Future of the Godwin Institute of Quaternary Research (GIQR) 22 February 2004.
The following messages are copies of a selection of responses I have received to my request for opinions concerning members' ideas on cross-departmental Quaternary Research, and the position or role of the GIQR in the future. These responses are largely unedited, except to remove private, personal comments.
Date: 09 Feb 2004 17:37:43 +0000
From: Mark Peachey <>
To: "P.L. Gibbard" <>
Subject: GIQR future
Dear Phil,
With regards to the email regarding the future of the GIQR I would like to
add the following points which perhaps emphasise the significance of the
institute from a newcomer's perspective.
Whilst researching the MPhil course, it was made much easier by the
existence of the institute which gives our subjects the overarching
structure. The very nature of the subject is multi-disciplinary, and so in
order to produce the best possible collaboration between workers it seems
only sensible that there is a formal structure in place, even though in
such a close-knit community this is not absolutely essential since most
people know each other anyway.
>From a newcomer's perspective, and probably therefore for anyone coming
into the field at Cambridge as an 'outsider', I see the institute as
invaluable. Immediately, one is made aware of the broad range of workers
carrying out similar research, and the scope either for collaboration or
simply for obtaining advice about work or research. It also helps in terms
of accessibility. In my experience all academics are only too happy to help
if you ask for such assistance; I do feel though that this is even more the
case if there is the GIQR banner that we are seen collectively to work
under.
Even though the effect is partly psychological, I feel that even the name
of the GIQR instills a sense of coherency and also focuses one in on what
we are trying to achieve. It would be too easy to over-specialise and lose
the coordination with other departments if the institute is lost.
Apologies if this is rather 'wordy', but these are some personal points
that I feel may be of relevance to the debate.
Kind regards,
Mark
Date: 09 Feb 2004 15:48:07 +0000
From: Seraaahhhh!!!!! <>
To:
Subject: Godwin Institute
Phi, i don't know how relevent my opinions are, being only a student, but
here are my thoughts.
I don't personally feel any connection to Geography.
Given the lack of feeling part of anything other than our own research
group, I think it would be nice if the Godwin Institute were to be kept,
but also resurected into somehting tht actually does more than it has done
in the past. If there are people out there with research that is connected
to our own, yet are based in a different department, how are we supposed to
find out about it if we've not go a common connection? Sometimes
understandings of unrelated work on a similar period of time can help one
understand their own work much more.
Anyway I think that just about covers everything I can think of.
Sarah
Date: 10 Feb 2004 17:12:49 +0000
From: "E. Shute" <>
To: Phil Gibbard <>
Subject: GIQR
Hi Phil,
Below is my response to your request for everyone's views on the future of
the GIQR. Hopefully its useful in informing you, but feel free to pass it
on to anyone else (eg heads of department) who might need persuading of the
institute's value.
Elen
------
It is with amazement that I learn of plans to disband the Godwin Institute
of Quaternary Research later this year. It appears that this move is being
planned on the grounds that the board of the organisation has not sat for
some time, and it is therefore seen to be inactive. While the institute in
its formal sense may not have been as active recently as in former times,
from on the ground the GIQR seems to be a real and active entity.
As far as I am concerned, the group is an important way of keeping
Quaternary researchers from diverse backgrounds across the university in
touch with one another. Researchers in this field are from such different
disciplines as Geography, Earth Sciences, Zoology, Plant Sciences,
Archaeology and Anthropology. From what I have seen, the existence of the
GIQR, whether the board is active or not, aids communication amongst these
people, encouraging lively debate and sharing of ideas that feeds directly
into research. I believe that dissolving the GIQR would make this
communication far less likely, and Quaternary research at Cambridge would
become more diffuse and inefficient as a result: if researchers across
different disciplines are not aware of what people in other departments are
doing, then knowledge, resources and ideas will not be combined. This would
of course have an impact on the quality and scope of research carried out,
on the quality of teaching, especially that of the M.Phil in Quaternary
Science, and on the standing of Cambridge as a leader in Quaternary
research.
As an overseas student myself, I can tell you first hand how attractive the
existence of this research group was in enticing me to apply for the M.Phil
in Quaternary Science. It hasn^“t disappointed either: the GIQR provides a
sense of focus, cooperation and community in what could otherwise be an
amorphous and anonymous field. I believe that the GIQR^“s existence is key
in how Cambridge^“s Quaternary research is seen from outside the University,
and in how its members communicate with the broader scientific community.
It was under the auspices of the GIQR, for example, that the international
Stage 3 Project was coordinated, which involved researchers from a dozen
countries. The group^“s high international profile is something that should
be built upon rather than demolished. Continuing the GIQR^“s formal
structure leaves open the possibility of expanding its operations in the
future, while culling it would comprehensively prevent this from happening.
I do not believe that a loose, un-named network of Quaternarists would be
as effective as the GIQR has been, and would certainly not be recognised as
a 'brand' by the international scientific community. It would be a tragedy
if the retirement of Professor Nick Shackleton, who initiated and has
headed the GIQR up until this point, were seen as the natural end of the
group. Its abolition would do a great disservice to him, and to the many
other members who give their time and effort the group^“s activities.
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:52:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Dr T. Spencer" <>
To:
Subject: GIQR
Dear Phil:
Thanks for your email on the future of the GIQR.
Of course I am supportive. Is the GIQR under threat beyond Nick Shackleton's retirement? Is someone somewhere taking this as an opportunity to close things down? That is not
clear to me. Equally, if the GIQR needs protecting / supporting how is
this to be done? I suspect grassroots enthusiasm is not going to be enough
on its own. What needs to be done?
Yours ever,
Tom
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:46:43 +0000
From:
To: "W.J. Fletcher" <>
Subject: Re: GIQR future (fwd from P. Gibbard)
I am still a fresher and I do not know much yet about
internal functioning of the University. Although I think
that the health of Quaternaristic studies is linked to
the survival of such communities which I will in my
possibilities support.
Regards. Andrea
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:19:12 +0000
From: Stijn De Schepper <>
To:
Subject: GIQR letter
Originally being trained as pre-Quaternary geologist, I was pleasantly
surprised by the interaction of zoologists, archeologists, geologists
and other Quaternary scientist when I arrived at the GIQR.
In my opinion the GIQR is an excellent manner to unite the different
groups from the several departments, which are all working towards the
same goal: 'understanding the Quaternary'. It is precisely inherent of
Quaternary science to approach the specific problems in a
multidisciplinary way. It is absolutely essential to think outside of
the box, and to use all available information from the different
disciplines. Thus, I simply do not see the point in isolating the
different groups within their respective departments. Especially, since
they are all working towards the same goal.
Possibly more can be done to prove the importance of the GIQR, although
a termly newsletter, discussion groups and the several meetings are
already showing a lot of activity, showing the intention to have a
flourishing GIQR.
I think it would be inappropriate to diminish the existing links
between the groups. If anything should happen, those links should be
strengthened. Rather than approaching its expiry date, it seems to me
that the fundaments of a strong GIQR are there and are just waiting to
be used. Quitting it now is a waste of the efforts of the people
involved in the last 10 years.
How better can we stimulate an active exchange of thoughts, ideas and
resources than with an institute that comprises research groups from
different departments? Is this kind of exchange not supposed to be
encouraged by a university?
Stijn
--
Stijn De Schepper
Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Group
Department of Geography
University of Cambridge
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:32:49 -0000
From: Keith Richards <>
To:
Cc: , Clive Oppenheimer <>,
, "P.L. Gibbard" <>
Subject: Re: GIQR (fwd)
Dear Bob
I have given some thought to this exchange, and do feel that Phil has every
reason to be aggrieved. The GIQR is not "owned" by one Department, and any
decision to disband any aspect of it should be agreed not by a single
institution, but by the consent of all who are concerned with it.
There may be Zoologists, Plant Scientists, Archaeologists, Geographers (in
the plural), Anthropologists, maybe Physicists, who all have an interest.
And the Advisory Committee was always a body composed of Heads of
Department, as I recall, so was not necessarily the most appropriate body to
make such a decision on something about which as individuals several may
have had little interest. It also seems strange if there has not even been a
meeting of the Advisory Committee at which it chose to close itelf down.
Furthermore, although there seems nothing in the Statutes, there remains the
spirit of the original published recommendations of the General Board Review
Committee of the old sub-Department. If its recommendation to establish the
GIQR is to be countermanded, perhaps this suggests the need for another
external Review. The whole danger with the recommendation for a virtual
institute was that individual Departments might marginalise the field and by
default force it to wither. If it is right for it to wither, that should at
least be tested through a wider discussion. I think it would be useful to
ask Phil to provide a list of those with University positions who feel the
GIQR has something to offer.
Of course, the GIQR was at its most successful when it created "projects"
that ran for a while, and that integrated the scattered Cambridge community.
This seems to have stopped, but maybe there are people who would like to
take on this mantle. But the GIQR also has a website and a newsletter which
have also been maintained, but a different constituency from those who did
not want Advisory Committee meetings!
Yours
Keith
Date: 12 Feb 2004 17:28:37 +0000
From: Clive Oppenheimer <>
To: Keith Richards <>
Cc: "Prof. R.P. Haining" <>, ,
"Dr T. Spencer" <>,
"P.L. Gibbard" <>
Subject: Re: GIQR (fwd)
Dear Bob - I agree with Keith on this. In hindsight, it would have been
good to raise this at the RPC meeting.
A common complaint in the University reflects the difficulty in building
interdepartmental/interfaculty research collaborations. I think the GIQR is
an excellent, and all too rare, example of a multi-faculty research and
training forum. It is particularly well-placed to tackle collaboratively
some of the biggest science issues including the causes and consequences of
climate/environmental/geomorphological change, human/faunal/floral
evolution/distribution, etc. It also provides important lab and technical
resources that support the wider community, including u/g and grad
students.
I think, therefore, that we should encourage Phil and his colleagues to
resurrect the advisory committee (perhaps with representation to include
Zoology, Plant Sciences, Archaeology, and Anthropology as well as Earth
Sciences), and work towards a formal constitution for the Institute. The
GIQR is already on the international map - I hope it will continue to
flourish.
With best wishes
Clive
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 04 18:52:51 +0000
From: mh300 <>
To:
Subject: GIQR future - a response
Dear Phil,
I am writing to affirm my unequivocal support of the Godwin Institute for Quaternary Research. I
am surprised that it should be regarded by anyone as inactive. The Quaternary Discussion Group
meetings are held at regular monthly intervals and attract audiences from far and wide. The CAMQUA
newsletter is widely distributed each term. Important GIQR-sponsored meetings are organised
periodically, including the one-day international conference "Early-Middle Pleistocene transitions:
the land-ocean evidence" held just last year. This meeting attracted attendees from eight countries
and four Cambridge Departments (Geography, Earth Sciences, Zoology and Biological Anthropology).
With all this activity, I would have thought the Godwin Institute would be perceived as thriving.
Some of our competitors outside of Cambridge would surely be delighted to hear otherwise!
A major function of the Godwin Institute is to provide cohesiveness between Quaternarists in
different departments. Our own close links with colleagues in Zoology and the Godwin Laboratory
are good examples. The benefits of the Institute are perhaps mostly psychological, but no less
real. To give an example, a new postdoc attached to Biological Anthropology came into my office a
few weeks ago to explain that she was to be doing pollen analysis of some early human archeological
sites, but had no access to expertise in pollen analysis in her department. I was able to welcome
her to the Godwin Institute and explain that if she required help from us she need only ask. The
Godwin Institute umbrella was a most welcome offering.
The Godwin Institute undoubtedly presents an important public face for our activities. But behind
the scenes, I think we all know it could be more effective. Quaternary research in Cambridge is
supported by a strong contingent from four or five internationally renowned departments. There
must be rich opportunities for external funding, especially given the environmental applications of
our research. With the present Director of the Godwin Institute retiring in the near future,
thought should now be given to renewal and revitalization of the Institute. We need a new director
who will be fully committed to leadership, and will capitalise on the cross-disciplinary funding
potential of a distinguished research community within Cambridge.
Sincerely,
Martin J. Head
Affiliated Lecturer
Department of Geography
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:57:33 +0100 (CET)
From: "\"Kim M. Cohen\"" <>
To:
Subject: GIQR support letter
To the Quaternary community @ Cambridge,
Dear Phil,
This academic year I work within the Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Group of
the Godwin Institute for Quaternary Research, as a visiting scholar of the
Department of Geography. I am a post-doc of a German institute for
Biogeochemistry, in a project bridging mathematic global climate modelling and
geological field studies on late Quaternary rivers. I am a cross-over of a
physical geographer, sedimentary geologist, computer modeller,
geomorphologist^≈ So with whom should I identify? I don^“t know. At least within
the Godwin Institute it doesn^“t really seem to matter.
I like environments where cross-over research flourishes: groups of
researchers who each look at their own subject from their own (inter-)
disciplinary background, and who also realise that at the same time the
general context of all their various research is one and the same.
I particularly like it if that environment also shows a face, telling the
world outside about their communality. In my experience, the Godwin Institute
in Cambridge is such an environment and has such a face, and therefore I would
like to see it nurtured. From what I hear and read, it may need some
restructuring medication, but certainly not euthanasia.
It is pretty obvious that the big questions that Quaternary research aims to
answer (not in the least those on the variability of our climate) demand multi-
and inter-disciplinary approaches. The Godwin Institute is an excellent
platform to launch such efforts. Paradoxally, the fact that a university may
house a lot of different expertises in a lot of adjacent departments,
generally does not guarantee that her experts actually cooperate. There are
many universities around the world that have departments of Geography and
Geology and Biology, but very few show structured interdepartmental
interaction. Even when such departments are forced to merge into faculties
of ^—Geosciences^“ or ^—Earth and Life Sciences^“, in many cases old segregation
typically persists. The existence of the Godwin Institute at least suggests
that groups of Cambridge academics _do_ interact across departmental borders
(and not only by formal diner conversation).
The Godwin Institute shows that in Cambridge, research is structured around
challenging problems, not solely around archaic academic disciplines. I have
the impression that this is widely recognised outside Cambridge. I think this
contributes to the University of Cambridge being a favourable place to draw
external funding for beyond-state-of-the-art Quaternary research, and can only
grow further to do so in the future. I hope the Cambridge Quaternary community
realises what it has, and continues the Godwin Institute.
Dr. K.M. Cohen,
Post-doc, Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemisty, Jena, Germany
Visiting Scholar, QPG, Dept. of Geography, University of Cambridge
Dear Phil
Re GIQR
The philosophical argument for a multi-disciplinary approach to the Quaternary is clear:
Climate change constitutes one of the greatest challenges we will face into the (not so distant) future. The Quaternary is all about climate change. There is a huge wealth of proxy data – best exploited through cooperation between relevant departments. Cooperation can be best focussed if there is a loose organisation, to set goals, avoid duplication, disseminate results. If the organisation doesn’t cost anything (other than people’s time), then the argument should be compelling.