A quick gloss here. Any U.K. philosophers have any idea what it really means?
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
4 responses to “The RAE’s Successor: the REF!”
-
Very quick first impression. Two main differences from the RAE – first, the number of panels is to be smaller and second 'impact' will be a substantial element in assessment (apparently 25%).
On the first, the proposal is that a single panel will assess Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies together. Very depressing, but unlikely to be damaging, I suppose.
On the second, many people are very worried about this, and we will have see how it works out as the guidance develops. However, many types of impact will be recognised, such as 'Cultural enrichment' (although it is further described in somewhat bizarre terms). Also impact is to be presented through case studies rather than accounting for each individual's impact – one for every 5 to 10 members of staff submitted. So most of us will not be touched. However there will be a huge financial return to very successful impact, and a likely consequence is a significant transfer market for individuals who can demonstrate high impact.
-
Jo's typically judicious remarks sound right. For a less judicious mini-rant about all this, see http://logicmatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/research-excellence-bullshit.html
-
First, until philosophers can come up with a compelling and marketable formula that denies (constitutional) governments the right and ability to set agenda for research in publically funded universities, this is going to be a permanent problem. (Vanity/status driven private universities do play a useful role against this.)
Second, in places where 'impact' is already playing a prominent role (say, in Netherlands and Flanders), certain subjects (e.g., analytic metaphysics,) have very little chance to receive coveted research grants (now almost the sole source for PhD funding). Yesterday, Michael della Rocca gave a terrific talk on the three-dimensionalism vs four-dimensionalism debate. It generated great discussion. But the people in attendance were hard-pressed to name a sole Dutch philosopher who is working on the topic. (I apologize if I have left you out!) Of course, other subjects (e.g., philosophy of technology, applied ethics, decision theory, semantics, logic, normative ethics, etc) have an easier time in articulating the impact factor and are generously funded. Now there may be historical factors involved with it (Logical empiricism has an enduring impact on Dutch analytic philosophy), but it is my sense that if one is trying to get funding for analytic metaphysics, it will be sold under the guise of, say, a debate over free will, philosophy of mind, or the nature of objects (etc). (I am pretending that there is no favoritism, etc.)
Third, somewhat surprisingly historical topics are somewhat easier sell because debates over so-called Enlightenment/Western values are such hot topics. I have been on radio several times, in a movie, and in various newspapers talking about Newton and Spinoza since I returned to the Netherlands.
-
One can look at this (the British "REF") in at least two ways: firstly, as Jo Wolff does, in terms of the relatively short-term practical consequences for individual researchers, teams and departments; secondly, broadly, in terms of what it reveals as a new symptom. The latter approach exposes something much more far-reaching.
The general context about which for example Peter Smith of Cambridge has blogged his piece (see the link above) entitled "Research Excellence Bullshit" is also analyzed by the Wuppertal professor Burkard Sievers – it's not just a British phenomenon! – who remarks (I quote at some length since people may not have seen his article):
"I would like to elucidate the psychotic dynamic concomitant with the 'university reform' … where individual and collective exculpation is obvious, as one cannot retaliate against the market.
Underlying these efforts is the fantasy that [ever more such audit-type] control will result in better management … and thus reduce … uncertainties … The attempt to bring [such uncertainties] under control provides the illusion that they can be held in check. At the same time, the psychotic anxieties related to the survival of the institution and the future of academic and administrative positions result in the role of rescuer being projected into management, which it compliantly introjects. The more the pressure, the more likely the psychotic dynamic will increase and that managers – like other organizational role holders – will become caught in their own individual psychotic parts. To the extent that the thinking in and about the university takes on a psychotic quality, management is mobilized to take on a more authoritarian stance, where decisions cannot be questioned and doubts cannot be raised. This leads ultimately to a totalitarian state of mind."
It's in Sievers, "The Psychotic University", at http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/8-3/8-3sievers.pdf
– At which point, have another look at the "common menu of impact indicators" quoted by Peter Smith, to be applied in the REF: it includes "creating new businesses", "attracting R&D investment from global business", "improved patient care", "progress towards sustainable development, including environmental sustainability", and "national security". (Some "control of uncertainties" there.)
These are not goals whose rationality or sense is to be *problematized* (remember what philosophy was thought to be engaged in?) but indicators established by (ultimately political, not academic) authority: "decisions which cannot be questioned" (see above).
Sievers one last time:
"The potential ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ losses concomitant with university reform … appear to be devastating."
You might, on this analysis, count that as "impact" – namely the forecast impact of the REF.
Leave a Reply to Jo Wolff Cancel reply