The GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. A Full Review of the Faculty of Oriental Studies was authorized by the Board in the Easter Term 2004, at the request of the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities. The Review Committee's membership and terms of reference, which were published (Reporter, 2003-04, p. 948), with an invitation to members of the University to comment, were as follows:
To consider:
| (i) | the Faculty's arrangements for teaching, learning, and assessment and for the quality assurance and enhancement of those arrangements; |
| (ii) | the Faculty's research; |
| (iii) | the resources available to the Faculty, including academic and support staff, accommodation, library and IT provision, equipment; |
| (iv) | the organization, management, and administration of the Faculty; |
| (v) | the Faculty's financial situation; |
| (vi) | the identification of what constitutes the core of the Faculty's activities, including scrutiny of whether there is any duplication of activity taking place elsewhere in the University, and, if so, the appropriateness of any such duplication in the context of effective use of resources; |
| (vii) | the Faculty's relationship with other cognate bodies, including relevant Centres of Area Studies in the University; |
| (viii) | the future development of, and prospects for, the Faculty's work. |
Professor Melveena C. McKendrick, G (Chair)
Professor John S. Bell, PEM
Professor Delia Davin, University of Leeds
Professor Carole Hillenbrand, G, University of Edinburgh
Professor Richard L. Hunter, T
Professor Christopher Shackle, School of Oriental and African Studies
Professor Alison S. Sinclair, CL
Secretary: Mr Duncan P. F. McCallum, W
2. The Review Committee completed their work in June 2005 and their report, together with the responses of the Faculty Board of Oriental Studies and the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities, was considered by the General Board in November 2005. The Review Committee made a set of important and wide ranging recommendations. In accepting the Committee's recommendations the Board agreed to appoint an Advisory Group, comprising Professor Melveena McKendrick (Chair), Professor Graeme Barker, Professor Richard Hunter, and Professor Roger Parker, to take forward implementation of the recommendations in consultation with the Faculty Board of Oriental Studies and other bodies. The Advisory Group have subsequently made four further reports to the Board and undertaken extensive consultation with the Faculty Board and individual teaching officers in the Faculty. Arising from their consideration of the Review, the Board agreed, in March 2006, to set up a separate group, comprising Dr Katharine Pretty (Chair), Professor Roger Parker, and Professor John Bell, to advise them specifically on future provision for South Asian Studies against the background of the report of the Review Committee. To inform their deliberations the latter group held an open meeting attended by some 40 staff and students from across the University with interests in South Asia.
3. Oriental Studies have a long history within the University. The Regius Professorship of Hebrew was founded in the mid-sixteenth century and the Sir Thomas Adams's Professorship of Arabic less than a century later. The nineteenth century saw the establishment of posts in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Rabbinics. Posts in Egyptology and Assyriology were created in the early twentieth century with the first post in Japanese coming in the middle of that century. For a long time, the Faculty of Oriental Studies has had particular strengths in the study of the classical forms of the various languages represented in it. An increasing emphasis on Modern Asia and the Middle East caused the Faculty (after an earlier General Board review) to reconsider its present title, but no consensus across the Faculty was reached on this matter.
4. The Faculty's geographical scope is considerable: it covers China and Japan, South Asia, the Arab/Islamic world including Iran and North Africa, ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and the lands in which Hebrew and Aramaic (both classical and modern) are spoken. In the Faculty's words 'the current world situation, dominated by events in the Middle East, the continued growth and importance of the East Asian economies, and the increased prominence of South Asia, make this a particularly appropriate time to be reviewing the role of the Faculty…'. The Faculty saw the Review as an opportunity to set out its academic role within both the University and a national context.
5. At present, the Faculty's teaching and research activities, under the overall supervision of the Faculty Board, are divided, both academically and administratively, into six 'sections': Ancient Near East (Egypt and Mesopotamia); Chinese; Japanese; Hebrew and Aramaic; Middle East and Islamic Studies; and South Asia. Each section has a wide range of responsibilities, including determining and administering its own teaching programme. The sections have a role in forming policy and financial decision making.
6. In their report, the Review Committee recognized the Faculty's distinguished reputation, within the University, nationally and internationally. The Review Committee went on to say:
The Faculty currently offers educational provision of a kind unmatched by any UK University other than Oxford. It has, and should continue to have, a major contribution to make in the study of non-European major cultures. However, if it is to continue to thrive and, as it wishes, to enhance its contribution both to the University and to the UK, then various issues have to be addressed.
7. The Review Committee attached the highest priority to the following key conclusions and recommendations:
Faculty Governance
The Faculty's current arrangements are not likely to serve their best interests. They will not enable the Faculty to make the difficult decisions which need to be made or to demonstrate to the School its capacity for making those decisions. The current sectionalisation of the Faculty is unhelpful in terms of reaching Faculty-wide decisions, agreeing a collective Faculty strategy and setting Faculty-wide norms. It is also likely to impede the Faculty's hopes of closer links with other institutions in the University. As a first step, the length of tenure of the Chairmanship of the Faculty Board requires urgent review. For the longer term, the Review committee strongly recommends that two Departments, of Middle Eastern and Asian Studies, be formally established, each with a Head of Department, and that the Faculty be retitled accordingly.
The Tripos
A review of both the structure and the content of the Tripos is essential, in terms of rationalising provision, making the Tripos more accessible to students taking other Triposes, reviewing the heavy emphasis on language learning, and addressing the need to introduce more thematic and more contemporary papers. The Faculty needs to consider the accessibility of information provided to prospective students and, in consultation with the Colleges, explore means of 'clustering' students in Colleges with particular strengths in the Faculty's areas of interest. The funding of the study abroad period is precarious and needs to be put on a sounder footing. The current complexities of the Tripos are such that, for the benefit of students and Directors of Studies, the establishment of a Faculty 'Director of Undergraduate Studies' is recommended.
8. This Report is concerned principally with the structure of the Faculty of Oriental Studies and the future organization of teaching and research in the areas covered by it. The Board are satisfied by the progress already made in the areas of Tripos reform; proposals for amendments to the current Tripos will be published in due course. In the light of the recommendations of the Review Committee, the Faculty Board have accepted that the title of the Faculty should become Faculty of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, reflecting the importance of, and increasing emphasis on, Modern Asia and the Middle East. The Faculty Board also welcomed the proposal that two Departments be constituted in the retitled Faculty: the Department of Middle Eastern Studies (comprising Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies and Hebrew) and the Department of East Asian Studies (comprising Chinese and Japanese). The creation of two Departments, each with its own Head of Department reporting to the Faculty Board would create clearer, and simpler, lines of responsibility, more viable academic units capable of responding better to changing circumstances and academic needs, and remove the current language-defined sectional divisions of the Faculty. The General Board have agreed that the model of a Departmentalized Faculty offers the best way forward in agreeing a coherent and feasible plan for the Faculty's future development.
9. The General Board's Advisory Group have devoted considerable time to consultation about the future arrangements for teaching and research in the Ancient Near East (ANE). At present this section of the Faculty consists of four University offices:
The provision of Tripos teaching in ANE is currently shared with the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology and there is already extensive collaboration between these officers and the Department of Archaeology. The Board recognize the importance of maintaining the language- and text-based approach to ANE as characterized within the Oriental Studies Tripos. However, they strongly endorse the view of their Advisory Group that the four offices should be reassigned to the Department of Archaeology. First, in the interests of providing greater cohesiveness and security for the overall subject area and, secondly, providing undergraduates with a clear pathway for the subjects concerned rather than seeing identical subjects offered in both the Oriental Studies Tripos and the Archaeological and Anthropological Tripos. In proposing that these offices should be reassigned, the Board have further agreed:
10. The Board, through the group chaired by Dr Pretty, have also given detailed consideration to arrangements for future provision in South Asian Studies. The Board note that the field has flourished in Faculties and Departments across four of the Schools, building on the initial investment in the 1960s, following the work of the Hayter Committee, which led to the creation of a Centre of South Asian Studies in the University with a brief to encourage and lead interdisciplinary work relating to the Indian sub-continent. The University also gained University Teaching Officers who were embedded in Faculties and Departments to provide teaching for their respective Triposes. Although the stimulus given to South Asian Studies was considerable and there was an expansion (especially in the Faculty of History) of research, the dedicated South Asia pathway in the Oriental Studies Tripos has not flourished, as reflected in the relatively small numbers of students. Some nineteen students have graduated in Indian Studies in the last twenty years (although students from other Faculties also take some of these papers). Nevertheless the demand for graduate supervision and examining remains strong: for more than twenty years, the number of graduates undertaking research degrees on South Asia (including the Anglophone countries of South East Asia) has held steady with around 70-80 in residence at any one time. In addition, there have been significant numbers of students studying aspects of South Asia in taught M.Phil. courses in Economics, Development Studies, Land Economy, International Relations, and Oriental Studies.
11. The Faculty of Oriental Studies currently has five established University offices in South Asia (two Readerships in Sanskrit and three University Lectureships, the latter all being currently vacant), together with a single tenure, externally funded Assistant Directorship of Research (in Pali) and a Language Teaching Officership (in Hindi). The General Board have noted that while South Asian Studies do not fit well in the restructured Faculty, there is very great potential for future development, particularly at graduate level, but that it makes no sense strategically or financially for the University to sustain separate bases for the study of South Asia. The Board are greatly encouraged by the response to the open meeting for those working in the field, at which it was clear, from the views expressed that there was general support for the strengthening of the Centre of South Asian Studies. The Centre could indeed become the University's focus for the study of South Asia, and for the development of a broader, more inclusive academic programme, with a wider base and a structure that would allow it to grow, while encouraging Faculties to continue to develop their own strengths in the core disciplinary studies. The Board have agreed that, in order for the Centre to flourish, it should be located close to the areas of widest academic activity in order to build on the critical mass; this in turn implies placing the Centre within the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences. The Board will make the necessary proposals as part of other amendments to the constitution of the School. The Board, after further consultation, will also be making proposals for the amendment of the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Centre to reflect more appropriately its new role and place in the University. The General Board have agreed, in order to provide renewed strategic direction for the Centre, to reassign to the Faculty of History the two vacant University Lectureships in Indian Studies, one that became vacant on 1 October 2005 following the resignation of Dr G. Johnson and one that was released from abeyance on 23 April 2006 following the death of Dr R. Chandavarkar; both will have duties that also concern the Centre. The final vacant University Lectureship would remain within the Faculty of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies and be filled in a field to be determined by the Faculty Board in consultation with the Council of the School.
The Centre would be expected to be responsible for the organization and delivery of a new M.Phil. programme in South Asian Studies which would bring together and act as a focus for much of the research activity in South Asia across the University: this proposal has already been welcomed by the authorities concerned.
12. Although the Board have concluded that South Asian Studies are not sustainable in the long-term as part of the Oriental Studies Tripos and within the Faculty of Oriental Studies, there has been a consistent demand for both Hindi and Sanskrit from graduate students. Some Sanskrit is taught to members of the Faculty of Divinity (and this will continue).
Accordingly the Board have further agreed, as follows:
The Board recognize a need to raise the profile of Sanskrit in Cambridge and consider that a good future for the subject lies in research and graduate study. If Sanskrit is eventually to be brought into the Centre of South Asian Studies, opportunities should be explored for developing new research projects collaborating with colleagues in other universities and institutions, especially in India. The Board are clear that South Asian Studies have a very important role to play in the University, and that further strengthening should be an important priority for the 800th Campaign, and that any new appointments, wherever they are assigned, should have an association with the Centre of South Asian Studies.
13. The proposals in this Report have been the subject of extensive consultation with the Faculty Board of Oriental Studies, the Councils of the Schools of Arts and Humanities, and Humanities and Social Sciences, the Committee of Management of the Centre for South Asian Studies, and the Faculty Board of Archaeology and Anthropology, and with the officers in the Faculty of Oriental Studies. Proposals for the future assignment of existing Professorships and Readerships are set out in Recommendation II; other offices would be assigned to the appropriate Department by the Board or, as indicated in this Report, remain attached to the Faculty. The opportunity is taken to propose that the personal Professorship of Japanese History and Bibliography, held by Professor P. F. Kornicki, be retitled the Professorship of East Asian Studies in order to reflect more accurately the field of his academic work. The revised constitution of the Faculty Board includes provision, as recommended by the Review Committee, for the Director of the Language Centre to be a member ex officio in class (e). The General Board are confident that the proposals, if implemented, will give the Faculty a sustainable basis for future development and for responding to the challenging recommendations set down in the Report of the Review Committee. These recommendations will need to be pursued with vigour by both the Faculty Board and the Heads of the newly constituted Departments.
14. The General Board accordingly recommend :
I. That, with effect from 1 March 2007, the Faculty of Oriental Studies be retitled the Faculty of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies and that Departments of East Asian Studies and Middle Eastern Studies be constituted in the Faculty.
II. That, with effect from the same date, Professorships and Readerships be reassigned to the Departments indicated:
the Professorship of Japanese Studies
the Professorship of Japanese History and Bibliography, and that the Professorship be retitled the Professorship of East Asian Studies
the Professorship of Chinese
the Professorship of Modern Chinese History
the Regius Professorship of Hebrew
the Professorship of Semitic Philology
the His Majesty Sultan Qaboos Bin Said Professorship of Modern Arabic Studies
the Sir Thomas Adams's Professorship of Arabic
the Readership in Persian History
the Readership in Classical Arabic
the Professorship of Egyptology
the Professorship of Assyriology
the Herbert Thompson Professorship of Egyptology
III. That, with effect from the same date, all references in the Ordinances to the Faculty or Faculty Board of Oriental Studies be replaced by references to the Faculty or Faculty Board of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.
IV. That, with effect from the same date, regulations be amended as follows:
1. Regulations for the constitution of the Faculty Boards (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 546):
Constitution of the Faculty Boards
By amending in Schedule I (the composition of the Faculty Boards) the entry for the Faculty Board of Oriental Studies so as to read:
| Faculty Board | Classes | Total | ||||||
| (a)(i) | (a)(ii) | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) | ||
| East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 23 |
and by adding the Director of the Language Centre to the list of holders of specified offices in the entry for the Faculty of East Asian and Middle Eastern Studies in Schedule III.
2. Regulations for Departments and Heads of Departments (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 553)
By creating new entries, as follows:
Department of East Asian Studies A person appointed in accordance with Regulation 2.
Department of Middle Eastern Studies A person appointed in accordance with Regulation 2.
| 6 December 2006 | ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor | RICHARD FRIEND | KAMIAR MOHADDES |
| JOHN BELL | RICHARD HUNTER | ROGER PARKER | |
| TOM BLUNDELL | D. W. B. MACDONALD | PATRICK SISSONS | |
| WILLIAM BROWN | MELVEENA MCKENDRICK | I. H. WHITE | |
| M. J. DAUNTON |