was the end of last 2009 when the minister Gelmini presented the "University Reform" with the DDL 1905/2009 "Draft Law on the organization and quality of the university system, academic staff and the right to study ", by now alarmed the Italian universities and, particularly, the category of researchers. The items covered by the abrupt and strong disagreement are 8 "national scientific institution for approval and, above all, the 12"-term research. " Let us quote the main points: "to conduct research, teaching, integrative teaching and service to students, universities may enter into contracts of employment to full-time and determined. The contract also regulates the methods of implementation of educational activities, and supplementary educational services to students, which are reserved for three hundred fifty hours per year, and research activities "(Article 12 paragraph 1);" contracts last three years and may be renewed only once for another three years after the successful evaluation of teaching and research activities on the basis of rules, criteria and parameters set by the Minister (Article 12 paragraph 4), "the university [...] can proceed directly to the call recipient the second three-year contract referred to in paragraph 4, which not later than the expiration of that contract, qualified as an associate professor of functions, including art. 8. I called, at the end of the second contract, are classified in the role of assistant professors "(Article 12 paragraph 6).
[For the complete draft of the decree and for the proposed amendment < http://www.senato.it/leg/16/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/testi/34595_testi.htm ]
A few months later by the threats of suspension of teaching for the next academic year, when the controversy now seems off or otherwise no longer interested in the media, we invited interested in some clarification on this Ordinance and have been answered to our questions by a group of researchers (confirmed and precarious) of the Department of Chemistry "G. Ciamician ", University of Bologna.
Our conversation begins with three researchers, Nels Zaccheroni, Sonia and Marco Melandri Montalti.
Before exploring the merits of the rules that are currently in the parliamentary debate, we try to outline what the role of the researcher universitario oggi, anche alla luce del DPR 382/1980 (art. 1 comma 5 e artt. 30-34) che istituì tale figura.
Un ricercatore, per prima cosa, dovrebbe fare ricerca, essere l’unione tra il mondo accademico e della ricerca, lo studioso che segue gli studenti e i ricercatori di laboratorio, si occupa dei temi di ricerca in maniera fattiva, è a diretto contatto sia con i docenti con più esperienza sia con gli studenti, una sorta di anello di congiunzione tra di essi, con la peculiarità di concentrarsi proprio sulla ricerca. Nel caso del ricercatore scientifico, il ricercatore è colui che praticamente va in laboratorio. Per quanto riguarda la didattica, l’attività del ricercatore dovrebbe limitarsi soltanto alla collaboration, provide support. In practice, however, most researchers perform essentially the same task as a professor for many hours, exams, and teaching. There are even situations in which the teaching load is more for researchers than for teachers. Although this is a purely voluntary, but it is a sort of unwritten obligation because there really a need: there are degree programs that are sustained for more than 40% of the researchers on the teachers, these courses may no longer exist if the researchers refused to carry out educational activities. But it is not just a matter of voluntary work, because this teaching is not recognized on any level, nor economic, nor the purpose of career advancement. But as you can concentrate on having a real teaching load so heavy? As far as our representations, the situation at the moment is this: there are only representations of the researchers at the university, so in the university of Bologna, for example, there are three, are, therefore, a small minority in all organs legislation of the university, being about one third of admissions rather than the university faculty in Bologna, elsewhere also about half.
Minister Gelmini's perspective - which has repeatedly that this reform will finally svecchierà the class of university teachers - in your opinion, try to solve these problems? How?
The claim that this reform will lower the average age of university professors is a big hoax, because, otherwise, this DDL will face the aging of the university total. It is an order at no cost, it is stressed repeatedly in the text of the decree that "the implementation of the provisions of this Act shall not derive new or higher charges for public finance" reform can not be done in any area at no cost , otherwise there is a reform but an economic measure. Here, however, what is the true perspective, the true picture of "reform" of the minister: there are certain types of lesson plans that include the presence of teachers who are retiring or soon will be there, so in these years, we want to maintain the same academic offering the courses should be required in some way by others. Assuming that teachers are already saturated, then it clears up the whole system or the courses or "orphan" of teachers are recruited by the researchers. You have to choose between the suppression of the courses and the increase of our teaching hours.
The decree provides, however, that you can get one rating to the national role of associate professor, which is essential for a possible later direct call (art. 8). Based on this research and the introduction of fixed-term, how would change the prospects for researchers (both confirmed that precarious)?
The reality is this: there are places so what do I need to give the approval for something that is not there? A law at no cost to public finances mean that there will be created elsewhere. In addition to saving is a law in the sense that the final budget package freezes everything until 2014, this means that up to 2014 can not be banned nothing (regardless of who they retire), also is not career matured, not matured shots. At the same time people retire and those who remain will have to dab the pad always at no cost. This means that the university is even older rather than younger! Finished this block of 4 / 5 years, in theory, should start to ban fixed-term contracts for researchers to 3 years + 3, probably financed by the research groups. The point is this: a research group must have a financial ability to provide partial funding for a salary for a researcher. And this is only possible for research groups large. Also - we wonder - how many will be willing to accept a situation of extreme precariousness of the future without any guarantee, even in the long run? We must consider that those who can get a job like this is a person of 30 years on average, which at that undertakes to assume a role as precarious up to 36/37 years and then? Can safely send you home. Another major problem that aggravates the situation in Italy is that in our country the research is done almost exclusively at the university, so it is unthinkable to say "I is not conducive to research, but encourages the universities." Take for example the chemical industry: in Italy There are very few industries that are doing research, and many are leaving (eg. recently, Glaxo Verona [http://www.repubblica.it/economia/2010/02/14/news/glaxo_campus-2292771/]) . In Italy it is the rare opportunity to move from academia to industry. So either go abroad or do other work. One is forced to choose to throw away all the expertise you have developed throughout the study you did, or to relocate.
Not to mention the fact that these researchers have now fixed a huge workload, while we young we approached gradually to teaching, first alongside the teachers in the courses and exams while still having the time to devote to our research, these new figures, with huge loads of teaching, research or will not do well - for lack of time - and not even the educational because of their inexperience. Finally, the new generation that will be taken will compete directly with us in the researchers call direct: in fact when approximately 6 years in a faculty will have to call an associate professor, researcher chooses the term already present in the body or a confirmed otherwise lose? We will create a war between the poor and unfortunate embarrassing even from a human point of view (perhaps the term research is one of your students ...). In short, this order should be in the direction of favoring the teaching to cover the gaps that leave many retirements in recent years and the next, and greatly harms the research, because there is only a cut in funding but also of time. It is only a temporary solution between 6 years and the problem will resurface.
What do you think of the proposal to call the researchers "professors of the third category?
The proposal by the professor of the third category - already made by Moratti - is offensive. Among other things, is something that already exists in some way, because if a researcher takes a course, may ask to be recognized as "Professor." That a law constitutes a third category to clean up this situation where a researcher could do and then teaching is called "professor of the third band" at no cost, it means that I do the same job as associate professor and yet they are third. Are you still a teacher of "B" is not so much a question of salary but their status. Would not change anything even on the representations. It is, in our opinion, a joke offensive. In addition, with the commissioning of exhaustion, we would not be entitled to any representation. So it works: you're hired, do research, teaching you, you can be exploited as well now, but now we all work because we have a prospect for a future building, after which the future is taken away from you, but you are asked to keep doing the same thing. It is not an acceptable thing. It must be said, however, that
Some are in favor of this "label" comforting, probably because they feel that changing the name, can increase the respect of his colleagues are happy or because they prefer not to be evaluated. Instead, we like most researchers do not want a simple label of the third band. We ask that we be given a chance, because we are people who have invested a lot in research and teaching and believe they have the right to be assessed in a timely and certain rhythms that deserve to be allowed passage of the role.
We are now on the merits of the protest. You also abstain teaching the activity or implement various forms of protest?
In Bologna we mobilized for several months, we have had several meetings, the Chancellor also spoke at the first assembly on that occasion was made of the situation, was prepared in an indication of a document until the various researchers from diverse disciplines have been pursuing a shared document in which they expressed unease and resistance against measures of this law and the idea of \u200b\u200bimplementing forms of protest, such as to not give the willingness to teaching for the next academic year. The response of the faculty was quite good, yet not all faculties have come together and have responded, but in the meantime, our documents were brought to the Academic Senate, which has drafted a motion that supports our protest (something that the CRUI had done) and asks to be taken into account our demands. Another support came from the National Conference of Deans of the Faculty of Sciences and technologies (con.Scienze www.conscienze.eu) above and beyond with a motion to support our protest and our demands, stresses scientific research in Italy takes place mainly in universities and public research institutions, maintaining a high level despite the continued destructive and diminishing resources, and the low turnover of staff, also states that no you can maintain this level, a situation which in fact encourages talented young people to go abroad and undermines the vital generational change necessitated by the very high number of retirements of these and the coming years. As for the mode of protest, we would immediately reject the recruitment of teaching duties immediately, the fundamental difference of position Bologna compared to other universities is that researchers in Bologna, for the moment, accept the assignments and reserve the right to reject them later, other universities, however, decided to reject them immediately, do not allow the activation of some courses. This is because we are waiting to see how the decree to be released in its final shape. Of alternative forms of protest are not there. The only possible complaint is the suspension of teaching. Some universities have decided that now things were unacceptable at present, so do not have the availability. The University of Bologna has adopted another line and the majority voted not to withdraw immediately available, ma di aspettare la conclusione dell’iter della legge, visto che c’è una protesta in atto, e di vedere la risposta del governo. Abbiamo deciso così in maniera più che ottimistica, pensando che se il governo risponde in maniera positiva alle nostre proteste e si giunge ad un accordo, i corsi sono comunque stati attivati e gli studenti potranno usufruirne (cosa impossibile se avessimo optato per il ritiro immediato della disponibilità). Il messaggio che vogliamo far passare è: noi vogliamo il dialogo e, se ci ascolterete, andremo avanti normalmente con la didattica. Se poi non dovesse essere così, allora all’inizio del nuovo anno accademico, nel momento in cui i corsi dovranno partire, questi verranno fatti tacere per l’indisponibilità dei ricercatori, e forse questa modalità di protesta può risultare ancora più forte. Come forma di dissenso è l’unica per farsi sentire, perché il resto del lavoro del ricercatore è un lavoro che non ha un impatto immediato, diretto sulla popolazione, per cui , ad esempio, se io non vado in laboratorio a fare ricerca, creo un diretto disagio a pochi. Lo scopo è anche quello di dimostrare che senza i ricercatori l’università italiana non può funzionare, salta tutto il sistema, condizione che non dovrebbe esistere perché esistono delle figure preposte alla didattica, e diventa paradossale che poi proprio il ricercatore che svolge quel ruolo venga privato della possibilità to become a professor.
Researchers have put forward proposals which Bologna? We
researchers in Bologna, in front of a decree that puts low our role, does not recognize the work actually done a long time (and presumably will continue to be held in the coming years) in teaching, we exclude from the commission contests and the representation in university bodies, to defend the dignity of research and academic figure of the researcher, we want to highlight these critical issues: 1) despite the amended text of the bill provides a path for researchers at the same time limit and the new Figures of researchers term in the recruitment procedure for associate professors, facing potentially conflicting situations at the time of direct calls, which is expected to give priority to temporary research in order to prevent its escape from the university, 2) the decree is binding on the resources origin of the candidates, dividing them into shares reserved for the staff to the University and shares reserved for outside staff, to approach us unfair and unjustified, because the criteria used in selection procedures should be based solely on assessments, 3) also furthering the objective of reform at no cost, there are the economic resources necessary to ensure that all i ricercatori, in tempi accettabili e a ritmi certi, il diritto ad essere valutati, permettendo ai meritevoli il passaggio di ruolo; 4) infine, i nuovi meccanismi proposti nel DDL portano a significative riduzioni stipendiali per i ricercatori a tempo indeterminato.
Dopo aver sentito il parere dei ricercatori confermati, veniamo invitati in laboratorio dove ci aspettano Matteo Amelia, assegnista di ricerca, e Monica Semeraro, dottoranda. Vogliamo conoscere anche il loro punto di vista su questo decreto.
Le proteste nei confronti del DDL Gelmini sono portate avanti soprattutto dai ricercatori confermati per i motivi di cui abbiamo parlato prima. Quanto a voi precari, invece, ritenete che questo decreto will produce improvements in your situation?
If we look at our situation, probably not much different: zero expectations we had before, so many we have now. The thing, however, in our opinion the current situation is serious, that will increase the years of insecurity. If before, in fact, he spent 8 years in doctoral and research fellowships, with the decree, through the introduction of fixed-term contracts of three years renewable + 3, you get to almost 13 years of insecurity, after which you can be sent safely at home. There is no warranty with this law because they are not invested resources, which in fact should always be decreasing. Riformare un sistema può andare anche bene, l’università va certo riformata, ma con questo decreto l’università non diventa meritocratica, come si vuol far credere. Attualmente il merito è solo “sulla carta”, in quanto spesso i concorsi non sono rigidi, ma dopo questo decreto la qualità e il valore degli studiosi sarà considerato ancor meno! Basti pensare al fatto che, per ottenere l’abilitazione a professore di seconda fascia, non viene effettuata alcuna valutazione comparativa; inoltre ci sarà la chiamata diretta da parte delle facoltà… ripeto, è vero che i concorsi per come si svolgono ora non si basano sempre sul merito, ma con la chiamata diretta sarà completamente impossibile! Indeed, in some way legalizes the bad habit that is there now. We believe that the competition serves, but that should be regulated even more because now there are no objective criteria of assessment. Instead, there are those who say "we look abroad, where there is a direct call", but probably in Italy we do not have the "culture" to act in this manner. Abroad is, yes, as the direct call mode of recruitment, but scholars are more experienced than the Italians, and studying with different people in different places, so they have to face many realities. In Italy, however, you need to graduate, being a doctor research, make the check and the researcher with the same professor, in the same place, even if you go away, you risk your place, but when the accumulated experience should be a different value. In this way there can be no meritocracy, but only allegiance. With regard to the protest of the researchers, we believe that nonsense you want to make temporary, precarious, a role that is crucial within the university, which is excellent for long-term. In addition, the researcher should enter an age when science is more productive, where they can spend more time at work and should be quiet to do their work, which is already difficult time, it will be even more after this reform.
is paradoxical, but, once introduced the figure of the researcher fixed term, the precarious workers in the call like you could compete directly with researchers.
fact we could even pass in front of them. This will create enormous friction and difficult situation from a human point of view between people who have worked together for years, in this research work, which should be a team effort and strong collaboration, is deleterious. Not to mention the issue of funding for these contracts, it is looks very dark in the current text of the law.
But you might say - especially to students of science - "Surely you will find in Italy working in private companies that are also in research."
The question is not so simple, because the search is made in Italy for the vast majority in the university, companies that make very few, some have recently closed important, therefore outside the 'academic fit for qualified people is difficult. Indeed, for a job (not a researcher) in a company of our sector, to a person entitled and qualified (with doctorate, overseas experience and research experience) is a recent graduate preferred because it can be classified in a lower profile. In short, our expertise gained from years of study, research, and many sacrifices can not be recycled.
Coming back to the resources to invest in research, one gets the impression that the common thread that runs through the text of the law is that everything must be done at no cost to public finances.
is so for decades, any reform or law concerning the university was done following this principle. This government is working with particular zeal of bleeding in the operation of research and education in general, but the problem is that other governments have not implemented strong policies and funding toward the university. Then you must consider this too: as we speak to give resources to the centers of excellence, we must see under what criteria the university is evaluated. If the number of graduates becomes an important criterion for evaluating the quality of a university and, therefore, also to get funds, then the step to "diplomificio" is very short. It is precisely the quality of basic education that, in our opinion, is currently at levels much higher than abroad. We have also studied in the United States and found that, with regard to basic training, we were at a higher level. The Italian researchers, despite everything, are good because they can do their jobs and put more passion in spite of all difficulties, whereas abroad have not only the means, but they can also invest their time into something that surely will get, are still paid even when they are much more precarious than we do and, in general, have more consideration. To give perspective, therefore, must be given more resources at the university. It is true that there are many wasteful, but should be identified carefully and, above all, the university must listen to people who work there, it is a reality too complex, from the outside you can not have a correct perception. We feel underpaid, but we must admit that there are people that the university is paid for what he does all too. Perhaps the first thing you have to hit those situations that are obvious to all: the teacher that there has never received or did not do the teaching hours that should the lawyer or the doctor who carries out the assignment in parallel university the profession. But this criticism should not even come from outside but from persone che fanno il proprio lavoro che sono già all’interno dell’università. Evidentemente non c’è questa volontà. Noi che siamo in una situazione precaria possiamo solo esprimere il nostro dissenso, ma ci sarebbe bisogno di qualcuno che agisse efficacemente. Purtroppo piace mantenere questa condizione di subordinazione, di sudditanza psicologica; i docenti non dovrebbero esercitare alcun potere, ma se lo sono creati nel tempo e non vogliono perderlo, perciò è difficile che una riforma parta dall’interno dell’università perché proprio coloro che avrebbero il potere, i mezzi per cambiare le cose, non vogliono perdere questa situazione di privilegio che si sono creata col tempo. Dispiace, poi, see that when it comes to public universities, the discussion given to persons who do not know all this world, that there are in, both from a political party or the other. Only the insiders can understand and make people understand the real situation, because it is a world so complex, that on paper works in a way, but in practice in another, that if there are inside you struggling to understand the mechanisms.
After more than an hour in conversations, the researchers let it go to their work. In concluding the report of this interview, we like to emphasize that the reference salary was in the statements of those interviewed, almost marginal, frequency inversely proportional to the expression "no new or higher charges for public finance" that marks each article of this decree.
Interview by Emanuela De Luca and M. Bijoy Trentin
