ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SUBJECT CENTRE FOR 
LANGUAGES, LINGUISTICS AND AREA STUDIES

MEETING ON 20 May 2003 AT SOAS, LONDON

Present
Professor Richard Towell (Chair) (RT)	Ms Liz Ashurst (EJA)	
Dr Keith Brown (KB)	Professor David Bickerton (DB)	
Dr Gertrud Aub Buscher (GB)	Dr John Canning (JC)	
Dr Esther Daborn (ED)	Dr Jude Davies (JD)	
Ms Alison Dickens (AD)	Ms Dawn Ebbrell (DE)	
Professor Richard Ellis (RE)	Dr Hilary Footitt (HF)	
Andy Gillett (AG)	Dr Andrew Hassam (AH)	
Prof Barry Jackson (BJ)	Ms Elspeth Jones (EJ)	
Professor Michael Kelly (MHK)	Dr Lid King (LK)	
Mr Terry Lamb (TL)	Mr Ray Satchell (RS)	
Professor Penny Sewell (PS)	Professor Anne Stevens (AS)	
Ms Vicky Wright (VW)	Dr Diana Jones (Minutes Secretary)	

1.	Apologies for absence
Dr Louise Haywood	Professor Marianne Howarth	
Prof Martina Lauster/ Prof Rhys Williams	Prof Rosalind Marsh	
Dr Bertie O Corrain	Derek Winslow	
Prof Sharon Wood		

2.	Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising
The Minutes of the previous meeting, held on 21 January 2003, were accepted as a true record of proceedings.

Recognising qualifications in Community Languages
MHK reported that the Subject Centre had followed up at the LTSN conference and in a discussion with the acting National Director for Languages. He reported that HEFCE were unlikely to want to get involved although it was observed by HF that HEFCE were not in a position to allow institutions to discriminate. 

Chair of the Advisory Board
HF reported that UCML had met and proposed that RT continue as Chair of the Advisory Board.

RT added that it is important to be able to demonstrate how the Advisory Board acts as a link between the Subject Centre and Subject Associations. Members were asked to email Liz Ashurst (eja@soton.ac.uk) with a note of any activities showing how the members of the Board have filled this role.
Action: all board members

3. 	Subject Centre Activity, January to May 2003
EJA discussed her report of the Subject Centre’s activity for the year to date. She reported that 8 bids for the Learning Technologies project were to be considered next week and that the successful applicant would begin work at the start of the next academic year.

UK Partnerships

MHK reported that links with Scottish CILT (SCILT) were developing strongly and that a meeting was held last week to discuss up a programme of activity for Scotland. He observed that the group was well constructed in terms of geography, discipline orientation and gender. EJA added that a similar partnership was being developed with CILT Cymru.

In response to a question from the chair, MHK reported that while the expense of travelling to meetings was not insignificant, these meetings could be regarded as pump-priming initiatives likely to attract additional funding to that provided by LTSN. It was pointed out that a considerable amount of SC activity is funded from other sources.

LTSN International Strategy
MHK reported that the Subject Centre has taken the lead in developing an international strategy for LTSN. At this stage very little resource is available for this although it is hoped that funding may become available. AH observed that the associations represented by the board are already quite internationally focused and that it would be possible to build on existing networks. MHK added that web-based resources on international developments in the area of teaching and learning would also be of value and that this could be raised at the UUK conference at the end of June. 

It was observed that Europe is very active in the area of languages (e.g. ECML), and there is a concern that our community is not aware of international developments. It was suggested that members with links to key relevant organisations in other countries should email Liz with details.
Action all members

Interoperability of the HUMBUL database (Resource Discovery Network for the Humanities)
AD reported that the Hubs involved do not appear to be talking to one another.  She suggested that the projects were working more or less in isolation and that it was not yet clear what level of interoperability might be appropriate to aim for. RT requested that AD report to him directly on elements of the project which might be causing concern so that they could be reported to the meeting of the Advisory Board chairs. AD agreed to do this following the project group meeting to be held at the end of the month.
Action AD

DE reported on behalf of CILT that the Pedagogical Research Projects will run until September and an evaluation report will be submitted to LTSN. She also noted that the proceedings of the 2002 conference were to appear in the autumn.

DE also reported on behalf of the 2004 Conference Programme Committee following their meeting earlier in the day. It had been agreed that:

•	A two day conference would be held in June/July 2004
•	No exhibition or ‘hands-on’ ICT sessions would take place
•	The conference would focus on issues of policy and curriculum
 
It was also reported that the Languages: Work Project was now underway with a new staff member being recruited that day.  LK noted that the steering group for the project was to involve UCML and SC and that a meeting would be held at the end of June.

4. 	Subject Centre Evaluation Report
GB reported that this was a ‘warts and all report’ and that interviewees included both those familiar with and those entirely unfamiliar with the SC’s activities. Significant findings of the report were that:
•	Many constituents are still unaware of SC activities;
•	There is a strong perception that SC is mainly, or only, for Modern Foreign Languages;
•	Linguistics colleagues are not well informed about SC activities in their area;
•	The Good Practice Guide is very much appreciated
•	Networking opportunities (particularly workshops) are seen as very useful.

GB concluded by suggesting that the stated aim of being the ‘main resource base’ for the SC’s three subject areas might be unrealistic. This is not because of any lack of quality in the SC’s work, but because of the quantity of information available to the community and the lack of time available to take advantage of it all. She suggested that the SC needs to ask how well targeted its resources are. She advised that the SC concentrate above all on networking.

Representatives of the three subject areas were invited to comment on the evaluation report.

RE observed that the diversity of the specialist group is an obstacle to the penetration of the Area Studies constituency by the Subject Centre. He noted that American Studies colleagues should have been well informed about the group’s activities but that the location of the Subject Centre within a Languages based Subject Centre is an issue. He emphasised that the recent input of additional time and resources in the shape of the Area Studies project, and the appointment of the new Academic Co-ordinator, had been of great benefit. Two successful events had been run so far this year and networking and dissemination were increasingly energetic and efficient. There was, however, still work to be done in bringing constituents’ attention to this resource. He added that reinventing CCASA might help to achieve this.

AS observed that the fate of European Studies was closely linked to that of Modern Languages and that it also shared the concerns of other Area Studies subjects. She added that the issue of perception is a concern, in that the SC was not necessarily seen as the first point of call for resources on, for example, the teaching of Eastern European studies.  She referred to the report ‘The State of European Studies’ commissioned by the Standing Conference of Heads of European Studies and suggested that this might be linked to from the Subject Centre website.
Action SC

KB noted that many linguists are more interested in research than teaching and that in this light the results of the evaluation process were not surprising. He added that there is considerable interest in the issues raised, but that coordinating action is not easy.  However Subject Centre activity had succeeded in bringing together sections of the linguistics community.  

AD reported that the SC plans to set up regional groups with contacts to act as regional anchors for postgraduate training in linguistics. This will help raise awareness of the SC’s activities and make sure participants at SC events are aware of the SC’s ownership of them. She suggested that linguistics colleagues might have attended SC events, believing them to have been run as a result of KB’s own initiative.

DB commented that the SC is well known in the area of practical languages teaching. However, specialist group meetings tended to be characterised by ongoing rehearsing of ‘doom and gloom’ followed by excited brainstorming. Current areas of concern for languages are:

•	The year abroad
•	Generic topics such as reading and writing
•	Principle-based pedagogic research underpinning practice
•	Language Portfolio
•	Getting literature specialists involved
•	Minority languages

He concluded by suggesting that the SC was not seen as the main vehicle for achieving these goals, but as a front door: it leads to places rather than being the destination in its self.

EJ noted that the EFL community does not associate themselves with the SC, although it was noted that EFL was well represented at the meeting. It was also noted that the perceived deficit was as much the responsibility of the EFL community as that of the SC. AG noted that BALEAP would be happy to look for ways to address the deficit. He added that the EFL acronym has lost its meaning and that the separation of EFL and MFL is increasingly artificial. RS reported that Bristol has integrated the two disciplines, and RT noted that this is likely to be increasingly the case. KB added that Linguistics is interested in ‘flirting’ with EFL although the English SC has had little to do with Linguistics. 

EJ suggested that there is scope for the SC to provide a resource for EFL advising on issues of relevance to part-time staff and staff development. It was noted however that a lot of resource would be required to get this off the ground.  An EFL flavour in Subject Centre events may have the effect of encouraging colleagues in Europe to attend.  

MHK responded to the comments about the evaluation report by saying in the first instance that it was an interesting and helpful document. He noted that it was the SC’s job to take the various points away and consider how best to address them. The implications for the future were largely strategic issues to do with targeting, and with identifying what the SC’s specific resource-based function should be. Changes to the HE landscape and the establishment of the Academy would have a huge impact on all Subject Centres, and MHK proposed that LLAS should hold steady for the next six months and wait for the fresh insights and resources which were likely to be forthcoming. He proposed that the SC not move away from its existing strategy at this stage. 

MHK also noted that the SC was sensitive to the needs and diversity of the community in recognising that not all constituents wanted to be involved in its activities and that some might prefer to be left alone. He added that the events run in the areas of literature and culture were not always acknowledged by constituents as being central to SC activities and that persistence was appropriate in these areas to engage literature and culture specialists.

RT observed that there was profit to be gained from integrating EFL into the SC’s strategy. He agreed that strategic developments would have to wait until there was greater clarity about the shape of the academy.

MHK noted that there is not a particular group of HEIs identified as boycotting events. JD noted that colleagues working in Literary and Cultural Studies are represented by their own subject associations. AH asked if greater collaboration with other subject centres was required in this context. JC reported that the Area Studies Project involves collaboration with five other subject centres, although the collaboration is still in its early stages.

RT thanked GB for her report. He noted the small sample of responses on which it was based and acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt.

5. 	Implications of the HE White Paper
MHK reported that the LTSN is working on a response to HEFCE. He noted that he did not share the vision of Higher Education put forward by the paper and did not recognise a strategic direction therein. He observed that the paper’s definition of education as the ‘transmission and exchange of knowledge’ lacked any sense of transformation, of values, or of the acquisition of skills and competences. He stated that when education is defined in terms of its economic function we are on a loss. He indicated that his report had contained a forceful argument that research, education and enterprise should have parity of esteem and not be manoeuvred into a hierarchy. With the strategy going in two directions at once, he argued, it had no direction. 

MHK reported that Margaret Hodge had presented plans for Centres of Teaching Excellence at the LTSN Conference in March 2003.  He noted that they should be orientated towards themes and issues (e.g. learning styles) rather than subjects. He observed that these might be based across several departments within a single institution, or comprise a consortium of institutions representing a narrower range of subjects. He added that the original suggestion that 70 institutions receive funding for 5 years was to be revised. A coherent plan would be forthcoming by mid-summer, although it was not certain the ministers would respond favourably to that plan.

RT observed that the proposed CETs would have been in direct competition with the LTSN, and considerably better funded. However, the notion of the Academy had the internal logic of bringing agencies together.

DE noted that Subject Centres are in a position to disseminate information in a way that CETs could not. However, this function alone was recognised as very narrow and sterile remit. EJA reported that Cliff Allen was looking at the remit of the CETs, LTSN and other components of the academy. She acknowledged the complex network of interconnected themes in question and noted that cross-departmental collaborations within individual institutions were seen as preferable by the funding council to cross-institutional initiatives.

LK reported as an ‘outsider’ (to the HE context) that he could see elements of the strategy which do, and do not, fit with trends identified within the bigger picture. He observed that the perceived competitiveness of the HE sector was in line with developments in Europe (i.e. Barcelona). He advised that the way forward was not to identify elements of the proposed strategy with which to agree or disagree, but to point out where the strategy is unlikely to lead into the desired outcomes. He recommended robust debate, and noted that MHK was embarking on this.

RT observed that the research agenda was being driven by the Science and Engineering communities on the assumption that what worked for those disciplines would apply equally to others. 

TL observed that competing for excellence may not fit well with the widening participation agenda. RT added that the class system appeared to be being reintroduced into HE and asked why students should be enthusiastic about registering for second-rate institutions.

General discussion on these themes raised the following points:
•	Unless the contribution of the humanities to the economy were formally acknowledged, the research agenda would inevitably be driven by Science and Engineering. (HF) 
•	The exportation of English worldwide is a great economic benefit. (RT)
•	The area of pedagogical research has had a difficult relationship with mechanisms such as the RAE. (RT)
•	Fruitful links are to be built between issues of widening participation and research. (RT)
•	Bringing attention to pedagogical research, and to the scholarly aspects of good teaching could be central to SC activity (BJ)
•	There is a split between education and languages in England which sets us apart from the rest of Europe. (LK)
•	There is a commonly held view that many problems can be solved through greater facility in English.  (LK)
•	The proposed Academy has the advantage of bringing organisations together to provide a better platform for advancing research and that it may open up the possibility of channelling funding to the area. (AS)
•	Pedagogy is a multidisciplinary issue and one that the LTSN is well placed to manage. (DE)
•	Fruitful collaboration could result from strengthening links with schools of education. (TW)
•	Institutions are already setting up units to address HE pedagogy.
•	Generic research addressing policy needs to link in with subject specific work. Subject Centres are well placed to manage this interface. (RT)
•	It has not been a simple task for subject panels to take account of pedagogy ‘in the subject’. Some have tried and failed or simply refused to attempt this. (BJ)
•	The Howard report will be out soon and will provide the SC an opportunity to provide feedback on these issues. (RT)
•	Universities do not see EFL as a subject in its own right and it is not regarded as ‘academic’.  This is also true for some language teaching. (KB/RS).
•	Some of the pedagogic research is not of a high academic standard. (DB)

Capacity Building – ESRC document
Responses to the ESRC document were to be submitted by 06 June. MHK stated that the LTSN would be making a response. He questioned whether the ESRC was an appropriate location for the debate and asked in particular whether the application of a Social Sciences approach to our subject area was appropriate.

It was agreed that while a generic Social Sciences approach could not be applied across the board to HE it was of value in some contexts.   BJ suggested that there was an extent to which a social science background is helpful for pedagogic research but it would be important to identify in which respects it was not significant.  

External examiners
RT suggested that the SC might save departments a lot of work by taking the initiative in helping with training of external examiners. This would not involve any sort of auditing or quality assessment work. It was suggested that such training might not necessarily be a priority for the Subject Centre.  

Foundation Degrees
EJ suggested that the issue of Foundation Degrees was more pressing, and that the provision of some sort of steer or networking in this area would be useful. It was observed that Languages have traditionally avoided the question of Foundation Degrees, but that this was unlikely to remain possible for long and might be somewhat foolish to attempt. AS drew attention to the recent Skills Capacity Audits conducted by West Midlands RDA and others. She suggested that Foundation Degrees would need to be developed through consultation with RDAs, FE, HE and others. The Subject Centre would be well placed to contribute to multi-agency initiatives although it was felt that FE might lead on this particular issue.

It was agreed the SC might advise on the issue of professional standards but that its remit should be limited to quality enhancement and not quality assessment. Any move towards QA would represent an irrevocable change in the SC’s relationship with its constituents.

The need to prioritise was acknowledged as was the necessity of waiting to see what actually develops from the white paper. Priorities included:

•	Foundation degrees
•	Generic and subject specific pedagogical research
•	Professionalisation of teaching
•	Collaboration
•	External Examiners

 6.	New Landscape for Languages
MHK reported that funding had not yet been secured for the next phase of the project. However, priority issues arising from the report did intersect with the National Languages Strategy and the current thinking of the Nuffield Languages Programme. The relationship between rationales for studying languages and the notion of entitlement was discussed. The board approved the proposed next phase of the research.

7.	Proposals for next year’s activity
A list of 6 areas for activity was submitted by EJA. It was agreed that most had already been discussed in the course of the meeting. RT stated that it would not be appropriate for the Board to dictate priorities and that it would expect the SC team to continue making sensible choices as it had in the past. 

No changes to the strategy would be made until the implications of the White Paper became clear.

Date of the next meeting
It was noted that while a meeting of the Board in January 2004 would fit with the pattern of meetings to date, it might be appropriate to meet earlier than that to discuss the implications of the White Paper. EJA would liaise with the group as appropriate. She would also contact those members who had already served a three year term on the board.