Our blog

Struggle for top research grades fuels bullying among university staff

Guardian 16th December

More than half of university staff say recent policy changes have caused an increase in bullying – and that institutions aren’t doing enough to tackle the issue

81% of Russell Group university members said REF has had a negative impact on bullying.

The fevered build up to this month’s university research audit has exposed academics to an atmosphere of competitiveness and bullying, according to a survey by the Guardian’s higher education network.

More than half of UK university staff questioned by the network said recent policy changes such as the introduction of the research excellence framework – a new process for measuring the quality of academic research – had fuelled campus bullying.

The survey questioned over 1,300 university staff who have experienced bullying at work, half of which are based at UK institutions. The research did not attempt to measure the scale of bullying, but asked respondents about its causes and how well universities deal with such behaviour.

It found that, around the world, 70% of university staff did not feel their institution takes bullying seriously. This was the case for 72% of university staff based in the UK.

But while UK and non-UK staff were equally dissatisfied with their universities’ responses, the type of bullying varied by country. In the UK, 58% were bullied by their line manager, with many respondents pointing to a managerialist culture – outside of the UK, staff were more likely to be bullied by a colleague.

In the survey, one female respondent commented that management structures have created a “pervasive culture of fear” among university staff. Working in a post-1992 university, she added: “Constant restructuring, constant changes in policy and procedures, and the constant increase in demands have created a state of acute anxiety and utter demoralisation for all staff at every level. I have never known the situation to be this bad.”

In the UK, almost one in 10 people who had experienced bullying had endured violent or aggressive behaviour, while 26% were set uncontracted tasks. A third had experienced threats or comments about job security without foundation.
Some 27% said they were bullied online, where many were exposed to insults and persistent gossip, and 6% even reported having their personal pictures distorted.

Advertisement

Martin Hall, vice-chancellor of the University of Salford says the findings should not be ignored. “The combination of increased demands, diminished resources and a growing tendency to forget that the primary purpose of education is to develop people’s capabilities is damaging the institutional culture of universities in many parts of the world.”

He adds: “Universities should be led by ethical values, and values should shape behaviour at all levels of leadership and management. Bullying is a symptom of the breakdown of values and a shared sense of purpose.”

Many resondents said that bullying has significantly impacted on their health and wellbeing. In the UK, 86% reported experiencing stress, anxiety or panic attacks, 23% reported raised blood pressure, and 28% said they had increased their consumption of alcohol or tobacco.

Some 41% of UK staff said they had received either counselling or medical treatment as a result of bullying, while 18% had been signed off sick.

Although universities have been encouraged to sign up to sector-wide agreements to support and create a positive environment for researchers, these are ultimately voluntary and there are concerns that universities are not doing enough to protect their staff in a “publish or perish” research culture.

An equalities and diversity consultant who worked at a leading Russell Group university for 10 years, says the level of harassment and bullying she witnessed became increasingly noticeable.

She says members of staff who came to speak to her about being bullied felt too scared to report it and believed that HR were there to just support management.

“Harassment, bullying and discrimination is embedded in the fabric of everyday practices and I have not seen any compelling evidence that universities are making any real effort to do anything differently,” she added. “The impact of bullying can be catastrophic – the wider society are also the losers.”

Overall, the majority of people did not report bullying. University staff were most likely to seek support from family and/or friends. Only a quarter (26%) of UK staff sought support from their university counselling service.

“The issue of bullying has reached unacceptable proportions in higher education,” says Gus John, fellow of the London centre for leadership in learning at the Institute of Education.

“Often the complaints procedures in such institutions are ineffective,” says John, “largely because HR departments see it as their business to defend the indefensible, ie the conduct of managers, rather than demonstrating that the institution has an equal duty of care towards victims of such oppressive conduct.”

Kim Frost, chair of universities HR association, says no-one should suffer in silence and there are many forms of support that universities provide, from employee helplines to clear policies on unacceptable behaviour.

Frost says: “Just about all universities take bullying very seriously and have policies on dignity at work or bullying which they are experienced in using.

“Bullying is a very emotive term, and what one person experiences as bullying will often be simple performance management from their manager’s point of view. Sometimes the person who feels bullied can feel the university isn’t supporting them enough because of that need to be even-handed during any investigation.”

Survey findings suggest that bullying is having a lasting effect on higher education. Overall, as a result of being bullied, 87% of researchers said they lost confidence in their academic work and 20% of researchers left their job. In the UK, 13% left academia.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, says these findings are a “shocking reflection on the sector” and reveal not much has changed since 2012, when the UCU ran a survey on stress and bullying.

“Universities need to adopt a zero tolerance approach to bullying and harassment, ensuring that they have appropriate procedures in place to deal with it when it does occur and support those who have been bullied.”
With the UK government distributing £1.6bn of public money in research funding, it’s inevitable that there will be some form of mechanism for assessing the quality of research in UK universities. But since the REF replaced its predecessor, the RAE, in 2008, it has received heavy criticism and been called “not fit for purpose”.

Of those who said recent policy changes had a negative impact on bullying, 81% in Russell Group universities cited the REF.

“Only excellence in research is appreciated and no diminution in output or quality can be tolerated or excused by the increased teaching and pastoral demands on our time,” comments one female academic in the survey who works at a Russell Group university.

Another Russell Group academic aged between 45-54 wrote: “The matching of REF performance with income has completely destroyed the idea that academic research is of intrinsic value. It gives highly successful researchers the licence to behave badly with impunity because no university wants to lose the associated income.”

He added: “Equally, researchers who manage to get some of the reduced grant funds available are treated as untouchable when they misbehave. This failing system is self-propagating and harms large numbers of people.”

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, said: “Given the REF is a new system and one which has a significant impact on researchers, it is important that it is evaluated and the sector is given an opportunity to feed back on the process as it develops.”

More like this:
• Culture of cruelty: why bullying thrives in higher education
• ‘Professors are supposed to be stressed! That’s the job’
• Bullying in universities: what are your legal rights?

Enter the Guardian university awards 2015 and join the higher education networkfor more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.

Lobby of Senate called off

PLEASE NOTE: SUCU Committee has called off the lobby of Senate today in response to the statement from University management on USS.  We welcome the decision to at least have some criticism of some elements of the USS approach, which seems to be in response to our pressure and proposed lobby and support from the Students Union.  But the criticism is very late and extremely muted – the fundamentals are unchallenged.

We remain concerned as expressed on our website: The University’s commitment to decent pensions for staff must be in question when they have:

  • slashed the pensions of grade 1-5 staff and closed their final salary scheme, and
  • the VC has bought out of USS two years ago (with a 17% rise on top of his 26% pay rise, as previously reported)

Lobby of Senate 13.45 today

WHY is this University SILENT about the savage cuts to our pension?

Join us at 13.45 outside Firth Court today to ask why this University hasn’t spoken out against the USS cuts – when many other Russell Group Universities have done so:

Imperial College

has stated: “We are disappointed that you [UUK] appear to be focused on trying to fit your current proposed benefit solution to the perceived problem without first sufficiently challenging all the assumptions…  We are concerned that without this challenge you risk recommending a major downgrading of one of our employees’ most important benefits based on numbers which are as likely to be modelling artefacts as a reflection of the underlying economic reality.”

Warwick University

has stated: “Our overall view is that collectively the assumptions are over-prudent and consequently we believe the scale of the resulting deficit to be materially pessimistic.”

Oxford University

warns that comparisons made by UUK are “misleading because they assume no promotion or incremental salary increases over time”.

“[realistic examples] would show a much greater reduction of benefits to the average academic member of staff than is shown in the UUK examples.”

LSE and Cambridge

have publically criticised UUK’s proposals

 

 and from Sheffield?.

…silence…

  • The University of Sheffield slashed the pensions for grade 1-5 staff two years ago and closed the final salary pension scheme.

  • The VC has bought himself out of USS.

  • Where does UEB stand on the attack on USS pensions?

Lobby Senate next Wed 10th Dec 13.45-14.15, outside Firth Court

Many Russell Group Universities have opposed the pension cuts – why hasn’t Sheffield done likewise?  UUK risks recommending a major downgrading of pensions – due to a flawed valuation.  THIS MUST BE CHALLENGED.

Imperial College and many others have publicly come out against the USS methodology.  Please join us outside Firth Court at 13.45 to demand our University speaks out too.

USS pensions deficit artificial, say leading authorities on actuarial science

A group of leading authorities on statistics, financial mathematics and actuarial science have written to Sir Martin Harris, the chairman of the USS trustees, and members of the board, criticising the assumptions that have been made underpinning the estimation of the deficit, as detailed in the document ‘USS: 2014 Actuarial Valuation: A Consultation on the proposed assumptions…

They point out that some key assumptions the trustees have made, that underlie the calculations that produce a figure for the deficit of over £12 billion, are unrealistic and in fact unnecessarily pessimistic. In particular they criticise the trustees for assuming:

  • pessimistic investment performance based on gilts rather than the actual experience of the USS investment portfolio,
  • a far too high rate of price inflation,
  • a rate of salary growth above what has been achieved in the past,
  • an increase in the rate of increase of longevity without supporting data (indeed the latest actuarial estimates report a reduction in expected lifespans),
  • too short a time horizon for the employer covenant (one more appropriate to a private company than the university sector).

They also make some fundamental criticisms resulting from the methodology being used:

  • There is an element of circularity in the reasoning – much of the deficit is due to the expectation of poor returns in the future (because of the gilts-based approach) and the short 20-year time horizon for the employere covenant – which in turn is said to be necessary because of the unwillingness of employers to pay high contributons due to the deficit.
  • The assumptions are chosen in a manner which is economically incoherent – buoyant salary growth assumes a strongly growing economy while poor investment returns assume an economy permanently in recession – both these assumptions serve to inflate the deficit.
  • All the assumptions made assume a ‘worst case’ scenario. The combined effect is to be unduly pessimistic.
  • The estimates obtained by the trustees’ approach exhibit wild swings, with rapid instability over a period of months in the estimated liabilities, while the real liabilities are known to vary very slowly on a decadal beasis.

They conclude:

…moving to evidence‐based assumptions on salary growth and RPI would show the scheme to be in healthy surplus on a neutral assumptions basis. Remove the derisking assumptions and that surplus would be substantial. Substitute historic asset growth performance for Gilts plus and the neutral basis would show a very substantial surplus.

 


UCU’s Proposals

You can read UCU’s report and provisional proposal here (details on p8). 

  • UCU is proposing a ceiling for the scheme set at the 85 percentile of earnings point, which would be roughly £75k at the moment but would increase over the years along with earnings.
  • UCU is proposing all members move onto the CARE [Career Average] scheme but that all get accrual at 1/70th instead of 1/80th, ie a 14% higher pension for those already on CARE.

The employers are proposing an initial fixed point cap for DB [Defined Benefit] of £50k, but there is not the slightest doubt that if we allow any DC [Defined Contribution] element into the scheme then the employers will over the years press to expand that element until the DB scheme has disappeared altogether (just as we knew that if we allowed the CARE scheme in then they would want to force us all onto it eventually).  It is absolutely essential that we do not allow any DC element into the scheme. Most of us have friends whose DC pension has all but vanished in recent years.  As they say the City of London is built on the bones of pensioners.