Academic knowledge must be socially useful 1

I've blogged a response to this: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/swfuller/entry/the_debate_over/

OK cheers Steve

Adam - you seem to imply that a researcher should be entirely motivated by social concerns. Many of us are, but that cannot be the only or main criteria! - actually, you say "..simply the satisfaction of our own curiosity" as though this, by definition is selfish and therefore wrong. Now, love it or loathe it - the selfish concern (even if it leads to so-called altruistic behaviour) is at the heart of capitalism, in the Ayn Rand scheme of things. If you're going to ask researchers to justify their selfish interests in social terms, they're only going to lie - just as universities throughout the land are doing now when they try to point their research towards the REF terms of reference - it's not really that they actually, deep down, do care about whatever it is that Funding councils now think happens to be relevant - it's just a business decision, straight prostitution (I'm not actually making a moral judgement about prostitution here). It actually would be far better for a selfish person to be honest than someone pretend to care just because that's where the funds lie just now. What we actually want is not social policy enacted through the coercive medium of funding - we'd be far better off with straightforward 'spread betting', so that different funds have different interests. this might seem dreadfully random - but better that than the pernicious followers of fashion.

Wouldnt the outcome of the research depend primarily on the area of research? A direct impact might not be apparent on the society, if the researcher specializes in molecular biology - an impact is established nevertheless. A certain degree of curiosity indeed leads to effective research, even if it treads on the lines of misrepresented social usefulness. In fact, I'm nowhere close to being engaged in 'intellectual elitism', but if I were given an option between engaging in a project where there are good funds with societal usefullness and the project that I WANT to do (lets say to satisfy my curiosity?!) without sufficient funding, I'd choose the latter. (The bright side is, I'm rather certain that my project is of considerate social relevance)

SIndjuja's response captures why academics need managers, or at least critical friends to save them from themselves. Who else but an academic would choose to do something without usefulness and without enough funding to do it properly just because they felt like it. The Micawberishness that assumes something will turn up to provide sufficient funding to finish the work and the implicit assumption that if the funding does not materialise, it's someone else's fault. It's an odd definition of academic freedom.

SIndjuja's response captures why academics need managers, or at least critical friends to save them from themselves. Who else but an academic would choose to do something without usefulness and without enough funding to do it properly just because they felt like it. The Micawberishness that assumes something will turn up to provide sufficient funding to finish the work and the implicit assumption that if the funding does not materialise, it's someone else's fault. It's an odd definition of academic freedom.

ps Isn't contributing to the economy simply a subset of being socially relevant? Isn't money one of the biggest factors in achieving social good? Or are we just happier talking about social goals and think money is a bit beneath us?

The *point* of the "REF" exercise is not to introduce any kind of sensible or even vaguely defensible criteria of good work into academic life (that's why it's not worth debating questions of various alternative criteria) but rather further to extend the power of the managerial (non-academic) strata - serving their paymasters - over the academics themselves. As long as these managers - and not the researchers, or better, scholars - hold the decision-making power, especially the financial levers, in their hands, it doesn't really matter whether "impact" or "esteem" or even "pointlessness" is used as an "indicator" (a toxic term) of "excellence" (an equally toxic concept) - the crucial question is: who runs the system, who applies the (obviously multiply silly) descriptors of "quality" (yes, yet another toxic category) - that is: who decides and who must follow and obey? Or, in other words: stands the clock at ten to three - and are we academically free?

Mcdonagh - I remember over a decade ago, having a chat with a friend - a businessman. At that time I was researching, along with a couple of score researchers around the world, a particular area which involved the relationships between human perception and technological imlementation. It seemed to him very obscure - largely because he couldn't see any relevance - he asked "but is there a demand for this?". Indeed, I could understand his objection, since, to solve the existing problems, it was necessary to consult with philosophers! - years later, the results are ubiquitous, embedded in current technology - and in ways we could not have forecast with any degree of confidence. Had we used relevance criteria based on market demands, or provable short-term benefits, we could not have proceeded. So, it all depends on who is assessing relevance. I put it to you that the last people to be able to make those judgements are managers, who must make decisions on short term survival criteria