Thanks, Jon.
The irony is not lost on me. I'm usually pretty zealous against prose
which resorts to (a) inexpressive abstractions, (b) drawing attention to
propositions which which nobody seriously disputes, or (c) the word
"vibrant". The ESRC's Delivery Plan is marginally the worse offender on
all three counts -- but the AHRC's is by far the more ominous in its
practical implications.
The ESRC's document does, for instance, show a clear understanding that
a UK Research Council is a non-departmental public body. The AHRC's
speaks of "collaborating with other government departments".
Inadvertantly retained during copyediting, I'm sure -- but how did it
get into the document in the first place?
JS
On 30/03/2011 10:38, Jon Agar wrote:
> well done James for providing a bit of order to the controversy with his
> witty chronology of the AHRC/Big Society row here:
> http://www.jbsumner.com/blog/2011/03/that-ahrchaldane-dust-up-in-chronological-order/
>
> It seems to me that the AHRC's mistake was to use the explicit term 'Big
> Society'. Compare, for example,
> the ESRC's strategic priority of investigating 'A vibrant and fair
> society'...
>
> J.
|