Godwin Institute of Quaternary Research

Godwin Institute of Quaternary Research

Advisory Committee meeting

The meeting was held at 10.00 on 9 November 2004 in Hardy Building room 101.

Present: Phil Gibbard (Geography) - chair, Tom Spencer (Geography), Nick McCave (Earth Sciences), David Pyle (Earth Sciences), Martin Head (Geography), Richard Preece (Zoology), Maryline Vautravers (Earth Sciences - Godwin Lab), Roy Switsur (Godwin Lab), Martin Jones (Archaeology) and Clare Allen (British Antarctic Survey).

Apologies: Eric Wolff (British Antarctic Survey).

1.Matter for discussion.

After an initial introduction in which PG described the background and history of the Godwin Institute, a wide-ranging discussion began on the name, structure, membership and future of the organisation. PG circulated two documents, copies of letters received from the heads of the Departments of Earth Sciences and Geography on behalf of the Faculty, and a letter from Mrs Petra Stevens (Principal Assistant Registrary - Academic Division) concerning the status and name for the Quaternary institute.

(a)  Title

PG outlined the discussions arising from consultation with the Heads of Departments of Earth Sciences and Geography and the University administration (Old Schools) concerning the difficulties of continuing the name 'Godwin Institute'. The name Godwin Institute of Quaternary Research was originally proposed and approved by the General Board in1994. Use of the name Godwin had caused confusion in the past between the Godwin Laboratory (now an isotope facility in Earth Sciences) and the umbrella, cross-departmental organisation of the Godwin Institute. It was agreed that, although Sir Harry Godwin had never been an isotope geochemist, it was appropriate that his name be dropped to avoid the confusion of the two organisations.

PG then pointed out the Faculty's apparent unease with the use of the term 'Institute'. The Faculty took the view that this, and the also term 'Centre', imply "particular types of structures in the University…which carry direct financial implications … for the Departments within which they are embedded". This view was initially downplayed but later partially confirmed by Mrs Stevens, who says "financial devolution that will accompany the introduction of the RAM makes a title such as 'Institute' or 'Centre' probably inappropriate.

After much animated discussion in which the importance of continuity, external perception and appropriate status were stressed, including the point that the organisation was a type of 'virtual institute' the establishment (and presumably continuation) of which was being strongly encouraged by the University. PG noted that the GIQR is widely recognised both within, but possibly more importantly beyond the University and therefore that it was in everyone's interest that any new identity should reflect continuity with the previous structure. Two names emerged; first, Cambridge Institute of Quaternary Research (CIQR) - the advantage of which was that although continuing the name 'Institute', it was very close to the existing name, and continued the theme of the GIQR. The second was Cambridge Quaternary. There was enthusiasm expressed for the latter which was felt to fulfil the criteria laid down by the Faculty and Mrs Stevens, but also provided a suitable modern identity. However, it was noted that this choice would not be ideal in terms of showing continuity with the GIQR.

It was agreed that PG should discuss the matter further with the Secretary of the Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences before a final decision was reached.

(b)  Structure

Discussion on this point centred around whom should be involved, communication and the public face of the organisation.

It was agreed that the organisation should be a research structure and therefore would not be involved in teaching. The Membership should be open to all researchers in the University who wished to participate, including the students taking the Master of Philosophy course in Quaternary Science in the Departments of Geography and Earth Sciences, but not undergraduates. It was also agreed that individuals and groups from outside the University, such as those from the British Antarctic Survey and Anglia Polytechnic University, could be included as Associate Members.

The difficulties of communicating and keeping members informed across several departments etc. was discussed at length. MH proposed that one person could be appointed in each research group to co-ordinate communication, and CA suggested a communication network or bulletin board be established. This would be in addition to the existing GIQR website, maintained by PG. At DP's suggestion PG agreed to consult Martin Lucas-Smith (Computing Officer, Geography) to determine the best route by which this could be achieved. NMcC offered PG the help of his Secretary to assist in the administrative work involved.

Discussion then turned to external matters. PG said that the Quaternary Discussion Group and CAMQUA newsletter would continue as normal but that it would be welcome if other departmental groups took over some of the responsibility of running or contributing to these services. This was supported by others, particularly RCP. TS suggested that other institutes like the Oxford Environmental Institute produced an annual report which was an excellent window for publicising the group's activities. RCP reminded the members that the SDQR also produced an annual report that was widely read, the general opinion was that this should be re-initiated for the GIQR's successor.

(c)  Strategy

The need to undertake joint research, possibly through the establishment of an over-riding research project, like the Stage 3 project' was agreed by all. TS mentioned that the Department of Geography now had a research secretary who would be able to advise members on sources of funding for a range of projects of various sizes.

3. Initial plans for future meetings

The need for a one-day discussion meeting to publicise and unite the new structure was suggested by PG. MH pointed out the success of previous meetings such as the Stage 3 symposia and the Early/Middle Pleistocene transition meeting held in 2003 as evidence that this could be easily achieved. This idea was enthusiastically welcomed by all. It was agreed that each members of each group should give talks or posters to illustrate their current and recent work. VRS asked whether the meeting could include external invited speakers. NMcC suggested Nick Shackleton and Jan Mangerud. Both were fully supported.

It was agreed that NMcC would chair a small committee to organise the meeting and a date in September 2005 (16 or more probably 23 September) was initially agreed.

4. Any other matters.

No other matters were discussed.

PG thanked the members for attending the meeting and agreed to circulate the minutes.

5. Date of next meeting. To be arranged in Lent Term 2005, as required. The Advisory Committee will meet at least once each year.

P.L. Gibbard

Cambridge

12.11.04

12.11.04

Dear Ekhard and Bob,

Godwin Institute of Quaternary Research (GIQR)

I am now in a position to respond to your letter of 24.5.04 concerning the future of the GIQR. As you will both be aware, there has been a considerable delay in reaching a clear direction resulting from the difficulty of assembling all concerned parties during the summer field season and the need to consult with the Academic Division in the Old Schools. I am sorry this has taken so long.

Following the clear vote of the members in favour of the continuation of the organisation during last academic year, I have discussed the continued existence of the GIQR with Peta Stevens, the Principal Assistant Registrary (Academic Division). Having followed Mrs Stevens' advice I have now established an Advisory Committee comprising one member from each of the constituent research groups (including a representative of the British Antarctic Survey and Scott Polar Research Institute) - 10 members in all. The first meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on 9 November 2004 (minutes enclosed).

At the meeting, I outlined the discussions arising from consultation with the three Faculties and the University administration (Old Schools) concerning the reservations of continuing the name 'Godwin Institute'. As you know, I favour continuation of the existing name and identity but agree that use of the name 'Godwin' has caused confusion in the past between the Godwin Laboratory (now an isotope facility in Earth Sciences) and the umbrella, cross-departmental organisation of the Godwin Institute. The Committee agreed that, although Sir Harry Godwin had never been an isotope geochemist, it was appropriate that his name be dropped for the institute to avoid the confusion of the two organisations.

I then pointed out the Faculty of Earth Science and Geography's apparent unease with the use of the term 'Institute', mentioned in your letter (a view not shared by the two other faculties involved). I explained that the Faculty thought that both this, and also the term 'Centre', implied "particular types of structures in the University…which carry direct financial implications … for the Departments within which they are embedded" (24.5.04). This interpretation was initially downplayed but later partially confirmed by Mrs Stevens, who wrote "financial devolution that will accompany the introduction of the RAM makes a title such as 'Institute' or 'Centre' probably inappropriate (12.8.04).

After much discussion in which the importance of continuity, external perception and appropriate status were stressed, including the point that the organisation was a 'virtual institute' the establishment (and presumably continuation) of which was being strongly encouraged by the University, two names emerged. The first was, 'Cambridge Institute of Quaternary Research' (CIQR) - the preferred term which has the advantage that, although continuing to include the name 'Institute', it is very close to the existing name, and continued the theme of the GIQR. The second was Cambridge Quaternary. There was enthusiasm expressed for the latter which was felt to fulfill the criteria laid down by the Faculty and Mrs Stevens, but also provided a suitable modern identity. However, it was noted that this choice would not be ideal in terms of showing the highly desirable continuity with the GIQR.

It was agreed that I would discuss the matter further with the Secretary of the Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences before a final decision was reached.

Now that these matters have been established, and the Advisory Committee has assembled and begun its work, I am reassured that the organisation will have a more certain future. As you will see the Advisory Committee intend to meet at least once a year and possibly more frequently as required. Copies of the minutes of the meetings will be circulated to the Secretaries of the three Faculties and Heads of Departments, as requested.

I trust that you find these arrangements satisfactory.

With regards,

Dr Philip Gibbard

Advisory Committee, chair

cc. Mrs Peta Stevens

Secretaries - Faculties of Geography and Earth Sciences, Biology, and Archaeology & Anthropology