Teaching Learning & Research
Teaching Learning and Research - David Willetts and RCUK
We reproduce below a report from Professor James Ladyman (University of Bristol) on a recent meeting with David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science, regarding the UK's research councils.
Professor Ladyman is not affiliated with the Association of Art Historians, but we share his report as its content will be of use and interest to our members.
"Dear All
Here is a brief report of the meeting with David Willetts I attended on Monday. The meeting was focused on RCUK and the research councils not on the REF, and on the sciences not the arts and humanities, but of course the basic issues are the same. We argued forcefully to the effect that impact cannot be measured and that the very idea is intellectually bogus and undermines the values essential to academic research and thereby threatens standards and so actually to reduce the benefits of research. We pointed out that in the sciences applications of the most important advances are completely unpredictable in advance and often come after many years. We have been asked to present our case in more detail on paper and we will then have another meeting. I think that David Willetts is open minded about substantially pulling back from the impact agenda as envisioned by the previous government, RCUK and HEFCE. He certainly listened to and understood the arguments presented to him and we all felt very positive after the meeting. What follows from all this is of course that we have to continue to campaign. To this end I would like to collect evidence of the following kinds of cases:
(a) Research council committees where impact statements have accounted for a significance proportion of the variance in what is funded, given that since so many proposals are given the top rating for academic excellence so that supposedly a secondary criterion ends up determining what is funded.
(b) People who have been deterred from applying for funding because of the impact agenda.
(c) Generic impact statements that are essentially independent of the particular research being proposed or impact statements that are clearly like a sales pitch for snake oil.
(d) Academic work in the arts and humanities that has either had a great impact but only after a long time, or has had an impact that could not possibly have been forseen.
(e) The distortion or undermining of research because of the inclusion of impact in the REF.
(If people are prepared to go on the record that is fine but I am happy to present testimonials from people anonymously while keeping their identities to myself. Then if the minister or his people want to call my bluff and check that I am not making up my evidence they can pick a couple at random and confirm that they come from real people. I will only release names if they promise that they will keep them confidential and not identity people to either their institutions, RCUK or HEFCE.)
I am continuing to request a meeting to discuss the impact agenda in relation to the arts and humanities. If that request is acceded to then I will assemble a delegation of a few people and try for a rerun of Monday.
I would be grateful if you would consider forwarding my request for evidence widely among your colleagues.
best wishes
James
Professor James Ladyman
Department of Philosophy
University of Bristol
9 Woodland Road
Bristol BS81TB
0117 9287609
james.ladyman@bristol.ac.uk"