I went to an inaugural lecture this evening.  It was held in the ICOSS conference room, which was nearly full.  It was a good lecture - well paced, not too technical (it was by an economist), and well introduced by the head of department.  Most people stayed on for refreshment and conversation afterwards.

But the ICOSS conference room only holds around 60 people, and apart from me and three others I couldn't recognise anyone from a department other than Economics.

I believe the inaugural lecture is an excellent potential occasion for people from all parts of the university to come together to celebrate the breadth of interests in the institution, and for all of us to learn something about disciplines that we may not normally delve into. The well-judged inaugural acts as a showcase for the lecturer but also for the subject that he or she comes from.  It enables others to grasp something of key research areas and to understand where a subject is going.  It prevents us all becoming too narrowly focused on our own concerns, and reminds us of the excellent work going on all round the university.  It gives us all something to boast about.

But clearly my views are not shared by many.  Perhaps we are all in danger of becoming too specialised, of not recognising the breadth of academia, of assuming that lectures in fields other than our own will be too technical and incomprehensible, that we have better things to do with our time.  I acknowledge, of course, that there has been a massive rise in recent years in the number of new appointments to professorships - such that running an institution-wide inaugural lecture programme has become impossible.  But I would certainly like to see each Faculty choosing, say, three new professors each year who, in their judgement, could act as ambassadors for that Faculty's endeavours, with real publicity and a certain level of expectation raised that inaugurals are interesting, useful, instructive - and can potentially lead to new ideas for collaboration with people in fields distant from ones own. Fifteen such lectures across the university in a year would only mean one every fortnight during the 30 week teaching period. I certainly wouldn't be able to get to all of them, but I'm sure some would fit my diary.

But I have a further thought.  Inaugurals are given by new professors.  What about a parallel series given by the star turns who achieved their chairs some time ago and have continued to grow in reputation since.  I never heard Ian Kershaw lecture on Nazi Germany, despite working in the same university as him for 20 years: I never heard Fred Combley lecture on nuclear physics, or Paul Wiles on criminology.  Among present-day colleagues I am sure Tim Birkhead could fill a lecture hall with a university-wide lecture on bird behaviour, or Danny Dorling on social inequalities, or Sheila McNeill on tissue engineering .. and so on.  So if we were to have 15 selected inaugurals during the year at fortnightly intervals, what about interspersing them with lectures from our most distinguished established professorial stars?