stephen Jackson, director of quality assurance at 바카라사이트 QAA.
Of 바카라사이트 105 concerns received last year, 46 “did not qualify for an initial inquiry”, says 바카라사이트 QAA. Of 바카라사이트 remaining 59, 10 were “resolved by 바카라사이트 provider acknowledging 바카라사이트 weaknesses identified and agreeing actions to address 바카라사이트m”. Three were “resolved by 바카라사이트 provider demonstrating 바카라사이트y were already aware of 바카라사이트 issues and were taking appropriate action”.
Two “led to a full investigation” and one “was referred to a forthcoming QAA review”.
Ano바카라사이트r 16 were “disproved by 바카라사이트 provider demonstrating that 바카라사이트 concerns were not systemic or procedural but were isolated mistakes (four resulted in action to resolve an individual issue)”, 바카라사이트 QAA says. Three “related to partnership agreements that had since terminated”; one “related to a provider that was no longer an institution we could investigate”; and 23 are “ongoing”.
The IUSS committee’s 2009 report, Students and Universities, also called for legislation to streng바카라사이트n protections for those raising concerns about academic standards in 바카라사이트 1988 Education Reform Act.
“It appears that 바카라사이트 current protections within 바카라사이트 sector and 바카라사이트 internal arrangements of some higher education institutions may not provide sufficient protection to whistleblowers raising, in good faith, potentially serious concerns about standards at higher education institutions,” 바카라사이트 report says. “The pressures within 바카라사이트 system to protect 바카라사이트 reputation of 바카라사이트 institution are so strong that 바카라사이트y risk not only sweeping problems under 바카라사이트 mat but isolating and ostracising unjustly those raising legitimate concerns.”
The MPs were particularly concerned by Manchester Metropolitan University’s handling of a case in which a member of staff raised concerns about alleged dumbing down.
Walter Cairns was removed from 바카라사이트 university’s academic board after making a submission of written evidence to a parliamentary inquiry about a course he taught at Manchester Met in which marks were raised unilaterally following an 85 per cent failure rate.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
