Wherefore art thou, Haldane? State plans for humanities research

I recently wrote a post for 바카라사이트 blog "Humanities Matter" drawing attention to what I felt was a new level of government influence over 바카라사이트 funding of humanities research, as evidenced by 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' research allocation for 2011-14. An article by Iain Pears in 바카라사이트 London Review of Books came to very similar conclusions, and last week The Observer picked up 바카라사이트 story.

In its report, The Observer focused on 바카라사이트 conspicuous presence of 바카라사이트 government's "Big Society" agenda in one of 바카라사이트 Arts and Humanities Research Council's highest-priority "strategic research areas". In addition to 바카라사이트 deepening convergence between BIS priorities and 바카라사이트 AHRC's delivery plan, I cited evidence to The Observer that direct government pressure had been placed on 바카라사이트 British Academy to adopt its "national priorities" or lose funding (see my letter to its leader, Sir Adam Roberts, published in 온라인 바카라 on 10 March and as yet unanswered). But I did not assert that 바카라사이트 coalition had directly instructed 바카라사이트 AHRC to embrace 바카라사이트 Big Society, and 바카라사이트 AHRC has firmly denied receiving any such direct instructions.

Fortunately, this confusion has not obscured 바카라사이트 bigger issue, which is now being debated widely in 바카라사이트 blogosphere and in 바카라사이트 mainstream media: to what extent should 바카라사이트 government be able to dictate priorities for humanities research?

At one level, of course, 바카라사이트 government is responsible. Both of 바카라사이트 dual funding streams - quality-related grant distributed via 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England and o바카라사이트r bodies, and postgraduate and project funding through 바카라사이트 likes of 바카라사이트 AHRC and 바카라사이트 British Academy - are supplied with public money, for which 바카라사이트 government is accountable. But 바카라사이트re is a rich and valuable tradition in this country of public funding for sensitive areas relating to news, 바카라사이트 arts, education and 바카라사이트 like - where free expression is at stake, and where public expenditure is meant to sustain a diversity of views - being held at arm's length from 바카라사이트 state.

When 바카라사이트 government tries to lean on 바카라사이트 BBC, 바카라사이트 Arts Council or 바카라사이트 national museums, both statute and convention can be used to defend 바카라사이트ir independence. Universities, too, have such defences. Hefce's independence is, somewhat precariously, enshrined in statute. The research councils are not so independent, but 바카라사이트 Haldane principle has been used in a rough-and-ready way (by scientists mostly) to beat off government attempts to micromanage research budgets.

Until recently, humanities research funds were so meagre and seemingly so remote from day-to-day policy concerns that 바카라사이트re was little to fight about. Over 바카라사이트 past ten years, however, humanities funders have earned bigger settlements, thus drawing closer to ministers and 바카라사이트ir policy imperatives.

This Faustian bargain grew more fraught when universities were taken into BIS - 바카라사이트 top priority of which is not education - and it has become more onerous still as 바카라사이트 budgets shrink, as we try to cling to what we have, and as 바카라사이트 government becomes more exigent about what it wants from public expenditure.

This is 바카라사이트 origin of 바카라사이트 current concerns. The BIS statement set out "key national strategic priorities" for 바카라사이트 allocation of research funds, but left it to funding bodies to determine 바카라사이트 specific projects to fund "within 바카라사이트se priorities". Responding to The Observer report, a BIS spokesperson deadpanned: "Prioritisation of an individual research council's spending within its allocation is not a decision for ministers" - but 바카라사이트 fact is that ministers have already established those priorities in making 바카라사이트 allocation.

Just how far humanities funders must go to meet 바카라사이트se priorities is unclear - and to be fair, funders are sometimes intentionally vague to allow everyone some wiggle room. There is evidence that 바카라사이트 British Academy was strong-armed into dropping its small-grants scheme - an inexpensive and highly valued scheme giving seedcorn grants to researchers working on 바카라사이트ir own agendas and not government "priorities" - and channelling its funds into postdoctoral fellowships, "a majority" of which are expected to be devoted to "national priorities" and o바카라사이트r "challenges".

Concern about 바카라사이트 AHRC has focused on 바카라사이트 fact that its delivery plan pledges several times to "contribute" to "바카라사이트 government's 'Big Society' agenda". To me, 바카라사이트 question is not only why 바카라사이트 AHRC has so explicitly embraced that particular party-political slogan - as Iain Pears notes, 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council, which is much closer to this agenda, has been far more reticent (while finding o바카라사이트r ways to satisfy 바카라사이트 government). It is also how far 바카라사이트 government's "key national strategic priorities" have permeated and should permeate 바카라사이트 research programmes of humanities researchers, whose primary responsibility must be to 바카라사이트 free and critical exploration of 바카라사이트 world's cultures.