Testify David Mitchell, Testify!

Last week, the new metric that will be used by the Research Excellence Framework to assess the standard of research produced in UK universities was revealed. 60% of a department's score will be determined by the quality of the research outputs--as judged by other experts in the field.

15% of the final score will be earned by the quality of the research environment including things like conferences held, the number of Ph.D. students who have successfully defended their dissertations, and research infrastructure.

The final 25% is to be determined through 'research impact' which is supposed to be assessed based on how well research conducted addresses specific needs identified by key 'stakeholders', which is basically managerial speak for 'how closely does research conducted contribute to the needs of business and the government?'

Impact measurement will not only compromise the integrity of research conducted in the UK, but it will also diminish the amount of curiosity driven research in the arts, humanities, social sciences, engineering, AND natural sciences, all of which have contributed to some of the most significant discoveries that have previously advanced the human condition.

The idea that the likes of Boris Johnson, Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown, George Osborne, any of the miserable lot on Dragon's Den, or the replicants of Rupert Murdoch should be determining what gets taught and researched in universities is absolute madness.

Unfortunately, it's not exactly difficult to get the general public to turn on academics--let's face it we come across as a pretty whingey bunch at the best of times--so the Labour government has been riding a wave of anti-intellectual populism by branding these moves as attempts to get rid of 'pointless studies' and 'useless degrees' that are funded by the tax-payer.

So, with a growing sense of despair over the negative impacts that a business-driven university agenda will have for both students and for research, it is a pretty demoralizing time for university lecturers.

Luckily, there are rays of sunshine out there. In today's Observer, comedian David Mitchell--of Peep Show and That Mitchell and Webb Look-- has written an excellent defense of academic freedom. The closing line sums up it quite well:

• The Research Excellence Framework is starting to ask what sorts of curiosity our culture can afford, and that scares me even more than the demise of the silly survey because it strikes at the heart of what it means to be civilised, to have instincts other than survival.

How is it that a guy who helped to come up with the concept of 'Number Wang' gets it while those who are in charge of running the country completely miss the plot?

Photo credit: Iman

Comments

[twitter.com/davidc7]

Great post and great site Kyle. Indeed, when comedians have become the most incisive critics, we are in a very strange place.

I've touched on the issue of impact in my recent series of posts on changes in social media and the distribution of information (with the last one dealing with universities - see http://www.david-campbell.org/2009/10/01/revolutions-in-the-media-economy-4/)

We are in exciting and uncertain times, but our managers (institutional and political) have no grasp of current realities. They still want to count the beans at the party central committee meeting...

[Kyle Grayson]

Thanks David! I really liked the series on your blog and have featured all four parts in a weekend reading round-up.

It does seem that we are in the midst of a fundamental transformation in how information, news, and research are distributed and 'consumed'. As such, there is theoretically ample space to explore new ways of communicating our messages as researchers and/or cultural producers. But, as you suggest, the tired old models remain entrenched and there is a lack of willingness by influential parties to consider alternatives.

Within this transformative context, it appears that the bean counters can also play a pretty mean violin...