Employees protest against intended decision by the management team at Arts

Clarification: It was originally stated in the article that the intended decision had been submitted for consultation in the Local Liaison Committees (LSU) at the departments. However, the decision has only been submitted for consultation in the Faculty Liaison Committee (FSU) and in the Local Liaison Committee (LSU) in the Administration Centre Arts (ACA).

 

“If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” This is the message in an open letter of protest from the PhD committee at Arts. Here, a joint PhD committee, comprising representatives from both the scientific staff and PhD students, criticises the faculty management team's plan to abolish the PhD administration as an independent entity.

The faculty management team at Arts is planning a reorganisation of the Administration Centre Arts (ACA) and the Dean’s Secretariat. That’s stated in a memo from January 29. The background is that “the balance between education and research shifts in these years, which gives rise to the adjustment of ACA's administration.” Education will play a smaller role, and research will play a larger one, and this should be reflected in the administration. Therefore, the management team will, among other things, establish the new unit, Arts Research, and tasks and employees will be transferred to the new unit, Arts Research, and to Arts HR. The decision has been submitted for consultation in the Faculty Liaison Committee (FSU) and the local liaison committees of the administration center (LSU), with a public consultation deadline of March 13. But neither the PhD committee at Arts nor the eight PhD programme directors have been included in the consultation.
 However, this doesn’t stop them from expressing their opinion.

The PhD Committees: The decision affects the academic content

Professor Anders-Christian Jacobsen is Chair of the PhD Committee at the Faculty of Arts. He first became aware of the intended decision in late February. In his world, the main problem is that the faculty and administration’s management team view the decision as a mere administrative decision:

“But the decision also affects the academic content of the PhD degree programmes and the committee's ability to ensure the quality of PhD programmes at the faculty. We should’ve been consulted, but we haven’t had any influence,” he says. 

He explains that whereas the committee has until now had a single point of contact for clarifying questions about the PhD programmes through the PhD administration, they will in future have several – sometimes needing to approach individual departments, and at other times Arts HR. 

“It will be more difficult for us to carry out our tasks as a committee,” Anders-Christian Jacobsen says.  

The PhD committee is also wondering about the timing. This year, an international evaluation of the PhD area at Arts is to be carried out, and it would have been reasonable to wait for its results. At the same time, the Committee notes in its protest letter that it’s a highly functioning administrative unit. 

“It’s a unit with great expertise, and we risk a great loss of knowledge if this unit is shut down,” Anders-Christian Jacobsen says.

The fact that it’s a competent unit is also stated in the report that forms the basis for the faculty management team's decision: “The PhD unit is perceived as competent, welcoming and providing a very high level of service for PhD students. A level of service that seems to be higher than that received by other VIP (member of academic staff) groups,” it says. With the organisational change, the PhD students will receive the same service as the other scientific staff. 

But equating PhD students with other scientific staff is not reasonable, the PhD committee points out. They note that the PhD students are just starting a research programme; some are also on a 4+4 scheme, where the PhD programme begins in the final year of the Master's degree programme. Others are employed as industrial PhD students elsewhere than at AU. Finally, the Committee notes that PhD students are in a vulnerable situation:

“There are problems with well-being and stress among PhD students. This is more than an occupational health and safety issue. It also stems from the fact that PhD students are in a vulnerable situation. They face an overwhelming number of demands, must work within a tight timeframe to produce a dissertation and research abroad. All this often happens during the period of their lives when they start a family, so they have more challenges than other groups,” Anders-Christian Jacobsen says and continues:

“One may fear that abolishing the PhD administration will lead to more delays or more dissertations that never get completed,” Anders-Christian Jacobsen says, adding that the rushed process and lack of involvement undermine trust in the management team.

140+ signatures

Among the PhD students, the management team's intended decision has also led to frustration. At the time of writing, more than 140 PhD students have signed a petition initiated by PhD students on the PhD committee. They express the same concerns as the PhD committee and further add that the decision, which aims to streamline administration, paradoxically, in practice, risks increasing the complexity of the organisation. They point out that it’s essential to have a PhD administration that is specialised, accessible and attentive to the particular needs of PhD students. 

Dina Winther is a PhD student at the Department of the Study of Religion and a member of the PhD committee. On Thursday, she tried to hand-deliver the signatures to Dean Maja Horst, but she couldn’t receive the protest in person. 

“We are frustrated about that. We feel somewhat overlooked in this process — and not being able to meet the dean yesterday added to that experience,” she says.

Subsequently, the dean has returned the email and has urged the PhD students to let their union representative bring the letter to the consultation, Dina Winther says.  

She has found the PhD programme difficult to navigate, and the PhD administration has helped provide clarity.

“The rules are complex, but they are totally on top of them and can either give a precise answer or refer to the right one to answer. They are a lifeline in a programme where much is new and uncertain.”

She goes on to say that the PhD administration has been the “alpha and omega” for her continuing to be a PhD student at Arts:

“I have been on part-time sick leave for a few months, where the administration has been paying attention to me and my process,” she says and continues:

“AU can feel like a vast machine where it’s hard for your voice to reach the top, and in that context, it’s magical to be able to call the PhD administration and get answers whenever my supervisor or I are in doubt.”

David Sebastian Jæger, PhD Fellow at DPU in Emdrup and a member of the PhD committee, also describes the process as “not transparent”. He also agrees that the PhD administration's support for the faculty's doctoral students has a positive impact on well-being. He has used the unit several times, among other things, for planning trips abroad, and he doesn’t feel convinced that he will get the same fast and good service if the administration is moved under Arts HR. 

“There will be a risk of loss of knowledge because employees will not be a unified entity. It will be a weakening from our perspective, and something that could affect well-being,” he says and continues:

“As it is now, you have the experience of someone holding a hand under you. It will probably still be the case, but not with the same deep specialised knowledge of what it means to be a PhD student,” he says. 

“I also fear that the break-up of the PhD unit could throw a spanner in the works, because we will have to burden many more with our questions.”

“Deep concerns”

At Arts' eight PhD programme directors, the management team's intended decision also raises “deep concerns”. “In a consultation letter, they write that they find it inappropriate that easing tenured staff’s access to research support should be prioritised over the PhD students’ only point of entry to the support required by their particular employment conditions.” And they urge the management team to adjust the decision and at least rethink “the proposal's drastic downsizing of support for the PhD field”.

Also, 46 PhD supervisors at DPU object to the management team's decision. Their statement included the following: “The decision raises strong concerns in relation to the organisation's PhD level, the general handling of procedures, courses and the differences between the individual training courses, and not least for the well-being of our fellows and the implementation of projects. We fear that the working conditions of both research fellows and supervisors will be significantly impaired.” They strongly appeal for the management team to both withdraw the proposal and to “engage in dialogue with employees about what the good solutions are.” 

Is the dean surprised? Both yes and no

Dean of Arts Maja Horst is familiar with the criticism from the PhD committee, the PhD programme directors and the PhD students. When asked whether it surprises her, she replied, “Yes and no.”

“I regret that I haven’t been able to explain the reason for the reorganisation: That it’s about taking a holistic view of the administrative support for research and researchers,” Maja Horst says.

She explains that the point of the reorganisation has been to meet the desire of institutes and researchers for better research support, which has become evident as part of the faculty's research evaluation. The aim is to ensure equal access to administrative support across research groups. And to the criticism stated that PhD students cannot be equated with other scientific staff because they are in a special and often also precarious situation, she says:

“Many other research groups can also be perceived as being in a precarious situation. Postdocs and assistant professors have many of the same challenges as PhD students, but administratively, they are treated very differently.”

Maja Horst further explains that the background for the proposed decision is that the composition of administrative tasks needs to change as research is taking up more space, teaching less, and there are also fewer PhD students at the faculty. And she is not, like several of her critics, concerned that shutting down a well-functioning unit and handing over its tasks to Arts HR and the new unit, Arts Research, will increase complexity. 

“I have been working on PhD programmes for years at three different universities, where we had this exact division,” Maja Horst says.

The shift of tasks to the departments is also not a cause for concern to the Dean.

“I don’t see this as unintended task drift; I see it as considerations aimed at ensuring equal treatment of employees,” she says.

When asked why the management team hasn’t waited for the evaluation of the PhD programmes, the Dean replies that the reorganisation is due to the need for better research support, as pointed out in the research evaluation.

“It can't wait any longer, but we have created an organisation that can also accommodate any decisions based on the evaluation of the graduate school,” says the dean, adding:

“The new unit needs to be developed. We will need input from both the departments and the PhD school on what is most important, as we will prioritise tasks and consult the environments on this. After all, we don't have more administrative resources than we do, so we need to make good use of them.”

According to the Dean, the PhD School hasn’t been consulted because this is a purely administrative reorganisation, with the consultation focused solely on the staff and units concerned. According to Maja Horst, this is also why the consultation phase has been short. 

“You have to take into account that the administrative staff have been working on this for over half a year and they need clarification soon,” she says.

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Lisa Enevoldsen.