WTMC annual meeting, 21 November
2014. Comments by Sally Wyatt
Thanks to Willem Halffman for organizing this session, and to Barend van der Meulen for having the
courage to put forward such a blatantly bad idea. Certainly stimulates reaction and discussion.
Apologies to any Maastricht colleagues who also heard me earlier this year at Science in Transition
session we had there – will make some of same points, which shows consistency if not originality.
My reaction is much more of a personal story, than what has been so far offered by Paul Wouters &
Willem Halffman. At the risk of sounding self-indulgent, I want to give a bit of background, which might
help to situate my position. I was born in 1959, and grew up in Canada – throughout the 1960s and ‘70s
– when Canada having its liberal heyday. High levels of immigration – seen as a good thing for Canada’s
economic and social development; low income inequality, high social mobility. Indeed, one of the
reasons my British-born parents – from the lower middle classes/petit bourgeoisie – moved to Canada in
the 1950s was precisely because it offered them and their children greater social mobility. Like all good
Canadians, I was socialized into thinking all people were equal and all were nice.
I moved to England in 1979 to do my MA in economics at Sussex University. 1979 was the year that
Margaret Thatcher became prime minister. I spent some of my formative politically active years witness
to and to some extent active in the miners’ strike, anti-fascist politics, 2nd wave feminism. Of course, this
was done from my privileged position in a university, but British universities were damaged in the 1980s
– by Thatcher’s hostility to them (especially to social sciences) because they were major source of
criticism of her policies, and by budget cuts, outsourcing, internal markets – and I would argue, by the
pursuit of excellence.
After finishing my MA, I worked at SPRU – on a project about the competitiveness of British industry,
together with Keith Pavitt and Luc Soete (for the Innovation Studies people present – I did a lot of the
data analysis for Pavitt’s 1984 taxonomy paper in Research Policy which he kindly acknowledged). I
worked for nine years at Sussex and elsewhere on temporary contracts. In 1990 I moved to a permanent
position, to a university at a very different end of the playing field – still a polytechnic when I started,
but like all the others, became a university in early 1990s – University of East London. We offered a
wonderfully innovative teaching programme that gave students both technical skills in IT and an
understanding of the history of technology, as well as its economic and social consequences. Over the
decade that we ran the programme, we had hundreds of students, most local. UEL is located in one of
the most deprived parts of London (pre-Olympics & pre-Eurostar). More than half of the students were
not white, most of the rest were white working class coming late to education. It was very hard work,
but incredibly rewarding. Of all the places I have worked, this is the one with which I was the most
emotionally engaged with, for better or worse.
1
During those 20 years, I lived through several rounds of the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE),
now the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It has certainly had some benefits – particularly in
making visible high-quality pockets of research in universities generally perceived as being of low
quality. The so-called ‘new universities’(old polytechnics) started with RAE that took place in early ‘90s.
In this way, the UK is different from Dutch situation, in which the hogescholen are still evaluated and
funded separately from the universities. Taking part in the RAE worked particularly well for the newer
‘interdisciplines’ such as media and cultural studies, gender studies, and science & technology studies.
Other things you should know about British universities:
-
-
-
-
As I’ve already hinted, they are highly segmented – the excellent (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, also
known as the ‘Russell Group’ - top universities, named for hotel in Bloomsbury where the rectors
met prior to meetings with funding council), the OK and the rest.
Massive university expansion in the UK (and elsewhere in the 1960s & 70s) – largely to the benefit of
women and the middle classes. Some of those universities have done very well, including York &
Lancaster for example.
Selection of students – enormously time consuming process, but has some advantages of saving
time of students. When I did this at UEL, you could sort those who wanted really to study computer
science and not waste their time (as they saw it with history & philosophy of technology). This is
done in the spring, before potential students have their secondary school exam results. As
admissions tutor, you say things like, ‘well if you get two B & one C we’ll let you in’. If you are
Oxford, you say the students need 3 A grades – unless you really like them or the school they went
to, and then you just say 3 D (which is how so many people from private schools end up at Oxbridge
– and 70% of the Cabinet)
Degrees are classified. It is not just cum laude and the rest – but a wonderful system by the same
people who brought you scoring in tennis – first, upper second, lower second, third, unclassified and
fail. This is not simply coming up with an average, often weighted more heavily to grades achieved in
final courses. An enormous amount of time is spent classifying students – consequential for their
futures.
When I arrived here in the Netherlands in 1999, it was an enormous relief – a decently funded higher
education system, without huge inequalities between universities (at least not the 13) in terms of
money or student quality, a decent balance between research and teaching. A lot has changed in 15
years. Three main points.
1. More competition between universities, which is more often than not unproductive and certainly
not conducive to realizing the aims of a national research school such as WTMC (Netherlands
Graduate Research School for Science, Technology and Modern Culture). On a global level, the use
of university rankings across the world is, to put it crudely, a form of imperialism, imposing a system
in which there is only one acceptable form of analytic language, only one way to produce and
measure knowledge, effectively silencing alternatives. Within STS we should know better, in
particular we should know that there are multiple ways of knowing, and that indicators are
performative. [see Paul Wouters] (if X is rewarded, we do X, such as salami publishing to increase
2
quantity of publications; writing valorization & impact statements, etc). We should also know they
are not an inevitable fact of life – policies are also contingent, subject to change, can be resisted.
2. Less integration of teaching and research – to detriment of both, and making it more difficult for
individual scholars in humanities and social sciences to conduct research, for which they often do
not need large grants to produce high quality publications.
3. Obsession with obtaining research grants as end in itself, rather than recognizing it as means to an
end. And an end that increasingly determines individual careers. I don’t blame NWO for this (though
we could blame them for other ills) – they and other research councils (because this doesn’t only
happen in the Netherlands) would be the first to say: we can’t fund all top quality research, our peer
review system evaluates research proposals, and not all the other qualities a department needs,
including teaching, collegiality, etc. Universities which allow acquisition of research grants to
determine their hiring and promotion are not taking their wider responsibilities seriously. [British
don’t have some obsession with money – REF based on quality of output, not at success in obtaining
input/money]
What concerns me about Barend van der Meulen’s suggestion is that the pursuit of excellence sends you
down the British path. There are at least three sources of inequality in the UK system:
-
-
-
Inequality of opportunity for individuals – arising from the very expensive and very selective and
very misleadingly named ‘public schools’, selection to universities, high fees with consequent high
debts for graduates. The Netherlands is not cursed with private education, but there are signs of
slippery slope to selection in universities. Lot to be said in terms of social mobility and social
cohesion for no selection, and for lotteries in choosing medical students, etc.
Inequality of income
o for the universities themselves, core funding for natural sciences, but funding for humanities
and social sciences has to come from student fees. The REF has consequences – how well
you do determines how much cash you get from the government.
o also growing inequalities of income within universities – more managers being paid
managerial rather than academic salaries, that exceed the Balkenende norm (referring to
the salary of the former Dutch prime minister); growing gender gap – in NL and the UK –
equal opportunities achieved in getting women to university to study, but pay gap remains
and even getting worse in recent years, with women earning 80-85% of what men do in
same jobs. Rise in precarious labour – 40% of staff (excluding PhDs) on part-time contracts.
Inequality of wealth – ancient universities (Oxbridge, Kings, Durham) have huge assets in terms of
land, artworks, silverware, wine – OK they also have to maintain their ancient buildings which they
do occasionally by selling off some land
Throughout most of the 20th century, inequalities in the UK and elsewhere declined. In other words,
societies became more equal on all sorts of measures of in/equality, at both collective and individual
levels. One has to be careful to specify what kinds of inequality, and not to confuse equality with
deprivation. But however you look at it, the situation has worsened since the 1980s – pretty much the
point of Thomas Piketty, of the Occupy movement – that the rich are getting richer. Pikkety’s solution is
progressive taxation, and higher taxes on wealth.
3
For universities in the Netherlands, avoiding the pernicious effects of inequalities would mean NOT
introducing a system that would set up some global measure of excellence as the benchmark, that
would reward those who performed to that measure and penalize the rest. If that happens, there is a
real danger that universities themselves become part of the reproduction of inequality. Social mobility is
worse when there is more inequality, and inequality has a very bad habit of reproducing itself across the
generations.
The real relevance of universities is not only to produce people suitable for today’s labour market in the
global economy, but to teach people to think in order to be able to contribute to society in all sorts of
ways, also at the local level. Just as Donald Winnicott, the psycho-analyst, tried to save parents from
professionals with his notion of the ‘good enough mother/parent’, we need to hold on to the notion of a
‘good enough’ university – that saves universities from the fashions of management & politics, a
university that serves its local community, that provides a decent education to students based on the
research of its staff, that recognizes the variety of missions that the already good enough Dutch
universities have.
Thank you.
Further reading:
John Holmwood (ed)(2011) A manifesto for the public university. Bloomsbury Academic.
Sally Wyatt, Flis Henwood, Nod Miller & Peter Senker (eds) (2000) Technology and Inequality.
Questioning the Information Society. Routledge.
4
For introduction to WTMC
Changes in organization – few words about how organization works – board, OC, director, coordinators.
Visible people – me – and coordinators. Changes here – wish Teun & Geert well, very pleased to
welcome Govert & Bernike. Less visible but very important people – Marjatta (for PhDs) & Hannie (for
everything else) – directors and coordinators relatively easy to replace. I would be very panicked if we
had to replace Marjatta & Hannie. Also some changes to the Board – Paul Wouters became chair at the
beginning of this year. Opening up spot – taken by Barend van der Meulen. Koen Frenken moved to
Utrecht, replacing Marko Hekkert – but opening up spot for someone from Eindhoven – and that is now
filled by Geert Verbong.
Membership – PhDs – 63 total, but only about 25 in first phase. no waiting list. When you graduate, you
remain spiritually a member but not actually – somebody needs to pay. If you change institutions, let us
know. 115 senior members – and 6 very senior members, those who have retired but are still active –
most recent of those are Loet Leydesdorff & Rob Hagendijk.
Money – always been in a relatively good position, but we have been digging into our reserves in recent
years in order to cover regular running costs. Not good. At last Board meeting, we thought of ways to
increase income and reduce costs. Budget for supporting workshops declined – both in total, and in
amount per event. Major income generation idea is now that there is no waiting list is to attract
participants to workshops who will pay – anyway good to have PhDs from outside NL. Tell your friends.
Want to leave finances in good stead for end 2016, when UM penvoerderschap comes to an end.
NWO code – ongoing saga. Name & shame (TAP)
We are beginning to gear up to re-accreditation – should take place in 2016, but there are changes in
the procedure, so not definite. Curious to know when major groups last had OZ visitatie. Curious to
know who might be interested in taking over. Generally curious to know what you’re all doing. I would
like to visit all of the groups in the new year, so if you’re responsible for that, grab me & we can work
out dates, or email me, or let me know who I should contact.
Other major cost saving for next year will be holding one-day annual meeting – ideas for how to
organize very welcome. Changed the format a bit this year. Very grateful to those who put together
sessions – great programme.
Start with…
points to discuss with people during meeting:



Stefan – visitatie, Marjatta
KoenF – visitatie
Govert/Bernike
5