The ECIU University alliance is an emerald UiS forgot

Denne teksten er et debatt­inn­legg. Inn­holdet i teksten uttrykker forfatterens egen mening.

The UiS I envision makes room for dialogue, collaboration, and creativity. Most of us, students and employees, want to actively contribute to the future of the University of Stavanger, and continue to find passion and purpose bridging knowledge with serving the common good.

To do so, we must secure a sense of belonging where there is room for diversity of perspectives in meetings, workgroups, and reports that set the ground for decision-making processes that affect us all, and can impact the preparation of our students for their work-life.

As discussed in other publications in Khrono recently, UiS is currently addressing their continuation as an active member of ECIU – European Consortium for Innovative Universities, which provides teaching and learning opportunities, as much as cooperation with different societal actors to address global and local challenges.

universitetsallianse

150 ansatte med opprop mot UiS-rektorens forslag: — En kolossal feil

At the moment, many students and employees feel concerned – and have signed an open letter with over 150 signatures, an initiative to favour a thorough revision of the processes leading to two somehow diverging recommendations, in two separate reports.

From an organizational perspective, these series of events are invitations to pause and reflect, instead of rushing potentially regretable decisions. This, specially because the document that grounds the rector’s recommentadion could have benefited from the active inclusion of updated data, perspectives, and feedback from the students, and the staff actively working to favour ECIU projects. 

We have now approached the rector and let him know of this information gap, and initiated a dialogue we hope he continues with us.

Let me get a meta-reflection with the following thought experiment:

Debatt ● Trym Holbek

UiS lukker døren til Europa for å gå i økonomisk balanse

A. Would you, as a scientist, submit two drafts of an article for peer review at an academic journal and tell the editors the following: 

«Dear editorial board: my research team did not seem to agree, some of them are indicate findings in one direction, while others seem to show alternative findings in tension. I trust more some of my team members already, but I will leave it up to you to decide whom you trust as a journal. I want to clarify that we did not have an opportunity to collect thorough data due to a limited budget and constrained time capacity. This implies that we did not interview nor observe enough participants, but we are nonthelesss confident about a potential conclusion having collected brief opinions from other people who might or might not know what is at the heart of our stakeholders, but not the stakeholders themselves.» 

It should not be controversial to state that the editorial board of any solid academic journal would likely question such a submission, inviting the research team to align with specific criteria. Similarly to this tought experiment, it could be expected that UiS takes some time to revise in depth the processes that led to two different documents, and the rationale for primarily focusing on only set of the perspectives in them. Doing so will ensure that:

statsregnskapet

Vendte underskudd til overskudd

1) There is enough involvement of students and staff, and updated data;

2) There is clarity about what are the deepest challenges for innovation and internationalization at the university, to tailor a feasible strategy to adapt to the contemporary changes of academia, and the societal needs we have at stake;

3) To call the elephant in the room, topics that regard internationalization in academia nowadays can quickly build resistance and polarization. Therefore, the university is to promote an organizational culture where ALL employees can question their assumptions and limiting beliefs about what internationalization strategies involve, and what innovative pedagogies in higher education call for. We ALL must work on our mindsets, attitudes and values if we want endeavours such as ECIU, or the like, to suceed –from Rogaland, to the world.

It should not be controversial to state that UiS, as a relatively young unviersity compared to other institutions in Norway, is still developing a strategy to survive and thrive in the local and global landscape. Adapting successfully to the current budget crises posed to academia requires flexibility and commitment to do things differently. To consolidate our identity as a university, all of us, together, must engage in a conscious effort to favor dialogue, curiosity, collaboration, and humility.

As an employee of UiS, I want what is best for my students, for my research team, for my department, and for my own academic career. Therefore, I have invested, for years, in expanding my network within ECIU, and strengthen my cooperation with, for example, DCU – Dublin City University.

This has led to multiple stays in Ireland, and the inclusion in large EU grant applications. In addition, I also received 150.000kr funding from ECIU to develop one micro-module (3ECT) on silence and well-being to be offered online, and a PhD course (5ECT) on empathy, compassion and meaning, to be taught on an intensive basis in Stavanger next august. Paradoxically, this information was not included in the documentation, which is only one out of multiple examples proving the concern of students and staff have

USA

Forskere i Stavanger viser sin støtte til forskere i USA

Recommending to step back from most of the benefits of the ECIU university that can have negative consequences for the quality of our portfolio, our innovation projects, our international cooperations, our capacity for securing external funding, our possibilities to collaborate with other organizations, and for R&D processes in general.

Therefore, it should not be controversial, but rather a matter of humility, to zoom out, and think like scientists in these organizational processes. Back to the thought experiment above, if we were part of a research team, and we had two pilot reports with limited data and differing findings, it is likely that most of us, from a scientific perspective, would:

•  Pursue more data points
•  Send the report to participants/stakeholders for feedback and quality check before considering it a finished report
• Expand the reach of our data collection methods
• Try to replicate the experiment and see whether it would lead to similar results 

In an effort to supply with additional information, a group of professors at UiS – Tanu Biswas, Arild Bakken, Eduardo Barros Silva, and I, as well as some staff who prefer to remain anonymous, have written an executive brief that we have made available for the rector and different instances at the university.  

Universitetsallianser

Nå skal det utredes juridisk status for europeiske universitets­allianser (arkiv)

We would expect the university board to also have access to this brief, and appreciate the effort we have put in writing this additional material. There are, as well, informal perspectives being shared in the intranett, in Khrono, and in the open letter with over 150 signatures, portraying the, until now somehow unheard, voices of the students and staff.

Rumor has it, in addition, that there is a possibility for remaining as a passive part of a network but not as part of the ECIU university, which is the rector’s recommendation to the board.

However, this idea requires further clarification, as this suggestion might not be as feasible, or as helpful, for the students, and the academic staff. Back to the point of avoiding information gaps and favouring dialogue, it is sound to expect such a suggestion is mapped thoroughly with a clear risk analysis.  

For the time being, it is likely the students and the academic staff will lose the opportunity to strenghten the study portfolio at UiS, as well as lose opportunities to favor international student and staff exchange, make straightforward connections between our courses, and work-life needs.

Looking at the results from our «Studentbarometer», it is clear that the connection between what we teach, and the skills students need to thrive in work-life, have room for improvement, and ECIU challenge-based learning is a gem opportunity that UiS has not appreciated well enough yet.

Europeiske universiteter

Jager fire nye år som «europeisk universitet» (arkiv)

In addition, one could also ask the rector to clarify what would happen with the staff directly connected to ECIU at UiS if the ECIU university project is not renewed? What would happen with their work contracts?

I want to trust that our rector is a leader who is committed to favour diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as academic freedom, because that is what he has expressed publicly. Therefore, students and staff want to secure participation in developing a strategy where internationalization is at stake. 

We are challenging him to pause and reconsider this decision because we care about UiS, and we know he also wants what is best for UiS. 

However, since the documentation available to him did not include the points of view, insights, or feedback from students and staff actively in favor of ECIU, we deserve some compassionate listening and reassurance what our perspectives matter. In a previous Khrono interview the rector said there is data grounding his recommendation to pull out from ECIU university, and that UiS was not getting enough out of their money. 

This is only partially true though – there are other versions of the story, pending collaborative integration, and this decision is also about other forms of capital – not only a, otherwise relatively low, monetary sum.

I am optimistic that the rector, as well as any other leaders involve in the next step, will slow down and open up to new perspectives, acknowleding the need to include more data into the picture. 

Until then, it is fair to argue that having saved 55 million kroner so far – as celebrated in Khrono, UiS can afford a 4 million investment in ECIU, an investment that can make UiS flourish in the European scene, and position itself nationally.

Debatt ● Klaus Mohn

USA truar forskings­sikkerheita