next »

[the_walrus]

Being both (a) new to the department (b) in my first permanent position and (c) new to the UK, I've been inclined to STFU in departmental meetings, etc, and take things in, in accordance with the advice offered on these fora.

Now, there are a number of other people (also foreigners) in our department who have been around only a year or two longer than me, and who feel quite free to express their views, sometimes quite strongly, even though they are pre-probation.  I've been advised by a senior colleague that this kind of discussion really is welcomed from new members of staff.  She finds it odd that north americans in particular feel the need to self-censor.  She assures me that probation is a forgone conclusion (at least in my case) and no needs to worry.  I'm wondering, do newbies in the UK, owing to the more immediate job security, feel less of a need to practice STFU with their colleagues?  Or, should I be suspicious of how my younger colleagues behave and of what my senior colleague tells me?

As a footnote, it strikes me that this really is how things should be (i.e., that younger colleagues' views are welcomes right away), and that the north american tenure system really does undermine academic freedom, at least for pre-tenure folks.  That's a side issue, though, I suppose.  And, I certainly agree that there's much to be said for watching and learning.  But, there's a fine line between watching and learning, and censorship.

[dyst_uk]

Firstly, I just want to say that I have only taken part in School Boards/course & programme committees as a student rep at one uni, so please don't generalise from what I'm about to say.

However, I have certainly seen newer members of staff being vociferous in their views.  I can't say how seriously they were taken or whether this had any impact on whether they were accepted (although they do all seem to be within the Faculty still).

[patchouli]

I don't know if this answers your question, but I have always been concerned that the STFU rule runs into dangerous territory, at its extremes.  There are, of course, appropriate times to be quiet and listen and learn, and there are times when one should add his/her voice to the discussion.  There are also times when one of conscience, I believe, must speak up. 

In our department now there are two people who apparently follow the STFU rule:  Colleague W agrees with whomever he/she is with at the moment--this colleague's views are a mirror of those around.  Colleague Q spoke up once and someone disagreed and has now become completely voiceless.  Both are sad extremes of the STFU rule.  We have a third newbie who voices her opinions as part of our discussions; I wish we had more like her.

There are times when voicing an educated opinion and presenting it as an opinion, not a fact, is an essential and educated thing to do in an academically free environment.  I tend to agree with you that STFU can create habits in some of permanent silence or group agreement, which minimizes diversity and may stifle new thought.

[donstefano]

I think it is a good idea to STFU during the first year - take some time to get to know dept dynamics, and to get your facts right. But after that, say what you think needs to be said. Probation should not be an issue, because generally, this is just a formality. In my case, when I asked them to end probation and make my job permanent, the reaction was: whatever you want - we didn't even realise you were on probation. It's no big deal. Basically everyone gets a permanent post after 3 years probation or faster here, unless you really really screw up, but when that happened those people generally had looked for other jobs elsewehere already.

[expatinuk]

Before you can mouth off at meetings you need to have a really good understanding of the system in the UK. It's so different from the US. I really wish that I'd had a translator for my first few faculty meetings.

Your colleagues have been there a year, perhaps they feel more familiar with the system now. But I still think that you need to keep your mouth shut until you really know what you're talking about.

Oh, and for Pete's sake... do NOT ever say... 'Well, in the US we do.....'

[testingthewaters]

Oh, and for Pete's sake... do NOT ever say... 'Well, in the US we do.....'

... unless in the context of "In the US we do X, can you tell me how this work here?" Sometimes people in your department are so used to their own country's rules that they forget you might not know them. If you can find someone you trust, it can be very helpful to explain how you are used to things working so that they can point out the differences to you. Just make it clear that you are trying to understand what is going on, not change the UK into the US.

I agree that STFU is well practiced in all things involving political factions in all contries, since as a newbie this is just about impossible to gauge. You don't know which comments are important, and which aren't. You might not catch that someone is actually really irritated with something you said, particularly in the UK.

Having said that, it has been my experience that you might be expected to have a more outspoken opinion on matters directly pertaining to your field than in the US... so long as you can keep it directly related to the material and not step on any toes. On the other hand, you aren't sure when you are stepping into someone's field and into a long standing-argument. Hmmm...

Never mind. Just STFU for the first year or so to get the lay of the land, then later on you can speak up knowing where the minefields are.

[the_walrus]

This all sounds like good advice, and basically what I'd concluded.  I've been in my post since January, and have mostly stayed quiet.  And, I agree with everyone that things *are* so, so different, and the problem is that you don't know what you don't know.  Anyway, I feel like in at least some cases, my quietness is annoying people (e.g., people seem to want more noise in second marking than I was willing to provide my first time round.  Maybe this semester I'll feel free to disagree a tad bit, if warranted).  I'll proceed with caution.

And, regarding this:

Oh, and for Pete's sake... do NOT ever say... 'Well, in the US we do.....'

I have a colleague who's not from the US, but who has the phd from there, and s/he does this a lot.  It hurts my ears.

[sandgrounder]

My own feeling on this is that after 6 months, you've probably got a reasonable grasp on the system if you've been consciously trying to figure it out. In that case, constructive comments and ideas will be welcomed - it will probably in fact be welcomed as proof that you are taking an interest in future plans and are intending to stick around.

The one thing I would warn anyone new to the UK against is engaging in pointless crusades - much of the quality assurance stuff like second marking, peer observations etc, that several recent non-British appointments where I am, appear to view as personal insults and rant and rail about at interminable length in staff meetings, is centrally mandated and not negotiable. It simply goes with the territory. Continually berating the people with the thankless jobs of running the degree programmes because they have to ensure these tasks are carried out, is the quickest way I know of getting yourself designated as a bad colleague...

[porcupine]

If you are worried about saying something contentious but you feel it's important to show you're participating in meetings, then you could always one or two clarificatory questions (not necessarily from the 'I'm foreign' perspective, but from the 'What does blah actually mean I need to do in the next few weeks?' perspective).

Things are definitely different (especially when you cross the pond in the opposite direction), and there will be lots of things that seem very strange. Try to find a friendly colleague with more experience of the department to mentor you, so you can ask questions without feeling foolish. If your department has graduate students, you could also hang out with them to get some of the inside information.

I am struggling with how to do this in my odd new Big City department in the US where nobody ever seems to be in the building (and when they are in, they are swamped), but in England I'd probably go for coffee, or a pint one Friday evening, or perhaps drop round to their office for a quick chat if you know they are not super-busy.

[drspouse]

I came to a UK lectureship from a US postdoc-with-a-little-teaching, and was inclined not to say anything initially in department staff meetings, but I do now find that a few things from the US are relevant or instructional for UK departments. I never say "In the US we did..." but occasionally I do say "Well, my US students coped with this so I should jolly well hope UK ones could" since we all know (well, at least we all hope) the UK ones are better at independent study when they start university, and they are certainly educated to a more specialist level.

I am now on Senate as a random generic person and really feel inhibited in saying very much there - I have a particularly annoying Dean who seems to think ladies (or possibly junior academics) should be seen and not heard, and once when I asked a clarification question she glared at me. My HoD told me not to say much on Senate, but he thought a question within my specific expertise was worth asking, and I've expressed things through senior colleagues I know and am sitting next to, as well.   

That's one option if you feel strongly about a topic - whisper to the person next to you in staff meeting and if they say "good point", make it. Make sure you sit next to someone sympathetic and experienced, though...

[realbusacad]

From my observation the main difference between US/UK meetings is that US ones actually tend to be meaningul - they are where important decisions are made by consensus (eg. tenure decisions, search/hire, course directions etc) - hence more STFU as what you say has an impact and is more likely to upset a vested interest.

UK meetings tend to drone on for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours with people constantly re-iterating, repeating and re-evaluating. No-one ever makes a decision or takes ownership, they just sort of run out of steam or time or die. In the UK decisions are very much driven by those in the administration and in power at the top. Everyone else can say what they like (and they do at length) as ultimately whatever anyone says won't have any impact as the decision is already made.

Possibly I'm being too cynical, but not much.......

[expatinuk]

Possibly I'm being too cynical, but not much.......

nah... that's my experience. I'd just LOVE to give everyone a copy of Roberts Rules of Order.

[qrypt]

From my observation the main difference between US/UK meetings is that US ones actually tend to be meaningul - they are where important decisions are made by consensus (eg. tenure decisions, search/hire, course directions etc) - hence more STFU as what you say has an impact and is more likely to upset a vested interest.

UK meetings tend to drone on for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours with people constantly re-iterating, repeating and re-evaluating. No-one ever makes a decision or takes ownership, they just sort of run out of steam or time or die. In the UK decisions are very much driven by those in the administration and in power at the top. Everyone else can say what they like (and they do at length) as ultimately whatever anyone says won't have any impact as the decision is already made.

Possibly I'm being too cynical, but not much.......

In my experience, department meetings involve actual decision-making.  I have been in fairly small departments, perhaps that is the reason for the fact that the meetings have seemed meaningful.

At a higher level, however, they are exactly as you say.  I go to faculty-level meetings now where the main activity involves the dean reading the title of the agenda item, referring to the relevant pre-circulated paper, and asking for our assent.  This assent always seems to consist in silence.  Clearly some sort of magic is involved here.  It is a ritual designed purely for the construction of more paper, minutes that give the impression that something actually happened. 

There are of course advantages to this - the meetings are quite short and conflict-free.  Also I do really like our dean, I think he is easily the most sensible administrator I have ever encountered, a thoroughly decent person with exactly the right values.  But if the same mode of operation carries on with a new and less desirable dean, it might come to look much more problematic.