In recent years, the British government has been pushing Universities to implement workload allocation models tracking staff time. This is at least notionally, about providing transparency and accountability around public spending around higher education. I fear, however, that it is more about promulgating a disengenuous model of “lazy academics” sitting around using government money and the need to control us more carefully. The origins and impact of this narrative as well as some helpful refutation from actual realiity are covered extensively in Peter Fleming’s Dark Academia (blog post book review from LSE linked here). But that is the reality that we’re under. And, truth be told, many academics have embraced these systems with open arms in hopes that they will proivide a utilitiarian tool for reducing their overwork and inequalities within the sector around workload. My observation so far is that they have increased and worsened these problems and privatised suffering by concealing it behind impersonal systems which can’t be confronted or held accountable. I’ll accept that there are likely exceptions to this and would be glad to hear if anyone has experienced systemic improvements in justice within their academic workplace as a result.

But this has led to a shift in the model by which academic workload is measured – from forms of work to time units. It used to be the case that we’d talk about sitting on a certain number of committees, teaching a certain number of modules, etc. but now all of these are converted into specific homogenised time units (“WAM Points”). I’ve worked in other sectors where workload is managed in this way so it’s nothing new to me, but I had thought for a moment that I’d escaped it, so have found this resurgence personally discouraging.

I’ve been thinking about this lately, in particular as I work in increasingly overt collaborations with other neurodivergent colleagues, and I’ve observed that this shift in workload management, surveillance and sanction has hit ND staff particularly hard. Given my research over the past decade has focussed on the philosophy and theology of time, I’ve hit upon some speculative conclusions I’d like to test out about time experience and this policy shift. In particular, I wonder whether neurodivergent people experience time in more variable and intense ways than non-ND.

Post-Taylorist scholars in business and organisational studies have begun to observe that time is not homogenous. And in really obvious ways our embodied experience of normal tasks is certainly not this way. Think of how you can sit a read a novel and the hours pass unnoticed, where in contrast you might find when completing an onerous task that the time passes with aching slowness. This is also the case with joyous work, however, as the bodily impacts of exercise are quite different from relaxation. Our hour of deeply pleasurable sprinting is still accounted differently in our bodies from an hour of walking. So too it must be at work: different kinds of activities have different levels of physiological demand on us. In some (limited) cases, workplace studies scholars (and even managers!) have built “recovery time” into specific kinds of tasks on the basis of this awareness. But it’s not just the tasks themselves, but also the “between times” and in other cases, scholars of work have noticed that “idle time” is a common and necessary feature of work providing padding around difficult tasks and opportunities for creative and non-linear thinking around problems. So too workplaces, especially in tech have emphasised unstructured time as part of a normal working week. It’s important to emphasise that for academics, at least in my experience, the block allocation we get for research time is NOT this kind of thing, as we spend most of the year being pressed for demands around production and that time is probably the most pressured of any I experience. Have a look at the ways that sabbaticals are handled now – we’re expected to write an extensive application detailing all the specific tasks we will complete and achievements we will attain, and are pressed relentlessly to report on this when that time has concluded to confirm that we have completed the list we have offered.

All of this things are true for any person who occupies a human body. But I think these things are far more intense for autistic people where flow and pace are far more intrinsic to executive function, working at tasks in a kind of self-generated sequence can be essential. I mention this a bit in a previous blog post where I talk about a “day in the life“. The tragic thing about this is that when they aren’t subject to trauma, coercion or control, when engaging their passions (like pretty much every academic I’ve ever met) autistic people will pursue tasks with unusual tenacity. So trying to account for our work in a mechanistic way is oppressive, but also unnecessary as we’re likely putting in long and strange hours to complete our work above and beyond, simply for “love of the game”.

This has some really concrete ramifications for workload management, however, as it foregrounds the ways that individual tasks can have quite different demands on people, especially in the case of neurodivergence. And these models deliberately disallow inflecting time burdens in different ways for different people. The expectation is usually that some things will be hard and others will be easier, but this really mobilises the ablist “superpower” narrative in unhelpful ways, e.g. if you are slowed down in one area, you must have a superpower to compensate for another area so you can “keep up”.

In a similar way, having recovery and buffer time is even more necessary, as we adapt to group work patterns which are unadapted and hostile. It was once the case that I could mask and conceal my own disabilities by offloading tasks that took me far longer, or were demanded in moments when I didn’t have energy or ability to complete them, into spare time. But increasingly our models exclude spare time as a general rule, require work on short notice and rapid deadlines, and I’ve found that there’s simply no place to put those things temporally.

The key point here is that if we can talk about and negotiate our shared workload together around tasks and abilities, things are quite different. But when we work with impersonal homogenised time, the guaranteed result will be oppressive for specific (perhaps all) people.