The debate on the super-human competencies required of the next rector may not be in sync with the core realities of our University. World rankings and emphasis on leading edge research are the main priorities. Fair enough, but are we being truthful to our realities?
The University has served its mission successfully so far. The majority of our students excel when they proceed to further their studies abroad and perform up to the expectations of their employers if they venture into application right upon graduation. This means that they were provided with the training they needed.
The current rector is being constantly showered with words of praise for taking the University to yet a higher level of performance. I join the chorus.
Does this mean that the new rector will find everything ready? That would be fantastic! In his enthusiasm to drive the University forward and, perhaps, due to his IT background, some contingencies have developed during the process.
I am limiting my discussion to only two, perhaps the most fundamental.
The first relates to the increasing levels of mechanistic measures to manage the performance of the academic staff. We have seen the establishment of procedures to measure the Teaching Effort (TE) of all academics. I remember very vividly the first UMASA extraordinary general meetings discussing the introduction of these procedures and cannot forget the reaction of one of our established professors screaming from the back row of the hall: “Stop this madness”!
From a management perspective I can identify with the feelings of this esteemed professor. What are we trying to achieve here? Attempting to apply scientific management tools to run a knowledge creating organisation? Madness.
How are heads of department appointed? Simple, if you are in the good books of the rector and his/her associates
These tools work perfectly well in industries where the product is tangible, can be measured and quantified because you can see it with the naked eye.
But knowledge work? Intangible, unquantifiable and does not lend itself to any kind of measurement. We are trying to measure the unmeasurable, quantify the unquantifiable and reward our knowledge workers according to these measurements – an exercise in futility.
It goes without saying that the end result was less motivation, enthusiasm and loyalty. We have managed to turn the equation on its head – is the system there to serve us to deliver to our maximum capacity or are we existing to serve the system?
Now everyone is mainly concerned with gaining TE points, and to do that, the system measures the number of study units delivered, the ECTS value and the number of students. What about quality?
Where does this feature in the equation? What about new initiatives, new programmes of studies, innovative solutions? How are we to measure and reward these? ‘So, thank you, sir, if no one appreciates my efforts, I’m sorry but I better go, research and publish to be eligible for promotion.’
This brings us to the second contingency: promotions. Our promotion system is based solely on the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals of international repute. What about the TE now? OK, the ‘quantity’ of teaching is rewarded because I get my salary at the end of the month.
But the quality of my teaching and the research that goes into it? Is that taken into account? The answer is straight: ‘No, you idiot, you should have done like so many of your colleagues. Do your TE, to get paid and disappear to find the time and energy to publish.’ Further status is being head of Department.
How are heads appointed? Simple – through a very subjective process that can be translated as follows: if you are in the good books of the rector and his/her associates. Meritocracy? No wonder so few academics are eager to fill these positions.
A new set of criteria needs to be developed to ensure that heads of department are appointed according to their achievements as lecturers, researchers and leaders.
The debate is emphasising research to push up the University in the academic hit parade. Fine. Let’s publish more, but let’s not forget that our mission is to teach, or better still, to enable the kind of learning that is needed to make our nation what it deserves to be.
Our University’s primary mission is to develop the knowledge workers needed by the knowledge economy. Let’s keep our feet on the ground. This might be one of the major challenges for the new rector: how to strike the right balance between teaching and researching in a State university that is committed to providing the nation with people it needs for the future.
If we restrict ourselves to the procedures that we have imposed so far we might very much risk turning our Alma Mater into a scientifically managed sausage factory.
Joseph Azzopardi is a senior lecturer at the University’s Department of Management.