This document has been written, in a personal capacity, by Bruce Beckles of the University Computing Service. All views expressed in this document are his own and should not be taken as in any way expressing an official view of the University Computing Service or the University of Cambridge. Please feel free to circulate this document to anyone you think might be interested.

THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOW BEEN FROZEN AT 12:30 BST ON 7 JULY 2009 PRIOR TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE REGENT HOUSE ON 7 JULY 2009

Further updates will be at the document here.

If you are already familiar with the background of this, you can jump straight to the author of this document's analysis of the responses to the report under discussion, although it would be a good idea to read these notes first.

In October 2007, the General Board set up a committe to review teaching and learning support services in the University, and a Notice to this effect was issued in the Reporter of 20 February 2008, see:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2007-08/weekly/6103/10.html

In July 2008, this committee produced a report, which has yet to be officially published, but which was been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (2000). You can see the Freedom of Information request used to obtain the report, and the report itself, at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/review_of_teaching_and_learning

The review committee did not actively seek, or receive, any input from Departmental, Faculty or College librarians in the course of producing their report.

In the first paragraph of Section 1 (page 2) and the second paragraph of Section 4.1 (page 9) of this report, it explains that the recommendations of an earlier report approved by the Education Committee on 30 May 2007 were put on hold pending the outcome of this review. People may therefore like to compare the recommendations of this report with the recommendations of that earlier report (which has been supplied by the University (as report/paper E3918) in response to a Freedom of Information request here).

People may also find it interesting to compare this report with the published academic strategy for Oxford University Library Services.

The recommendations of the report were approved by the General Board at their meeting of 9th July 2008 (Minute 08.07.B1).

This report is now the subject of a Discussion of a topic of concern to the University scheduled for Tuesday 7th July 2009. Please encourage anyone who is interested in the governance of the University, library provision, the future of the Language Centre or the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET), or the role of the University Computing Service (UCS), to attend this Discussion.
Note that the people who requested this Discussion do not include anyone from the General Board, the review committee, or the implementation steering group set up by the General Board “to consider comments received on the Report of the Review Committee for Teaching and Learning Support Services and to make proposals for the implementation of the Report's recommendations” (quotation from GB Minute 09.01.B3).

It may help to keep in mind a timeline of what happend when, as follows:

About a month after the recommendations were approved, on 6th August 2008, comments on the report were invited from certain bodies within the University, as reported in GB Paper No. 09.B.03 (obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)).

The deadline for responses to this consultation was 7 November 2008 (as reported in "Paper ISG2"). Paper ISG2 is a document containing the responses to this consultation, produced by the General Board's implementation steering group for the report. A version of this document in which one response has been redacted has been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (2000).

Note that this consultation period coincided with the Long Vacation 2008 and the start of the 2008-09 academic year.

This consultation elicited 32 responses from across the University. 31 of these responses were on behalf of University institutions, Committees, etc., whilst 1 of them was a personal response (this response was redacted when the University provided these responses (as Paper ISG2) under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)). Neither the UCS nor CARET responded.

The General Board, the review committee and the implementation steering group have presented these 32 responses as indicating “a broad level of support”. However, the author of this document does not believe that an examination of the 31 non-personal responses supports this claim and would encourage you to examine the responses yourself and make up your own mind.

Before considering these responses there are a number of points that should be borne in mind:

• The timing of the consultation period meant that many respondents had insufficient time to formulate a detailed response and/or to consult with all those within their constituency with whom they would have wished. 6 responses specifically make this point.

• The recommendations made by the report are reasonably wide-ranging and little detail is given regarding proposed new structures. Thus, it seems reasonable that at least some respondents will, particularly given the aforementioned lack of time for consultation, only have commented on those recommendations that they felt most directly concerned them. It is also therefore unsurprising that many responses focus exclusively, or almost exclusively, on particular recommendations/issues. The General Board and others seem to have regarded the lack of a [negative] comment about a particular recommendation as equivalent to active support for that recommendation. (The author of this document, however, believes it would be more reasonable to regard a lack of a [negative] comment as, at most, evidence of the respondent's not having any strong feelings (either positive or negative) about the recommendation in question.)

• Given that the recommendations had already been approved prior to consultation, it is possible that some respondents or prospective respondents may have felt there was little point commenting, or little point giving detailed comments, as they were being presented with a fait accompli. 2 respondents specifically complained about this.

• Although the recommendations of the report had already been approved at the the time of the consultation, a number of respondents spoke of the recommendations as though they were in some way yet to be finalised, and 1 respondent “expressed the hope that it would be consulted on a further iteration of the Report”. This suggests, to the author of this document at least, that some respondents may have been confused about the exact status of the report and its recommendations at the time they were consulted, and it seems probable that this would have been due to the way in which the consultation was handled.

These responses start on page 20 of the PDF of Paper ISG2 as supplied by the University, in response to a Freedom of Information request, at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_of_the_implementation_gr#incoming-30945

However, if you don't wish to read the 66 pages of responses yourself, and are willing to trust the author of this document's analysis, that analysis is given below. Please feel free to circulate this document, and the analysis it contains, to anyone you think might be interested.

In doing this analysis, I have categorised responses as being:

• favourable, i.e. positively in favour of something

• neutral, i.e. expressing no strong opinion in either direction

• expressing reservations, i.e. having significant reservations about (or, in some cases, expressing outright opposition to) something

Clearly such a categorisation is subjective, although I have done my best to put myself in the role of an ‘unbiased observer’. In an attempt to offset any bias I may have against the General Board's view of the report, wherever I felt a response fell somewhere between the above categories, I have put it in the category most favourable to the General Board's view of the report. So, a response I felt was borderline between being neutral and expressing reservations I have categorised as neutral. A response I felt lay somewhere between being favourable and being neutral I have categorised as favourable. A stricter interpretation of the responses would, therefore, be more likely to find fewer responses in favour of the report than in my analysis below.

My analysis is as follows:

• Of the 31 non-personal responses, I would classify them, in respect to the overall report, as follows:

  • 12 as favourable

  • 11 as neutral

  • 8 as expressing reservations

  I suppose 39% in favour, 26% not thinking it is a good idea meets some people's definition of “a broad level of support”.




• On the specific matter of centralising library provision under the University Library (UL) [Recommendations 1-3, 6 of the report], I count the following:

  • 4 as favourable

  • 6 as neutral

  • 21 as expressing reservations

  i.e. 13% in favour, 68% don't think it is a good idea. I also note that 10 of the responses specifically complain that Faculty and Departmental librarians had not been consulted by the review committee and so had not had any opportunity to provide input to the Report.




• On the specific matter of merging CARET and the UL [Recommendation 4 of the report], I count:

  • 12 as favourable

  • 10 as neutral

  • 9 as expressing reservations

  i.e. 39% in favour, 29% don't think this is a good idea. According to the implementation steering group, this constitutes “general support” for this recommendation (see Paper ISG1a).




• On the specific matter of merging the Language Centre and the UL [Recommendation 5 of the report], I count:

  • 9 as favourable

  • 12 as neutral

  • 10 as expressing reservations

  i.e. 29% in favour, 32% don't think this is a good idea. (Note that both the UL (see p. 76 of the PDF of Paper ISG2) and the Language Centre (see pp. 64-8 of the PDF of Paper ISG2) are opposed to this merger.) According to the implementation steering group, this constitutes “a mixed response” but they intend to do it anyway(!) (see Paper ISG1a).

• University response to a Freedom of Information request, supplying the Report to the General Board's Education Committee and recommendations of the Pedagogic Support Providers' Co-ordination Group (PSG), May 2007. This document was discussed by the Education Committee at their meeting of 30 May 2007 as report/paper E3918.
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pedagogic_support_reports_to_the#incoming-27747

• Unconfirmed Minutes of the General Board meeting of 10th October 2007, at which the General Board agree to set up a committee to review teaching and learning support services in the University (Minute 07.10.B1).
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/committee//gb/minutes/20071010.pdf

• General Board review of teaching and learning support services: Notice.
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2007-08/weekly/6103/10.html

• Freedom of Information request for the “Review of Teaching and Learning Support Services Report, July 2008” (GB Paper No.08.B16).
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/review_of_teaching_and_learning

• Unconfirmed Minutes of the General Board meeting of 9th July 2008, at which the recommendations of the report are approved (Minute 08.07.B1).
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/committee//gb/minutes/20080709.pdf

• Notice inviting applications for the office of Librarian, 8 October 2008.
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6122/6.html

• Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2007-08, in which the existence of the review committee's report is announced and its principal recommendations summarised (paragraph 3.1).
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6130/2.html

• Unconfirmed Minutes of the General Board meeting of 7th January 2009, at which the General Board recieved a report (GB Paper No. 09.B.03) from the first meeting of the implementation steering group (Minute 09.01.B3).
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/committee//gb/minutes/20090107.pdf

• Report of a Discussion held on 20 January 2009. Amongst other Reports, the Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2007-08 is discussed.
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6138/16.html

• Notice giving the Council's response to the remarks made at the Discussion held on 20 January 2009.
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6145/3.html

• Freedom of Information request for minutes, papers, etc. produced by the implementation steering group.
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_of_the_implementation_gr

• University response to a Freedom of Information request, supplying GB Paper No. 09.B.03 (report from the first meeting of the implementation steering group). This contains “Paper ISG1a” which summarises the group's plans on how to proceed following the discussion at that first meeting.
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_of_the_implementation_gr#incoming-29336

• University response to a Freedom of Information request, supplying “Paper ISG2” (the report and the responses to the consultation on the report). The responses start on page 22 of the PDF supplied by the University; note that one of these responses has been redacted as it was a personal response (rather than on behalf of an institution, committee, etc.).
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_of_the_implementation_gr#incoming-30945

• University response to a Freedom of Information request, supplying the minutes of, and the documents tabled at, the second meeting of the implementation steering group on 26 May 2009.
  http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/reports_of_the_implementation_gr#incoming-32333

• Discussion of a topic of concern to the University: Notice, 15 June 2009.
  http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008-09/weekly/6155/6.html

• The academic strategy for Oxford University Library Services, as published in Oxford University Gazette, 26 June 2009.
  http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2008-9/weekly/260609/notc.htm#5Ref

This document has been written, in a personal capacity, by Bruce Beckles of the University Computing Service. All views expressed in this document are his own and should not be taken as in any way expressing an official view of the University Computing Service or the University of Cambridge. Please feel free to circulate this document to anyone you think might be interested.