The statistics haven’t been good for Trinity lately. We’ve dropped from 43 to 52 in the University world rankings and the University Times has revealed that a significant proportion of Trinity’s academics think that academic restructuring has had little effect and may even have damaged the academic infrastructure of the college.
These statistics are intrinsically connected. The academic restructuring, heralded in the Strategic Plan for 2003-2008 (hereafter referred to as The Plan), was supposed to be the mechanism of change that would bring about massive leaps in the college’s performance. Yet now we see that the academics are unimpressed with developments and see hardly any truly positive changes.
The Plan (which was updated in 2006 and was recently replaced by a plan for the period 2009-2014) set out a number of aims which sought to improve a variety of aspects of the college with the primary goal being to improve Trinity’s ability to compete on an international scale with institutions that benefit from far greater funding and resources.
This feature is not concerned with every aspect of The Plan. In light of the revelations about academic dissatisfaction with the changes that have been implemented, we will look at what the reasoning was behind the restructuring of the academic infrastructure, the hopes that went with this restructuring and finally we will ask why the changes wr
ought have gained little approval within the academic community.
A new Provost and his ambition
Professor John Hegarty was elected the 43rd Provost of Trinity College in August 2001. The man from Claremorris was elected on a promise of reform. Here was the man to rid Trintiy of its multi-layered bureaucracy and staid academic traditions that had seen comparisons between it and its once sister universities, Oxford and Cambridge, become moot. While the Oxbridge universities had spent the 20th century forging ahead in numerous fields of research, Trinity had languished in the past, relying on its ancient reputation. Professor Hegarty saw the beginning of a new millennium as an opportunity to reform college management, which he described as ‘un-transparent’.
Indeed, Professor Hegarty’s career prior to his election had set the ideal aims for the modern academic. On his return to Ireland from America in 1986 he was appointed Professor of Laser Physics in Trinity, going on to produce over 140 publications and numerous patents. He was a co- founder of Optronics Ireland and of campus company, Eblana Photonics. Through these endeavors he raised significant sums of research money for the college.
It’s no surprise then that by the time of his election he had come to regard the unhelpful management of Trinity as a hindrance rather than a facilitator of progress. To reverse this position Professor Hegarty launched The Plan.
The reasoning and hope behind restructuring
Prior to the restructuring of the academic units of the college there were no Schools and significantly more faculties. This was a diffuse and complex system of governance, which led to academic stagnation.
In reforming the academic institutions of the college Professor Hegarty sought to emulate the success of more successful institutions such as Harvard and Yale. The practical effect of restructuring is that a number of disciplines were put together in Schools, 24 in all. Three faculties were created to oversee these Schools. The reasoning behind this streamlining of academic units was that decision-making would be put in the hands of the Schools and they would also have control over their respective budgets.
The potential benefits of this are not hard to see. Heads of School naturally know more about the best direction for their school to take and so are better equipped to make budgetary decisions. Indeed it’s not difficult to imagine the level of resentment that Heads of Schools might have to the college authority making decisions for them on any issue.
Another compelling reason for the streamlining and grouping of disciplines is that it more easily facilitates interdisciplinary study. This broadens the student’s curriculum and offers them a range of choices for branching out, much like the undergraduate experience in prestigious American a. An avaexample of these merging disciplines is the partnership between the School of Law, School of Business and the School of Social Sciences and Philosophy in offering the Law and Business and Law and Politics degrees.
Not only does this offer more choices to the student but, crucially, it also opens up new revenue streams for the college, as it begins to welcome more and more students interested in combining disciplines. With this crossover between disciplines Professor Hegarty also hoped that there would be a significant increase in postgraduate studies, as the advantages of interdisciplinary study became obvious to the student community.
Obstacles to change and the new reality
The above arguments seem compelling. They seem well thought-out and Professor Hegarty’s ambitions were well-intentioned. It is acknowledged by all that the restructuring of the college’s academic units has been a true reformation, the likes of which Trinity has not experienced in a long time. Perhaps this goes some way in explaining why the academic reaction to restructuring has been so negative. A cosy academic community such as Trinity’s is naturally resistant to change, particularly change as bold as this.
During the restructuring there were significant upheavals and obstacles. In 2005, Professor Hegarty gave an interview in which he touted the idea of having clusters of schools instead of faculties taking the role of overseers. The head of each cluster would sit at his table and represent the schools within that cluster.
This idea never became a reality. There was much dispute as to how the representative from the cluster would be selected. Would it be through appointment or election? Indeed, it seems that Professor Hegarty’s plans in this respect were foiled by heads of faculty whose roles would become redundant under the new system ofgovernance.
The defeat over the issue of clusters is indicative of the struggle faced by the Provost throughout this entire period of reform and the diluted results, which differ from his original intentions in no small way, may account for the current disillusionment among those who are now working under the new system. For the new system is neither entirely new nor cosily familiar. It is a mixture of Trinity’s oldest traditions and its newly fledged ambition to climb those all-important league tables.
Working with the new reality
The job of restructuring proved a clumsy and stubborn affair. But in this respect, on the evidence, it would seem that the academic community only have themselves to blame. Too safe to change and to obstinate to adapt quickly, they now face a system which none of them fully wanted to begin with. No School is completely happy with the changes. This is illustrated by the fact that only 1.6% of the respondents to the survey of progress on restructuring said that the creation of schools had improved communication between disciplines and the central authority of college.
This statistic is compounded when one sees that 56.5% of the respondents disagree with the proposition that the formation of new faculties has clarified the role of faculties with a further 15.8% saying that there is no significant change. Worse still is the response to the proposition that the creation of faculties has enhanced the connection with the centraldecision making process, with 57.6% disagreeing.
These statistics are clearly damning. The question now is what can be done to rectify the situation. How can academic harmony be restored? Is there such a thing? This must be disheartening result for Professor Hegarty, having dedicated his tenure to achieving positive change. His time is nearly up.
No doubt his successor, whoever it might be, is sweating.
