By Dr. Gareth Rice*
The Urbaria Document
The URBARIA document delineates the results of a workplace well-being survey conducted by the occupational healthcare provider Mehiläinen. It is bulletproof evidence that those who abused their power were not held accountable. The results were shared with staff in an “info coffee session” on 12th June, 2019. The survey was based on interviews with 30 individuals involved with the running of URBARIA. Rather than focus on individual gripes, the survey highlighted collective concerns.
I saw a
familiar pattern which had been going on for years. To quote from page one of
the document: “Urbaria’s work atmosphere is poor, with inappropriate behaviour
occurring on many levels. The problems were seen to result from the management
not being present or acting poorly.” Professor Mari Vaattovaara, URBARIA’s
director and those who continue to protect her have lot to answer for here. I
exposed her skull-duggery in the Geosciences and Geography Department at the
Kumpula campus back in 2014. I thought that global exposure in Times Higher
Education would have embarrassed HY into taking action against such behaviour.
Alas, the URBARIA document confirms that the same inappropriate behaviour has
simply been allowed to migrate from one HY campus to another.
Looking
on the URBARIA website, you’ll see one background image of a pigeon – not sure
of its connection with academic research – and some information about places,
people and politics. You get no sense of how much of a ‘sandcastle’ URBARIA is.
As outlined in the document, its goals, responsibilities and job descriptions
are unclear and there is a lack of resources for the Master’s Programme in
Urban Studies and Planning and ambiguity of content. There are also major
problems with supervision and management, communications and transparency of
recruitment processes. Many of these serial problems were presided over by
Vaattovaara, who is URBARIA’s director and bizarrely is due to remain in that
post until 2021!
A
particularly concerning section of the URBARIA document states the following:
“Complaints were raised on the actions of three individuals at the institute,
both as supervisors and wielders of authority. Since the URBARIA document
wasn’t official, why weren’t the three individuals named? Would they have been
named in an official document? I am quite sure that everyone who made the
complaints knows who the three individuals are, so why protect them?
The
next sentence in the document reads: “The matters stated in the complaints have
been dealt with according to the Faculty process with the dean, director of
department and head of human resources, and they will be considered closed at
this session.”
What
exactly is “the Faculty process” for resolving complaints, especially ones of a
serious nature? I really hope that it isn’t the same process which was in place
from 2008-2014; this gave Vaattovaara power which she was able to freely use
against colleagues in the Department of Geosciences and Geography at the
Kumpula campus.
It goes
on: “However, if no change is seen in practices, the matter should be raised
directly with the director of department.” Can we trust that the director of
the department will escalate the practice in question so that HY’s Faculty
process is able to put an end to it? But it should be more than this. The wider
academic community and the public really need to know that the Faculty process
is properly fit for purpose: Has it resulted in disciplinary action against the
three aforementioned individuals? Does it allow HY to terminate their
employment contracts if they refuse to change their behaviour? On page 3, the
document goes onto state that, “Inappropriate behaviour can result in a
reprimand, warning or, ultimately, termination of employment.” Termination of
employment is rare but it has happened. In relation to the sacking of Professor
Lassi Päivärinta for sexual harassment, Hämäläinen told the Helsinki Times in
2014 that: “It has been the top priority of the university to guarantee the
well-being of its employees. We have a zero tolerance policy toward
inappropriate behaviour.” It’s this sort of transparency that HY owes its staff
and the public instead of trying to hide behind the Act on the Openness of
Government Activities (621/1999).
It’s
not all doom and gloom. The URBARIA document recommends a number of measures,
which if strictly adhered to, will make it near impossible for any
inappropriate behaviour to continue. In an attempt to distance itself from
nepotism, HY’s recruitment processes “will be observed to an even higher
degree.” In an attempt to stop Professors from being able to guarantee academic
tenure to their favoured PhD students or friends, irrespective of better
competition, “General disqualification rules” were introduced last year. They
apply to applicants who have “Joint publications (three years),
supervisor-employee relationship, polemic relationship, supervisory
relationship (10 years), family connection or friendship. In the case of
director of department, the rules only pertain to employees directly under
their supervision, students, etc.”
Staff
workloads are “determined in the employment contract, while more specific
details are agreed with their supervisors and immediate supervisors.” Again, if
they are strictly adhered to, staff can negotiate various tasks to ensure that
they have a balance between teaching, research and other duties. This should
send a clear message to certain bullying Professors, who in the past were able
to keep their teaching hours secret and offload work onto junior colleagues (as
was the case in the Department of Geosciences and Geography).
Under
the section “Rules of Conduct for Workplace”, the URBARIA document claims that
HY is also committed to “the guidelines and activities of the Finnish National
Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK).” This is good to hear, for there
are too many Professors who have their names on academic publications without
having contributed anything to them. I have spoken with enough PhD and Master’s
students to know just how powerless and intimidated they feel when they are
basically told that their supervisor’s name should appear on all of their
publications. There now seems to be a way stop this misconduct: “Suspicions
relating to research ethics (pertaining to, for example, publication author
lists, research methodology misconduct, rights to data, research misconduct)
should be first discussed with the supervisor, after which a written
notification should be submitted to the chancellor, if necessary.”
The
URBARIA document also highlights a concern about order of operations. The
Master’s Programme in Urban Studies and Planning was established at the
University level “without making a decision on its resources at the same time.”
Whilst this led to “heavy workloads and uncertainty among staff and those
heading the programme”, it should not detract from another important issue:
Thanks to increased transparency, more discerning academics are wise to how
badly URBARIA is run and have chosen to avoid the place.
To those who want to see improvements in Finnish higher education the message should be clear enough: The chain of command in HY has protected those who wish to abuse their power which has led to the problems outlined above. Ultimately, the reason why perpetrators followed the route they did was because they were allowed to, and that’s our fault. As a culture, that’s our fault. My advice? When you come across those who abuse their power, be fierce in your convictions and don’t shy away. If HY wants to be a genuine supporter of the #eisyrji campaign and to better convince the academic community that its top priority really is to guarantee the well-being of its employees, then it would do well to more frequently exercise its zero tolerance policy toward inappropriate behaviour.
Go to Part I here.
*Dr. Gareth Rice is an academic currently based in the UK. Prior to this he worked in Finnish Higher Education as a postdoctoral researcher and a lecturer in Urban Geography. As an occasional journalist his writings have appeared in Times Higher Education, National Geographic, Counterpunch, Helsinki Times and Migrant Tales. He enjoys visiting coffee shops to meet friends, sometimes new people or to read magazines, which typically include Prospect, The Atlantic, The Economist, Monocle, MOJO, Sight and Sound or The New Yorker. He also appreciates nature, has spent a lot of time in Nuuksio National Park, Lapland and Loch Lomond exploring the great outdoors.
