Reinstate Alison Hayman!

Bristol UCU is organising a campaign to reinstate Dr Alison Hayman, Bristol UCU member and longstanding Lecturer in the School of Veterinary Sciences following her unfair dismissal by the University of Bristol.

The grounds for Alison’s dismissal are spurious and one-sided. She has effectively been sacked simply and solely for not securing enough grant monies, despite, for example, having made a considerable Research Excellence Framework contribution; in other words, producing top-notch work of an international calibre.

Tasked with involving all interested parties, this campaign is an opportunity, firstly, to reverse a plainly off beam decision, and, secondly, to reject a singular monetary notion of research.

Such a notion of research is at odds with values that command wide support amongst staff and students at this University and beyond, namely, a notion of research focused on furthering knowledge through sophisticated, holistic processes of peer review. This view is, of course, not confined to the Higher Education sector: it has widespread professional and public support as events at Imperial and Warwick have shown.

UCU is currently fighting Alison’s case. The grounds for her dismissal are highly contestable. The sole determining factor, the crude definition of a failure to progress from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, being a failure to obtain enough grant funding, is out of line. Alison has not failed to perform according to clearly defined contractual obligations – thus making the fact she was put through a capability process (a response to when someone is not fulfilling the expected requirements of their position) grossly unfair – she has failed to perform according to her line manager’s interpretation of progress, an interpretation which is open to interpretation.

In short, the decision to sack Alison following a long, highly stressful capability procedure flies in the face of common sense, and of the policy and ethos of higher education held by UCU members and many in education, principles that many academics hold dear regarding the value of research and a workplace environment conducive to research and to further knowledge. To insist that a failure to secure grant funding is an absolute standard, rather than an indicative sign is highly retrograde. Not securing a grant does not say your research and your work in general has necessarily no value; it merely expresses that one’s research is in a sort of lottery, where there are many other participants with applications of worth and merit. It also confirms what many have known for a great deal of time: whatever the protestations, a single cash metric is all that stands between you and losing your job. The mood music is clear: Warwick, Imperial and Alison’s experience bear witness.

In terms of the effect on Alison, the pressure she has been under over the last couple of years has been intolerable: she has lost her job and livelihood. As the sole breadwinner in her family, this has placed her in a terrible position, sapping her energy and confidence, unable to pay the bills or support dependents. She has been under the cosh for the last 2 years, not because she isn’t doing a good job, but because, according to someone who can’t as easily be held to account vice versa, she isn’t doing her job to a certain fallacious standard. As regards, research quality, Alison is meeting this objective in so many ways, through other indicators of her research contribution. We and the University are being deprived of an excellent researcher and teacher.

For all the above reasons, with Bristol UCU at its head, a campaign needs to publically challenge this decision, by organizing a broad-based, inclusive effort. Alison’s sacking by the University is something we should all care about. It’s not a fact of life, a regrettable but inevitable outcome, but something a lot of people feel is an indication of how bankrupt our universities are when it comes to challenging an iron law of the process of research, and its willing executors, which is separate from the actual process of research.

We need to make it clear that Alison’s sacking was retrograde, that she should be reinstated with immediate effect, and that we call for a holistic, open and well-rounded notion of research performance. It shouldn’t be the case that grants are the bottom line. Research cannot be defined so crudely. It’s time to start resisting this crudeness – we need a victory to halt this form of research metric – and secure a notion of research that far more emphasizes intellectual curiosity, trust in researchers and innovation, not chasing a buck. All university workers and activists have an interest in Alison’s case. It should not be a precedent to be used by eager and keen line managers, who, coming with a ‘cart’ outcome first, be it saving money or reorganization, then concoct a research performance-related ‘horse’ second.

We need to challenge some assumptions. Is it right, for example, that research is so reductively presented, as it has been in Alison’s case, that evidence of ability to design, secure funding for, plan and implement research equals obtaining significant funding and only significant funding? Can one argue that guidelines around research are the same as the ultimate means for assessing staff performance? Crucially, given that successful grant applications are a matter largely outside one’s control, is it a matter of capabilities, your ability, within your own powers and ken, to do your job?

Alison’s grant applications received positive feedback from her department peers and external reviews. While she is responsible for putting forward applications that meet a certain standard, she cannot be expected to guarantee their success! And when one considers the strength of Alison’s all-round performance the case against her become flimsier and flimsier.

There is, though, a clear moral as well as public policy case here, one that reflects how our workplace, our research and how academics are expected to perform. In his recent communication regarding the Research Excellence Framework, the Vice Chancellor suggested that doing research for instrumental reasons, as a means to secure a target and tick a box for the auditors of that target, is not the case at Bristol. We know that this is a statement designed for PR consumption, rather than actual reflection of our common sense, the day-to-day practices found in our community.

This University promises to safeguard the freedom to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without suffering any detriment. It does not state “so long as it is well funded”.

This campaign will aim to reinstate Alison, raise awareness of the issues and make it clear to all parties our wish for an alternation. We will use all available forms of local media to do this. The campaign is open to all, staff, students and all interested parties. We also seek a shift in policy, at Bristol and in the sector generally.

Whatever the particulars of the case, fundamentally Alison was sacked solely because she didn’t secure enough grant funding. Or rather the lack of grant funding was used a means to extract her. We cannot let researchers be subject to this crude metric.