Absolutely agree with Michelle!
And largely agree with Simon -- however, how this acceleration of private exploitation of academic knowledge in the UK parallels the influence of research agendas in recent years needs explaining... I suspect work intensification (real constraints on time) and pressure to be immediately more 'visible' (in that it conforms to a model of marketisation) produced the conditions for academics to relinquish overall control and the hoovering up of 'independent' academic journals by the 'cartels'.
Glasgow School of Art library will only subscribe to publications that are not freely available online.
'On bullshit in cultural policy practice & research'
Eleonora Belfiore
http://www.variant.org.uk/37texts/3PolicyPractice.html
All best,
Leigh
On 29 Mar 2011, at 08:16, Simon Biggs wrote:
> Most academics (and University libraries) agree with you that the academic
> publishing system is broken. It's a cartel of publishers who milk the
> authors, the readers and the institutions they are affiliated with, for
> their own profit. It is corrupt and highly corruptible.
>
> Due to this many academics are now choosing to avoid the paid journals and
> go to open source and other free access alternatives. More and more research
> grants require that publicly funded research outcomes are made publicly
> available for free in perpetuity. It is often a condition of eligibility.
>
> Ironically, the impact agenda (often considered a sop to private industry)
> encourages researchers to seek the broadest engagement with their work and
> thus the shift to alternate forms of output, again avoiding the journals.
>
> RCUK generally supports the move away from the subscriber based journals
> too. The journals are now under pressure to consider how they might operate
> beyond the subscriber model, if they wish to survive.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 28/03/2011 23:54, "Michelle Kasprzak" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to share that I found "On bullshit in cultural policy
>> practice & research" a very funny title, considering the article can
>> only be obtained through the bullshit system of academic publishing,
>> wherein people who are not "in the system" have to pay exorbitant fees
>> to access this knowledge.
>>
>> A real boost for the "big society" would be someone having the cojones
>> to dismantle this corrupt system that exists to keep information out
>> of people's hands.
>>
>> Guess I'll have to go without this particular article on bullshit, as
>> I am unwilling to pay 34 clams for a single article, when that could
>> buy me an entire book, a year-long magazine subscription, a few
>> tickets at my local independent cinema, et cetera. Maybe someone wants
>> to post it on aaaarg.org?
>> Best,
>> MK
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Variant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> It would be less worrying if AHRC were to acknowledge coersion, as the
>>> seemingly interchangable government-facing euphemisms of 'connected
>>> communities', 'creative economy', 'communities and civic values', 'enhancing
>>> our quality of life', are not the intangible effects of pixie dust either...:
>>>
>>> Evaluating the social impact of participation in arts activities: A critical
>>> review of François Matarasso’s 'Use or Ornament?’
>>> Paola Merli, Variant, issue 19, Spring 2004
>>> "…In the first part of this paper I will concentrate on analysing the quality
>>> of Matarasso's research. My critique will focus on methodological issues and
>>> will try to show that the research project is flawed in its design, execution
>>> and conceptual basis. I will then deal with political issues such as whether
>>> using participatory arts as a form of governance, under the heading of
>>> promoting social cohesion, is actually worthwhile and desirable. Finally, I
>>> will frame some suggestions for possible future research."
>>> http://www.variant.org.uk/19texts/socinc19.html
>>>
>>> On bullshit in cultural policy practice & research
>>> Eleonora Belfiore, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 15, Issue
>>> 3, August 2009
>>> Taking Harry G. Frankfurt's essay 'On Bullshit ' as its starting point,
>>> Belfiore explores the analysis of bullshit and the prevalence of bullshitting
>>> in the contemporary public sphere. Frankfurt's short essay provides an
>>> intellectual framework to interpret and understand contemporary rhetoric and
>>> practice in the cultural policy field, as well as recent trends in cultural
>>> policy research. Through a discussion of selected UK cultural policy
>>> documents, the article aims to show that many of the key actors in the
>>> cultural policy debate indeed display the 'indifference to how things really
>>> are' and the cultivation of vested interests which Frankfurt attributes to
>>> the activity of bullshitting. In conclusion, Belfiore spells out the
>>> implications of the present status quo for 'critical' cultural policy
>>> research.
>>> PDF: http://www.informaworld.com/index/914860742.pdf
>>>
>>> All best,
>>> Leigh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Mar 2011, at 17:31, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the AHRC's official statement on the Observer piece published
>>>> yesterday. They refute it in full.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>>>
>>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>>>
>>>> Important Statement
>>>>
>>>> The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) unconditionally and
>>>> absolutely refutes the allegations reported in the Observer ('Academic Fury
>>>> over order to study the big society', 27 March). We did NOT receive our
>>>> funding settlement on condition that we supported the 'Big Society', and we
>>>> were NOT instructed, pressured or otherwise coerced by BIS or anyone else
>>>> into support for this initiative.
>>>>
>>>> The AHRC has been working for over two years, since 2008, with four other
>>>> research councils, on the Connected Communities Research Programme which has
>>>> been developed through extensive - and continuing - consultation with
>>>> researchers. At the core of this Programme is research to understand the
>>>> changing nature of communities in their historical and cultural contexts,
>>>> and the value of communities in sustaining and enhancing our quality of
>>>> life. These issues are serious and of major concern. They also happen to be
>>>> relevant to debates about the 'Big Society' which came two years later. To
>>>> imply that these important areas for investigation constitute a
>>>> government-directed research programme is false.
>>>>
>>>> There are further inaccuracies in the Observer article that rest on rumour
>>>> and misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>> First, specific research applications are funded on the basis of academic
>>>> peer review, not government command. If academic peer reviewers do not feel
>>>> the research is excellent, and of sufficient importance and value for money,
>>>> it does not get funded.
>>>>
>>>> Second, the Observer article implies that 'significant' funding will be put
>>>> exclusively into 'Big Society' projects. What the document quoted actually
>>>> says is that 'significant' funding will be put into SIX (not one) 'strategic
>>>> research areas'. These are language-based disciplines, the creative economy,
>>>> interdisciplinary collaborations, and cultural heritage as well as issues
>>>> related to communities and civic values. This will occur as part of an
>>>> extensive portfolio of funding covering many different types of research
>>>> which, once again, was developed through extensive consultation with
>>>> researchers over a two year period.
>>>>
>>>> Third, it is reported that the AHRC 'was forced to accept the change by
>>>> officials working for the minister for higher education, David Willetts.'
>>>> There is a confusing subsidiary allegation that 'the word is that it has
>>>> come down from the secretary of state, Vince Cable'. Neither is true. If
>>>> there is evidence to demonstrate these allegations (as distinct from relying
>>>> on phrases like 'the word is') then it should be revealed. But there is no
>>>> such evidence because it did not happen.
>>>>
>>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Variant
>>> ...in-depth coverage in the context of
>>> broader social, political & cultural issues.
>>>
>>> 1/2 189b Maryhill Road
>>> Glasgow G20 7XJ
>>>
>>> t. +44 (0)141 333 9522
>>> e. [log in to unmask]
>>> http://www.variant.org.uk
>>>
>>> receive events info & online issues:
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.elmcip.net/
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
-------------------------------------------
Variant
...in-depth coverage in the context of
broader social, political & cultural issues.
1/2 189b Maryhill Road
Glasgow G20 7XJ
t. +44 (0)141 333 9522
e. [log in to unmask]
http://www.variant.org.uk
receive events info & online issues:
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------
|