Staff at the University of Sheffield’s chemistry department have been told that 20% of the faculty could be made redundant, with a similar proportion of materials scientists also at risk. The university says that the reductions are needed as it seeks to respond to financial pressures facing the higher education sector, but staff representatives argue that the cuts could be avoided.
The university informed staff of the proposals on 19 May, which include cutting six of its chemistry staff and a further eight in materials science. Job cuts are also expected in East Asian studies and in the university’s Research Partnerships and Innovation Hub. Four other schools – English; history, philosophy and digital humanities; medicine and population health; and sociological studies – are also being reviewed.
A 90-day consultation period will allow staff to respond to the administration’s proposals, with the university hoping that the staff cuts will be achieved through voluntary redundancies.
‘It’s really disappointing to see the university gunning for chemistry in the way that it has,’ says David Hayes, the president of Sheffield’s University and College Union. ‘Chemistry has got a really strong history at the University of Sheffield, I think four of our six Nobel laureates are from the department of chemistry – including Richard Roberts, who has a building named after him here.’
The current government policy of non-intervention exposes chemistry departments like Nottingham and Sheffield
Paul Nightingale from the University of Sussex
The number of students studying chemistry at Sheffield has decreased in recent years , in part owing to difficulties in recruiting international students following the UK government’s moves to limit immigration. Hayes suggests that the university should be trying to boost recruitment. ‘The university hasn’t really given us a satisfying answer to why it’s letting the admissions numbers just stagnate. Why [isn’t the university] taking more creative solutions to getting the students in?’
Hayes also believes that the university also has other options to ease its financial position, noting it has around £220 million in cash reserves. He also points out that the cuts appear to be inconsistent with Sheffield’s intention to spend £86 million on its new Central Teaching Laboratory. ‘It doesn’t seem to be considering the fact that it’s reducing the number of people who can then teach in those shiny buildings, which unfortunately in higher education is a tale as old as time,’ he says.
Chemistry World understands that, while the university had paused work on the new Central Teaching Laboratory for a period of time, it views the facility as a strategic priority that will help it to attract the best students and support their needs.
A spokesperson from the University of Sheffield, said: ‘Like many UK universities, we are adapting to changing sector demands and shifting student enrolment. Doing nothing is not an option if we want to shape our own future and protect the high-quality student experience Sheffield is known for.’
‘To ensure long-term sustainability, we are carefully reviewing structures in specific areas – including chemistry – in line with current and future teaching, research and support needs. If any compulsory redundancies need to be made, we expect the number to be very small,’ they added. ‘We know this is an unsettling time for colleagues; however our focus is entirely on using voluntary measures to achieve these savings – as we have successfully done in other restructures – and compulsory redundancies remain an absolute last resort. No schools or disciplines are closing, courses will continue to be delivered to the same high academic standards, and these proactive steps will ensure the university remains well positioned to thrive for future generations.’
A wider trend
The news from Sheffield comes just days after the University of Nottingham announced plans to cut 30% of its chemistry staff as part of sweeping cuts affecting staff across all of its departments. And as the UK’s higher education institutions attempt to navigate a challenging financial landscape, chemistry – which is an expensive subject to teach – is often viewed as an area in which savings can be made. Other UK universities have also made chemistry staff redundant in recent years, in addition to closing degree programmes and in some cases closing departments altoget her.
It is a trend that worries Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) chief executive Helen Pain. ‘While we recognise the financial pressures facing universities, our data shows chemistry is a growth area for jobs, essential to economic and societal goals and the UK’s industrial strategy – and the gateway to a range of great careers,’ she says. ‘Universities play a central role in innovation and in developing a diverse future chemistry workforce.’
‘We are therefore concerned that the proposed reductions in chemistry roles we are seeing in universities – including recent announcements at Sheffield and Nottingham – risk undermining long-term national scientific capability, resilience and the talent pipeline at a time when the UK needs it most,’ adds Pain. ‘We will continue engaging with the department in Sheffield to support constructive dialogue and continue to support our members, for example through the Chemists’ Community Fund.’
Analysis by the RSC has shown that the closure of courses has led to the emergence of ‘chemistry cold spots’ – areas where university-level chemistry education is not available within a reasonable travel time. ‘Students increasingly study and commute from home,’ notes research policy analyst Paul Nightingale from the University of Sussex. ‘Cutting back local provision today has a bigger impact than in the past.’
Nightingale points out that chemistry ‘underpins a lot of research in other subjects’ and that the weakening of chemistry departments will create ‘damaging knock-on effects’. He is critical of the government’s slow response to the growing financial crisis facing the country’s higher education institutions and warns of the long-term consequences this could have for the R&D sector. ‘Laboratory taught courses are expensive, and often financially unviable at the current fee level,’ says Nightingale. ‘As a result they require cross subsidy making them very vulnerable to largely unrelated churn in the student market. The current government policy of non-intervention exposes chemistry departments like Nottingham and Sheffield and it’s very unclear the government or public will be happy with the results.’
No comments yet