My THELoginRegister
Third Level Navigation:
09 February 2010

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

-
Main Page Content:

A takeaway delivery

31 January 2008

Reducing numbers of arts postgrads was bad enough, but the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s cuts in grants and funding are the final straw for Simon Blackburn

I have been reading the Arts and Humanities Research Council document called the Delivery Plan, 2008-2011. It is available as a PDF (see box on right).

At first I thought it must be a spoof, substituted for a sensible document by some internet prankster. I thought that even the title wittily gave it away, for as a colleague of mine said, the only things most of us know that need delivering are babies, newspapers and milk.

Anyhow, the document reminded me of the brag sheet I once caught a glimpse of when a rather porcine business man left his laptop open and facing me on a train. It was full of sentences like “I have considerable experience of progressing hands-on product delivery serving a variety of stakeholders in a fast-moving and challenging commercial environment”, which I interpreted as meaning something like I drive a van in Gateshead. But after the joke had gone on a little long, it dawned on me that the delivery plan was serious. They actually do think in terms like “Fostering knowledge transfer by our researchers with an increasing range of partners to produce greater economic and social impact”, and yes, they do scatter bold type everywhere to show just how serious and forward-looking they are. I imagine some poor copy-editor had a terrific tussle to stop them from finishing every sentence with an exclamation mark.

Mere lapses of taste can be forgiven, but as in the movies when the slightly unnerving character with the gold tooth and the unfortunate wig suddenly reveals that he is a cannibal, so the AHRC soon reveal the black-hearted villainy behind the clowning. The essence of its delivery plan (also in bold) is that “over 2008-11 we will, via the new Block Grant Partnerships, move the percentage of our postgraduate budget falling within strategic themes from a low base to some 50%... A large number of the studentships we fund will fall within our strategic priority areas, such as the creative economy and heritage.” Not only the creative economy and heritage, but also lifelong health and wellbeing, and living with environmental change, and, well, just heaps of things that make up the challenging drivers and value chains piloted with our partner stakeholders. Not classics, or history (unless it is heritage), languages, literature, law or philosophy, of course.

We heard last week that the number of postgraduate studentships is to fall next year from 1,500 to 1000, although it would then go back up to some 1,300. That seemed bad enough. But now take away half of the support for anything that most people in universities would recognise as a subject, and we are down to between 500 and 650 students a year in classics, philosophy, languages, literature and the rest. That might be defensible if there were any evidence that there had been gross overproduction of MPhils and PhDs in the years before. But the AHRC itself admits that this is not so. 55 per cent of current AHRC graduates take up academic appointments, and 45 per cent go to key positions in the public and private sectors. One wonders what the equivalent figures will be for those who have done a PhD in heritage studies.

It must never occur to those who produce this kind of document that the current specialisations have evolved by a Darwinian process, as the modes of analysis appropriate to some range of problems began to separate themselves off from those appropriate to others. Interdisciplinary work is possible, of course, but only when those who collaborate have a thorough grounding in some integrated realm of learning and research. But as in the old Soviet command economies, the planners think they can ignore all that. They know best, and we can be sure that the current crop will enjoy every bit as much success as those who made up delivery plans for tractors and bathtubs.

Still, we can all have a lot of fun helping our students to contour themselves to favoured topics. Perhaps designing ways around the guidelines might become a priority of the new doctors in creative studies. Stoicism and environmental change. Personal identity and heritage. The paradox of the heap and its application to ageing. Or perhaps the game is not worth the candle, and it will be much better to try to find and to fund our students elsewhere.

Postscript :

Simon Blackburn is professor of philosophy, University of Cambridge.

Readers' comments

  • Michael Bulley 4 February, 2008

    Simon Blackburn has it right, of course, about the false priorities of funding bodies and other parts of educational administration, but he should be wary of the argument he employs here that mocks the pretentious language of administrative organisations and of certain academic disciplines. In the fields he mentions approvingly, such as philosophy and classics, there is more than enough gormless language to match that of his porcine business man. The stables at home need to be cleaned out before you criticise the mess in others'. Those, like Blackburn, who care about clarity of writing and good style might think of exercising pressure on their colleagues and on publishers, so that we will be less likely to find university presses producing books full of sentences like "They stand in a relationship of mutual complementarity."

  • Michael Otsuka 5 February, 2008

    Thanks to Simon Blackburn for this brilliant indictment of the AHRC. <p>Nobody who appreciates the humanities could have penned that ‘Delivery Plan 2008-2011’. There are a number of Professors of English, History, Classics, etc., who serve on the AHRC’s governing Council and the committees that advise them. So why do these professors let the AHRC spew forth such nonsense? More importantly, why have they let the AHRC get away with the savage cutbacks to research grants and studentships that fall outside of their banausic ‘strategic priority areas, such as the creative economy and heritage’? If these professors are not willing to resist these things, they should admit to themselves that they’ve given up the values of scholarship for those of bureaucrats and management consultants. Having come to such realization they should resign their positions in the AHRC so that they can be filled with scholars who actually care about and understand the humanities. <p>It's noteworthy that, in the AHRC’s press release in which they announce their severe cuts to research grants and studentships, there is no mention of any parallel cuts to their bloated and increasingly unnecessary bureaucracy. If, as they claim, 'the AHRC remains committed to funding world-class research', they should demonstrate this commitment by making cuts to their own bureaucracy commensurate with the cuts to their awards to researchers and students. With these latter cuts, the AHRC must now display an increasingly unimpressive ratio of money spent on their own administrative overhead versus money they award to researchers and students. I’d wager that this ratio is significantly worse than the ratio for the other research councils. Bad value for money, so it’s time to put the AHRC in receivership, to put things in terms to which they can relate.

  • Mark Roberts 6 February, 2008

    Too much is delivered these days, that's true, but can't we can speeches and broadsides to the babies, newspapers and milk that Professor Blackburn's friend approves of as proper 'deliverables'?

  • Jonathan Baldwin 10 February, 2008

    <p>I'm with Michael Bulley - don't mock the language of one set of practitioners until you've had a good look at your own. I'm sure if that businessman had taken a glance at something any of us wrote or read he'd cry 'bullshit' too. And as we're spending public money (unlike, I presume, him) he'd have a stronger ground for complaint. <p>"“Fostering knowledge transfer by our researchers with an increasing range of partners to produce greater economic and social impact”" makes perfect sense to me. In more ways than one. <p>Oh and what's wrong with a van driver wanting to big up what they do? If I think about my last job application, I seemed to make 'I teach, assess and do research' last for several paragraphs more than it needed to...

Comment on this story

Post your comment

You must fill in all fields marked *

31 January, 2008

 

Main site navigation:
Secondary site navigation:
Main site navigation end
-
 
-
Abacus E-media
Abacus e-Media
St. Andrews Court
St. Michaels Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2JH
-

Advertisement