I met with Dr. Tamsyn Barton, Chair of the Alphawood-funded Southeast Asian Art Academic Programme (SAAAP), at her invitation, on 17 November. We did not resolve any disagreements; I would characterise the meeting as a frank but friendly exchange of views. On 1 December, I received a letter from Dr. Barton. She denied that the present Alphawood Scholarships application evaluation criteria need any further clarification. However, this vagueness exposes applicants to possible unethical treatment, such as that which took place in 2015-’16 and which SOAS management denies despite the very clear evidence. Dr. Barton also indicated that SAAAP is considering future wording to elaborate what is meant by “ancient to premodern art” in the scope of the programme; a clear, public definition would be a positive move forward towards fixing the problems of transparency and fairness which impair the programme.
Here below is the text of her letter, followed by the text of the letter which I sent to her today:
(PDF versions of the letters are here and here.)
1 December 2016
Dear Dr Chiu
Thank you for your letter dated 16 November. We discussed the issues and concerns you raised during our meeting the following day.
As I said then, we do not think there is any need for further clarification in relation to the scholarship application process.
Colleagues are however discussing whether additional wording can be agreed, in order to reference the current academic debates around these issues.
This will not however change the scholarship eligibility criteria, which properly reflect the aims and objects of the established programme.
Kind regards
Dr Tamsyn Barton
Chair of the SAAAP Board
Here is the text of my letter of 9 December in response:
Dear Tamsyn,
It was good to exchange views in our meeting of 17 November. You have sent me an update on 1 December, which I am grateful to receive.
You wrote that your colleagues are considering additional wording in recognition of the academic issues at stake with the Alphawood programme. This is a positive step, which hopefully can put an end to nearly a year of ambiguity in the meaning of “ancient to premodern art” in the Alphawood Scholarships criteria and in the mission statement of the £15 million Alphawood programme as a whole. If a clear, public description of what the programme is intended to fund was developed, it would improve fairness and transparency in the Scholarships and other activities. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your colleagues’ discussions.
It is disappointing, however, that you also wrote that there will be no clarification of the criteria for the current year’s scholarship application process, ongoing now. The vagueness exposes applicants to potential bias and unfair treatment like that documented to have taken place in the 2015-’16 academic year.
Ethical principles should be restored in the operation of this flagship programme. This can only happen with SOAS management’s acknowledgement of previous misconduct and the implementation of measures to redress the problems.
Kind regards,
Angela Chiu
