English Association Report on Responses to the Pandemic (2022)
Professor Antony Rowland FEA
In August 2022, we sent a survey to Fellows of the English Association and departmental heads (via University English) about the impact of the pandemic on the discipline. Overall, the responses indicate that the advent of Covid-19 has resulted in a diverse and often contrasting series of institutional and departmental practices, although there are recurrent themes and concerns. Some English departments, for example, have had their research allowances slashed since the first lockdown in 2020, whereas other Fellows have enjoyed extra funds for research, such as increased travel grants. Many curricula now offer a ‘hybrid’ mixture of face-to-face and online teaching in 2022-23, whereas other universities have completely abandoned their previous online delivery. Some respondents have self-identified as belonging to pre- or post-92 universities: these responses indicate that the demarcations above cannot be clearly attributed to either. This patchiness across the sector makes a unified response to the pandemic difficult, compounded by the vicissitudes of institutional politics and budgets. However, most English departments are united by the conviction that arts and humanities subjects under the current government are under attack. Many respondents argued that it is the duty of the discipline to more robust in its defence of its core values in the run-up to the next general election.
Has the structure of research changed within your university? Have, for example, research allowances, sabbaticals or internal research funding been impacted in your institutions?
Multiple departments reported that research allowances and research leave or sabbaticals have significantly cut since 2020. Some research workload allowances were now frozen at 20%. One self-identified respondent from a pre-92 university reported that any research allowance now had to be applied for annually. Some Fellows noted that sabbaticals which had been frozen during the pandemic in 2020-22 had not yet been reinstated. One respondent outlined what can happen after initial research cuts: ‘First research leave, including research for which external funding had been received, was cancelled (though the financial benefits from good REF results was eagerly gobbled up), then so were our jobs.’ In contrast, many other respondents recorded that there had been no changes whatsoever to research allowances or sabbaticals/research leave since 2020. One even noted that internal research allowances had recently increased to compensate for cancelled activities during the lockdowns. One Head of English flagged that their internal research leave scheme had become more flexible, with the opportunity to apply for an extra research day every week.
Do you think there will be a shift to fund science and engineering rather than the arts and humanities in the wake of Covid-19? If so, how might we respond to this shift?
Some respondents argued that the shift away from funding the arts and humanities was not inevitable, whereas others illustrated that it was already happening. Many implored that departmental heads and our subject representatives should be more robust in their responses to this trend. One response argued that colleagues need to emphasise the fact that opportunities for arts and humanities graduates are equal to students who choose to take sciences subjects. On the positive side, one respondent noted that their university was actively promoting the inevitable links between the humanities and medical research. Others applauded the ‘visible role of culture and the arts in maintaining sanity and social cohesion during Covid’, and the power of language in responding to the impact of the pandemic. Some responses contended that the discipline needed to become more ‘arts entrepreneurial’, and that collaboration with STEM colleagues was vital to the future of the discipline since it stressed the added value of embedding arts and humanities research in science projects. Nevertheless, others strongly advocated that the British Academy, UKRI and our vice chancellors must ‘lobby harder’ for the arts and humanities on their own terms, and stress our (mainly invisible) economic contribution to GDP. One respondent optimistically stated that there would definitely be a ‘government shift’—whether internally or to a new government was not clear—and that we should not be defensive in our reactions to the currently negative discourse surrounding arts and humanities subjects.
Has anything changed radically in terms of the planned delivery of your teaching?
The situation concerning the delivery of teaching is markedly divergent. Many respondents stated that their institutions were returning to face-to-face teaching in 2022-23, whereas others praised the inclusive benefits of remote delivery, and were confident that ‘hybrid’ learning would endure in their universities. This ‘very wide variety of practice’ across the disciplines and universities has resulted in student difficulties in evaluating in advance the benefits of difference courses: one respondent believed this would have a deleterious effect on students’ experience. One Fellow even noted differences in pedagogical delivery within a single department: in this instance, the individual tutor had to choose whether to offer in-person classes online to those who were unable to attend; in addition, some but not all modules were retaining recorded lectures. Many respondents emphasised the extra labour involved in delivering online classes during and after the lockdowns, and the extra content now required in the return to in-person teaching.
In what ways might there be a positive impact on teaching and learning in universities after Covid-19?
Many respondents stressed the advantages of developing digital literacy for curriculum design, online teaching materials, collaborative teaching—sometimes across different universities—and distance learning. International and disabled students in particular benefited from these innovations. One departmental head noted that the success of the ‘hybrid’ model of teaching at their institution meant that attendance in 2021-22 was, on average, 82%. One respondent recalled their previous frustration in trying to convince colleagues that recording lectures was beneficial for disabled students, whereas lecture capture was now mandatory. It was noted that online staff meetings —and even personal tutor meetings—had been incredibly successful, saving time and planetary resources. One Fellow noted that a department that was ‘culpable and shamefully’ adverse to technology had had to ‘skill up’ quickly during the lockdowns. Another recorded that the pandemic has exacerbated the split between staff and students: ‘various waves of crisis revealed that some students don’t readily see us as fellow strugglers or even as people trying to balance different priorities – they have been quite quick to see us as people who just don’t get it.’
Do you have any specific comments that you’d like to make as Head of Departments on the impact of Covid, and how it’s been regarded by your institution? For example, do you foresee any risks in the maintenance of Covid practices such as online working?
Responses from the departmental heads about the wider impacts of the pandemic on departmental life have stressed the impacts on campus activity, collegiality and pedagogy more broadly. Many were worried about empty campuses, disconnection, remote support staff and the difficulty of enticing staff and students back onto university sites. One noted that the department simply ‘isn’t as vibrant a place as it was[…] I’m sure that if people were to come in and spend time in our staff kitchen and chat in offices and corridors as used to be the case, there would be fewer feelings of disengagement and alienation.’ Others noted that staff were increasingly expected to cover for absent colleagues, with the inevitable knock-on effect on stress levels and morale. Some students were clearly resistant to the return to face-to-face teaching, and questioned why the ‘hybrid’ model was being abandoned in their institutions. One head of English summed up the situation thus: ‘An overall loss of collegiality and cohesion is a risk and there are particular risks associated with the induction and integration of new staff if Departments are working largely online.’
Antony Rowland is a Chair in Modern and Contemporary Poetry at Manchester Metropolitan University. He is the author of seven books of criticism, including Metamodernism and Contemporary British Poetry (Cambridge University Press, 2022). His co-authored book entitled ‘Virtual Holocaust Memory’ is due to be published by Oxford University Press next year. Currently, he is involved in two AHRC projects: a Leadership Fellowship on the legacies of modernism, and an Impact Follow-on project on immersive technologies in Holocaust museums. Antony is also the author of three collections of poetry, including M (Arc, 2017). He has been a member of the Higher Education Committee for the English Association since 2015.
