Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
In a recent study, the influential theorist of higher education Ronald Barnett suggests that one way for academics to address the pressures on their professional lives is to embrace a multidimensional concept of working time. Drawing on the analysis of space by the French philosopher/sociologist Henri Lefebvre, Barnett advocates conceiving academic practice as a continuum of interrelated strands rather than a set of discrete packages of activity subject to bureaucratic domination. This paper examines whether this approach can reassert agency on the part of academics and provide a site for resistance to the obsession on the part of managers and policy makers with outputs and the quantification of working hours. It sets Barnett's analysis in the context of other empirical studies in higher education literature on the management and allocation of workloads, particularly on tensions arising from conflicting demands of research and teaching. It also examines synergies between Barnett and other scholarship on the professional lives of law academics on the part of Bradney, Collier and Cownie. The paper concludes that a Lefebvrean analysis of how time and space are constituted by human activity provides a rigorous theoretical framework within which to reconstitute the coherence in academic practice which is sought by many in higher education.
I would like to thank Ronald Barnett, Alan Durant, Penny Kent, Ifan Shepherd and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
1. Frayn, M The Human Touch (London: Faber & Faber, 2006) p 111.Google Scholar
2. Emeritus Professor of Higher Education at the Institute of Education, University of London.
3. Barnett, R ‘Being an academic in a time-impoverished age’ (2009) 24 Higher Education Dynamics 7 at 16 (emphasis in original).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Barnett, R Being a University (London: Routledge 2010) p 73.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Lefebvre, H [D Nicolson-Smith (transl)] The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).Google Scholar For an introduction to Lefebvre's work, see Kofman, E and Lebas, E (eds and transls) Writings on Cities: Henri Lefebvre (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).Google Scholar Commenting on the discipline within which Lefebvre wrote, the editors write (p 44): ‘If any label were to be affixed, it would be as philosopher/sociologist, which is how he described himself.’
6. The literature on what has been called ‘the private life’ of the law school is vast. The term draws on the work of Trow, M ‘The public and private lives of higher education’ (1975) 104 Daedalus 113.Google Scholar See Collier, R ‘The changing university and the (legal) academic career: rethinking the relationship between women, men and the “private life” of the law school’ (2002) 22 Legal Studies 1 at 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Wells, C ‘Working out women in law school’ 21 Legal Studies 116;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bradney, A Conversations, Choices and Chances: The Liberal Law School in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Hart, 2003);Google Scholar Cownie, F Legal Academics, Culture and Identities (Oxford: Hart, 2004);Google Scholar McGlynn, C The Woman Lawyer: Making the Difference (London: Butterworths, 1998);Google Scholar Cownie, F (ed) Stakeholders in the Law School (Oxford: Hart, 2010).Google Scholar
7. Bourdieu, P [P Collier (transl)] Homo Academicus (Cambridge: Polity Press) p 95.Google Scholar
8. Henkel, M Academic Identities and Policy in Higher Education (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2000) pp 205–206.Google Scholar
9. Kinman, G and Jones, F Working to the Limit (London: Association of University Teachers, 2004).Google Scholar See also Kinman, G A Survey into the Causes and Consequences of Occupational Stress in UK Academic and Related Staff (London: Association of University Teachers, 1998). The research discovered that 69% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘I find my work stressful’.Google Scholar
10. Bryson, C and Barnes, N ‘Working in higher education in the United Kingdom’ in Tight, M (ed) Academic Work and Life (London: JAI Press, 2000) p 165.Google Scholar
11. Bradley H ‘Redistribution of labour’ Times Higher Education, 27 October 2011.
12. Court, S ‘The use of time by academic and related staff’ (1996) 50 Higher Education Quarterly 237 at 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Bryson, C ‘What about the workers? the expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work’ (2004) 35 Industrial Relations Journal 38 at 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Cownie, above n 6, p 141.
15. Ibid, p 201.
16. Bradney, above n 6, p 121.
17. Ibid, ch 8.
18. Ibid, p 196.
19. A sceptical public may not appreciate the degree of academic effort which is hidden from view. One historian of the university system observed:
‘The specific obligations of a university teacher when set out to someone who thinks of a job as requiring physical attendance more or less during daylight hours for five days a week, and forty six or more weeks a year, seem modest – indeed bald. Such a person is not satisfied by evidence that many academics are very busy people indeed, devoting more hours to their profession than ordinary office workers. He still suspects that the attraction of being free to do the minimum will not be without its influence on some, and he was duly to be confirmed in this opinion by the appearance of several scathing works of fiction based on university life, such as The History Man. The dilution which necessarily accompanied the first great wave of expansion, and the heady novelty of the world in which new recruits at that time found themselves, gave added strength to these undercurrents of doubt’. (Carswell, J Government and the Universities in Britain: Programme and Performance 1960–1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) p 99)Google Scholar
20. See Cownie, above n 6, p 104.
21. Collier, above n 6, at 21.
22. Collier, R ‘The liberal law school, the restructured university and the paradox of socio-legal studies’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 475 at 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Oliver, D ‘The integration of teaching and research in the law department’ (1996) 30 Law Teacher 133 at 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Tight, M ‘Are academic workloads increasing? the post-war survey evidence in the Uk’ (2010) 64 Higher Education Quarterly 200 at 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Ibid, at 211.
26. Coate, K, Barnett, R and Williams, G ‘Relationship between teaching and research in higher education in England’ (2001) 55 Higher Education Quarterly 158 at 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. For a recent review, see Horta, H, Dautel, V and Veloso, M ‘An output perspective on the teaching-research nexus: an analysis focusing on the United States higher education system’ (2012) 37 Studies in Higher Education 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Shin, J ‘Teaching and research nexuses across faculty career stage, ability and affiliated disciplines’ (2011) 36 Studies in Higher Education 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Krahenbuhl, Gs ‘Faculty world: integrating responsibilities and institutional needs’ (1998) 30 Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 18 at 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. See, eg, Hattie, G and Marsh, Hw ‘The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis’ (1996) 66 Review of Educational Research 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Horta etal, above n 27.
31. Cownie, above n 6, p 118 (emphasis in original).
32. Elsen, Gmf, Visser-Wijnveen, Gj, Van Der Rijst, Rm and Van Driel, Jh ‘How to strengthen the connection between research and teaching in undergraduate university education’ (2009) 63 Higher Education Quarterly 64 at 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Ibid, at 69.
34. Trigwell, K ‘Teaching-research relations, cross-disciplinary collegiality and student learning’ (2005) 49 Higher Education 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. See Halsey, Ah Decline of Donnish Dominion: The British Academic Professions in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).Google Scholar
36. Above n 10, p 168.
37. The Browne Report Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance: Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education (2010), available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf at 7.
38. The Robbins Report Report of the Committee on Higher Education (London: HMSO, Cmnd 2154, 1963) paras 555 and 557.7.Google Scholar
39. Lucas, L, Healey, M and Short, C Academics' Experiences and Perceptions of ‘Research’ and ‘Teaching’: Developing the Relationship between These Activities to Enhance Student Learning within Different Disciplines and Institutions (York: Higher Education Academy, 2008) p 9.Google Scholar
40. Oliver, above n 23, at 136.
41. Ibid, at 137.
42. Halse, C, Deane, E, Hobson, J and Jones, J ‘The research-teaching nexus: what do national teaching awards tell us?’ (2007) 32 Studies in Higher Education 727 at 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Healey, M and Jenkins, A Developing Undergraduate Research and Enquiry (York: Higher Education Academy, 2009) p 123.Google Scholar
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid, p 108.
46. Bakker, G ‘Using pedagogical impact statements to make teaching and research symbiotic activities’ Chronicle of Higher Education 17 March 1995 B3 at B3.Google Scholar
47. Spencer M and Kent P A Time for Learning ad Teaching? Making the Most of the Sabbatical (2010) available at http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/personal-and-professional-development-and-cpd/sabbaticals.
48. For one of the first reports arguing for the inclusion of undergraduate research formally in degree programmes, see Boyer, E Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1998).Google Scholar
49. Healey and Jenkins, above n 43, p 22.
50. Cuthbert, D, Arunachalam, D and Licina, D ‘“It feels more important than other classes I have done”: an authentic undergraduate research experience in sociology’ (2012) 37 Studies in Higher Education 129 at 131 and 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Lucas etal, above n 39, p 54.
52. Ibid, p 51.
53. Collier, R ‘Legal academics as stakeholders: reconceptualising identity and social class’, in Cownie, , above n 6, pp 15 and 17.Google Scholar
54. Coate etal, above n 26, at 162.
55. See, eg, Brew, A and Boud, D ‘Teaching and research: establishing the vital link for learning’ (1995) 29 Higher Education 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Barnett, above n 4, p 184 (emphasis in original).
57. Ibid, p 83 (emphasis in original).
58. For an examination of the role of law in Lefebvre's critique of the philosophy of space, see Butler, C ‘Critical legal studies and the politics of space’ (2009) 18 Social and Legal Studies 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Butler, comments (at 319):
‘By reinforcing the fragmentation of the mental, physical and social fields, the vast bulk of the social sciences have relied upon an impoverished understanding of space. Law is no exception in this regard, through its imposition of abstract categories such as the public/private distinction, property rights and contractual relations on social life. In doing so, it instrumentalises and commodifies space, effacing the full diversity of spatial uses.’
59. Butler (ibid, at 314) writes:
‘Lefebvre was one of the most important intellectual figures of the twentieth century, although his stature and contributions to philosophy, sociology and urban studies have only relatively recently begun to be widely appreciated by scholars outside France.’Lefebvre was particularly influential in Latin America in articulating the rights of city slum dwellers against the encroachments of the wealthy elites.
60. Barnett, above n 4, p 46.
61. Ibid, p 82.
62. Ibid, p 79.
63. Ibid, p 7.
64. Lefebvre, above n 5, pp 89–90.
65. Ibid, p 91.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid, p 33.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid, p 38.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid, p 39 (emphasis in original).
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid, p 40.
75. Harvey, D The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989) p 219.Google Scholar
76. Ibid, pp 203–204.
77. See Butler, above n 58, at 315. Butler identifies two areas of legal scholarship where Lefebvre has been influential:
‘The first is the renewal of critical approaches to the structure and form of urban governance and spatial planning regimes. The second is the potential of the right to the city to act as a fruitful basis for the displacement of formal notions of political citizenship by a broader concept of urban citizenship.’ For a recent example of the application of Lefebvre to legal scholarship, see Layard, A ‘Shopping in the public realm: a law of place’ (2010) 37 Journal of Law and Society 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78. Barnett, above n 4. The phrase ‘conceptual lens’ is Layard's (above n 77, at 446).
79. Cownie, above n 6, p 141.
80. Barnett, above n 4, p 56.
81. Ibid, p 77, quoting Lefebvre (above n 5, p 91) (emphasis in original).
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid, pp 76–77 (emphasis in original).
84. Ibid (emphasis in original).
85. Lefebvre, H Critique of Everyday Life Vol III (London: Verso, 1991).Google Scholar
86. Lefebvre, above n 5, p 95.
87. Ibid, p 408. Kofman and Lebas (above n 5, p 28), in their commentary on Lefebvre, point out that: ‘Unlike his lengthy analysis of the production of space he only sketches a periodisation of time in society.’
88. Lefebvre, above n 5, p 12.
89. Barnett, above n 4, p 99.
90. Ibid, p 138.
91. Bradney, above n 6, p 121.
92. Ylijoki, O-H and Mäntylä, H ‘Conflicting time perspectives in academic work’ (2003) 12 Time and Society 55 at 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93. Ibid, at 62.
94. Ibid, at 73.
95. Barnett, above n 4, p 76.
96. Ibid, p 82.
97. Ibid, p 74. See Bachelard, G The Dialectic of Duration (Manchester: Clinamen, 2000). Bachelard (1884–1962) devised the term ‘rhythmanalysis’.Google Scholar
98. Kofman and Lebas, above n 5, p 31.
99. Barnett, above n 4, p 82.
100. Marks, Sr ‘Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment’ (1977) 42 American Sociological Review 921 at 935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
101. Ibid, at 927.
102. Ibid, at 929 (emphasis in original).
103. Ibid, at 926 (emphasis in original). See Durkheim, E Sociology and Philosophy (New York: Free Press, 1953).Google Scholar
104. Butler, above n 58, at 325.
105. Roberts, P and Redmayne, M (eds) Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching (Oxford: Hart 2007).Google Scholar Another celebrated example of scholars putting their research directly at the disposal of the curriculum is Hunter, R, McGlynn, C and Rachley, E (eds) Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Oxford: Hart 2010).Google Scholar
106. Roberts, P ‘Rethinking the law of evidence: a twenty-first century agenda for teaching and research’ in Roberts, and Redmayne, , above n 105, p 63.Google Scholar
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid, p 62 (emphasis in original).
109. Coaldrake, P ‘Rethinking academic and university work’ (2000) 12 Higher Education Management 7.Google Scholar
110. Ibid, at 15–16.
111. Ibid, at 11.
112. Ibid, at16.
113. Ibid.
114. Ibid, at 19.
115. Barrett, L and Barrett, P The Management of Academic Workloads: Full Report on Findings (London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education 2008) p 8.Google Scholar
116. See also Barrett, L and Barrett, P ‘Current practice in the allocation of academic workloads’ (2007) 61 Higher Education Quarterly 461 at 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
117. Ibid, at 463.
118. Barrett and Barrett, above n 115, p 35.
119. Ibid, p 123.
120. Ibid, p 14.
121. Ibid, p 37.
122. Ibid, p 114.
123. Ibid, p 121.
124. Kearns, H and Gardiner, M ‘Is it time well spent? the relationship between time management behaviour, perceived effectiveness and work-related morale and distress in a university context’ (2007) 26 Higher Education Research and Development 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
125. Boice, R ‘Is released time an effective component of faculty development programs?’ (1987) 26 Research in Higher Education 311 at 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
126. See Spencer, M and Kent, P ‘Perpetuating difference? Law school sabbaticals in the era of performativity’ (2007) 27 Legal Studies 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
127. Kofman and Lebas, above n 5, p 30.
128. See Coaldrake, above n 109, at 19, citing Neumann, R ‘Research and scholarship: perceptions of senior academic administrators’ (1993) 25 Higher Education 97 at 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
129. Barrett L and Barrett P, above n 115, p 99. They cite the Kinman and Jones (above n 9) survey, which showed a low correlation between number of hours worked and psychological well being measures.
130. Barnett, above n 4, p 6.
131. Bradney, above n 6, p 201. See also Cownie, above n 6, esp pp 113–119. For a review questioning some of Bradney's conclusions, see Collier, above n 22.
132. Above n 37.
133. Department for Business Innovation ‘Students at the heart of the system’ June 2011, available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heart
134. Ibid, at 4.
135. Ibid, at 26. The paper notes current differences by discipline at different institutions, with a range of between 44.8 hours and 18.7 hours in law, compared with between 39.5 hours and 14 hours in historical and political studies.
136. Evans, G ‘Managing consumer expectations: more research, less teaching and fewer contact hours’ (2009) Education Law Journal 188 at 191 and 192.Google Scholar
137. Above n 4, p 75.
138. Bradney, above n 6, p 199.
139. Ibid, p 202, quoting Hochschild, A The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work (New York: Metropolitan Books 1997) p 47.Google Scholar
140. Ibid, p 203.
141. Above n 53, at 29 (emphasis in original). However much they question the extraneously imposed boundaries in academic work, between private and public, research and teaching, qualitative and quantitative accounting of time, there is still little mention in any of the above studies of that most marked of divisions – that between hand and brain.For a powerful plea for academics to adopt manual skills, see Crawford, M Shop Class as Soulcraft: Inquiry into the Value of Work (London: Penguin, 2009).Google Scholar
142. Standing, G The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class (London: Bloomsbury, 2011) p 119.Google Scholar
143. Ibid, p 60.
144. Barnett, above n 4, p 154.
