Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The AHRC response

The AHRC Chief Executive, Rick Rylance, has published a new essay defending the inclusion of the "Big Society" (a political campaign slogan of the Conservative Party) in its delivery plan for strategic research funding priorities. The essay can be found here. It states:

"Unsound caricature

12 May 2011
The critics are wrong, argues Rick Rylance; the AHRC is funding research into the 'Big Society', not promoting it
There is understandable interest in why the Arts and Humanities Research Council refers to the "Big Society" in its Delivery Plan for 2011-15. The short answer is common usage and reference. But let us be clear from the start: there is no intention to publicise, promote, puff, support, celebrate or otherwise boost a set of particular policy preferences, as some claim. There is a world of difference between researching a topic and "publicising" it, which is what a recent letter to Times Higher Education claimed.
The first point to make is factual. Although Big Society may have started as a one-party election catchphrase (and as such would be unworthy of mention in the plan), it has, since 18 May 2010, been public policy. It was launched by Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg. The latter noted at the time that "we've been using different words for a long time and actually mean the same thing: 'Liberalism'; 'Big Society'; 'Empowerment'; 'Responsibility'. It means the same thing."
Lexical juggling marked the Big Society's inauguration. The theme was pursued by Labour, which criticised it as an attempt to "steal" its language of "fairness, solidarity and responsibility". As the AHRC Delivery Plan comments, this calls for clarification.
Despite a fight over terminology, the phrase caught on fast. By the time the AHRC came to publish its Delivery Plan in December, seven months later, it was in wide circulation. In November, lexicologists at the Oxford English Dictionary had named it their "Word of the Year" - the word or phrase that "expresses in shorthand" the dominant issues of the previous 12 months.
In areas from healthcare to the arts, let alone social policy, local government and multicultural interactions, it stood for a range of issues across party lines. It found its way quickly into the so-called "grey literature", which mixes advocacy and research review and frequently inaugurates full-powered investigation.
During this period, invitations to conferences and colloquia on the topic abounded and sometimes the Big Society felt like a big inbox. Some were enthusiastic about it; others sceptical. Many were deliberative. The Royal Society of Arts, for instance, launched a project on Arts Funding, Austerity and the Big Society, the title of a pamphlet by John Knell and Matthew Taylor.
This pamphlet has been widely praised. It argues: "Given the potential for the arts to help us reimagine the good life in the good society ... the Big Society discourse offers interesting new terrain for this debate."
Why the Big Society caught on so rapidly is an interesting question of some intellectual seriousness. Knell and Taylor conclude that: "After a period in which cultural relativism dominated on the Left and hyperindividualism on the Right, recent years have seen debates about civic virtue re-emerge in politics ... the question of what citizens need to believe and how they need to behave for society to flourish has become more central to political debate. The Big Society ... is the latest manifestation of this trend."
The cross-research council programme Connected Communities, led by the AHRC, has been aggressively elided with the Big Society by opponents. But it was launched in 2008, well before Cameron announced his big idea. In a sense, the programme anticipated Knell and Taylor's "trend".

It investigates, for example, the conceptual meanings of community, the history of communities and inter-community conflict: all core humanities topics and matters of pressing human and social concern. It focuses on understanding "the place of community in a pluralistic society", the theme of a recent colloquium organised by the AHRC and the US National Endowment for the Humanities. The importance of these issues is recognised internationally.

The government has policies for most areas of life, and research develops our understanding of them through informed and appropriately critical investigation. The research councils contribute to policy thinking in more areas than this piece has space to list: technology, the environment, energy, taxation, rights and justice, ethics, heritage, education and so on. The fact that excellent research is conducted in these areas does not imply support for particular decisions. It is a caricature to speak as though it does.
Postscript :
Rick Rylance is chief executive of the Arts and Humanities Research Council."

My response:

"This reply is highly disappointing. Moreover, it adds more questions rather than answers them:

1. Rylance admits that the Big Society should not be included in any delivery plan if it were merely the political campaign slogan of any one party. However, the Big Society has begun a public policy post-general election so now it can be included. Thus, political campaign slogans should be incorporated into research council delivery plans, but only those slogans of the winning political party (e.g., the party able to make the campaign slogan a policy)? This is outrageous.
2. Rylance suggests that the Big Society is a topic fully worthy of inclusion as not merely one research topic amongst many, but as one worthy of inclusion in a delivery plan for strategic research funding priorities. But where lie the intellectual merits behind such a strategic funding priority? A few political speeches that have appeal to his personal imagination? There is genuinely no substantive academic literature on the Big Society and the idea may not even last this Parliament. So why is it a strategic research funding priority? This is not to argue it could not become a priority in future, but why NOW on its own merits?

3. Rylance claims its critics make a major error. Sure, the Big Society is mentioned within the context of the Connected Communities theme. However, this theme has existed since 2008 and, thus, the Big Society somehow is "pre-general election" even though it has made no appearance in AHRC documents until after the general election. This is ridiculous. The petition clearly objects to the inclusion of the language 'the Big Society'. There is no objection to the Connected Communities theme as such in the petition. It makes a point of principle, not politics: political campaign slogans should not be included in research council delivery plans. Period.

Rylance may have made things worse. He shows a clear inability to engage with the substantive objection to including the Big Society in the AHRC delivery plan which is shared by over 3,200 academics and 30+ leading learned societies. We have not failed to notice how political campaign slogans may become government policy. Nor have we failed to notice that the Connected Communities scheme was launched in 2008: this is why the objection is not to it, but the post-election inclusion of the Big Society (and included five times) in the delivery plan.

Rylance appears now unwilling to accept the substantive objection of literally thousands of colleagues working in the arts and humanities reaffirmed in petitions and joint statements. There can be little doubt that the AHRC management appears to have "lost the argument" on the issue. I would be unsurprised if resignations -- and calls for others to resign -- were to follow soon."

There are other excellent criticisms raised as well. Rather than silence critics, I suspect this disappointing response will only add to the call for immediate change.

No comments: