Fictional Case Study One

OU mission and values intersecting with free speech and academic freedom

Background

A group of eight students are complaining amongst themselves online about a module delivered by one of the OU’s associate lecturers.

The students think one of the readings they have been given is controversial and distressing. Five students engage with the associate lecturer via email about this.

The associate lecturer responds to the students’ emails promptly and sends the same answer to each student.

She explains that the course materials are chosen ‘elsewhere in the OU’ and not by her, that ‘psychology is a discursive subject’ and ‘my job is to teach and help you develop your thinking skills - this means you don’t have to agree with everything’.

First update

The group of students are still unhappy. They decide to protest in one of the associate lecturer’s online tutorials. They populate the tutorial chat with messages of disagreement. One makes a comment that the associate lecturer is ‘stupid.’

The associate lecturer interrupts the tutorial and asks them to be respectful as their behaviour is distracting her from teaching and others from learning.

Five of the students leave the online tutorial in disgust.

Later, the same students mention the issue in an online forum facilitated by Professor A, who is the module team chair.

Professor A says the associate lecturer was wrong to shut down the students’ views and that it was ‘probably’ a free speech infringement. He says if they are unhappy, they should make a complaint about the associate lecturer through the OU’s internal complaints process.

The students decide not to make a complaint as they feel it is too much bother.

Second update

A few months later, the module performs badly in internal feedback, particularly in relation to a question about the extent to which students’ opinions about the course are valued by staff.

The module team chair writes to all teaching staff saying that the results show they need to do more to ‘approach work with the end user in mind’, be more tolerant and allow students to express their views when they disagree with the module content.

Meanwhile, Professor A emails the module team chair and says he knows who was responsible for the poor feedback.

Third update

Subsequently, several teaching staff, including the associate lecturer, communicate with each other in the Associate Lecturer Common Room (ALCR) arguing that they feel their values are being trampled on and they are unheard, ignored, vulnerable and exposed as ‘what students say in the feedback goes’. They also say that in practice it’s impossible to ‘be open to people, places, methods and ideas’ as set out in the Values in Action framework.

Together with another OU colleague, the associate lecturer writes a blog for WonkHE (as ‘OU Associate Lecturers’) saying that ALs are often put in an impossible position as they have no say in the materials that are used in teaching and - despite their role being to develop the critical thought of students - institutions actively encourage staff not to use their own thinking skills with the result that many are afraid to speak up as disagreements amongst staff are rife in the OU and pushback from students has become the norm.

Questions to explore

Should the associate lecturer have responded to students directly or raised up the line?
How else could the associate lecturer have handled the student in the tutorial?
What kind of follow-up action after the seminar could the associate lecturer take?
How else could the module team chair handle the fallout from the feedback?
How could the module team chair respond to Professor A’s email?
How could the institution respond to the discussion in the ALCR?
What are your thoughts about the associate lecturer writing about her experience on Wonkhe?

Commentary

The background information opens some of the themes for discussion in this case study/scenario. Students are critical of some module content that has been included. The associate lecturer (AL) needs to engage with the students’ complaint and navigate the tension between helping the students develop their thinking skills notwithstanding their objection to exposure to material and other perspectives that some find offensive and distressing. In addition, there is the disconnect between the AL being employed to deliver the module content when she might not agree with such content nor had the opportunity to shape the content. The AL's response seems to be an attempt to manage the perception that she is responsible for the materials. Whilst she offers some explanation for the materials and why they are necessary, she seeks to distance herself from the process and to shift the responsibility on to the OU.

The AL also needs to consider how she will host and promote a culture of debate in the classroom (especially now there has been a complaint) and how she can frame the debate in the seminar and deliver positive learning outcomes for students. The AL responds to the complaint promptly. It is inferred that she receives multiple emails from the students and tries to be consistent in her response to each one. Whilst the prompt response is welcome, she could have raised the matter with other colleagues or line managers and sought their advice before responding or at the very least made them aware once the complaints arose.

At the start of the seminar the associate lecturer could check in with the students and/or contact the wider cohort and see how they have responded to the materials. She could also frame the seminar discussion at the start and outline some rules of engagement so everyone attending is clear about what behaviours are expected of them and the need to treat others with respect.

The situation escalates and the AL now has to respond to student resistance in the classroom, to manage the disruption, the group dynamics and minimise the impact on quality of teaching and learning. The language used by the students in the chat may be considered unacceptable student behaviour that needs addressing.

No detail is given at this point in the scenario about whether the AL follows up with colleagues or her line manager after the seminar - the inference is she does not. Given the students' comments and their behaviour in the seminar, it is unlikely that they will let the situation end at this point and the AL should consider making other staff members aware that this issue is emerging and of the comments the students made in the chat as well as of her response.

Professor A acted unprofessionally when he commented that the AL was ‘wrong’ and to have advised the students to raise a complaint. He could have discussed what the students said with the AL first and explored her perception of what took place. He should also consider the optics of being seen to disagree with another member of teaching staff in front of students. The Professor is not acting in a collegiate and inclusive way.

The module team chair is new in post and probably feeling their way into the role. Rather than issue a directive to all staff, another approach would have been to have discussed with staff why they thought the results were low and what work collectively could be done to tackle this (and why they think students may not feel they could express their views and disagree with module content).

Professor A continues to behave unprofessionally in relation to the AL. He is not working with his colleagues in a respectful and collegiate way. The inference is that the module team chair ignores Professor A’s email. Another course of action is that module team chair could have contacted Professor A and queried his behaviour, making it clear from the outset what would and would not be acceptable and how senior academic staff are expected to behave.

The ALCR can be a useful mechanism for encouraging engagement and communication with and between a dispersed group of staff. However, discussion in the ALCR can escalate and engage a wider audience unless such discussion is managed and/or moderated. The inference here is that it is not being moderated. Online fora such as the ALCR can become an outlet for staff issues and low morale with the potential to magnify both; the AL could have raised the issue through the internal complaints procedure for instance rather than move the discussion on to internal online platforms and then also into the public domain.