Radical Transparency

Fictional and non-fictional - you decide what is true and what is fake - exchanges with the Hard Knot of Tradition within British Universities will appear here. My creator doesn't want to point the finger at individuals because, whilst they have sinned, they know not what they do.  Actually, I disagree, they do know what they do but as they have cured their skin so nothing gets in, they don't give a f*** and are happy to be in the £200k a year club.

------

From:  The Creator
Sent:  January 2022
To:  The Vice-Chancellor's Office
Subject:  Research Culture

Dear XXXXXX,

My question today at your inaugural lecturer came from a genuine concern for the research culture at XXX and the failure of the university to implement systems and protocols dealing with research misconduct in an effective, fair, ethical and timely fashion.  I have a long history of disputes with the university concerning my research environment – this is not because I am vexatious, it is because the system is unfair and the echo chamber compounds problems.  

Having worked here for 24 years I had not registered any complaint, but after being moved into XXXX in 2011 suddenly things were getting in my way and the management of my research environment by senior staff was appalling in its neglect.  I applied for Chair in 2016 and was turned down despite having probably the highest research and consultancy income and the biggest impact within XXXXXXXXXX.  I was told by XXXXX  after that interview that the university expects the highest standards. However, this is not the case and the university is practising deceit and patronage whilst wasting public funds and taxpayer’s money on an industrial scale.

The issues I have raised since 2018 concern: 

1. the lowering of entry standards and examination of overseas students which has seriously affected my research environment; 

2. XXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4. plagiarism of my research; 

5. deceit and lying by senior management and XXXXXXXXXX to cover their backs; 

6. senior management blocking me from submitting bids; 

7. senior management refusing to support bids when there was clear evidence that UKRI XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX would invest £500k in the innovative Community Research Social Enterprise (CRSE) we were developing in 2020 which was building on an ERDF (£3.2m) project.

8. senior staff using my research to submit bids, leverage significant public research grant income (£11m +) without my consent

9. Senior staff and XXXXXXXXXX lying to me about the nature of that UKRI research bid which subsequently transpires to be in my research area and builds on the civic university work I was doing

10. Nepotism and waste of public funds – the person thatXXXXXXXXXX has been supported by the university and now employs XXXXXXXXXXXXX whilst an emeritus professor is paid 1 or 2 days fte to write a civic strategy that our Community Reserarchers could have developed through greater local consultation

11. Destroying research networks that I built up over a professional career at XXXXXXXX spanning almost 30 years (I have more than £11m income as PI or Co-I)

12. Destroying the good will of community researchers in deprived parts of XXXXXXXXXXXX by failing to support the work we were doing because I refused to be bullied by XXXXXXXXXXXand letting their aspirations down (in 2017 we ran a workshop that demonstrated how cynical many residents are of the university and its failure to commit long term – the CRSE was part of the solution to that complaint)

13. Poaching my research staff when I was undergoing major surgery in Dec 2018 and then being turned down for promotion once again in December 2019 and told that I “need to demonstrate more evidence of team building” (difficult when the university allows staff to be transferred against your wishes and when you are in full communication with the person responsible who was XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

14. Staff lying in grievance investigations and portraying me as the problem when I have evidence of their lying

15. exploitation of the MSc in XXXXXXX and the stealing of my vision for XXXXX by senior staff that have nothing to do with planning but use this to promote themselves as part of their professorial review

16. failure of the university to report misconduct to funders and Parliament as part of its commitment to the Concordat to Support Reserach Integrity; 

17. failure of the university to follow its own processes on harassment and bullying; 

18. filibustering and time wasting on investigating grievances (26 concurrent years of time delays on various aspects of grievances – eg:  more than 2 years to investigate a XXXXXXXXXXX but only 3 days to offer me money to leave.

And on and on it goes… Almost 1 million words, thousands of pages of evidence demonstrating lies, deceit, obfuscation, incompetence, lack of professionalism, bullying, harassment, failure to support my mental health needs.....

...... to be continued.