Friction at Queen Mary

August 21, 2014

For someone of his seniority, the manner of John Allen’s ejection from Queen Mary University of London was unprecedented (“Queen Mary dismissal”, Letters, 14 August). After notice of dismissal was served, he was given only a few hours to clear his office before the locks were changed.

Allen and Simon Gaskell [Queen Mary’s principal] are outstanding scientists who, in fact (and in my hearing), could agree amicably about how a successful academic community should function, as well as the role of internal disagreement in institutional life. However, it is clear that while both are highly principled, each is affiliated to a quite different doctrine of how to achieve what is essentially the same goal.

Allen, an outspoken purist, advocates development from the grass roots by the encouragement of research without overt direction from overlying managers and with an attendant mitigation of excessive teaching. Gaskell, evidently now a doctrinarian leader with an admirable but ambitious target of raising the university into the top decile of UK universities, subscribes to a rigorous version of the currently fashionable managerialism involving departmental restructures (sic), performance assessments, targets, workload models and highly selective investment in research.

It is the bottom-up versus top-down argument that rages everywhere, but in the particular context of Queen Mary it has proved difficult both to back the policies with the necessary investment and to reduce the teaching and administrative burdens that hamstring those departments most in need of improvement. The result has been stress, with a large staff turnover and an uncertain outcome.

Such disagreements should not lead to public humiliation on one side or the other. However, between Gaskell and Allen is an array of vice-principals, deans and department heads most of whom who are, by now, appointees of the current regime and implement its policies.

Concerning tribunals, I have said previously that they seem to exist to assess due process, not to second-guess management decisions or to resolve academic disputes. Hence resort to courts of law indicates a failure of internal compromises that one always thought were the sine qua non of civilised university life.

David Bignell

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Assistant Recruitment - Human Resources Office

University Of Nottingham Ningbo China

Outreach Officer

Gsm London

Professorship in Geomatics

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu

Professor of European History

Newcastle University

Head of Department

University Of Chichester
See all jobs

Most Commented

men in office with feet on desk. Vintage

Three-quarters of respondents are dissatisfied with the people running their institutions

A face made of numbers looks over a university campus

From personalising tuition to performance management, the use of data is increasingly driving how institutions operate

students use laptops

Researchers say students who use computers score half a grade lower than those who write notes

Canal houses, Amsterdam, Netherlands

All three of England’s for-profit universities owned in Netherlands

As the country succeeds in attracting even more students from overseas, a mixture of demographics, ‘soft power’ concerns and local politics help explain its policy