A
U
S
T
R
A
L
I
A
N
U
N
I
V
the formula for such an article’s generation. However, if nothing eventuates, then that allowance is deemed void and subsequent workload allowances for later years are overloaded to recoup that allowance. This allows someone the chance to have ‘a go’ without granting them time for a wasted effort (which would be inequitable in that it would be the same as the time given to someone else for a successful effort). This might seem somewhat rough upon an academic wishing to become research-active but, looked at another way, it is providing someone with a supported chance to shift their profile. One variation on this is to consider the academic’s obligations concerning the allowance to be discharged if the article were to be submitted, even if rejected (so long as it was a serious submission).After all, it is easier for an established researcher to be published than a beginner. In summary, there seems to me to be limited institutional obligation to bankroll a teaching-intensive appointee’s move to research activity and even less obligation if the academic in question is a teaching and research appointment who is, in effect, failing to fulfil the contractual obligations of such an appointment. Research publication workload allocation In what follows, I am considering only publication research activity that does not come with a grant that ‘buys’ an academic’s time to do that research. I have suggested that a research-inactive academic who wishes to become research-active could be supported via an ‘advance’ workload allocation, the retention of which was conditional upon performance. But what of academics who are already research-active? Should the same conditional advance allowance for proposed research activity be given or should some other arrangement obtain? I suggest that another arrangement, a retrospective system, is best. Although, if an academic without an existing research record is to have a research workload allocation at all, there is no better possibility than an advance allowance (for proposed research), doing this sort of thing across the board for all academics begins to transgress the manageability principle. Consider what would be involved. How much time is to be allowed prospectively? Some academics would anticipate greater activity than others would and what was proposed would have to be discussed and decided upon. Even if one had a standard allowance for each type of research activity (like 200 hours for a proposed schol-
70 Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle
E
R
S
I
T
I
E
S
’
R
E
V
I
E
W
arly journal research article), different levels of activity would be proposed and then outcomes against those activities would presumably be monitored. Also, in accordance with the principle of equity, prospective allowances for promises that did not result in, say, publications, should be recouped. (Although, as discussed above for the case of the novice researcher, one could, I suppose, not bother to ‘claw back’ workload time for futile activity if one were to be persuaded somehow, a rejected submission perhaps, that serious work had been done even if fruitlessly so). However, look at what has just been sketched. On any of these variations, things are beginning to look very messy, unmanageably so. Apart from this tension with the manageability principle, there are also issues connected with transparency. One could, of course, simply publish the chapter and verse (or, perhaps, just the chapters with some of the idiosyncratic detail omitted) but if ‘claw back’ occurred and is reported, then it begins to look like a ‘naughty’ list. Personally, I don’t mind such ‘outing’ (and it transgresses none of my listed principles) but some would be inclined to be more sensitive of individuals’ feelings. If such sensitivity led to some censoring of promulgated information, then the transparency principle is transgressed. In addition, the more that the ‘verse’ idiosyncratic detail of judgements, and the bases for them, is reported in the interest of transparency, the more the whole process is becoming even more dubiously manageable. Many universities identify some academics as researchactive on the basis of a track-record surpassing some threshold amount of research (say, at least four scholarly research articles over the past triennium). One could improve the manageability of a prospective research allowance scheme by using this classification and granting any academics so classified some standard allowance. However, there are still problems. One is an issue with equity. If classification as research-active or not is on the basis of surpassing some threshold level of activity, individuals will vary as to the extent of their activity beyond that threshold. If, despite this, each is getting the same allowance, then this is inequitable. In addition, one can have sub-threshold research activity (say, two articles over a triennium) but, on this proposal, one would not get a research allowance at all. In short, although the manageability has been improved, the ‘research-active or not’ measure is too crude to be equitable.Things would be marginally improved by having another category ‘highly research-active’ (as some universities do). But it would only be marginal improvement. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010