 I'm going to be talking about tribes and territories. You may or may not be familiar with the original book published in 1989 by Tony Beecher. Tony and I, the late Tony Beecher, sadly is not among us anymore, Tony and I worked on a second edition published in 2001. As Karen just said, the third edition, the third take on it, is going to be coming out shortly. There are people in the room who have contributed to that, and some excellent contributions from the Australian perspective will add huge quality to that. By the way, I was a bit sad not to get a jingle when I walked on. I've been spending the last 24 hours thinking what it might be. I don't know why that's gone off the agenda. There we go. There's a sort of gap in the talk today, and that's about interdisciplinarity, or transdisciplinarity, and so on. The shift from mode one to mode two, if you like. I'm not going to be talking about that, because I did want to just concentrate on disciplines, but I do acknowledge that that's a huge area, and it's also one that could seriously benefit from some critical thinking. I'm not going to do that, though you may want to ask me about that either now or tonight at one o'clock in the bar. What kind of answers you'll get, of course, is quite unpredictable. The first edition of Tribes and Territories looked at academic disciplines, the territories, and then at the cultures of academics, the so-called tribes. It basically took an epistemological essentialist position, big phrase, what does it mean, that basically the knowledge structures of disciplines conditioned or even determined the practices of academics. That was based on a research design that looked at elite members of elite universities and elite disciplines in the United States and the UK, and the argument was that there would be a trickle-down effect, so Tony Beecher looked at those and what is happening at Stanford or Yale or whatever today will happen in a community college somewhere else tomorrow. Well, no, I don't think so. Context is really important. What that also meant, of course, was that he tended to look at males, male academics, and as I say particular disciplines and people at the top of the field and research, so teaching and learning and other dimensions of academic practices were missing. So in the second edition what I tried to do was to inject some thinking about disciplines and learning and teaching. And of course there's quite a literature on that and I was taking the literature rather than new empirical research. But I was unhappy really with the whole notion of tribes and territories and I was having to fit in to a framework that I really didn't agree with. So there was always the third book in Prospect and this will be the one. What I want to do is to share with you some of the ideas from that book, both in terms of theoretical development and in terms of things that have happened in the world of higher education and more broadly. And Austin was talking about the factors that have influenced us, changing information technology and so on and so forth yesterday. And those forces I think are really important. Kerry Lee in the new book talks about vectors of change that are influencing practices. So I want to think first of all about some new ways of conceptualising disciplines. To think about social practice theory, I'm taking a social practice approach. There are three books that Karen kindly mentioned that are all based on a social practice theoretical perspective. Then think about some of the vectors of change that have influenced practices and then consider some of the implications of those things for our attempts to enhance practices, learning and teaching practices and so on in universities. One final thing that was missing from the first two editions was thinking about non-academic staff. The focus was very much on the academic tribes but as Celia Whitchurch and several others have shown us in their work actually what's happening is that we're getting more and more blended professionals and I should have thought of Mode 3. Mode 1, Mode 2, what could be next? Gary Rhodes in the States talks about Mode 3 and by that he means that the teaching and learning enterprise is actually a multi-professional enterprise. It's not just about the academic and the students in the classroom anymore. It's much broader than that. So when I'm talking about social practices and the influence of disciplines or not on social practices I'm really talking about those things that happen within higher education to do with the production, reproduction and dissemination of knowledge. I think if you look at a lot of the literature what you see is a kind of purest view of understanding disciplines that academic practices are kind of in a bubble rather bounded and unsullied. What we do in universities is unsullied by politics, by power and by organisational hierarchies and so on. That's less and less actually the case nowadays. So that's one thing to try to pop that bubble and also to think about disciplines and their influences in different kinds of practices in terms of recontextualisation, that how disciplines are articulated depends on the context. Basil Bernstein talks about recontextualisation, recontextualisation rules and so on. When he's talking about that he's talking about the shift from what he calls discipline as research to discipline as curriculum. In other words what the discipline is is changed by people as they articulate it in different contexts. So when they're teaching it, when they're putting it into textbooks and so on. I think it's possible to extend that into other areas. How is discipline articulated for example in committee meetings? How do people use their discipline in that kind of area? And what does that mean for the other people who are present in those different contexts? So the notion of discipline as I think can be extended to a whole range of social practices within universities. So finally I think we need to pop the bubble of thinking about universities as closed systems. Maths Alveson at Lund University talks about universities as having multiple cultural configurations, not being just having one culture and so on. Really what he means by that is that clusters of practices, if you want activity systems or communities of practice, operate largely within departments and generate new cultures, different cultures and so on within that. In a very dynamic way. Moving on then, let's see if I can go the right way. So you've got that traditional picture of the tribes and the territories. One of the things about tribes of course is the notion of tribes is it's rooted in a colonial tradition as Catherine Manethunga who's here with us points out in her chapter. It's a very problematic term in terms of its heritage and I think one thing that we need to do is to challenge that. So in some of the literature we get different definitions of discipline and here's one from Janet Donald. The question is what is a discipline actually? A more complicated thing than you might think. This is a kind of traditional sort of definition of discipline. It's very similar to one I found by Peter Berger back in 1970. The problem with this, I'll give you a second just to think about it. The problems with this are for me that it concentrates on the knowledge side of it only. It assumes that it's a fairly static thing and actually disciplines are really quite dynamic in their character and it doesn't really recognise the internal disputes and differences that go on within disciplines. Those kind of turf wars, paradigm wars that are sometimes called within disciplines are really quite important. So some of the thinking about disciplines has taken a rather static view. The other thing and perhaps the more important thing is it doesn't recognise the fact that disciplines are instantiated in departments, in universities and the power plays that go on, the social construction of reality that goes on, the effect how they are articulated in universities. Traditionally you've got this view of disciplines as fairly static and often, and I've heard this at the conference as well, views about disciplines like this and again I'm quoting from Janet Donald but you find this in the literature quite a lot. These people do this, those people do that, kind of almost a stereotyping view. In the original book there was a gallery of stereotypes that Tony Beecher put in which I quickly excised. I think if disciplines were really tribes or ethnic groups we'd probably all be guilty of racism because we're stereotyping their behaviours and actually if you talk to people within disciplines there are lots of different practices going on. So if you read quite a famous article by Ruth Newman and others about disciplines and learning and teaching practices you get a view that certain sorts of assessments, certain sorts of teaching practices go on within particular disciplines. I don't think that's particularly fair. So for example they say academics in soft applied disciplines, that's things like social work, are open to collaborative teaching and in hard applied fields, something like engineering, they have a concern for comprehensive coverage of theory and acquisition of practical skills but I think that's far from always true. Burton Clark in 87 said that the characteristics imported into the academic profession by individual members from their personal background and prior experiences are the least important component of academic culture, a strong epistemological essentialist position that who we are, where we come from, our backgrounds and so on have very little or nothing to do with the practices we articulate in universities. Well again I don't think that's true. There is some more recent literature that helps us to get a bit real about disciplines. So for example, Wyngarth and Styr in 2000 say that disciplines are not only intellectual but also social structures, organisations made up of human beings with vested interests based on time investments, acquired reputations and established networks that shape and bias their views on the relative importance of their knowledge. Disciplines are diffuse types of social organisation for the production of particular types of knowledge. So we're beginning to see real acknowledgement of social practices and power plays and so on, the influence of disciplines as a real social thing going on. So Turner too sees them as socially constructed by people in particular areas. Shouldn't get too carried away by that though, there's quite a literature by Michael Young and others saying that we should be aware of moving too far to see disciplines simply as a voice. Discipline is whatever we say it is, the narratives about disciplines. They take a critical realist or social realist perspective saying that actually knowledge differences are important but overlaid by social discussion, social creation I should say. So a changing moving field then in terms of trying to think about disciplines and their significance I just want to move on quickly to think about a social practice perspective and I won't get too heavily theoretical about that. But I think if you bring a practice perspective to thinking about disciplines it does begin to help you to think about the realities. It helps us to get a bit real about what's happening in universities. So I've mentioned already the importance of context, university context and even departmental context that disciplines are articulated in different ways in different departments. That individual members of a discipline are drawing on reservoirs of behaviour, practices, sets of emotions and so on that are if you like standard but within particular context those are recreated, recognition rules and recontextualisation rules as Bernstein says helps to translate the discipline into a particular articulation. So we see people as carriers of practices but at the same time they're not social dopes they are creating their acting agentically as well developing unique sets of behaviours and then you get this multiple cultural configuration. There are sets of practice clusters, committee work, developing a new programme, working on a research project etc where disciplines are articulated in different ways are recontextualised if you like and in that tools or mediating artefacts are used. So for example in teaching the bedside rounds, in medicine, the crit in the studio, in art and design and so on. From a practice perspective and particularly in thinking about change in the enhancement of learning and teaching for example the mediating artefacts are really important because through then you can help bringing about a shift in recurrent practices. So for example by changing proformas, by changing the technology, by thinking about the surveys that you're using for example engagement surveys and so on or the questioners that universities have to fill in each year. You're actually shifting practices, there's an interrelationship between the tool use and practices on the ground that goes on. So there's a configuring of activity but also a sort of shaping of how the tools are used as well. I mentioned at the panel discussion another feature of a social practice approach which is discourse, the importance of discourse. From this perspective the use of discourse both articulates the world and can shape the world, can bracket out particular ways of seeing the world and can shift particular things to the forefront. So the way we talk about learning and teaching, the word deliver, just to take an example the word deliver, deliver the curriculum, deliver the syllabus. That metaphor has particular connotations about knowledge and the transmission of knowledge and so on. We tend not to think about that and as I said earlier on it is really important to confront the discourse that we're using and to just consider now and then how important it is and what it's actually doing for the way we think about the world. Then identity, subjectivities, there's a big debate in things like communities of practice theory, activity theory and so on about the significance of the individual within the social world, within the workgroup that they're in. There's something called the inseparability thesis which says basically that we're a product of our context. Well I don't think that's right and I'll be showing you a little video. I'm going to stop talking in the second but I'll show you some videos. I don't think that's right. Actually there's a relationship going on between context and individuality. The final thing I wanted to talk about was power and that's often missing from all of this but I've hinted already that power plays power of different types is really quite important in how disciplines are articulated. Both kind of brute power, state power if you like and interpersonal power that goes on on a moment by moment basis. So to sum up then I'd say that disciplines aren't things, this is one of the videos that's going to come up in a second. They shift, change according to context and are dynamic and we ought to think of them in terms of contextualisation, recontextualisation of disciplines and therefore they have different sets of different extent of power, different extent of influence over social practices. I don't think it's possible actually to say that they're strong or weak in a general sense. Rather they shift and change according to context and according to distribution rules, recontextualisation rules and evaluative rules. Okay, I'm going to show you these four videos. These are actors, they're not the actual interviewees but they are speaking transcripts from interviews that I conducted in South Africa that emerged, newly merged institution and the merger was between historically advantaged white institution, historically disadvantaged black institution, an Indian institution and a very particular specialist institution. So the idea was to find or improve the quality across all four institutions. But what I was interested in was studying how they were managing to merge the disciplines. So you'd have two or three departments of law for example, two or three departments of social work and they were having to come together for the first time, talk about what they each did and also try to establish a common curriculum. The vice chancellor said that there should be a common curriculum. So my interest really in this was how has the discipline been articulated in these very different contexts, are there similarities and so on and what actually happens when they have to come together and try to negotiate a common curriculum. So the first one that I want to show you is somebody in the department, one of the departments in law that I interviewed and this really is about the different forms of power that went on as that negotiation went forward. Mion Campus said, had a very, very interesting trying to work out what would be the best for us in terms of location out of the three law teaching campuses. We were desperate not to be moved to law in Campus X or law in Campus Y and wanted to retain their location. We persuaded the university to let us stay with Campus X moving to us voluntarily. This was for a number of reasons. We argued strongly that we had branded our degree. We sold ourselves as the Campus Z School of Law. We love our historical buildings. Before the merger was announced, we brought in architectural consultants so as not to deface the historical building and built in a new library. It's absolutely amazing. It's a lovely library. It's really lovely. So we were desperate to stay here if we could swing it. We would try. I think they had an advantage in that Campus X had very few resources, very limited library facilities in particular, and we had all the access to databases and online stuff. Once the merger was formalised, we were keen to get together and renegotiate the curriculum. Again, we were keen to go ahead. We would push ahead and there was no going back. We had a joint intake of students one year ahead of everyone else to show the university that we were serious about staying on our campus. I think back to how we came to persuade them. It was about people persuasive personalities taking the initiative. In truth, we had sway of numbers. So when we said, look, we got the great course of first year level and we did our homework in advance, it was very hard for Campus X to argue against it. However, in discussing the curriculum in part two with the other campuses, it was tinkering because the law society largely determines the curriculum. But there were a number of strong personalities in our department who really pushed their particular teaching interest and research interest. To give an example, we have a person who is on the Human Rights Commission. So in our degree, human rights is very strongly emphasised. It's weighted in favour of administrative law, constitutional law and human rights so that our flagship, our distinctive feature, and before the meeting we said we are not giving up on that. That's what we're good at, that's what we made our name on. We also felt we had an image market-wise, reputation-wise. We definitely believed we had the better course and we have weighted numbers, so we went in a strong position. You had your criminal lawyers, you had your family lawyers, you had your people who clearly saw it as their territory trying to persuade everybody else. It was power play, it was horse trading. We will give you this if you give us that. Usually, one dominant player took the lead. There are individual personalities, powerful personalities, strong players who feel they own their specialisms and tend to dominate. They are going to squeeze out specialists who are less able to make their case. Coming from a position of authority, they came in and laid it down. We've always done it like this and intimidated people. If you analyse that, you can see different forms of power being spoken about and operated. To go back to what I was saying earlier on about the definition of disciplines and the understanding of disciplines, it's not in a bubble, an abandoned bubble, but we need to get real, as obviously happened there, about how we understand decisions about what the discipline is, what's important, and so on. The second one is about ideology to some extent and really about the ideology of merit and intelligence and so on. I think you can see issues about context being played out in this one too. We had a member of staff, a theoretical physicist, who, when he came here, said, standards are the key thing. We should select our students and leave them to sink or swim. I'm the only person around here who's maintaining standards and I shall maintain standards. He came from an American situation and had to have the difficulties of certain groups of students in South Africa put out to him. Once he realised this, he changed his position. We lit through our materials, our workbooks. We found examples about the conduction of heat through the walls of a niggly. Many of our black students didn't know what a niggly was. We even got to the point of talking about the processes in the photographic plate in a camera. We eradicated these culturally-based examples. Has there been a transformation of this teaching? Decidedly, yes. So I was just going to thank her then. It's a video. So ideology and context are really important there. I think you might want to come back to some of these examples later on. Clearly, what I've done is just picked out what I thought were illustrative things that were found elsewhere as well. The third one is also about context and about stereotyping. This again is a different discipline and a different interviewe, but I'll just let you listen to it. As we merged, the first thing that became apparent was that UniY didn't have the same academic standards and the same regard for teaching as we did. The idea was that we would form one big school of chemistry across all the campuses. The heads of chemistry met together to discuss the merger, but it quickly became apparent that no one understood what anyone else was doing. So, even between UniX and College Z, there was a cultural difference. And then we had the UniY scenario where they were miles behind us. And the biggest problem we had was how do you tell somebody that they're not very good? When you have different institutions with different academic cultures, it's very hard for people to believe that they're not the ones doing the best job. We have a strong culture of teaching and learning, but UniY, to tell you the truth, had no culture at all. However, they have now adopted most of our courses, but that was hard work. So now we've got a common curriculum in chemistry, which is very, very learner-based. One of the best things we've done is the optional Saturday morning tutorials. I go along with some PhD and MA students and give extra help to the kids working through workbooks. The staff in UniY said, if we did that, our students wouldn't come because our students are very different from your students. That's been the big thing with the merger. Everybody thinks they and their students are different. Again, I don't need to say anything really, I'll leave it to you to interpret that. Final one, just to move on quite quickly, I mentioned the inseparability thesis in some of the work on social practice theory, which I disagreed with. I think this quote describing the influence of one particular person just shows how even within a community of practice and activity system, whatever you want to call it, one person brings in from outside not only their history and so on, but also their personal characteristics. The influence of humans, individual people, is really significant and that's something we've found in our evaluation studies as well. If one person changes a key player, it can have enormous consequences for the success or otherwise of the innovation. So, if we could play this one. The thing is, in any merger situation, you have the philosophical issues and you've got the personalities. I mean, we have this lulu of a personality, I mean, I'm telling you. I don't think I'm exaggerating. When I say, well, basically, it was like a little Hitler. I mean, he was in charge of physics and chemistry. I mean, he was just that. Honestly, he was just so obstructionist. I mean, the political, I mean, the politics, I mean, the chemists, they just couldn't get on with him. I mean, we had several of them who left. Anyway, we found this out in one of the first few meetings with him. He was an arch commonality man. Oh, yes. I mean, we must have common tests. We must have a common curriculum. It was common everything. And anyone who doesn't believe in his philosophy, well, if you didn't agree with him, I mean, you had to be reported. I mean, he was so authoritarian with his staff. I mean, that meant they couldn't discuss the common curriculum freely with us. I mean, I said, do you know what this attempt to standardise means logistically? I mean, do you know what it means to people's autonomy to teach what they want? I mean, he just didn't seem to... I don't know. So, when we came to working out the common curriculum physics, I mean, it wasn't academically based, was careful analysis of our country's needs and the trends. I mean, students' needs, the nature of physics. I mean, it was personality based, the cut and thrust of the personality. I bet you've never come across anybody like that in your professional life. I said they were actors. Actually, they're just people from my department that kindly agree to do that. But they're damn good, aren't they? OK, well, I hope those videos kind of concretised a bit some of the rather theoretical ideas that I was articulating. You get the message. Let's get a bit real. Let's pop the bubble of thinking about disciplines and really think about how those are instantiated in committee meetings and so on and so forth. And that's of significance, not just for academic staff, disciplinary specialists, but of everybody who's engaged in academic practices in universities. So, very quickly, I just wanted to say that also, as well as that sort of re-theorising of practices in universities, of course, as Ann was saying yesterday, huge things have happened in the real world. These enormous changes, these factors that have been occurring that also influence what happens in universities. Is it possible to say that the relevance, the significance, the power of disciplines is declining on average? As I said before, context is so important, so it's really hard to say, to make general statements like that, but I suppose it's on average overall, yes. These other forces are really important. In the chapter where she deals with these things, Kerry Lee talks about vectors, as I mentioned, change vectors, and identifies demographic changes in the population, technological changes, of course, market forces, the ageing academic workforce, and the quality and performativity agenda, that sort of new managerialism that I was referring to earlier on. Those are all really, really significant, and of course one could identify other ones as well. Stephen Ball talks about a global policy ensembler, by which he means the sort of neoliberal, new managerialist set of policy drivers that you see pretty much all around the world, and a lot of what I've been hearing about Australia is not unfamiliar to me at all, and that's much the same in many other countries. Those are driving practices. We're jumping to new forces, new agendas, and so on. Obviously I don't need to say any more about that. You're very familiar with those. Just to come to the final part of the talk then, what does this mean for change? What does all this mean for trying to change things? What I've been trying to do is to set out a theory of stasis, if you like, what's it like? How important are disciplines? How is their significance changing, and how should we re-theorise that? Okay, you've got a theory of stasis. What about change then? Well, I think there's a few things that we can say. One is that practices are engroved, and they do tend to snap back to previous practices. I haven't really got time to illustrate that, but it's really hard actually to keep the movement going. One of the things that we can do in that, as I've said already, is to think about the tools that we use, the artefacts, the mediating artefacts. Think about performers and so on. We need to think about the emotions and codes of signification, the kind of associations we have. But making a change, for example, to peer assessment, the student peer assessment, isn't just a technical change. It actually has an emotional resonance with teachers, asking people to stop being the sage on the stage and to be the guide at the side. It actually has issues about identity and why they're there, power, and so on. They're not just technical changes. I've mentioned the importance of discourse and how potential changes are framed and not to make the mistake of calling administrative staff units of resource, and that sort of thing. And not even to think like that. The importance of subjectivities and power and how people will respond to potential changes. The significance of being anthropologically familiar with context. If you take the social practice point that context is significant, very significant, and that things are usually contextually contingent, for example the articulation of disciplines or particular social practices, then change agents somewhere along the line. Somebody needs to be anthropologically familiar with the context. And we use Tony Beecher and I using the book, this notion of using a market gardening approach rather than an agribusiness approach, in other words, being aware of context. And to expect what's sometimes called domestication. In other words, when an initiative hits a particular context, it's changed, it's domesticated, it's made to fit, and that means that there will be different outcomes to the same initiative in different locations. So there's a sort of sensitivity to change and the importance of current practices that's really important. And I often talk about three important characteristics when thinking about change. Salience, congruence and profitability. Salience of whatever initiative it is that you're trying to bring about for the people that you're aiming at, how significant it is for it. Congruence, how the projected new practices fit with the current ones and starting from where people are is a really important thing to do. And profitability, not in a cash sense, we get so little of that as individuals in academia, but in the sense of things that matter to people, why should I do this change? Why will it make my life better? And for people in universities, time actually is the currency that's of importance, so showing people that time can be saved and yet the practice can be done more efficiently, more effectively and better is really important. So thinking about the initiative, the change initiative, thinking about context and thinking about how the two things fit together are really important. So just to sum up then, I think we do need new metaphors. I'll just give you a moment to appreciate that. I don't know if you can see the things on the boxes there. And there's Catherine, Manethunga and Angela Bruce in their chapter. We definitely need to move away from these tribal and territorial metaphors. And what they're suggesting, I think rightly because it's been in my mind as well, I've tried to use it, is metaphors around liquid, liquidity. Oceans, rivers and so on, liquid modernity Bamman talks about. So movement, flow and dynamism rather than the staid, stable, static concepts of tribes and territories. And I'll leave it there to give time for questions. Thank you so much, Paul. I'll say a few words in a minute, but we do have some time for questions. Thanks so much and happy to take questions from the floor. Gordon, speak up. The last slide brought to my mind notions of complexity in the context of change, notions of agency, emergence, unpredictability, agents operating according to their own rules and so on. Could you comment on the relationship between your thinking as expressed there and any influences that complexity theory has had on that? Well, Lynette Arthur, I don't know if she's here, gave a very interesting talk about merging mergers and complexity theory and applied complexity theory to that in a very interesting way. So perhaps have a chat with Lynette. I'm not an amateur of complexity theory personally, only as a metaphor. It's a while since I looked at it, I have to admit, but I did spend quite some time reading around that literature and really came to the conclusion that as a metaphor it works okay, but that one shouldn't try to go too far down applying the physical and biological notions of complexity theory about birds in flight and so on and so forth to the social world. It's a bit dangerous. Any other questions? Yes. I wondered in terms of the way you're thinking about disciplines and the fluidity and permeability of them, how you see the process of socialisation or inculturation into particular professional areas? Yeah, well, Peter Knight, thank you for that. Peter Knight and I, the late Peter Knight, I'm very sorry to say, somebody said to me the other day all of your collaborators die. So don't, yeah, bear that in mind if you fancy writing with me. But no, Peter Knight and I did a study based in Canada and the UK of new members of academic staff because we were really interested in that question. We thought it would help us to understand the notions of cultures and so on if we could understand a bit better how new academic staff are inculturated into particular contexts and particular disciplines and so on. We couldn't actually find any new academic staff so we got some partly used ones and they were okay. Peter was in Canada, I was in the UK and we interviewed them in different institutions and so on and then it re-interviewed by telephone, some of them later on. The results are published in a series of four articles that you can have a look at if you're interested. What we found was that happenstance, serendipity, was really important in that, the overheard conversations, I'm thinking about things about teaching and learning particularly in that discipline. So formal workshops and so on were important but only for some forms of knowing. Frank Blackler has a very interesting article about forms of knowledgeability, embodied knowledge and brain knowledge and so on and actually if you begin to think in those terms and think about the kinds of levels of appropriateness of different ways of transmitting, knowing, it's an interesting thing to do but we certainly found that serendipity was really quite significant in the socialisation process in particular contexts and so we began to think about beyond serendipity in other words, how do you create contexts that can allow those things to happen which are natural but a bit random in better ways to scaffold them? One more question, Margaret. University is here but presumably other places are increasingly using teaching focus or teaching only appointments. Many of these people are being pressed by their institutions then into doing research into teaching and learning. I'm just wondering and they often become sort of homeless really. One can foresee that perhaps in ten years' time these people without the infrastructure to support them will be out of touch with where their discipline or area or whatever is thinking. I just wondered if you wanted to make any comment on that. Well, yes, to agree really. Certainly in the UK there was one university that said explicitly, the Vice Chancellor said we are a teaching only university and he had to retract that statement because there was such an outcry it had terrible consequences so there's a lot of opposition to that within the university so nobody in the UK know what no university says they're teaching only although some will say that they're a teaching focus university and so on. That kind of issue is a very political issue because it brings funding or takes funding away and that's why there's been so much interest in the teaching research nexus. A lot of literature on that and really there's a political agenda behind that to say teaching and research mutually instantiate each other and reinforce each other and so on. That's certainly what I found in the literature much of which is a bit normative, to be honest. The effects of the research assessment exercise and now the research excellence framework in the UK have been to some extent but will certainly be much more in the future to divide staff in the way that you're talking about and for my money that's an incredibly deleterious thing to happen. Thank you for giving us both the theoretical and philosophical perspective but also that practical one and in particular thank you for challenging us to think about new metaphors. Higher education on the edge is one of them and managing that through this metaphor of liquidity I think is one really opportune way to think about it. That's right, waterfall over the edge. We'll talk more about that tomorrow so please join me in thanking Paul very much.