There is no doubt that:
1/The privatisation of higher education has impacted upon funding and approaches to funded research within social policy.
2/ It has equally impacted upon the balance of and context to primary research, analytical studies and critical engagements in social policy
3/ Social policy and administration has always had a contradictory role through the very nature of its relationship with policymaking - and source of knowledge and influence as well as critical engagement.
4/ Conservative and social democratic (third way) exponents have represented themselves with more vigour than more critical thinkers in social policy since the 1980's.
5/ Social policy is not immune to careerism or strategic choices, or even corruption, on the basis of success or position
6/ If we were to read again C Wright Mills Sociological Imagination, we might think again about how far we turn personbal troubles into public issues or retain the necessary detachment to be neither philosopher kings nor courtiers - but this is a problem more generally in the social sciences.
However:
- social policy is professionally under exposed and poorly represented when compared to other such organisations
- Social Policy has 'sold out' and is no longer independent
- In an increasingly desperate competition for survival cash much social policy research now simply informs sponsors of what they want to hear.
- Increasingly the core disciplines are being infiltrated by 'career' academics, anxious to expand their own reputations and positions, they do not exhibit an unselfish commitment to the goals of social policy.
- Most contentiously of all I believe there is widespread corruption in the sense of academic cliques and rivalries, this distorts access of opportunity to the wide range of influential positions and 'airtime'.
- the operation of the academic discipline is no longer adequate to
the task it sets itself.
Spare me this drivel! It shows a lack of understanding of social policy's past as a discipline, about its peculiarities and contradictions and makes some pretty stiff accusations whilst usefully refusing to name names.
Yes there are cliques within the professional societies of academic disciplines and they ought to be far more aware of the need to include and widen access to their deliberations. Yes there are some who appear to have sold their sociological tools of analysis for media and political influence (Anthony Giddens, anyone?). Yes, social policy is being influenced by the current intellectual and political culture and there needs to be some vigilance. I have, in the past been quite critical of on these questions.
What I am not willing to tolerate is the whining and easy, slapdash, poorly constructed and ill-thought out rantings of someone who has done a couple of years undergraduate study (or final year of an MA ?- god forbid not!!!) and is ready to launch the 'great debate'. I have no problem with debating problems in the social policy discipline or indeed across the social sciences, nor of addressing serious questions around contextualising forces, causal factors and critical problems - but something with some, even a modicum, of intellectual rigour would be preferable.
At a time when many social scientists/social policy practitioners are overwhelmed by increasing pressures and stresses and less resources, maintaining a commitment to quality despite bureaucracy and underesourcing and engaged in critical research against the tide of too many other demands from inspections, institutions and students, the last thing we need is tabloid-style attacks and teeth-kicking.
Well, thats ten minutes break from a Saturday afternoon of writing references, reports and book reviews!
Paul
Paul Reynolds
Senior Lecturer in Politics and Sociology
Centre for Studies in nthe Social Sciences
Edge Hill College
St Helens Road
Ormskirk
Lancs L394QP
Tel: 01695 584370
email: [log in to unmask]
|