« | Home | »

No More Browne-Nosing

Tags: | |

In the last few days, more than forty of us have collectively resigned our membership of the Peer Review College of the Arts and Humanities Research Council: we will no longer referee colleagues’ (usually hopeless, often hapless) applications for research money. We quit in protest at the AHRC’s announcement a couple of months ago that the Big Society was to be one of its research funding priorities, and its subsequent insistence that this did not impugn academic freedom – on the grounds that the decision was an independent one and not imposed by government. More resignations are expected as the AHRC digs in over this ‘justification’ of its Browne-nosing hope of favour.

For British academics to act like this is unprecedented. Probably the most quiescent group of public sector workers in the country, we’re hardly known for saying no, let alone for saying it collectively. This (so far) minor skirmish over just one instance of the corruption of the universities might contain the seeds of something bigger, if it leads enough academics to realise two very obvious things: first, with more than 40 per cent of the population – and the great majority of middle-class school-leavers – aiming to get to university, we have a good deal of power; and second, the sky will not fall on our heads if we exercise it and disobey.

The supine acceptance of coalition policy by the vice-chancellors’ club Universities UK and their hangers-on in our universities can be resisted. The mass resignation from the AHRC just might presage a refusal to carry on keeping our heads down and ending up delivering them on a plate. If the AHRC’s determination to stay in the tent – even if that means prostrating itself at the entrance – spurs more and more of us to abandon our traditional quiescence, then it’ll turn out to be a wonderful example of the law of unintended consequences.

Comments on “No More Browne-Nosing”

  1. alex says:

    I salute bob brecher for writing this piece, and the London Review of Books for highlighting this issue. I have signed a number of petitions against the AHRC’s policy, as organized by Thom Brooks of the University of Newcastle.
    I think there is a danger here of a) ad hominem attacks on Rylance; and b) preaching to the converted so the disinterested don’t register.
    I wonder if a better strategy mightn’t be to ask Rylance et al what they consider to be the intellectual genealogy of “The Big Society”. Why and how did this, – and not, say “the Habermasian public sphere” – become a priority stream for research funding. Play them at their own game. Take them seriously as intellectuals, and let them tie themselves in knots.

  2. orlp says:

    I too salute Bob Brecher.

    The AHRC’s policy is one of the worst aspects of current university policy, but the policy as a whole is a disastrous continuation of 30 years of government meddling with the universities. Would that the VC’s and the UGC had stood up to Thatcher in 1980-1, as the French universities did to their government.

    Ever since, politicians have known that they can do with our universities what they like. Now we have sky-high student fees, and the requirement for universities to guarantee the financial benefits of their courses, as a corollary. Research is assessed on “impact” and the AHRC’s policy is only the most blatant attempt to direct it towards political or financial ends, in the sciences as well as the arts.

    Things will only get worse unless by some miracle academic institutions return to their principles.

  3. philodemus says:

    Something I haven’t seen as a result of this debacle is a frank discussion of the dangers of centralization in higher-education funding. Why on earth should the AHRC have the right to tell scholars that some areas of research are more interesting than others in the first place? It’s not as though there are critical areas of research in the arts and humanities that will advance any particular national interest. Of course, the government is welcome to independently fund, as the State Department does in the US, language training to support its own activities, but this is kept separate from scholarship. In fact, this method doesn’t even work in the sciences – witness the crude and incorrect instrumental reasoning used to privilege applied over basic science research, when this is likely to net no short term gains but rather long term losses in scientific understanding and practical output.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement