Long time (or should that be long-suffering) readers of this blog will know that I have a Twitter account, which I use every so often to say where I am or what I am thinking or contemplating. I have to admit I spend very little time wondering whether someone might be upset at what I am writing. That may be a mistake: this year Twitter has come of age and has been the cause of at least two libel cases and a parliamentary apology.

One libel case has been taken by singer Courtney Love’s fashion designer, who felt aggrieved when Love said some not altogether nice things about her (as much as she could get into 140 characters) on Twitter. More bizarrely, a woman who complained on Twitter to her 32 or so ‘followers’ that her landlords were not concerned about the mold in her apartment in Illinois has been sued by the landlords, who are seeking $50,000 in damages. No kidding.

And as for the parliamentary apology, this was in Canada: one member of the Canadian House of Commons tweeted about another that he should ‘grow up, not out’ (the latter being a reference to his, er, alleged body shape), only to find that the outraged member was demanding an apology in parliament, which he got.

I think I’m going to have to go over my own twitterings again. Actually, I won’t, because as far as I know you can’t delete what you have written. Oh dear. If I have offended you, I didn’t mean to. Or maybe it wasn’t even me.

Some time ago I came across a website (I no longer recall the details) which was running what I thought was a particularly silly survey: it was asking its readers to ‘vote’ in an online poll whether universities should be more like corporations. It was silly in the sense that at that level of generality the question was completely meaningless: more like corporations in what sense? Some modern companies have adopted what we might call traditional academic values and methodologies; and I guess that understanding the ability of well-run companies to manage and maximise resources is something that wouldn’t necessarily harm us.

However, the relationship between universities and business organisations is an important issue and deserves both analysis and comment. It is important in two different ways: (i) is there anything we can learn from the corporate world? – and (ii) what kind of relationship should we have, or allow ourselves to have, with corporate partners?

For this post I shall focus on the second of these questions. I may come back to the first on another occasion, and I might just point out in passing that modern organisation theory applies an analysis to companies that could be helpful to academic institutions, whether they might want to adopt business insights or indeed avoid them. But that’s for another time.

But what about relationships with industry? Just over ten years ago the University of California at Berkeley caused some academic observers to raise their eyebrows when it announced a special relationship with the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis. The agreement was confined to agricultural biotechnology, and under its terms the company provided the university with $25 million of research funding, and in return it acquired rights in a share of the resulting discoveries. A number of concerns were expressed at the time, with some arguing that the deal created conflicts of interest and the possibility that academic integrity might be compromised by the industrial partner’s commercial interests. The arrangement came to an end in 2003, and was subsequently assessed by a team of outside experts. The resulting report was fairly critical. It found no ethical misconduct, but it questioned whether the arrangement had had any real impact on research output, and wondered whether the intellectual property aspects had been efficiently and fairly handled.

Whether the Berkeley/Novartis agreement was good or not so good, it is now a matter of general consensus at least amongst state agencies and government departments across the industrialised world that academic-industry links are to be welcomed. The major funding programmes of Science Foundation Ireland, for example, are based on the requirement to assemble university-industry collaborations, and in this country most of the high value research centres across more or less all of the universities have such collaborations in place. The major motivation for such relationships is that they may accelerate the commercialisation of discovery, as industry partners apply their skills in financing, developing and marketing products that are derived from the research. The risk, as some might see it, could be that the commercial imperatives applied by the industry partners may skew the research, or that the prominence given to these projects might crowd out the also necessary basic or blue skies research that should have a home in the universities.

There is little evidence to date that industry links have undermined university research, though the risks are always likely to be there to some extent and this requires strong ethics monitoring and a clear university research strategy (that goes beyond industry partnerships) to be in place. An external analysis of SFI and its funded programmes published in 2008 suggested that the industry dimension was positive and should be developed further.

It is probably also arguable that industry links should be developed, where appropriate, on the teaching side. DCU has from its establishment operated a work placement programme as part of all the university’s programmes of study that has had the effect of creating close links with the employers that take on our students, without giving our industry partners any direct influence over programme content or assessment.

Academic and intellectual integrity must always be at the heart of everything a university does; but being ‘networked’ has many benefits, not least that it allows a university to understand better what society’s needs are and how we can contribute to their resolution. Industry links are an important part of that mission.

Today, as certainly all Irish readers of this blog will know, has been a day of strike action organised by Irish public service trade unions in protest at cuts in funding for public services, expected salary reductions and reductions in staffing. As a result more or less all of Ireland’s public and civil service offices and institutions were shut down, from  government offices to schools. Most universities and colleges were also shut, with the exception of DCU and the University of Limerick, where staff voted not to join in the national strike action.

It was impossible to travel anywhere around Dublin today without seeing groups of people picketing workplaces. Some were low key, but many were very active. As I passed Trinity College’s various entrances by car, for example, it seemed to me that there were very large numbers on picket lines, so that access (even if the gates had been open) would have been difficult, and would certainly have required strong nerves.

And even before the day was over, it was announced by the trade unions that another such day was being planned for December 3.

The day of action, and the seemingly strong participation in it, arose from a feeling amongst public servants that they are the victims of mismanagement by others; that government, banks and business leaders behaved recklessly and lost large sums of money, and that those responsible are being protected or cushioned from the consequences and that public sector employees were being asked to pay for all this. Others also believe that the poor are being targeted while the wealthy are protected. A very significant number of posters being carried on picket lines today demanded that the rich should be taxed more in order to resolve the national economic problems.

No doubt the anger, fear and resentment are understandable, and perhaps the day of action provides an opportunity to let off steam and allow people to express their frustrations. Whether the assessment of our problems on which at any rate the picket line posters are based is accurate is rather another matter. According to the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan TD, 4 per cent of Irish taxpayers provide almost half of all income tax receipts, while half of the country’s income earners pay no income tax at all. As for the public services, the claim now is that pay levels for public servants are substantially above what is earned by public servants in other comparable countries and also above what is earned by those in the private sector in Ireland; indeed the claim is that this was the case even before substantial increases were applied earlier this decade through the process of benchmarking. At two picket lines today I saw members of the public expressing their anger at the picketers in fairly colourful terms.

Obviously, tempers are hot, and there is a sense that the work being done by public servants is not appreciated – and so it seems to me that a process of reassuring them that this is not so is a step that needs to be taken. A situation where both media comment and political actions seem to be suggesting constantly that public servants are exploiting national resources for selfish ends has not been helpful. On the other hand, it is not likely that actions such as today’s will strengthen the position of public servants, at least not if the rest of society withhold their backing and sympathy. The potential of strikes is that they will alienate the general public rather than encourage them to feel solidarity.

This may be a good time for all sides to think again about their tactics.

When the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister), Brian Cowen, was Minister for Health he memorably called this particular cabinet brief ‘Angola’, because of all the unexploded political landmines he felt it contained. In fact, very few politicians have found the stewardship of the country’s health system to have furthered their careers, with the possible exception of Charles Haughey, who was able to remain focused on policy initiatives and service improvements while there. Most politicians in charge of health appear to be quickly overwhelmed by the combination of intractable problems and vocal vested interests. And just in case anyone thought that this was a peculiarly Irish phenomenon, the same is pretty much true in the UK, and as we know even Barack Obama is struggling (though perhaps with some success now) to make health reform work for his administration in the United States.

But difficult though health policy and its implementation may be, it is right at the top of everyone’s list of priorities. Right now the global health system is having to deal with H1N1 influenza, as well as the various other diseases and pandemics rampaging through parts of the world. We also know that ageing-related health issues will need to be addressed for demographic as well as social reasons. We know that the relationship between health, diet and lifestyles needs to be explored further. In short, health is everyone’s burning concern. And in that setting, we have not really worked out yet how best to structure the healthcare systems in our countries, and how to pay for them; the demand-led system of universal benefits, when applied to healthcare, has not just become unaffordable but actually unmanageable – but we struggle to work out how we could do it better.

One aspect of all this that will need a lot of attention is health research. This is important for two reasons: first, we should be addressing in high value research the key issues that are having an impact on people’s health; and secondly, we should harness the economic benefits of healthcare research as a magnet for high value investment by companies in this field, including some of the biggest blue chip companies in the world. Although these are two different reasons, they actually point us in the same direction: that we should focus on certain programmes of research where as a country we have or can reach critical mass, and we should present these areas as ones that should attract international industrial investment in Ireland. Some of these areas are already clear, such as cancer research (where the National Cancer Institute has brought together the key players from the North and South, with US partners); others show potential, such as Diabetes; and others again support health research and treatment, such as medical diagnostics (with DCU’s Biomdedical Diagnostics Institute playing a particularly important role).

All this is likely to be helped by the new strategic plan of the Health Research Board, which has prioritised research in certain key areas and has also highlighted the importance of translational research, meaning research with a programme for its use in improving or solving health-related issues.

It is important for us to think of health as an opportunity as well as a problem. Ireland has some real excellence in health research across all the universities and other institutions (such as the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland), and therefore can both make a contribution to addressing global health issues and gain an economic benefit from doing so. It is, as they say, a no-brainer.

As we prepare for what is universally expected to be bad news for higher education in the coming Budget/Book of Estimates, we may or may not find consolation in the fact that there are similar fears in England. Last Friday Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), suggested that a ‘golden age’ for university funding and development was now coming to an end, and that universities in England were ‘going to see a rebalancing of financial contributions to higher education from the tax payer, from students, from graduates and from employers.’ From the context of the story, I gather that ‘rebalancing’ does not mean a redistribution of the same funding between these different sources, but rather an overall (and perhaps severe) reduction.

In Ireland as in the UK, we shall have to ask some fundamental questions; but the most obvious one seems to me to be whether we can continue to aim for significant increases in higher education participation rates in these circumstances. This latter question is also tied up with the issue of whether we can aim to maintain a position in the global rankings if we continue to pursue volume growth but without resources. Even if we feel that the rankings don’t matter, we need to remember that on the whole they reflect quality-driven performance indicators, so that the implication of sliding down the tables is that quality is eroding.

I personally support the highest possible participation levels, subject to adequate entry qualifications; but it may realistically not be possible to continue with that agenda for now.

I really must not take myself too seriously, so please read the next sentence with a grain of salt. But I guess I could argue, tentatively, that this blog has provided a forum of sorts for a debate on higher education, where the participants are not only the great and good (if you are reading this and believe you are great and good, my apologies, and of course you are welcome, too). But the blog is a minor contribution in the overall scheme of things, and there are also others which, in different ways, also raise questions about the future of our sector.

But I rather wonder whether we need more than this. Right now the major assumptions which have under-pinned higher education in these island for the best part of a century are being questioned, and influential voices are calling for something which, while its contours are not yet clear, will at any rate be quite different. The view is being expressed that universities need to be more responsive to and prepared to address the major issues and problems of society and the economy, and that academics need to have a working environment which more closely resembles that in other employments; it is probably fair to say that the traditional understanding of individual academic autonomy no longer enjoys general support in society.

Of course we are part of society, and we need to address concerns and criticisms when they emerge. The problem is that the debates on the future are largely by-passing the higher education community. Some key recommendations on the future of the sector are currently being debated by the Steering Group for a new National Strategy for Higher Education, which has two senior academic representatives but is otherwise dominated by civil servants. Discussions are also being conducted from time to time by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, which obviously is made up of politicians. There are occasional workshops and seminars, but again these tend to be very high level events.

There is an urgent need to have a debate that gives a voice to the university and college community more widely, thereby ensuring that the debate is an informed one, but also allowing the community to take part in a process which in the end must convince them if there is to be a successful process of change.

I am a strong believer in strategy, and believe that academic institutions like other organisations must be skilfully led through necessary periods of change. But they must also be properly engaged at all levels, and change must not simply be implemented by edict, but must be debated, explained and justified. I think that we do need change, but not any change, and in particular not the kind of change that is really the product of a drive to bureaucratise higher education and impose tighter central controls.

Therefore, the time is right for a better debate within the third level institutions on higher education reform, involving rather more of the community in the sector than has been the case so far. This could involve a number of different initiatives: online discussions, workshops and conferences with good representation, publications and reviews, and so forth. It may be something that I shall push during my final year in my current role.

There has been a certain amount of media coverage of the claim by Trinity College Dublin Students Union that at least some of the student registration charge, which is intended to pay for student services, is being used by TCD to pay for other things through the general budget. The TCD Students Union apparently has claimed that some €310 of the total charge of €1,500 is being used by the college ‘in lieu of HEA cuts’. According to reports in both the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, TCD has denied this and has stated that the charge only covers 80-85 per cent of the total cost of relevant student services.

I cannot of course speak for Trinity College, but I can say that in DCU the actual costs of student services have always significantly exceeded the income from the student registration charge; so if it is a question of demonstrating that the charge is not greater than is warranted by the costs of the services provided, it will not be difficult to establish this conclusively. But that probably isn’t the whole issue. In part, what this little row is about is whether in the context of a system that promises ‘free fees’ (however misguided such a promise may be) it is acceptable to require students to pay what is now a fairly substantial charges for services. And as government funding is cut, it is understandable that students may be asking whether the student registration charge is being used for general funding purposes to make up for some of the now missing money.

I suppose that in the general setting of budget cuts and operational restrictions on universities, it is difficult for any of us to turn down this charge. And yet I have been and am uneasy about it. It helps us all to fudge the issue of funding and to kick real solutions ahead of us. It also needs to be said that if there is a student registration and services charge, then the rate should be determined by each institution on the basis of the audited costs of student services; there should be no bar on different charges between institutions. And definitely, the amount should not be set by government.

We need to take a whole lot of fundamental strategic decisions about the future of higher education. So let us stop fudging the various issues and address the financial problems we now face. And if there are to be tuition fees (which I, as readers will probably know support), then let us be straightforward about that and introduce them – but trying to part-introduce them by subverting an existing measure seems to me to be unacceptable.

Today, as I am sure all readers of this blog know, is World Hello Day – a day that is allegedly observed (at least by someone) in 180 countries. It began as an initiative to overcome the global pessimism that was generated by the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War in 1973, and since that time a number of people have worked tirelessly to keep the idea alive.

And how do you observe World Hello Day? Simple: you greet at least ten people you do not know, thereby encouraging global peace. So you can walk down a city centre street, identify your ten targets and say Hello to them – but you may need to be careful, as not everyone might welcome the unsolicited greeting. Indeed you need to be alert to someone popping out from a doorway to alarm you with their own unexpected Hello.

But in the meantime, one pleasant use of the concept is that you can make a list of those whom you do not intend to greet, even if they do turn up right in front of you today. Like Thierry Henry.

But then again, let’s shake off all those inhibitions to which we are so prone on these islands, and let’s hasten on world peace with our ten unsought Hellos. But maybe don’t do it when I’m around. In fact, I may be staying indoors today.

In a post I wrote in July of last year I celebrated the availability of email as a communications tool and described how it had changed my working (and indeed social) life. Back then, and maybe until last month, I assumed that email would continue to grow and would also play an important part in the students’ learning experience. Indeed an Australian report of 2003 placed some emphasis on the academic uses of email.

But in this most unpredictable age, things may turn out differently. Last month at a meeting here in the university some colleagues explained that they had found that the use of email by students was in steep decline. Whereas in the recent past announcements issued by email would have reached the target audience quickly and reliably, their experience now was that a majority of students would not read the information in a timely manner or at all. Email was no longer a reliable communications tool.

At first this seemed highly counter-intuitive to me. I do not believe, on the whole, that technology is ever ‘un-adopted’. Once in regular use it is developed and improved, but not abandoned. So how could this be happening to email?

I suspect that it is not that students have  moved away from electronic communication, but rather that they have moved to other platforms. It is interesting, for example, that about half of all messages I get from students now come via Facebook rather than email. It is in many ways the same thing of course, but using Facebook allows the student to integrate their more formal correspondence with their social networking. Many students who are hoping to talk to me seem to wait until they see me log in on Facebook and then grab me there with instant messaging.

So if I am right, what we are seeing is not a move by students back to the age of paper and quill pens, but rather to newer and (for them) more exciting formats for electronic communication. This also shows that modern technology doesn’t stay modern for very long. And it suggests that we need to develop our online tools so that they have the look and feel and functionality of what students are used to and like in their social lives.

So if you’re an academic and you are not on Facebook, think again. You need to be where your students are, at least some of the time.

For a period during my teens I played a lot of handball and got really rather good at it. For those who don’t know it, the quickest way of describing it would be to say that it’s like a trimmed down version of indoor soccer played with the hands rather than the feet. Back then, I was a prolific goalscorer. And from that vantage point, I can tell you that Thierry Henry’s skills at handball are excellent: his move to control the ball with his hand before scoring was a classic. The only slight problem is that he wasn’t playing handball.

OK, so what am I talking about? If you don’t know the answer you are not Irish and have not seen any Irish news media over the past 24 hours. No harm to you, here’s the brief explanation. Last night the Irish football (soccer) team played its last qualifying game for the World Cup in South Africa next year. It was the second (and final) game against France; the first leg had been played last Saturday in Dublin, and last night (in Paris) Ireland needed to win the game in order to qualify. Things were going well, with an Irish goal courtesy of Robbie Keane, when just before the end the ball fell to French player Henry, who handled it deftly and allowed team mate Gallas to score. The goal should have been disallowed and Ireland should have had a free kick, but the referee didn’t see it and allowed the goal, and Ireland were cheated out of their place in the World Cup.

In case you think this is a partisan account, let me quote Thierry Henry himself:

‘It was a handball, but I’m not the ref. The ball hit my arm, fell in front of me and I played it. The ref allowed it. That’s a question you should ask him.’

Well of course, all sorts of people are asking the referee. And there is now a campaign for a replay. What has happened here is that an admitted foul was the basis for an undeserved French win. It really should not be allowed to stand. The people should rise up in anger! I fear justice will not prevail, but we should never let it go by default.