We find ourselves in the slightly weird position of commenting on an article that we can’t read in full, but such is the nature of paywalls. Anyway, we thought that one particular aspect in the current spat in a THE-cup about toxic discussions around HE merited a response. There have been some thoughtful responses on Twitter, particularly from Eric Lybeck and Punkacademic, Grace Krause, Graham Martin, as well as these pieces from Rob Cuthbert. and Liz Morrish.
Why would/should we have anything to say? Well, there has been mention of ‘anonymous troll accounts’. It may not have been referring to us at all – in which case please sing, at the tops of your voices ‘you’re so vain, you probably thought this piece was about you’. However we have interacted with/tweeted at the THE quite a bit, so it’s to be expected that they might have had us, among others, in mind.
Higher ed’s Slugs, snails and puppy-dog tails
As has already been said, but can’t be said enough, why should we put up and shut up with things we don’t agree with? Rankings are part of HE, they’re not going away, but this doesn’t mean that we should pretend that they’re entirely unproblematic children, and not take issue with their parents. The same goes for all of the other shitty aspects of universities, like precarity, people trying to liquidate your pension, marketisation, excessive instrumentalism, bullying, inequalities and exclusions across the piece, populism’s attack on lefty academics. God, there is a lot of shit in higher education.
Many of us love HE, that’s why we hate its faults, most of which are ‘built into’ the system, and there is endless measured (not as in metric!) analysis and critique of how they work, why they’re wrong, and how we can fix them. This is not knee-jerk. It’s emotional, but that’s because it’s emotive, but it’s not unreasoned or unreasonable. The nature of professions is that they are based on something, and that something is under constant debate. Academia is based, above all, on the picking apart all of the animal, mineral, and vegetable elements around us, and that includes HE itself. It’s what we do.
On Rankings
The issues around rankings are well-documented, in academic literature and across various medias. They are methodologically suspect and taken far too seriously by managerialists and uni marketers. The particular issue with the THE is that they are both the biggest player, as well as being by far as the loudest and most visible of the rankers. This is their modus operandi, alongside having those who work in and around the rankings interacting with the public. This is unusual, most of the others are silent, which is shameful on them. It means that the THE crew bear the brunt, they end up – unfairly – representing the whole wankings/rankings industry. For the record, the other rankings get a hammering, too, but bots don’t care, or respond.
If you’re going to have a public face, if you’re going to announce, market, host, profess, and generally interact, then you can’t expect everyone to ‘like’ every single announcement you make, particularly if what you’re doing is deeply problematic. Rankings are not harmless fun, objectively informative, or mere wallpaper. They have real effects, some of which are seen as genuinely painful and counterproductive. Rankers seem to wilfully avoid this side of the argument, engaging only with methodological commentary or (at least publicly) urging university leaders not to rely on them too slavishly. That horse bolted some time ago. Of course rankings are not the only cause of many of the issues in HE, but they’re a central feature in all of this, and arguably accelerate or exacerbate many of the problems.
anonymous trolls
We also wanted to engage with the notion of anonymous trolling, partly because we weren’t sure about the second part. Are we trolls?
The reasons for our anonymity are worth stating clearly. Are we being cowardly? Maybe, others are as vocal but in their real names. Chapeau to them – we’re very aware of the enormous power differential between us as minion academics and the slick, media-trained rankers and journalists. If we were in the same room, on a stage, we’d be pulverised, and it’s not because we don’t know what we’re talking about. Anonymity equalises that imbalance. Secondly, if there is a free speech issue in academia, at least in the UK, then it is about calling out your own institutions. The non-disclosure agreements scandal is part of this, and there are suggestions that a lot of the worst behaviour in academia is ignored or covered up for reputational reasons. Rankings are part of this conundrum. Finally, who we are is far less important than what we’re saying, just as many of the other anonymous (semi-) parody accounts work better in that mode.
As for the trolling…
According to the Urban Dictionary, trolling is ‘the deliberate act…of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments…with the intent to provoke unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument…The art of deliberately, cleverly and secretly pissing people off…Trolling requires deceiving.’
Hmm. Starting at the back and working forwards, we’re anonymous, so maybe that’s deceptive, but we’re not pretending to proffer controversial views for effect, we’re just not saying who we are. We might phrase our thoughts in slightly vulgar terms sometimes, out of fury, exasperation, or for (hopefully!) comedy effect, but we don’t think anyone who’s observed/interacted with us thinks for a minute that we don’t believe in what we’re saying. Also, nobody is unsuspecting: they know what we’re doing, we’re pretty clear about it. Are we intending to provoke? Obviously, but provoke a thought, a response, a discussion, not a fight. Where the line falls between argument and discussion is open to interpretation, but we’d view the latter as genuinely listening to others’ perspectives, responding. You don’t have to agree, but you have to hear the ‘other side’. We do, we’re just irreverent about it at times.
Random? No – there is thought and careful intention, even if it doesn’t look like it sometimes. Come on, we’re not running around calling people cunts or making sexist, racist, ableist (etc) claims to get a rise. We even created our own ranking to help the discussion along! We will always justify what we’ve said if asked, and are happy to change our minds or accept and amend mistakes. Is what we do unsolicited – again, no. If you tweet something, you are open to responses, that’s the whole point. Whether you agree with the response is neither here nor there.
In short, we’re not trolls, although some people might not like our style. We have the best of intentions. We love HE, just not its warts. We’re here for various reasons. Some of it is to raise a laugh at the absurdity of academic life. Some of it is to take serious umbrage at genuine issues in the system, and to encourage healthy discussion around them. Is that wrong? We don’t think so.
THE UK PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSITY RANKING (UKPUR) 