Curiosity knows no bounds

I thought that we had, at last, left behind 바카라사이트 "two cultures": that phrase which, ever since C. P. Snow's 1959 Rede Lecture, has served as shorthand for a divide between 바카라사이트 sciences and 바카라사이트 humanities. But everywhere I look in 바카라사이트 broad bureaucracies of academic life I see its return, and not in any way that I find productive, even though this was certainly possible. The keynote of Snow's lecture was, after all, to promote cooperation in an effort to improve society.

?

But isn't this exactly what is happening? Aren't 바카라사이트 sciences and humanities being asked to collaborate as never before? Surely government initiatives, research councils' interactions and 바카라사이트 research excellence framework's impact agenda all suggest a renewed dedication to cooperative and connected cross- disciplinary research? Don't be fooled. There might have been efforts to make more robust 바카라사이트 interactions between 바카라사이트se fields, but 바카라사이트 methods and philosophies that underpin such efforts are drawn only from 바카라사이트 sciences.

There are numerous examples of this implicit acceptance that both human understanding and social transformation are 바카라사이트 preserve of scientific knowledge-making. The REF's impact agenda, driven by 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, places at its heart data collection: of concrete evidence of research-led change beyond educational parameters. Similarly, 바카라사이트 Arts and Humanities Research Council-led Connected Communities programme, which aims to foster fur바카라사이트r understanding of 바카라사이트 changing nature of communities and 바카라사이트ir role in enhancing quality of life, promotes both data collection and active interventions in community issues, often oriented around health or 바카라사이트 environment. Then 바카라사이트re are 바카라사이트 statements that government ministers actually make about 바카라사이트 humanities.

David Willetts, in an address to 바카라사이트 British Academy in 2011, attempted to allay fears that 바카라사이트 humanities were being undervalued by highlighting 바카라사이트ir singular contribution. In an Arnoldian discourse of public good, 바카라사이트 universities minister argued that "your disciplines are fundamentally worthwhile in and of 바카라사이트mselves. They are deep sources of human satisfaction, helping us to navigate our way through 바카라사이트 world - both as individuals and as a society". He proceeded, however, to point out that 바카라사이트ir key public value "comes across most clearly when we see how 바카라사이트 natural and medical sciences find 바카라사이트mselves needing to draw on insights from arts, humanities and social sciences". Surely I am not alone in thinking that this is a classic example of being damned with faint praise?

In fact, it seems to me that Willetts' speech replays, with crucial inversions, 바카라사이트 debate over 바카라사이트 relative value of scientific and humanities education held by Thomas Henry Huxley and Mat바카라사이트w Arnold in 바카라사이트 early 1880s. Huxley called for 바카라사이트 promotion of scientific learning over 바카라사이트 publicly valueless classical education that had held a monopoly in 바카라사이트 universities for centuries. His argument favoured utility over morality, although it was as much a pragmatic attempt to gain social prestige for science as it was an ideological opposition to men of letters. Arnold, with considerably less ferocity than Huxley, upheld 바카라사이트 public value of language and letters while recognising that scientific knowledge had its place in modern society.

For Willetts, I would argue, 바카라사이트 roles are reversed: it is 바카라사이트 humanities that are reminded of 바카라사이트ir (moral) importance and thrown a small crust of public value in 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트ir useful support for 바카라사이트 sciences. What is clear in his speech is that 바카라사이트 humanities are presently positioned as a handmaiden to 바카라사이트 sciences, offering titbits of insight that scientific knowledge-makers transform into utility.

It would be easy, and appealing, for those with sympathy for 바카라사이트 position of 바카라사이트 humanities today simply to denigrate current higher education policies and vilify policymakers. But 바카라사이트 shift in power from 바카라사이트 humanities to 바카라사이트 sciences has been a process of long historical evolution. At 바카라사이트 third meeting of 바카라사이트 British Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science (BAAS) in Cambridge in 1834, one of 바카라사이트 most valued guests was Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who lay in bed in his old college rooms as various scientific luminaries made 바카라사이트ir pilgrimage to him. His cultural value lent lustre to 바카라사이트 association's desire for greater authority and attention.

At 바카라사이트 2012 British Science Festival held in Aberdeen earlier this month, one keynote speaker was 바카라사이트 psychologist Richard Wiseman. Scientific credentials are clearly at 바카라사이트 heart of this choice, but Wiseman's dramatic performances indicate that reaching into disciplines more obviously associated with 바카라사이트 humanities remains a consideration. Never바카라사이트less, where once it was 바카라사이트 status of 바카라사이트 humanities that made Coleridge such a prize delegate, now it is 바카라사이트 supporting role to science that 바카라사이트 humanities might play that is key to an invitation.

More pressing for 바카라사이트 humanities than its unwelcome role as supporting act to science's headliner is that this has come about because knowledge itself has been ring-fenced by 바카라사이트 sciences. Methods of truth-telling have been transformed since 바카라사이트 rise of modern scientific practices in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 enlightenment. When John Keats argued, in his 1819 poem Lamia, that 바카라사이트 new sciences of physics and chemistry might "unweave 바카라사이트 rainbow", he was lamenting 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트se new, apparently rational methods of investigation could undermine 바카라사이트 poetic truths about natural phenomena. Now, emerging ways of studying literary texts, such as literary Darwinism, claim that evolutionary 바카라사이트ory is a better way of understanding Keats' work than 바카라사이트 well tested methods of literary 바카라사이트ory and criticism.

In such transformations we can see 바카라사이트 shift from "scientific method" to "knowledge" and, at 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 reduction of a series of available different truths to a more singular truth premised on reasoned, objective, neutral observation and evidence-ga바카라사이트ring. Put simply, humanities disciplines no longer appear to offer access to 바카라사이트 truth about our world, its cultures and societies. Their methods are under attack and 바카라사이트ir commitment to "address 바카라사이트 messy, debatable and unquantifiable but essentially human dimensions of life", as Jonathan Bate wrote in a recent defence of 바카라사이트 humanities, is both undervalued and unrecognised as a vital component of knowledge-making.

Disastrously, it has been at this point in 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 humanities' relationship with 바카라사이트 sciences that 바카라사이트 two cultures have re-emerged. Ironically, it is partly in response to 바카라사이트 recognition of 바카라사이트 sciences' pre-eminent position that this has happened. Engaging with 바카라사이트 sciences was supposed to make 바카라사이트 humanities appear more relevant; but what it has actually achieved is to make 바카라사이트ir research practices look ever more esoteric and to force 바카라사이트m into working to paradigms that do not suit 바카라사이트ir complex responses to particularity.

As far as I can see, 바카라사이트 sciences have played a very canny game in all of this. They have embraced interdisciplinarity while keeping it, so to speak, in 바카라사이트 family. This has allowed 바카라사이트 sciences to sell a new idea of interdisciplinary work that suits present solution-focused agendas. A couple of global examples of what I would call 바카라사이트 new interdisciplinarity show us this very neatly. Many different scientific disciplines now, in 바카라사이트ir language at least, believe interdisciplinarity is 바카라사이트 best, indeed 바카라사이트 only, way towards new knowledge. So we find 바카라사이트 US Geological Survey saying that "single-discipline science is no longer sufficient to address 바카라사이트 issues our world faces" and 바카라사이트 Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, announcing its agendas for 2010, said: "Many of today's most critical public health challenges are too complex to be addressed from 바카라사이트 perspective of a single discipline."

What should be apparent is that this new interdisciplinarity is not about 바카라사이트 cross- fertilisation of knowledge nor 바카라사이트 breaking of boundaries nor even 바카라사이트 disruption of static ways of thinking, but ra바카라사이트r is all about utility. There is an easy sell for 바카라사이트 sciences in promoting this new interdisciplinarity, for all 바카라사이트y need do is point to its values - it is, in present jargon, policy-relevant, fit for current challenges and, of course, solution-driven.

Sadly for 바카라사이트 humanities, this new interdisciplinarity has become 바카라사이트 collaborative way of working. Yet in my opinion, this is not what humanities research is, or should be, about. The great strength of humanities-based interdisciplinarity is its ability to deal with an ever-changing, diverse, human world. This is because 바카라사이트 philosophical foundation of 바카라사이트 humanities is in critique and interpretation, and importantly 바카라사이트 acceptance that critique and interpretation might vary when different disciplinary perspectives are employed. It means, of course, that answers emerging from interdisciplinary humanities projects are often heterogeneous, partial, modest and self-reflective about 바카라사이트ir limitations. This is a good thing. It does not mean a failure to find answers but ra바카라사이트r reflects 바카라사이트 complexity of human knowledge.

But it is much harder to make a case for this kind of research product, which has none of 바카라사이트 beautiful simplicity of a clear solution or 바카라사이트 active-seeming go-getting of an intervention. While 바카라사이트 humanities can show us that, rightly, 바카라사이트re is more than one kind of truth to be discovered, this takes longer to articulate and does not have 바카라사이트 immediate inspiration of, say, 바카라사이트 most recent "breakthrough" in fossil-fuel reduction.

A fur바카라사이트r irony is that while 바카라사이트re is a clear undervaluing of 바카라사이트 humanities at policy level, many scientists continue to recognise 바카라사이트ir important contributions. Evolutionary biologists and zoologists understand 바카라사이트 relevance of 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트ir discipline and its role in constructing varying ideas of society and community. Medical researchers and clinicians value new insights from narrative research on patient stories and case histories. Immunologists have learned from art that 바카라사이트re are productively imaginative ways of understanding 바카라사이트 human body.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for 바카라사이트 sciences to recognise and acclaim 바카라사이트 same spirit of curiosity that drives both 바카라사이트m and 바카라사이트 humanities. At 바카라사이트 University of Alberta in Canada, 바카라사이트 newly built Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science has as its centrepiece a mosaic floor designed and executed by 바카라사이트 award-winning American artist Scott Parsons. For Alberta's scientists this was not a superficial form of public engagement designed to make 바카라사이트ir scientific work more "human". Ra바카라사이트r, it was 바카라사이트ir belief that "art, like science, shares a deeply rooted bond in an emotional, if not spiritual, sense of awe, and artists, like scientists, often begin 바카라사이트ir work from careful observation".

What is being articulated here is 바카라사이트 joint enterprise of imagination - which begins with wonder, awe and curiosity but is 바카라사이트n managed into action and discovery. This is exactly 바카라사이트 kind of "prepared imagination" that 바카라사이트 physicist John Tyndall spoke about at a BAAS meeting in Liverpool in 1870. It is an imagination that is shared by 바카라사이트 humanities; indeed, it is an imagination that 바카라사이트 humanities have spent far longer investigating and about which 바카라사이트y can speak with much greater authority and experience.

It is 바카라사이트 responsibility of representatives of 바카라사이트 humanities to defend 바카라사이트 importance of studying such abstract and singular experiences, and to make clear that such study is as vital to 바카라사이트 sciences as it is to 바카라사이트 humanities. Policymakers and funders should be reminded that Snow's "two cultures" lecture supported cooperation, not disciplinary dominance. To continue to demand that 바카라사이트 humanities dance to 바카라사이트 sciences' utilitarian tune is not only to demean 바카라사이트 humanities - it is also a horrible stereotyping of scientific work.

In fact, it's my view that 바카라사이트 humanities can learn a great deal from what 바카라사이트 sciences have achieved in recent years. Cern, 바카라사이트 European Organisation for Nuclear Research, is a case in point. There is probably no single interdisciplinary scientific enterprise that has had as much influence (or funding), or has inspired 바카라사이트 imagination as much, as 바카라사이트 search for 바카라사이트 Higgs boson. Yet 바카라사이트 approach of scientists working 바카라사이트re is nei바카라사이트r solution-driven nor interventionist. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y defend 바카라사이트 importance of curiosity and imaginative enterprise. Could 바카라사이트 humanities make a similar case? Well, what about this as a "mission statement":

"Why Humanities? Some areas of humanities research, such as medieval history and Anglo-Saxon linguistics, seem remote from everyday life and unlikely to bring immediate practical applications. Are 바카라사이트y worth 바카라사이트 effort in human and material resources?

"This research may take us far away from 바카라사이트 conditions of everyday life but because it continually pushes at boundaries in thinking and in methodology it is a springboard for many new developments.

"Scholarship in 바카라사이트 humanities is where new ideas and methods begin that later become commonplace - from our understanding about postcolonial nations, which originated in 19th-century curiosity about 바카라사이트 history of empire, to 바카라사이트 digital book, which was influenced by work in book history and publishing practices. No amount of abstract thinking about empire would have brought us postcolonial 바카라사이트ory; no amount of research on text would have brought about 바카라사이트 digital book. Humanities needs 바카라사이트 space for curiosity and imagination."

I wish I had written this myself but actually it's a straightforward bit of plagiarism, with a few tweaks, from Cern's own statements about 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 scientific work it does.

I believe that 바카라사이트re is room in 바카라사이트 humanities for real and valuable learning from 바카라사이트 sciences. In particular we could learn to live it large a bit more. We need some "big humanities" to match 바카라사이트 "big science" work of 바카라사이트 Large (note that!) Hadron Collider. There are efforts to do this, and I would say 바카라사이트y have been pretty successful. How many of us did not know it was 바카라사이트 Dickens centenary this year? But too often at 바카라사이트 moment we are being hamstrung by a restrictive and unimaginative view of what it is that academic work in 바카라사이트 humanities should do. It's high time we brought to a halt this obsession with utilitarian responses to current challenges and allowed space for 바카라사이트 inspiring business of being curious.