Source:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=407678&c=1
(Reader's comments at the bottom of the article)


Stuck on the sidelines

6 August 2009

David Gauntlett says the AHRC needs to put its researchers back on the 
field and stop positioning them as mere spectators of culture

I love the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Of course I do - it 
funds some of my work, giving me time to research, think and publish. 
Therefore I was pleased to see that it has recently put considerable 
effort into making the case for its future existence, as seen in its 
recent report Leading the World: The Economic Impact of UK Arts and 
Humanities Research, and echoed in the recent speech by David Lammy, the 
Higher Education Minister, in praise of the sector.

Leading the World makes a persuasive case for the importance of arts and 
culture in our national life. The argument is well made, expressed in 
terms of human aspiration and happiness for the idealists such as me, as 
well as containing impressive indicators of economic significance to 
keep the Government happy. The AHRC lists the numerous ways in which a 
majority of the UK population engage with and invest in cultural 
activities, whether going out to museums, movies and plays, or staying 
in to read books, play music or interact using electronic media. It 
argues convincingly that this contributes to the "civic capital" of the 
nation, adding to the stock of knowledge and cultural participation that 
brings benefits both to the economy and to our quality of life.

This is a winning argument. Unfortunately for the AHRC, though, it's a 
winning argument for someone else because the AHRC is not directly a 
funder of arts and culture. The research council says that it funds work 
that fosters "public understanding" of these things, but that claim 
remains somewhat aspirational, except in cases where a gallery or museum 
is directly involved. As AHRC staff privately admit, most funding 
applications are weak at explaining why we should be analysing any 
particular bit of culture, and typically think that dissemination means 
writing impenetrable journal articles. The stronger ones propose to put 
the impenetrable articles on an unfindable website.

I am not suggesting that AHRC researchers are not creative. Sadly, that 
view comes from the AHRC itself, as it positions its academic community 
as disappointingly passive: not creators of culture but mere observers. 
Our knowledge and culture, which has branches in arts and humanities 
research, and in science and technology, is driven primarily by ideas - 
the generation of new ideas and debate around those that already exist. 
We would expect that all research councils would put ideas at the heart 
of everything they do.

In this new report, however, the AHRC sets out a model that knocks its 
researchers off the field and on to the spectator benches. This is made 
clear in a handy diagram in the report that shows "culture" in a hearty 
circle at the top and academic researchers in a separate blob below that 
and off to one side, doing "professional reflection on culture". In the 
diagram, we are next to "popular reflection on culture". In other words, 
the role of academics is to generate the difficult-to-read version of a 
Sunday newspaper culture section.

Imagine the outcry if one of the science research councils published a 
model where UK scientists were positioned as observers, rather than 
creators, of scientific innovation. In this part of its report, the AHRC 
has taken a wrong turn. In rightly making a case that avoids turning our 
research into an arm of business, it has gone for an unnecessarily limp 
alternative, based on the economic importance of already-existing culture.

Happily, if confusingly, this is corrected in a later section, which 
seems to use the word "innovation" in every sentence and which 
highlights the dazzling minority of projects that demonstrate the true 
creative strength of the sector. Here, the work of arts and humanities 
researchers is seen to have a clear impact on medical visualisations, 
human rights law, and our understanding of environmental issues and 
religious extremism. The more sociologically oriented members of the 
AHRC's constituency, such as me, will be pleased to note that the 
research council turns to real-world issues when it wants to demonstrate 
value for money.

Leading the World observes that "only 2.8 per cent of total research 
council expenditure on research and postgraduate funding is allocated to 
the arts and humanities, despite these disciplines representing 27 per 
cent of all UK research-active academics". There is clearly a balance to 
be redressed. To get more of this pie, the AHRC should be bolder and 
push for greater innovation - not for business purposes but for the 
public good. It should work on ways in which arts and humanities 
research can connect with real social issues, and be communicated in 
clear, intelligent ways to the public.

Postscript :
David Gauntlett is professor of media and communications, University of 
Westminster.