Talk:University of Luton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone (a resident of Luton) incorporated much advertising material from the university website into the page. There is a full re-write on the temporary page. Feel free to add to this. - Pilatus 23:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Balance! 2 University of Luton - the facts 3 Mediation 4 Pdean's statements and editing 5 Re the above discussion 6 Register 7 Apologies, too, to Pdean 8 Close mediation? 9 Editing on 25 June 2006 10 Oops 11 An ex manager's view of Luton'University'

[edit] Balance!

We seem to have a tricky problem with this page. Most of the the editing seems to be being done by people who (for what ever reason) solely add negative views of the University and people who have a connection with the University (I guess as staff or students) who want to see the University presented more positively. A lot of editing is done anonymously too. Nobody seems to be writting from a genuinely independent viewpoint. The University isn't perfect by a long way but it isn't universally awful either. Pages on other UK universities don't seem to attract such strong feelings even when they're similar institutions to Luton.

Anyway, I'm afraid I have reverted the last editing as it really is factually inaccurate. No staff were made compulsorily redundant. I think about 100 choose to take voluntary redundancy during the restructuring of 2003.

Perhaps we can discuss how to achieve a balanced article on the talk page rather than just accumulating positive and negative views. And of course we'll need a new University of Bedfordshire page on the 1 August 2006. Presumably we'll then redirect this page to that one? - Pdean 08:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) (And sorry, yes, I declare that I am a member of staff at the University)

[edit] University of Luton - the facts

If Pdean really is an employee of the University of Luton, he seems to be remarkably unfamiliar with the recent history of his own institution.

He writes on 10 June 2006:

'Anyway, I'm afraid I have reverted the last editing as it really is factually inaccurate. No staff were made compulsorily redundant. I think about 100 choose to take voluntary redundancy during the restructuring of 2003'.

According to a Freedom of Information Act deposition (signed by the 'University Secretary' and dated 12 April 2005) which I have in front of me, the University made 64 members of staff compulsorily redundant in 2000-01, and completed voluntary redundancy agreements with 18 staff in 2002, 13 staff in 2003 and 46 staff in 2004 (the latter at a cost of c£2m). This information is now included.

Incidentally, I have checked all the other material on this page against the extensive archive I hold on Luton, and it appears to be factually accurate.

Pdean asks for veracity and truthfulness. I totally agree with those sentiments. However, he ought to head his own words and refrain from editing out information that is a correct and relevant part of the record.

NT 15/06/06

PS I have amended the statement about Luton QAA teaching assessments to fit the facts. The reports on Luton that are referred to can be viewed at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/instReports.asp?instID=H-0026 and http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/oldInstReports.asp?instID=H-0026 Readers may wish to know that many - perhaps most - departments in UK universities scored highly in QAA subject reviews at this time, one reason why they were subsequently discontinued.

The wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has well established policies for editors primarily based around the concept on Neutral Point of View. So, it would not be appropriate for me or anyone else directly associated the University to post endless good news stories into the wikipedia and we have not done that.

However, your editing (which seems to always be anonymous) appears to be written from a very clear POV. For whatever reason, you wish to present the University is as negative a light as possible. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. You don't apear to have collected FOI information regarding redundancies from every UK University and posted it to their wikipedia articles and therefore it must be assumed that you have some particular grievance against Luton. You are of course entitled to your opinion but you should not use the wikipedia to pursue your agenda - it just brings the wikipedia into disrepute.

It would be better if this article were written and edited by people who have no direct link with University and with no POV to peddle. I am refraining from editing this article because I am biased. I think you should do the same. - Pdean 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

PDean makes a number of ad hominen comments (or, perhaps more correctly, inferences) about myself which are of course unsubstantiated and therefore meritless. He also fails to comment upon a central point in my post above - which is that he edited the entry based upon a wholly incorrect understanding of the historical record. Pdean's error is all the more surprising because the various redundancies at Luton have been covered in the Guardian, the Times Higher Education Supplement, the local Luton press and Private Eye - to name only a few sources - and were also the subject of union action within the University, and a number of well reported upon employment tribunal cases (which the University lost). He can hardly claim, therefore, that they occurred without being widely noticed. Finally, Pdean repetedly refers to the need for balance. The recent editings of this entry refer the reader to important articles about Luton in the serious press and/or recent league table ratings, most of them official (i.e. based upon government agency figures). It is entirely correct that such material should appear in an encyclopedia entry. If Pdean has discovered factual inaccuracies in, say, Higher Education Statistics Agency figures, he ought to point them out. Otherwise, he is entirely free to add in other relevant and accurate information as he sees fit. Readers will then draw their own conclusions. That is how Wikipedia works. NT 16/06/06

This is not how Wikipedia works. The selective use of facts is POV. You are not editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. A balanced view of the growth and contraction of the University would also report the times when the University has expanded - not particularly interesting to most readers but would be consistent with Wikipedia policy. I have not and will not speculate on your motives. Your actions give the impression that you are using the wikipedia as a vehicle for expressing your viewpoint. Anyway, I'm no longer optimistic of making much further progress on this via this discussion. I'm minded to refer this to informal mediation by an independent editor (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) - could we agree on that? - Pdean 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pdean continues to muddy the water. The central fact is that he edited out a resonable addition that had been made to this entry, and then showed himself unaware about some very important developments that had taken place at what is allegedly 'his own' university (i.e. successive large redundancies). For my own part, I have refined the parts of this entry on the QAA subject reports (as it is important to record when these were compiled, and not give the impression that they are recent), and added in detailed information on the redundancies. I have also checked what other people have added regarding press reports, HESA figures etc., and recorded my opinion in this discussion forum that it is accurate. This has got nothing to do with selection of facts; the reports now cited are written by respected journalists in leading newspapers of one kind or another, and the metrics now cited are commonly used to measure university performance. Each piece is of legitimate public interest - that is, after all, why they were produced in the first place! If Pdean is disatisfied with any of this, I suggest he challenges the facts as currently displayed, or adds in what he sees as relevant corrective material. I cant speak for anyone else, but I, for one, have no problem whatsover with anything that is truthful and verifiable. Unlike Pdean, I would not dream of editing out something that is clearly both accurate and relevant. I look forward to seeing his additions. I am also thinking of making some further substantial additions of my own. NT 16/06/06

I have requested informal mediation. I won't post anything further here until there's been some input from that process. - Pdean 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, I am Adam and I have taken this case. The details of the request for mediation are at 2006-06-16 University of Luton.

During this mediation please refrain from editing the article. Please be sure to read WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. Ideogram 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pdean, if I may, I suggest you find and cite sources to back up the inclusion of material countering the negative POV. Ideogram 06:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I will do that. I will post back here shortly. - 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of the issue with the editing pattern:

On the 16 January 2006 the article was anonymously edited to include an unsubstantiated set of allegations regarding management of the University and a quote from the Quality Assurance Agency's audit of the institution.

These reports are authoritative but complex. As they are freely available online from the UK Government then a simple external link would seem to be the best contribution to the article. If the report is going to be quoted then a balanced set of quotes should be used. For example, the report[1] also says:

"The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice:

the development of Employer Liaison Fellows

the use of Discipline Support Plans as a useful tool for library liaison with academic departments

the use of the Library Liaison Group as a forum for liaison between the University library and libraries in the partner Colleges

the promising work of the Corporate Academic Advisory Service in terms of student support, its contribution to student retention and its development of a central system for extenuating circumstances treatment

the introduction of Student Attainment Review Boards as a means of supporting students at risk

the Personal, Professional and Academic Development and the integration of career management into the curriculum."

These strengths could be listed alongside the acknowledged weaknesses but best to just link to the report and let people make up their own minds? The selective use of the conclusion relating to weaknesses is a partial use of the report to advance a viewpoint. If you examine the editing audit trail then it gives the impression that the anonymous editing is all in one direction and is designed to promote the viewpoint that the University of Luton is a failing institution. Of course, as the editing is anonymous it is not possible to attribute all these to one contributor although the pattern appears to be consistent. Also, the use of UK Freedom of Information legislation (see the contribution to the talk page above) to obtain additional information about the University implies quite a strong motivation to make public negative information about the University. This may be a legitimate action in the wider public sphere but hardly constitutes NPOV within the wikipedia context.

I do have access to endless "good news" stories about the University (eg. Research Grants, award of a Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning, we're training lots of Chinese journalists in the western media in preparation for the Beijing Olympics etc. etc.) but I thought that would be POV!

Thanks for your input Adam.

Pdean 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia acheives NPOV not by requiring individual editors to be neutral (everyone has a POV) but by compromising on an article that adequately explains all major and verifiable points of view. The solution here is not to remove the negative material but to counter it by including positive material as well. We can certainly quote from the report as well as including the link for readers who wish to verify the accuracy of the quoted material. Ideogram 04:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pdean's statements and editing

I would like to make four points.

First, Pdean edited out material on redundancy at Luton, and explained himself by claiming 'No staff were made compulsorily redundant. I think about 100 choose to take voluntary redundancy during the restructuring of 2003'. His statement is factually wrong on two counts - and seriously so. Had I merely written in and pointed this out, no doubt Pdean would have dismissed me as he dismissed the original contributor. So I quoted an unempeachable source, provided under the FIA by the University itself. Pdean was effectively caught with his pants down. He has not apologised or explained himself.If he really is an employee of Luton, all I can say is that he risks being accused of bringing the University into disrepute. Wikipedia readers have a right to deserve better

Second, Pdean misrepresents the 2005 QAA report and its findings. On p.1 of the report, there is a heading which reads in bold - 'Outcome of the audit'. Under this are the words quoted in the Wikipedia article (and only those words). There follows sections on 'Features of Good Practice' and 'Recommendations for Action', etc. There is no doubt that the QAA team complimented Luton in some respects, but there is also no doubt that their central message was rather critical, hence the words used in the 'Outcome'. It is a fact that the 'limited confidence' judgement reached in this report has only ever been reached in a handful of other cases. Should anybody think otherwise, I recomend that they consult articles in the Guardian 4 November 2005 ('Inspectors find failings at University of Luton')and the Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 November 2005 ('QAA queries Luton quality'). Both discuss the QAA report in some detail, and both do so because of its unusual nature. Pdean may have his own idiosyncratic view on this subject, but he has absolutely no right to present this as mainstream or balanced, because it is not.

Third, I think that we as Wkipedia contributors need to consider the readers. What is important to them? Regarding universities, it is now a fact of life - for better or worse - that league tables are very crucial. They should not be suppressed. It also seems to me, at least, that reference to articles in respected newspapers and journals (of the kind that I have cited) must be included, precisely because they provide independent scrutiny and benchmarks. No doubt if Luton received fullsome praise in the press,Pdean would want the references cited. And he would be right. But the opposite case is just as true.

Finally, I think that all in the Wikipedia community must be wary about commercial organisations 'adjusting' material to project an image. The fact is that, today, universities are in cut throat competition, particularly at the bottom end of the market. All have PR departments and all seem to spin at will. The Wikipedia community must be on guard so as to prevent this kind of thing spilling over into its pages.

NT 19/06/06

I think I have convinced Pdean not to try to remove your verified material, but rather to contribute verified material of his own. Is this acceptable to you? BTW please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Ideogram 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy with your mediation, which mirrors the points that I made on 16/06/06. I hope other contributors are, too. My only rider would be that all parties need to remember that inserted material must be verifiable by others - i.e. not mere heresay (unless of course clearly labelled as such). Beyond that, I would also ask all contributors - not just Peter Dean - to keep a sense of perspective. We could of course seek to record every detail of Luton's functioning since it was founded, and end up with millions and millions of words. This would be pointless. It is important to think about whether material is significant or not, especially in relation to the reader. Lets remember that we are trying to produce something that is truthful but also concise. Anyway, thank you for your valuable intevention. --195.93.21.134 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I'd been really restrained and left loads of negative material! If you examine my overall contribution record I hope you think its been a positive one - and I have mostly stayed away from articles where I am biased. Oh well. The posts made anonymously but which "NT" appears to be claiming have never said anything positive about the University. The discussion regarding the facts of the redundancy originally related specifically to 2003. There were no compulsory redundancies in the 2003 round, they were all voluntary.

Interestingly, The QAA reached the same conclusion ("limited confidence") about the management of the University of London[2] but that article makes no reference to it. This aspect of University quality is not fairly covered by Wikipedia. It is a serious cut-throat business and if prospective students are put off any University by an unbalanced negative view then staff will lose their jobs.

Anyway, I can live with the suggestion that NT anonymously posts universally negative material and the University posts universally positive material as a way of achieving balance but two wrongs don't really make a right - doesn't seem to be in the spirit (or policy guidelines) of Wikipedia.

Adam - Thanks for your time - Pdean 07:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pdean once again plays loose with the facts.

1. The version of this article that he objected to (8 June 2006) contained the statement: 'Assessments by the Quality Assurance Agency around the turn of the Twenty-First century judged teaching at Luton to be good (TQA scores of 22 or above in six subjects - Building, Media, Biosciences, Nursing, Psychology and Design), but since then the University has made about 150 academic staff redundant'. He now pretends that 'The discussion regarding the facts of the redundancy originally related specifically to 2003'. 'Around the turn of the Twenty-first Century' is not equivalent to 'specifically..2003', and he knows it. He should have the good grace to admit his mistake. As I have already written, to find that a member of a University makes misleading comments about his/her own institution can only bring that institution into disrepute.

2. What the QAA found about the management of London University is really irrelevant. Everyone knows that London as an institution hardly exists any more. The colleges - LSE, Imperial, UC etc. - are very powerful, and have largely gone their own way (indeed some are considering offering their own degrees). No-one is surprised to find that the management of such a hybrid is difficult and questionable. What independent people do note is that Luton's QAA report on quality - a vital topic for students - was unusually poor. Indeed, the Times Higher Education Supplement observed: 'the report means that Luton is only the fourth higher education institution to receive a "limited confidence" judgement from more than 100 audits so far carried out'(see article already cited, 11 November 2005).

3. Pdean states that 'NT appears to be claiming [responsibility for]anonymous posts'. This again is nonsense. If Pdean reads my contributions to this discussion, he will see that I describe exactly what I am taking responsibility for, and why. Perhaps, he should open his mind to the fact that there may be other people contributing than him and I!

Finally, I find Pdean's comment that he now expects the University of Luton (of which he claims membership) to post 'universally positive material' to be highly revealing. I seem to remember that he was recently arguing that this was precisely what organisations should not do.

I begin to have a suspicion that Pdean is not contributing in good faith. 195.93.21.134 09:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this discussion as it's becoming clear that I am just acting as a conduit for the further advancement of your views. Nobody sh

[edit] Re the above discussion

Res ipse loq. NT 21/06/06 195.93.21.134 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Register

In adding my last comment, I see that I accidently erased Ideogram's last message. I apologise for this. He urged anonymous contributors to register. 195.93.21.134 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies, too, to Pdean

I see that I should also apologise to Pdean, as I appear to have cut out some of his words too. I believe he that wrote that his withdrawl from the discussion was without prejudice. I hope he will rectify my mistake. 195.93.21.134 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close mediation?

Pdean, do you wish me to close this case? Ideogram 17:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this process has run it's course. As a final suggestion I would ask NT to register an account so that any contributions are attributed to a single author. And, on reflection, I am not planning to edit the article any further as I'm concerned that that would be counter-productive. If the article appears to be developing thoughtfully and I feel I can make a useful contribution within the wikipedia context then I will. Thanks for your input Adam - your patience with us has been admirable! - Pdean 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will close the case. Ideogram 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing on 25 June 2006

Today, I have

1. added in information about the recent QAA Subject Engagement reports concerning Luton; 2. added in one or two comments on the QAA 2005 institutional audit report (necessary in the light of Pdean's earlier anxieties); 3. tidied up and expanded existing remarks about Luton's performance in the Times Good University Guide; and 4. added one or two phrases to clarify citations (e.g Ive noted that the QAA is the government's quality watchdog, as I imagine many outside the UK will be unfamiliar with this fact).

Regarding the QAA Subject Engagement reports, I have tried to obtain these from the QAA, but have been told: "the reports are confidential to the Agency, the institution and the Higher Education Funding Council" (letter, 20 October 2004). I am aware that Luton has from time to time quoted from what it claims are these reports on its website, and implied that they are positive re teaching. Hence my formulation in the article. Perhaps other contributors could indicate as to whether they agree that I have been fair here?

Regarding my citation of the Times Good University Guide, and my judgement that it should be referred to as 'respected', I note that Michael Shattock, (ex-Registrar at Warwick University and currently professor at the UK's Institute of Education), comments as follows:" The Times offers the longest running and statistically the most respected annual league table, increasingly relying on data made available through HESA [the Higher Education Statistics Agency], as well as from RAE scores" ( Michael Shattock, Managing Successful Universities (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003), p. 7).

Of course, I recognise that league tables always invite controversy. For the sake of balance, I have included Mr. Ebdon's comments of June 2006. I must say that, to me at least, these seem puzzing. Is it really credible, as Mr. Ebdon seems to claim, that the authors of the Guide 'adjust criteria' in the way alleged? Anyway, I have e-mailed Mr. Ebdon on 19 June 2006 and invited him to expand on his allegations, and when he replies I will adjust the entry as necessary. NT 195.93.21.134 09:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I see that I have referred to QAA 'Subject Engagement reports'. This is a colloquialism. The reports in question are actually called 'Developmental Engagement reports'. Jargon! I have adjusted the entry. NT 195.93.21.134 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An ex manager's view of Luton'University'

I must apologies as I think it was I who first quoted from the 2005 QAA report. I was a middle manager at Luton (Firstly a Visiting Professor then headhunted by Luton staff and asked to apply for Head of Computing, I declined first time and then applied for head of Maths but was instead appointed as head of the much bigger Department of Computing then Head of Computing and Information Systems (I now believe that this was in order to force the retirement of the Head of Information Systems, as she was female I think that the University used me to persuade her to take ‘early retirement’) then Associate Dean, Computing Research and Development.

I witnessed bullying of both staff and students by a senior manager there. In my opinion the member of staff was both racist and a bully. He was found by internal ‘bullying procedure’ to have been bulling two other members of staff when I complained about him. Unfortunately I was too big a fish to be found for and was offered some cash to go. I refused and despite losing at employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal; continue to this day to oppose Luton. I intend to do so until the whole truth comes out (which I realize might be a long time).

At the appeal I found that the University had tried to influence the panel that was hearing my case and it had ‘doctored’ documents that I had sent in for the panel.

One issue that you may not know is that Luton (soon to be Bedfordshire) has friends in high places. The corrupt senior manager, Stephen Mortimer, claimed to be a personal friend of the deputy Prime Minister. Remember also that Luton is a town with two Labour MPs and a dying industry, not helped I might add by having such a poor University, so that government feel obliged to pour money into it.

I have seen documents fabricated and doctored by Luton staff and suggest that any good news should be taken with a pinch of salt.

I knew Peter Dean in Luton and unless he has moved on might well work for the corrupt faculty that I worked for.

If anyone wants more information (and I am prepared to give evidence under oath) then I can be contacted on: Alfred_vella@hotmail.com, 194 Buckingham Rd Bletchley, MK3 6JB and 01908 648566. I have no intention on being silenced.