Cultural Capital

Reflections on books and the arts from the New Statesman culture desk

What are universities for?

The growth model of academic inquiry

By Jonathan Derbyshire Published 08 January 2010 13:34

Before Christmas, I blogged on a couple of occasions about the likely effects of a new set of criteria for the distribution for research funding in British universities. The "Research Excellence Framework" (REF) stipulates that "significant additional recognition will be given where researchers build on excellent research to deliver demonstrable benefits to the economy, society, public policy, culture and quality of life. Impacts will be assessed through a case-study approach that will be tested in a pilot exercise."

Many academics working in the humanities were quick to point out the likely effects on their fields of an economic growth-oriented model of academic funding, in which "impact" is a key criterion. In a petition submitted to No 10, leading researchers urged

the reversal of the Research Councils and HEFCE policy to direct funds to projects whose outcomes are determined to have a significant "impact". The arts and humanities do have such an impact, but it is typically difficult if not impossible to judge this in the short term. Academic excellence is the best predictor of impact in the longer term, and it is on academic excellence alone that research should be judged. "Users" who are not academic experts are not fit to judge the academic excellence of research any more than employers are fit to mark student essays. The UK is renowned for its creative industries. But the roots of creativity in the intellectual life of the nation need sustained support and evaluations based on short-term impact will lead to less impact in the long term.

A letter from the novelist and critic Gabriel Josipovici published in the latest issue of the TLS suggests that university administrations have already taken the REF to heart, and are setting about restructuring their institutions in its image. I have a particular interest in what Josipovici has to say, as he's writing about my alma mater, the University of Sussex, where he taught for many years. His letter is worth quoting at length:

A document has come into my possession which might be of interest to your readers -- an email, in fact, which the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex, Michael Farthing, has sent to all undergraduates, explaining to them his plans for "the development of the university". These plans consist of the sacking of over 100 staff and the closing down or reduction of a number of "areas", so that the word "development" is somewhat ironic, but in keeping with the tone of the document, which is couched throughout in the worst bureaucratese. Thus: "Our aim is to continue to invest in successful areas in the university and grow our income where possible."

As one might imagine, this is not good news for those disciplines which have always been seen as at the heart of the humanities side of English universities. "In some areas," the VC says, "there are no opportunities for sustainable growth and we need to make targeted reductions in those areas while continuing to develop our university as a broad and balanced research-intensive institution across the arts and social sciences." It is difficult to see how this last aspiration is to be met when it is followed by this: "In a number of schools we are now seeking financial savings, including engineering and design; English; history, art history and philosophy; informatics; and life sciences." By contrast, predictably: "In academic schools with recent growth and good prospects for the future, we are pressing ahead with our growth and development plans, including the schools of business, management and economics; global studies; and media, film and music" . . .

The question this raises is: Are universities really businesses? And if not, what are they? Are they to become forcing houses for the immediate economic development of the country and nothing else (ie, are business and media studies to replace engineering, English, history and philosophy)? If that is what the country wants, so be it. But we should be clear that it means the end of universities as they have been known in the west since the Middle Ages.

I don't think Josipovici's conclusion is at all apocalyptic. Rather, it seems to me entirely uncontroversial -- we're sleepwalking into uncivilisation.

I'd encourage students and academics to leave further examples of the kind of thing described here in the comment box below.

Tags: universities academia

More from Jonathan Derbyshire

7 comments

Sat, 2010-01-09 15:39 — DK (not verified)

Thanks to Pablo for his incisive account, with which I concur. I would simply like to emphasize to Teatros and others that something which produces short-term economic gain is not necessarily good for the country, society, or the world. In fact, it might be very bad. I think here not only of the recent financial catastrophe, but also of the ongoing ecological one. The university is meant to be a place where economic gain and the production of riches can be thought about in a broader context, and in relation to other values, such as equality, democracy, fairness and justice, on both a national and global scale, as well as pleasure, enjoyment, and contentment--qualties which, as we all know, money has never been able to guarantee. The thrust of the impact criterion, and frankly, every proposal from Mandelson for the university, is that such questions or values simply don't exit, or shouldn't. But honestly, for a world worth living in it is essential that tax payers' money be spent on thinking about the place and importance of money, rather than simply making more of it.

Sat, 2010-01-09 23:04 — terence patrick hewett1

The humanities have achieved nothing of note in the last 50 years. The world is driven by business, science, engineering and technology. The development of the transistor by Bardeen/Brattain, at AT&T Bell Labs in 1947 and the mass production of same, wrought changes in society that dwarfed any of those achieved by political philosophy. The invention the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 has ensured a barely controlled dialogue between millions and has changed the world forever.

Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

What is needed is for government to get right out of the business of teaching, both at pre-university and university level. Today, many universities are engaged in remedial teaching, trying to repair the damage done by a corrupt pre-university system of state schooling. Over the last 100 years the state has tried and failed to institute an effective schooling system. The same questions and problems posed in 1908 are still here unanswered; both by the Fisher Act and by the Education Act 1944. What is clear is that schooling at all levels must be removed from the control of political parties, the educational Quangos abolished, and education placed in the hands of end users: academics, professional institutions, research institutions, industry, parents, churches and charitable institutions. No politicians, no LEA's, no educationalists. The agendas of the last three groups have nothing to do with learning and everything to do with self.

Fifty years ago C P Snow wrote that Science and the Humanities regarded each other with mutual incomprehension; and it has got much, much worse. A re-reading of Snow's "The Two Cultures" shows that nothing has changed since then. "If the scientists have the future in their bones," he claimed, "then the traditional culture responds by wishing the future did not exist." F R Leavis's poisonous response, exemplified this attitude and it triumphed; we abandoned the future for navel contemplation. We abandoned space technology, of which we were second in the world after the USA, and after that abandoned just about everything else of integrity. But I sense things are about to change. The political elites have realised that we are going to have to work a great deal harder if we are to survive. As Dr Johnson rightly said; "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

Fri, 2010-01-08 15:10 — P. W. Teatros (not verified)

Yes, Josipovici describes them right, they are Middle Ages institutions barely working in the 21st Century. The implicit value debate was a nice curiosity of the 19th Century; if someone is using taxpayer's money, they have to let the taxpayer know why and how their money is being used.

Fri, 2010-01-08 15:30 — JL

Academics have only themselves to blame for surrendering the autonomy of academic institutions to increasingly authoritarian governments whose sole 'philosophy' is predicated upon unreasoning material self-aggrandizement and social control. This is precisely what happened in Germany in the Eighteenth-Century where sixty universities reduced academics to the level of bureaucrats. The result was a mechanistic, statist, worldview that had devastating consequences in Europe for 150 years. Future generations will be able to trace the rise of British State Fascism to the cowardice of UK intellectuals in the period 1990-2010. If you value your freedom, then do something before it is too late. Salus populi suprema lex.

Fri, 2010-01-08 18:45 — Pablo K

Teatros - there is no debate at all about whether or not public money should be accounted for. The issue with 'impact' is that it is being defined in a very particular way to mean not just 'useful' but 'directly applicable to government and corporate interests'. By definition, this impact cannot be through the infusion of an idea into society or industry as a whole, but is quite clearly intended to mean academia in partnership/subordination to these other interests on specific projects.

This 'impact' measure is intended to determine 25% of all funding. Think about what that means in a discipline like mine (International Relations) and about what kinds of programmes and collaborations (and what kinds of conclusions) will be permitted in research on terrorism, peace-building and foreign policy.

Academics are understandably up in arms about this, and are being sold down the river not only by the heads of their institutions but also their professional bodies (mine has suggested a 15% impact quota 'compromise' pretty much without consultation with its membership in a totally misguided attempt to keep its hand in the game).

But a rather neglected issue is what this will do to teaching. Mandelson et al. want to keep UK universities up there in terms of research outputs. They also want to tie that research more closely to their own agendas. Oh, and they want to massively cut funding. All the pressures point to the closing of Departments, the massive scaling back of teaching (or rather of the resources and time available to scholars to teach), and to many, many, many more half-baked articles published by journals (which are proliferating beyond reason at the moment), journals which incidentally charge massive subscription rates for access to all these 'impactful' ideas, despite the fact that the research that produced them has already been paid for by the nation's taxes.

Fri, 2010-01-08 20:31 — terence patrick hewett1

University of Southampton ranked amongst best in the world for spin-out companies
The University of Southampton is ranked among the best in the world for spin-out companies, a new survey shows.

Southampton's impressive spin-out record and success in commercialising academic research has been favourably compared with top US university Stanford in a recent Library House study.

The venture capital research firm, chaired by former Dragons' Den panellist Doug Richard, compiled a list of all companies spun out from British universities since 2001 and compared the volume of venture capital money they attracted with the amounts backing companies spun out of three top US universities Stanford, Wisconsin and Washington.

In the study, featured in the Daily Telegraph and Financial Times, Southampton came out below the world-leader Stanford, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, but above the other leading US universities of Wisconsin and Washington. Stanford in California has had phenomenal successes with spin-outs such as Google and Sun Microsystems.

Mr Richard said he was particularly impressed by Southampton's performance. 'It means UK universities, and Southampton as an example, are far more effective at the creation of innovative companies through the spin-out process than their counterparts in the US,' he commented.

The findings show that Southampton has become extremely efficient at identifying and supporting new academic research that has commercial potential. Tony Raven, Director of the University of Southampton's Centre for Enterprise and Innovation (CEI) commented, 'The fact that Southampton's success in creating world-class spin-out companies has been recognised is testament to the high quality of research generated by the University, and the expertise, commitment and dedication of academics in identifying commercial opportunities and transforming world-class research into quality profitable business.'

Twelve companies have been spun-out since 2000, three of which have been admitted to London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) with a combined market capitalisation value of over £100 million. Theses are Oil exploration company Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping (OHM), asthma research company Synairgen, and fibre laser manufactures SPI Lasers.

Sat, 2010-01-09 01:47 — Pablo K

Of course, terence patrick hewett, it is much worse than that.

In the States, universities depend very heavily indeed on private investment, whether through their ridiculously high tuition fees (at least at the places worth going) or through the massive amount of grants, endowed chairs and gifts provided by under-taxed philanthropists. So when a spin-off company emerges from an American institution of higher learning, at least the rhetoric of market-led innovations is somehow aligned to the reality.

But here, there is virtually no private investment in universities. So what is happening at Southampton is that public money is being spent on research and development until the point at which it can generate profit, at which stage all of that hard-earned knowledge is passed on to a private entity, which can then clean up with little to no costs. This is 'impact'.