« | Home | »

Follow On Funding

Tags: |

We have had occasion before on this blog and in the pages of the LRB to note the enthusiasm shown by the Arts and Humanities Research Council in helping government to liberate academic research from antiquated notions of free intellectual inquiry. Its latest inspiration is this announcement of opportunities for what it is pleased to call ‘follow-on funding’. The idea seems to be that you get money to develop completed research into things that can be sold, a new lurch forward in the commercialisation of thought entirely in keeping with the AHRC’s absorption, a few years ago, into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. But it’s hard to be certain, because in the pile-up of corporate jargon, empty verbiage and general illiteracy of the announcement, it’s difficult to discern what, in the end, ‘forms the underpinning rationale for this highlight call’. Not to worry: anyone with dreams of monetising their research into the letters of Elizabeth Gaskell, or the role of international diplomacy in the court of Henry VII, can seek clarification from Robert Keegan, the AHRC’s Knowledge Exchange Portfolio Manager.

Comments on “Follow On Funding”

  1. Phil Edwards says:

    in the pile-up of corporate jargon, empty verbiage and general illiteracy of the announcement, it’s difficult to discern what, in the end, ‘forms the underpinning rationale for this highlight call’

    I’m not any keener on this than the writer, but it’s really not that mysterious or sinister. Have you had funding from the AHRC already? Can you think of some way to turn it into something you could sell, always bearing in mind that the universe of “things you could sell” includes “books” and “tickets to limited-capacity events”? If you can answer yes and yes, the AHRC has some money for people like you.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement