Wednesday 25 March 2015

Paddy (J.P.) O'Carroll







My much loved colleague in the Sociology Department at UCC, Paddy O'Carroll (who wrote under the pen name 'J.P. O'Carroll') passed away last Saturday morning in Marymount Hospice Cork.


When I arrived in Sociology at UCC, having just finished a PhD at Maynooth in 1997, Paddy was one of the most senior members of the Department and was also working in the field of Irish sociology. He was very good to me. He himself had worked in the Department since 1973 along with other colleagues who had arrived in the 1970s and focused specifically on Irish sociological questions (including Joe Ruane, Teresa Dowling and Ciaran McCullagh). 

Sociology was established in this period as a stellar and important discipline in the University's intellectual landscape and in the national sociological community. Damian Hannan was Professor of Sociology in that period and TCD Sociologist Hilary Tovey also taught for a period in the Department around that time.  These colleagues established Cork as a vibrant teaching and research centre for Irish sociology.

Paddy was a unique person. He was very open minded, he had a great and mischevious sense of humour, a wide range of interests, he was extremely well read, he loved travelling and - perhaps most of all - he loved talking with colleagues.


He was a big man with a very big heart and a trojan intellect.


One of his most renowned papers was 'Strokes, cute hoors and sneaking regarders: the influence of local culture on Irish political style.'


Having grown up in Co Meath myself, we both shared an interest in rural sociology and in rural Ireland, in particular in local political cultures which he had published seminal articles on. We also shared a research interest in the politics of the 1983 referendum on abortion.  
I will miss our frequent talks and conversations about Irish sociology greatly.


One of my fondest personal memories of Paddy was when he rang me in the Bons in Cork, about an hour after I had given birth to my second child, Rosa.  I answered my phone expecting him to congratulate me. I was incredibly impressed at how quickly he was ringing me and was amazed the news had got out so quickly. When I answered, Paddy (very typically) launched into a 15 minute tour de force about a Sociology article I had recently sent him. It took that long for me to get a word in eventually so I could say - 'Paddy I just had a baby an hour ago.' We laughed about that so many times after. And true to form, Paddy did come in soon after to see the new baby as he did with my other children.


After Paddy retired, he continued to regularly call into the Department and the wide ranging conversations and fun continued.


UCC was privileged to have had a scholar of Paddy O'Carroll's stature, integrity and standing in the University for so many years. I will miss him and his presence in the Department greatly.



Another blog about Paddy by Kieran Healy can be viewed at http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2015/03/22/paddy-ocarroll/


Paddy's publications, listed below, can be viewed and downloaded at http://ucc-ie.academia.edu/PaddyJPOCarroll


Monday 16 March 2015

The Changing Irish Family

The Changing ‘Irish’ Family

copyright Linda Connolly - do not cite in written work or on television/radio interviews without acknowledging the source

This blog provides a summary of the contents of my new edited collection entitled:
The 'Irish' Family (London: Routledge, 2015) [click link to book]

-------------------------------


As recent debates about the Children and Family Relationships Bill (2014) [view the bill here ] and the forthcoming referendum on same sex marriage have demonstrated, ‘the family’ occupies a core position in Irish culture and society. A number of historians, demographers, anthropologists and sociologists, for instance, have investigated a wide range of issues in relation to the central role of the family in Ireland over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (such as, the deeply embedded relationship that existed between family, kinship and community in rural Ireland traditionally; class differences, poverty and emigration; gender inequality and women’s role in the household; illegitimacy; reproduction and fertility; domestic violence; childhood and child welfare; religion; and sexuality).  In more recent years, scholars have turned their attention to mapping and understanding the so-called late but rapid transformation and modernization of family life that is said to have begun in the 1980s and culminated in the 21st century.

The family has also occupied a core position in policy and public debates about the ‘common good’ and national identity formation in Ireland, since the foundation of the State. The family, for instance, was afforded privileged mention and protection in the Irish Constitution of 1937. Under Article 41.1 the State promises to ‘protect the Family’ and recognises the family as having ‘inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.’ Women were accorded a very specific familial role in the State’s legal framework and the Constitution still states: ‘woman by her life within the home gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.’

Given the pivotal role of the family in the social structure and religious ethos of the State historically, it is not surprising that it is still at the centre of social and political debate in the 21st century.  Various individuals and interest groups in Irish society frequently argue for the preservation of what they view as the ideal form of marriage and family while others welcome and promote the emergence of more diverse and alternative family forms.  Conflicting interest groups such as the Catholic Church, the women's movement, gay and lesbian movement, new right campaigns and institutes, media commentators and political actors continue to stimulate a vibrant traditional family values versus family diversity/libertarian discourse.  The prospect of a referendum on same sex marriage in 2015 and continued controversies surrounding reproduction and childbirth (including in relation to abortions, redress for symphysiotomy victims and ongoing issues concerning mother and baby homes) will undoubtedly unleash further robust debate in this arena. 

Irish society was considered to be a demographic outlier for much of the twentieth century and to have embraced more secular, European-wide values in personal and intimate life late. Divorce, for instance, was not legalized until it was narrowly passed by referendum in 1995 and reproductive rights remains a contentious issue in Ireland in the aftermath of a clause inserted in the constitution in 1983 to protect the right to life of ‘the unborn.’ At the same time, by the 21st century Ireland had a relatively high non-marital birth rate compared to a number of other European countries, women with young children were participating in the labour force in rapidly increasing numbers, homosexuality was decriminalized, cohabitation was in evidence alongside conventional marriage, contraception was legalized and accessible, and marital separation legislation had been introduced. At face value, it appeared that the family was undergoing a process of rapid transformation and modernization and gradually aligning with more secular European values and trends.

Ireland represents an interesting and challenging case study in the context of twenty-first century family life. A key contention in the ‘Irish’ Family volume, the contents of which are summarized in below, is that Irish family patterns today are clearly converging closely to European trends in some arenas (for instance, the rate of non-marital births and the crude marriage rate which was traditionally lower in Ireland for much of the twentieth century has converged towards the EU average) but maintaining a distinctive trend in others (the divorce rate remains low and the overall fertility rate is comparatively higher, for instance). There is therefore a complex tension between traditional values and modernity in Irish family life and in intimate relationships more generally understood.


Locating the ‘Irish’ Family

The middle decades of the twentieth century have been described as a ‘golden age’ for marriage and the nuclear family in Europe and the developed world. More people were married and married at a younger age than at any other time in the modern era.  However, by the 1960s, previously accepted definitions of family, kinship, marriage and reproduction through the lens of the nuclear family were fundamentally challenged by the proliferation of more diverse expressions of family and personal life in western societies and the weakening of marriage as the primary route into family formation, sexual activity and procreation.  The steep rise in the European divorce and re-marriage rates set in motion from the 1960s on have produced new complex new sets of kinship relationships in the 21st century, such as one-parent families (which are mostly headed by women) and ‘reconstituted’ or ‘blended’ families.  Official statistics show that increasing numbers of children in the West now adapt to and live with step parents who may, for instance, also have previous children of their own and future children with their parent, and post-divorce childhood has been coined an intrinsic feature of twenty-first century western families. Likewise, recent decades have witnessed a greater acceptance of gay partnerships and same sex families, evident in Ireland for instance in the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1993 and in the passing of the Civil Partnership and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. New reproductive technologies, involving donor sperm and egg or surrogacy for example are also fundamentally challenging and changing the accepted relationship between family, biology and reproduction. Heterosexual marriage and biological reproduction no longer have a monopoly on family formation therefore and increasing numbers of children are born outside of marriage or live with non-biological step parents. In some Northern European societies, cohabitation is an established alternative to marriage and more children are born outside than inside marriage. A further key trend is that, in general, the overall fertility rate in Europe has declined steeply in recent decades resulting in an ageing population and insufficient population replacement rate. Childlessness and one-person households also feature increasingly in European data. A search for new ideas and perspectives on twenty-first century families has accordingly emerged. 

Where does Ireland fit in relation to these trends? The ‘Irish’ Family volume presents new original research into a range of family practices, trends and dynamics. Chapter one of the ‘Irish’ Family draws on extensive empirical data to analyse family trends in Ireland and locate them in a comparative-historical and comparative-European context.  What has changed over time in Ireland and how does Ireland compare with other European societies in relation to key, recent trends in family life? For much of the twentieth century, Ireland was considered a demographic outlier in Europe and the situation was quite distinctive. The key features of Ireland’s social structure up to the 1960s were a class structure dominated by a large agricultural population, with the majority were employed on ‘the land’; a rural profile and ethos; economic protectionism in the mid century; high levels of emigration and overall population decline; and distinctive patterns in family and demography that broadly encompassed a late age of marriage, a high rate of non marriage and a high marital fertility rate resulting in distinctly large families.  A climate of censorship regarding sexual and intimate matters and social control, resulting in harsh treatment for women who had children outside of marriage and for children born into categories categorized as ‘deviant,’ was a further dominant feature of twentieth century Ireland.

However, by the 1960s new trends that coincided with economic modernization policies and radicalizing social movements were emerging in Irish society, including younger age of marriage, longer formal schooling of marriage partners and greater educational opportunities for women, and the increased involvement of the welfare state and the State in the family. In particular, an active and radical women’s movement had mobilized extensively by the 1970s and questioned traditional family values as well as women’s constitutionally defined primary role in society as mothers in the home. The right of women to access contraception and to engage in productive work outside as well as inside the home was vigorously campaigned for. For some commentators, the family itself was considered the core site of women’s oppression in society with marriage invariably considered a form of domestic and sexual slavery, in light of the resistance to legal contraceptives and lack of opportunities for women outside the home. ‘The Irish family’ was about to enter into a period of significant social change and radical questioning, and analysts started to assess whether or not Irish family patterns were radically departing from tradition and converging closer to European norms or continuing to follow a distinctive path?

In order to address these issues, a detailed overview of recent changing trends in marriage, divorce, cohabitation, reproduction, sexualities, lone parenthood and gender in Ireland is provided in chapter one of the ‘Irish’ Family volume. Finola Kennedy has aptly stated that: ‘the story of family change in Ireland is both unique, and at the same time, similar to that of many other countries.’ The available data on Irish family life presents a mixed picture. In some arenas, current trends are corresponding more closely with European averages but in other areas the trends in Ireland continue to be distinct. In relation to divorce, cohabitation, the number of children living in one-parent households and the overall fertility rate, statistical trends in Ireland are not fully in line with European averages. Marital separation has undoubtedly increased in recent decades but Ireland still has one of the lowest divorce rates in Europe. Alternatives to traditional marriage (such as cohabitation and civil partnership) have increased among the younger generations especially but they are not even remotely close to replacing marriage as a basis for family formation, as has been the trend in some other European countries.

The fertility rate in Ireland does, however, remain the highest in the EU but by Irish standards the birth rate it represents a historical low. Irish women are on average now having 2 children (in the 1970s the average was 4) but the fact that Irish mothers are currently the oldest in Europe suggests that the upper fertility rate in evidence is more a reflection of the postponing of having children to later in the life cycle than being due to a greater propensity among Irish women to have large numbers of children in common with previous generations. In other areas, such as non-marital births and the crude marriage rate, the figures in Ireland are approximating very closely to European averages. The marriage rate in Ireland is not particularly high but marriage has not diminished either. In the case of non-marital births, the rate in Ireland (34% of all births occur outside marriage; however, the figure is approximating to 50% in the main cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick) is much higher than in several other countries with very low rates (such as Greece where the 2011 figure is 7.4%). But, it is not exceeding the European average (38%) or approximating close to the upper ranges in this category (in the region of 60% of all children are now born outside marriage in total in Iceland, 55% is the figure in France and 54% in Sweden, for example).  

In the case of single parents who are not cohabiting or in a relationship, the current situation in Ireland is noteworthy. In the past, illegitimacy was utterly frowned upon and stigmatized and the UK became a refuge for Irish unmarried mothers to the extent they were afforded the label ‘PFI’s’ (Pregnant from Ireland) by social services. Adoption rates were high as a consequence of unmarried mothers concealing their pregnancies, often with the assistance of the Catholic Church and mother and baby homes. In Ireland, however, while the largest proportion of households today is made up of couple households with children, with single adults with no children second, Ireland at the same time has a much higher percentage of children living in lone parent households than in much of the rest of Europe. Given the fact that the vast majority of lone parents in Ireland are women, this distinct trend and existing data suggests that women (particularly women of low educational attainment) are putting motherhood before marriage to a much greater extent than their European counterparts and are cohabiting less – which is a trend that requires further investigation.

The idea of postmodernism implies that we can no longer deal with a single entity called 'the family'. Yet, the findings presented in chapter one of the book suggest that the situation is more complex in the Irish case. Traditional forms of family life (such as, the life-long, nuclear family based on heterosexual marriage and the persistence of an unequal gender based division of labour in the home that is documented in contemporary research) continue and sustain alongside new, more diverse family forms and households emerging in contemporary Ireland (such as one parent families, ‘reconstituted’ families post marital separation/divorce, cohabitees and same sex couples).  Taken together the new forms of family and intimate life that are now evident in Ireland fundamentally challenge the notion that there is only one way to be married, intimate and committed to another person in the Irish context.  At the same time, these developments have not even remotely replaced the predominance of conventional family forms and trends.  These themes are developed in further detail, in the subsequent chapters, each of which presents new and original research.

The 'Irish' Family Text

The importance of class and socio-economic background as a determining feature of family formation in Ireland, historically, is advanced in chapter two of the book. Utilising census information, Carmel Hannan focuses on the role of class differences in marriage and fertility patterns in Ireland, over the 1926-1991 period. This chapter demonstrates how the study of differential marriage and fertility patterns is particularly important for understanding the Irish demographic experience historically. Despite striking changes in family dynamics in this period, social class was a powerful predictor of marriage chances and fertility patterns. One of the key issues addressed is the degree to which larger social structural changes in Ireland in this period, such as the decline in family farming which was a dominant feature of the social structure, resulted in changing patterns of marriage and fertility over the course of the twentieth century.

In chapter three, quantitative data from a number of sources, including the Census of Population, the Growing up in Ireland survey and the European Values Study, is drawn upon by Tony Fahey to question whether the so-called transformation of family life in more recent decades has demolished traditional family values and patterns. The analysis suggests that family life in Ireland most certainly experienced rapid change in the period between the McGee judgement on contraception handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973 and the divorce referendum held in 1995, but subsequently entered into a more stable period. From the mid 1990s on, it is argued, it is possible to talk of a post-revolutionary settling down of family patterns and what was new and unsettling in the 1980s became ‘normal’ in the 2000s. Fundamentally, expectations that the structure and convention of the past would give way to endless diversity and fluidity in family life have not been fulfilled in the Irish case.

The key argument made is that family patterns in the first decade of the new millennium were certainly different in many ways from what went before but they are still patterned in ways that often carry strong echoes of the past and are not subject to continuous rapid change. Family relationships today are therefore more durable and stable than is often supposed. Some diversity in family forms is evident but the continued influence of traditional sources of differentiation, particularly socio-economic status, is striking. In particular, it is argued that where fluidity and diversity are most evident in Irish families, the causes lie in poor access to resources needed to underpin stable family life rather than in decline of family stability as a social ideal.

In chapter four, Tom Inglis contends that although there have been extensive changes in its structure and varieties; ‘the family’ remains the core cultural institution of Irish society. Statistically speaking two-thirds of Irish families are based on a married couple in their first marriage and three in every four children live with two married parents. The traditional family, based on marriage and children, is therefore not even remotely ‘disappearing’ statistically despite the existence of more liberal legislation on divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality and reproductive rights in recent decades. The analysis in this chapter also draws on findings from research based on 100 in-depth qualitative interviews conducted around Ireland during 2008–2009, which captured family life as lived experience. The study found that most individuals are socialised within traditional nuclear family units and develop their identities, sense of self and understanding of the meaning of life primarily in terms of what happened within their family. The ontological sense of self in the majority of individuals interviewed, the way they see and understand themselves, was developed and maintained in terms of relations with parents and siblings.

The data also reflects patterns of relations between individuals, parents and siblings and revealed how patterns of bonding developed in one generation are maintained in the next.  Despite family life being subject to long-term processes of change (including globalisation, mobility and more relaxed attitudes to sexuality), which have loosened the bonds that bind individuals to religion and communities, this chapter concludes that most Irish people are still bound to family. The family is still considered the centre of intimate, personal relations through which people create and sustain meaning on a daily basis.  

The next two chapters focus on gender issues.  Pat O’Connor’s analysis draws on a national one in ten random sample of 4,100 texts written by Irish young people (aged 10-12 and 14-17 years) and on a more in-depth analysis of a number of sub-samples of this data (including 224 texts written by those aged 14-17 years).  Focusing on themes such as, relationships, fateful moments, search for authenticity, life plans, life styles, and public discourses, it is shown that gender  (with a small number of exceptions) was an unrecognised but crucially important framework in shaping young people’s lives.  The data is drawn upon to demonstrate how these trends are linked to young people’s construction of family life, in particular.

Many of the themes in the young people’s texts were echoed or reinforced in the large scale Growing Up in Ireland study, led by Trinity College Dublin. In this study, nine year old girls were slightly more likely than their male counterparts to see the family as most important in making them happy, while the boys were much more likely than girls to put sport first. The overwhelming majority of both boys and girls said that they would talk to their mother about a problem, but only between a half and two thirds said that they would talk to their father about it (with the boys being marginally more likely to do this than the girls).  The gendered construction of  confiding was echoed in the study.  Nine year old boys were also more likely than girls to play sport almost every day and to spend time playing video games, with these life styles seen as reflecting underlying gendered personality traits: boys being seen as ‘more boisterous, active and getting into troublesome situations’, and girls as ‘gentler, more sensitive and calmer’.  Thus effectively the social construction of boys and girls was seen as ‘natural.’

Lisa Smyth explores the relationship between motherhood, ethnicity, class and religion in Chapter six. Drawing on material from two studies of mothers in Belfast, one inner city working class, the other suburban middle class, this chapter examines the routine ways in which mothers juggle the needs of family, neighbourhood and community, as they take on and creatively remake this central familial role in a divided society. This chapter argues that the location of family life at the intersection of a variety of social institutions (class, neighbourhood, religion, education, employment, domestic work and childcare, and ethno-nationality) demands creative forms of action from women as they go about their everyday lives and attempt to create a safe and more inclusive environment for their children across the different religious communities in Belfast.

Chapters seven and eight both address the role of children in family life. In recent years, the study of childhood has shifted from the prevailing interpretation of children as passive dependents on adults to children as social actors, in their own right. Chapter seven, by Ruth Geraghty, Jane Gray and David Ralph, focuses on the relationship between children and grandparents from a 'child’s-eye' perspective, examining changing patterns of contact and care between grandparents and grandchildren from the 1930s to the present. Drawing on two major archived qualitative datasets, the analysis brings retrospective life history narratives into dialogue with interviews in order to unpack continuity and change in young children’s experience and explore quality of relationship with their grandparents.
In contemporary Ireland, the decline of co-residence between children and their grandparents is associated with growing economic independence of parents. However, a considerable proportion of Irish parents rely on grandparents to provide childcare, particularly as mothers participate in the labour force. The study found continuity in the warm relationships that had developed between children and their grandparents across the birth cohorts studied. However, significant transformations in household and family contexts and in childhood have given rise to changes in the texture of the relationship between grandchildren and their grandparents. Firstly, as grandchildren are less likely to spend extended periods of time with a grandparent, parents have greater power to act as gatekeepers between the generations. Secondly, changes in the nature of childhood mean that the time children spend with their grandparents has become more domesticated. Contemporary children’s experiences of being cared for in the private space of a grandparent’s home contrast with adult memories of exploring the wider world in the company of grandparents; in the past children 'tagged along' as their grandparent went about the daily activities of working and visiting.

In chapter eight, Caitríona Ní Laoire introduces migration into the analysis of childhood in Ireland. This chapter explores the role of family and kin connectedness in the migration experiences and belonging strategies of children in returning Irish migrant families. The analysis is based on in-depth research with children who moved to Ireland with their return migrant parents during the Celtic Tiger economic boom period (1995-2008).  Return migrants and their children accounted for the vast majority of immigrants during the Celtic Tiger era. The data presented points to the ways in which family connectedness facilitates belonging to local and national/ethnic collectivities for some return migrants, and conversely, can work to exclude those who do not have access to such connections.  Children play a central role in shaping and re-shaping social and familial networks, actively involved in the everyday doing and re-doing of family and kinship. As they negotiate belongings and identities from complex positions in Irish society as simultaneously children, migrants and returnees, return-migrant children’s unique perspectives highlight the complex relationships between family, power, locality and belonging in contemporary Irish society.

Rebecca Chiyoko King-O’Riain, in chapter nine, also deals with migration and belonging in Irish family life. With 10% of the current Irish population now not born in Ireland, the number of mixed Irish/non-Irish households is on the rise. The core questions addressed in this chapter are how do interracial, intercultural, interfaith, multilingual and often transnational families in Ireland create and sustain senses of belonging both within and across nation state borders? What experiences have these types of families had in Ireland? What do their experiences tell us about the changing nature and diversification of families who reside in Ireland, but whom increasingly have emotional ties across the world?

The data in this chapter comes from in depth interviews with mixed international couples living in the Republic of Ireland. 40 interviews were conducted through English in 2010-2011 with same sex and heterosexual couples (ages 26-60) and adult children, from Ireland, France, Canada, US, UK, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Poland, Zimbabwe, and China living in Ireland, the UK and the US. Interviewees in Ireland were residing in: Cork, Kildare, Galway, Tipperary, Dublin and the surrounds.

This chapter finds that while there is an increasing number of mixed international families in Ireland where one partner is Irish and the other is not, legal, social and political acceptance of these newer Irish citizens is slower to change. This could be seen as part of the growing global stratification of citizenship and belonging where the formal status of citizenship does not ensure acceptance or belonging to the nation. On the other hand, continued assertions by mixed Irish/non-Irish families of their ‘right’ to be Irish continues to challenge the notion that in order to be considered truly Irish one must be ‘WHISC’ – white, heterosexual, Irish-born, settled, and Catholic.  Fundamentally, the chapters in this section demonstrate how important it is to deconstruct, problematise and rethink what the ‘Irish’ family category actually means.

Chapter ten also examines migration and turns our attention to sexualities. In this chapter, Róisín Ryan-Flood discusses how researchers have tended to understand lesbian and gay kinship to be distinctive and have argued that alienation from families of origin led many lesbians and gay men to form new relational networks, or ‘families we choose’, where relationships are based on choice, rather than legal kinship (marriage) or blood ties. More recently, however, lesbian and gay partnerships have become formally recognized in many countries through civil partnership or gay marriage, including in Ireland. In addition, a lesbian and gay ‘baby boom’ is very much in evidence.

This chapter explores the experiences of Irish lesbian and gay people by drawing on two recent research projects, including a study of lesbian motherhood in Ireland, and research on Irish lesbian and gay people living in London. The findings presented suggest that the Irish lesbian and gay people in these studies often remain committed to families of origin and go to considerable lengths to maintain connections with them after coming out. In contrast to research that emphasises alienation, it is suggested that dominant discourses of ‘the family’ underline its importance for Irish lesbian and gay people who carry out considerable emotional labour with their families. The research suggests that having a child often reinvigorated relationships with parents and siblings. Emigration underlined the importance of maintaining ties ‘back home’. The centrality of family in participants’ interview narratives suggests the importance of culturally and geographically situated research. The chapter also considers some of the implications of the research findings for wider understandings of ‘family,’ intimacy, identity and belonging.

In the final chapter, Ciarán McCullagh addresses the profound impact technology is having on twenty-first century family life, family politics and family relationships. Chapter eleven demonstrates how research on the adaptation of technology emphasises the speed at which new forms of communication technology have been taken up by users and incorporated into the routines of everyday life where their use is now considered ‘normal’. This chapter explores the impact of these technologies on social relations by analysing both the perpetual contact that such technologies allow and the implications of their perpetual use at the level of everyday life for contacting ones family and friends.

This final chapter argues that at one level the technologies have facilitated the micro-co-ordination and communication on which significant aspects of contemporary family life depends. At another level, however, issues of surveillance and privacy arise. Certain forms of new technologies (such as, mobile phones) facilitate increased parental supervision but others (Facebook, for example) allow the creation of a private realm secure from parental oversight, evident in the growth of a mobile youth culture and the intensification of what media researchers have labelled ‘bedroom culture’.  The text ends therefore by asking deeply challenging questions about the role of online communication on the very fabric of our existence and quality of life as intimate citizens and as family members.








Sunday 15 March 2015

The Challenge of Collegiality: Irish Universities after Managerialism

THE CHALLENGE OF COLLEGIALITY:
Irish Universities After Managerialism

© Linda Connolly

{text of talk given to an IFUT public seminar in UCC on 11th March 2015, entitled ‘The Challenge of Collegiality’}


“Collegiality, a concept inherited from Oxbridge, involves academics making decisions collectively. Imperfect though it might have been … collegiality contrasts sharply with the top-down managerialism associated with the corporatised university” (Thornton, 2012) http://theconversation.com/collegiality-is-dead-in-the-new-corporatised-university-5539


“A simplistic causal relationship is often established in the critiques of neo-liberalism in higher education where it is described how the demands extrinsic to the values of the academy are imposed on those practicing in universities and how the values and identities previously held by academics are systematically taken away by new managerial regimes” (Kligyte & Barrie, 2011)


“Most dictionaries define collegiality as the sharing of power and authority equally between colleagues, with the origin of the word traced back to 1887 to describe the collective sharing of power between bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. It also means belonging to a college or university. Collegial does not mean "good behaviour," "politeness" or "niceness." But these days, collegial, when used by some in the academic community, has become a code word to identify "problem" people or "troublemakers" and, as stated in the SFU press release, justification for not hiring someone.” (Catano https://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=799)


I

It is commonly presumed that prior to the wave of neo liberal economics that swept across Western economies in the late 20th century, there has traditionally been a strong element of collegiality in the governance of universities.  As O’Connor and White have stated:

“Collegial management, the traditional model in universities, has been described as governance by a community of scholars, as opposed to a central managerial authority” (O’Connor & White, 2011) Link

Collegial environments are where individual independence of thought and mutual respect were considered to be necessary, particularly in institutions with a strong research base. This so called ‘Golden Age of Collegiality’ is typically contrasted with contemporary managerialism, which has a more hierarchical structure, with professional managers in leading positions and a whole new cohort of line managers etc in place.  A managerial approach is considered more agile and effective at quick decision making, and more attuned to market forces, whilst critics suggest that its appeal is rather that it is more likely to comply with commercial and government wishes.

Much of the literature to-date has focused on the negative outcomes of managerialism for the very idea of the University. You will certainly not find many academics to argue along the lines of ‘isn’t managerialism great’! There is a wealth of what might be called ‘managerialism bashing’. But, at the same time, there has been less intellectual advancement of a new vision of collegiality more attuned to the current conjuncture we as a collective body of scholars now find ourselves in after managerialism.  And there is still a tendency, I would suggest, to hark back to a kind of over baked presumption of collegiality in times past – with less emphasis on deconstructing some of the very obvious pitfalls that underpinned it, and which still underpin academia.

So, what I argue for here is, why don’t we start to focus a bit less on what is wrong with managerialism (which has already been extensively covered) and focus more on what we might actually be able to do to change the situation….in particular, how we might create more inclusive and democratic structures in University life, at all levels which is considered necessary by a growing body of academics in order to improve morale and enhance basic working conditions?

II

There are however, as the title of today’s seminar intimates, several challenges.  It is a common declaration that collegiality is quite simply already dead in the new corporatised university. According to Margaret Thornton, collegiality and consultation are seen as counterproductive:

“Collegiality, a concept inherited from Oxbridge, involves academics making decisions collectively. Imperfect though it might have been … collegiality contrasts sharply with the top-down managerialism associated with the corporatised university.”

“More insidiously, collegiality is believed to tolerate and even foster dissent; docility is therefore favoured on the part of academics as the new managed class.”

She suggests that academics who speak out face ostracism, disciplinary action and possibly redundancy. Fundamentally, the university’s traditional role as critic and conscience of society clashes with this new market model.

Professor Thornton further suggests that although staff and students were now referred to as “stakeholders”, the absence of a proprietary interest on their part ensured that they occupied a lower status than shareholders in a for-profit company.  She points in particular to the changing role of for instance governing bodies and says:

“Indeed, the prevailing governance protocols specify that one member should have substantial business experience, according scant regard as to whether they are familiar with universities or higher education…Some councils may now have a majority of members with business experience.”

Corporatisation, the increase in power of University leaders and the changed composition of council had led to more decisions being made by senior management behind closed doors. In the absence of consultation, university councils had become no more than rubber stamps, Professor Thornton said.

III

However, I want to ask a different set of questions: first, when was collegiality ever so vibrant to begin with?  Were certain categories of staff not always allocated a lower status and silenced in the University long before managerialism ever appeared? (in the Ivory Basement as it is sometimes called). Is there a danger that collegiality in it’s former guise is being over romanticized and being selectively applied to oppose managerialism? If this is true, what exactly is collegiality today and what is it’s true potential? Has collegiality become one of the latest buzz words - a kind of catch all phrase that is limited and therefore cannot transform academia more broadly understood?

Apart from the challenge of arriving at a new vision of collegiality that can address some of the hierarchal problems and inequalities that predate managerialism, other challenges arise. Academic life cannot be neatly categorized as a collegiate or essentialised as such. As a body, it is more diverse than it was 50 years ago. In addition, there are multiple practices at work in modern universities. There is for instance a diversity of approaches, micro positions and modes of resistance co-existing within the neo liberal context we all find ourselves in – ranging at one end of the scale from those who position themselves in outright resistance to managerialism and all things managerialist - to those at the other end of the scale who adopt a light touch approach to the structures of the University, who see the University as a simple means to an end and who never bought into the sense of self importance engendered by the old fashioned don culture of Oxbridge, system of class and male privilege on which it was based; and who instead concentrate on the promotion of the self as opposed to the 'collective' academic societal endeavour, and simply treat academia as a mere job.

In addition – in light of a previous discussion I recently attended on gender equality in UCC on Irish HEI’s – we might ask: how does such a catch all term apply to female academics in particular given what we know now about our position in Irish academia (or more accurately, given what we always knew about it but never felt ‘collegial enough’ to state or do anything about)?

It is of course entirely valid and necessary to critique and name managerialism as the over arching process that has determined and radically changed our working conditions as University lecturers and workers for the worst since the 1980s. But I think we also need to be careful about rose tinted spectacles when referring to collegiality in times past.

So a key point I want to make is - what are we comparing managerialism with? Should we not be focusing on developing new visions and models of collegiality rather than harking back to times past, where women for example were effectively absent from the halls of academia?

IV

In terms of gender as an example and central issue in Irish academia: a key problem is that that set of practices collected under the term collegiality often do not fit women very well.  The 'rules of the game' in academia have been defined in a highly masculinised environment and context. They often do not fit other individuals (minorities, first generation academics) particularly well either. Female academics have been the net losers during the so-called golden age of collegiality and in the neo liberal managerialist wave in HEI’s. Fundamentally new structures and vision are therefore required. It is possible to list off a range of massively successful and brilliant Irish female academics who were never promoted beyond College Lecturer in their entire careers during the so called collegiality phase – such as Micheline Sheehy Skeffington, Margaret McCurtain the Historian, and several female colleagues in UCC many of whom retired on very small pensions compared to their SL and Professorial colleagues and who after 30 to 40 years live very modest lifestyles indeed. The neo liberal, managerialist phase of the Universities is unfortunately proving no different.

So with this caveat about romanticizing the pre neo liberal phase of the Universities (or over egging the pudding), we might ask today more critically, what is there to be gained by developing new modes and forms of collegiality at the current conjuncture? Who is defining collegiality in the broader field of debates about the Universities? Who is participating in the debate about collegiality and what groups are not present or visible in this debate?

Mary Gallagher http://defendtheuniversity.ie/?page_id=232 on the Defend the University blog aptly suggests that:

“Collegiality is probably best defined as an ethos based on mutual recognition and support amongst colleagues. It cuts across institutional hierarchies and so isn’t associated with heavily bureaucratized institutions or with hierarchical organizations like armies. And because it can’t be measured or managed, imposed or manufactured, bought or sold, it is not usually a feature of highly engineered, highly competitive corporations either. Certainly, along with the relation of trust between teacher and student, constructive, collegial solidarity is the glue that holds the academic workplace together.”

At the same time she acknowledges that, collegiality is a more precarious ethos in academe than in many other professional or work contexts. This is, she argues, because “…academics some of life’s most competitive individualists. They are the high achievers of their peer-groups at school and in college; they are well used to imposing the highest academic standards on themselves and they spend much of their working life reviewing, refereeing and grading the academic work of their students and peers. And like all intellectual workers they are – as the French thinker Paul Valéry famously lamented –  themselves doomed to be eternal candidates.  They are only as secure as their most recent book, article, promotion, grant award, lecture, review or distinction allows them to feel.  They are, as a result, in constant competition with themselves and with each other.”

There is a fundamental contradiction therefore between redefining and reimagining collegiality as a laudable aspiration and the reality of how well collegiality (past and present) sits with the current working conditions and future prospects of Irish academics, including women. This contradiction is especially stark when considered in relation to the massive level gender inequality apparent in Irish HEI's and the kind of fundamental overhaul in the University system which is required to address this.

I want to finish by drawing on Finke’s work (Link) to suggest there are three questions a new vision of collegiality needs to address at the current conjuncture:

1) Is there a theoretical framework within which we might unpack the term “collegiality” to get a better handle on what we mean by it?

2) How might such a theoretical understanding of collegiality reveal the processes that continue to erect a “glass ceiling” for women in academia?

3) And: are there ways in which collegiality might be reimagined, reconstituted as practices which might promote more egalitarian forms of cooperation and collaboration?





Interrogating Commemoration: Reconciling women’s ‘troubled’ and ‘troubling’ history in centennial Ireland

Please do not use the contents of this blog in public presentations and media work (including in radio/television interviews, documentaries...