The Haldane Principle

Hello,

The Observer is reporting today that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will spend a 'significant amount' of its research budget on work into the 'Big Society'. The Government, its correspondent writes, has 'clarified' the Haldane Principle of 1918 which says that researchers should decide on research spending.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/27/academic-study-big-society).

Cue the outrage.

(See a number of entries when you type 'Haldane Principle clarification' into Google).

If this is true, then yes, it is outrageous. The amount that the AHRC has already been almost entirely slashed. To then refocus its priorities for political gain would be a fragrant abuse of Government's powers. However, matters are not as simple as the article first suggests.

For a start The Observer's case is quite hypocritical. This weekend they have also run a piece in their 'Review' section on the Anglo-German socialist intellectual Ernest Schumacher and the influence of his philosophies on the Coalition's 'Big Society' idea.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful)

Even The Observer would admit therefore that there are quite strong philosophical routes to some of the main points that the Government is pursuing.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the initial article is not entirely accurate about the Haldane Principle. The idea that the Principle has been an inviolate part of British academic-scientific life since the 1910s is debatable at best. David Egerton, a British historian who concentrates on technocracy (the bureaucracy of technology), has argued that the Principle only really existed from the 1960s, as part of a Conservative attempt to upset Labour's 'White Heat of Technology' drive under Harold Wilson.

(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-88.html).

Can I also refer you to the following:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/101220-Letter-from-David-Willetts-MP-Haldane.pdf

This is a letter from David Willets to Andrew Mitchell, chair of the Commons Science and Technologies Committee, dated 20th December 2010. In it Willets is responding to a previous letter from Mitchell, which admits that there is some ambiguity over existing Government policy. Willets argues that 'Ministers have a legitimate role' to play in the allocation of funding process. However:

'it is for the Councils to decide on specific projects and people to fund. In all of these decisions, Ministers should take account of advice from a wide variety of expert sources'.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-12-20a.138WS.0 is a written Hansard statement backing up the content of Willets' letter.

So what, you might ask. If a week is a long time in politics, four months must be an eternity. Well, this link is to a table of intended research spending the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) department put out last month:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/m/ministerial-statement-on-the-allocation-of-the-science-and-research-budget-201112-to-201415.pdf

I leave you to make your own judgement there (not least because I'm not very good with figures).

This meanwhile is a link to an article by Professor Peter Mandler, Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society. Though critical of the new version of the Haldane Principle (with good reason for most of the cases he brings up), he notes that the Labour Party were not above 'bribing' Research Councils with extra funds

'if these bodies responded to the government agenda by themselves reserving some of their research funds for government priorities'.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150170942349951

As Professor Mandler argues, there are several reasons to be justifiably critical of the new proposals. Nevertheless I'd suggest that there's an argument to be made that in fact the new proposals are at the moment somewhat of an improvement on the older ones. They clarify the existing ambiguity between the Haldane and Excellence Principles, for instance, and move the Government's presence in this field onto a de facto footing.

There's a longer, and considerably more profound, argument that needs to be had about the relative balance of power between the bodies like the AHRC and central government. The one that The Observer is trying to spark off isn't it. It's taken me around an hour to research and write this blog post out in full, with nothing more than a laptop and a Google link as my resources. What appeared in the newspaper today is sensationalist, if for understandable reasons. We need to calm down, take a deep breath, and discuss what needs to be said with that sort of thing.

Tuition Fees - A response to some issues raised

Hello,

My previous post has garnered some feedback. Here are some thoughts on the points raised.

Firstly, I should acknowledge that my post on 'Thoughts on Protesting' was influenced too much by my own feelings. The fact is that I was considerably irritated at having my class disrupted and wished to vent it. As Mademoiselle has pointed out to me, protest of this kind only really works if it is disruptive to normal practice.

The second point was raised by Abacus of Cockmarsh, who questioned why we have tuition fees at all. Abacus has considerably more financial knowledge than me. Privately he has questioned whether or not the fees system in this country amounts to a PFI scheme, in the sense that the debt is transferred from the current generation onto the next.

So, my responses:

As I've said, I agree with Mademoiselle that my previous post was too much coloured by my own irritation and annoyance. Nevertheless I would hold by several points that I made there. The attacks upon the royal car, and the posting of dog excrement through Nick Clegg's letterbox go beyond what is acceptable, in my view, in that they attack directly and indirectly people who have no responsibility for the tuition fees question. I would argue that successful protests are normally focussed on the one particular weakness rather than a broad blast against an enemy.

On the question of tuition fees in general, I defer to the more knowledgeable man about their effectiveness. The fact is though that they are here to stay unless something drastic happens. I think my views on a rise in fees have been best outlined elsewhere.

Tuition Fees - some thoughts on protesting

Hello,

Well it's through. Not much surprise there, though I was expecting a narrower majority than 21.

I'm finishing off marking in the office at the moment, so don't expect any thoughts as to what's going to happen in HE now for a while. There was something I wanted to say about what's happened this afternoon though. Mainly about protesting.

The Peter Chalk building on campus here is mostly used for lectures and events. I'm told that yesterday evening and throughout today that Newman A, a lecture theatre in the building, has been occupied by students protesting against the fees increase. I can understand their anger, even though I may not entirely agree with it. However I would say that I cannot see how effective the occupation of Newman A would be. It will not change the government's policy, nor the university's support of that policy. It will disrupt a day's lecturing and make several people's work more stressful for minimal reward.

Likewise this afternoon my class was interupted by chanting outside. Protesting should be carefully targetted, or it will simply end up being counterproductive.

Rant over.

Later: Oh it gets worse. I read later that the royal car was attacked. These are two people who despite your views on elitism have nothing to do with the passing of the tuition fees bill. All you are doing is harassing two pensioners effectively.

Even later: Dog excrement through Nick Clegg's letterbox? Oh come on. You might seriously dislike the man but he has two young children and a wife that has nothing to do with this. That's just abuse.

Also from the Guardian today - Simon Schama on History in Schools

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/09/future-history-schools

Well worth a read. The most depressing moment is the account of one teacher determined to expand his student's historical knowledge up to the point when he realised the huge amount of work that would entail of both he and his charges. They lapsed back onto 'Hitler and the Henries'.

The delight of microhistory and the doom of a spending review

A variable morning.

On the plus side must be ranked my best night's sleep in a while, alongside the fact that Michael Wood's 'A History of Britain' has finally reached the modern age. If you haven't been watching this series I'd recommend catching it on i-player. It's a relatively rare televisual history that concentrates on 'history from below' (i.e. of the ordinary people rather than the 'rulers') and micro-history. If anything it has quite a lot in common with the Annales school. Wood's style is a little romanticised for my tastes, but not disconcertingly so.

On the other hand we have this, a report from the THES suggesting that the Government will stop all funding for teaching the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences in Higher Education. The following graph was ripped from the report, with apologies to THES.

Oh happy days. Science, Technologies, Engineering and Mathematics will be protected, but HASS teaching will be left to fend for itself. For a start, Mr Willets, it would be nice to have a job in 2012. Wouldn't it also be nice to study the Arts still - as my housemate points out, a large amount of the British economy is still driven by the heritage industry if nothing else. Oh, and when the Government wants to bring funding back for the HASS subjects, where are you going to find all the people to teach them? They'll be in other industries, or teaching abroad.

(while we're on the subject of HE, why are Scottish universities still allowed to offer free education for Scottish students, while that is apparently impossible for English universities?).

A summary post on the Browne Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review - 16.10.10

Hello,

Some collected thoughts on the Browne Review and the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review:

As I mentioned yesterday the letter from Steve Smith indicates a substantial, sector-altering reduction in central government spending on universities and higher education colleges – from the current £3.9 billion to £700 million. This would seem in line with what Lord Browne wrote in his review, although there are questions over whether or not Smith has interpreted what Browne wrote correctly. One account, from the comments section of this Times Higher Education article, argues that things are not as bad as they might seem.

Of course nothing lasting can be said until the Comprehensive Spending Review later on this month. The Government has agreed with the Browne Report findings in the meantime though, so we can assume that some sort of heavy reduction is forthcoming. The key question however is when those cuts will come. Two events will largely shape the HE sector in England over the next five years: what happens at the CSR, and any subsequent funding decisions taken by the Government, and the implementation of the Browne Report's recommendations. In simple terms, the Government will stop donating a large amount of money to the universities in England, but allow those universities to charge higher fees in order to recoup some of their costs.

Now the impact of those actions will vary according to each institution and department. From the sound of things the Government is planning to concentrate funding on scientific research and the more obviously 'profitable' areas within the HE sector, and some universities are better placed to survive these cuts than others. However it seems unlikely, to my mind at least, that higher tuition fees will be in place before 2012 (I would heavily suspect in time for the 2013 entry). Firstly we're already half-way through October 2010, and they will take some time to implement. Secondly that would mean that of the current generation of undergraduates, only those in their first year at the moment may be hit by higher fees (it's worth noting here that universities can't put up fees during the academic year at the moment). Any other decision, in my view, would be political suicide for a number of Coalition MPs.

(Although the argument can quite convincingly be put that this decision is already political suicide for the current Liberal Democrat front-bench).

If cuts are enacted before 2012-2013 though, if I'm right, then the sector is facing one to two years of a major funding gap. Where will the money come from? Savings possibly, but for how long? Lisa Jardine of Queen Mary, University of London paints a bleak picture of higher fees going towards a learning environment no different from the current one when asked about this in this week's Any Questions? (the time reference is around 12 minutes in).

In a declaration of honesty, I should reiterate the fact that I'm not addressing this topic from a neutral point of view. I am a second-year PhD student aiming to become an academic, and so this decision directly affects me. Above all else, it makes me pessimistic over whether or not I can get a job in this country in the HE sector come 2012. Things might change, and the situation might not be as bleak as I currently suspect it will be. It's difficult though to imagine a raft of universities aggressively hiring in this current climate though.

My own plans are to keep my head down, concentrate on building up my employability, and scout out what opportunities are open to me. What needs to be remembered is that it's not just esoteric academics like me that these decisions might affect; there are secretaries, managers, cleaners, kitchen staff, porters, handymen, drivers, technicians, IT workers and even gardeners who all call a university their employer.

We all knew it was going to be this difficult. No matter whether one might agree with the economic forecast the Coalition has made little secret of the fact that they intend(ed) to aggressively cut down on government spending – we're looking at reductions seen not since Thatcher at best, or the National Government in the 1930s at worst. I suppose the twin questions I would ask though would be does it have to be this difficult, and is there an alternative?

Might even add a third question: if there is an alternative, what is it? 

Not what seems like immediately good news - a letter from Steve Smith

A letter from Steve Smith, President of Universities UK (the Vice-Chancellors' group) has been apparently leaked to the BBC. In it he writes that £3,200,000,000 could be cut from government grants to universities; a 79% reduction. The figures come from the Browne Review, where it is says that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will have a £700 million pound budget. Sounds a lot, but the current HEFCE budget is £3.9 billion.


To quote from the BBC News report:

Professor Smith says the Browne report, which itself called for unlimited tuition fees, was framed by "what is coming on October 20".

And he adds that universities will do all they can to "replace as much of this lost funding as possible". This means raising tuition fees to make up for lost state funding, he says.

But he also warns that this may not be possible before 2012, when the government is expecting to have measures in place to allow for a rise in fees.

He adds: "The biggest worry is simple to state: if Browne fails to get through the Commons, or gets unpicked, or gets accepted but only after major changes are made, we will simply not be able to replace the unprecedented reductions in state funding that are coming in the Spending Review."

I graduate in 2012 and was planning to try and enter the HE sector. I know I should put my trust in God but in all honesty I am mildly concerned now.

Not sure I can objectively comment on this. 


PS: Steve Smith is Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University. 

Thoughts on The Browne Report

1) The emphasis on competition is worrying. Higher education is one of those areas that should be protected from free-market principles if at all possible; there are simply services that the market should be not wholly relied on to provide as it is unsuited to do so.

2) Is John Denham right when he says that the report assumes an 80% cut in government funding towards Higher Education. If not, what figure would be correct? If there is no definite figure, what assumptions were made?

3) Would the Review not have benefited from having more members who have higher education experience?

4) What alternative is there? Those opposed to the Browne Report do have to propose alternatives, otherwise all we have is one side suggesting and the other side opposing.

5) How soon will be know what Vince Cable's reaction to the Report is? (his detailed reaction, not his immediate one)

6) Is it not somewhat depressing that after almost 60 years of higher educational reform we seem to be back at the beginning?

Education and Technology

The university runs what's known as an LTHE (Learning and Training in Higher Education) course for all its Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs - remember what I was saying earlier about acronyms!). At LTHE 1 a very nice man from the Education Enhancement Department stood up and gave us a brief taster of the oncoming role of technology in education. A speech that I was reminded of as I read the opening few paragraphs of this article.

Now Jonny Rose (he of the blogs list to your right) will tell you that I am a luddite through and through; a man who believes technology should best be kept at arms length. He referred me to these two pearls of wisdom; one from Michael Hyatt and the other from the new media commentator Seth Godin. I include both here as I think they do have something worth saying.

Personally I recoil slightly whenever I think of technology and education. The idea of using Twitter (a source of all vacuous information) to advancing learning seems counter-factual. Yet I suspect our chap from Education Enhancement may have been right. Not completely; computers will maintain their ability to fail at the worst moments. We're not in a position to avoid them though. Two generations down from mine will be the first generation of the Academy to have grown up with Facebook as part of their lives. The speed at which society is adjusting to new technologies is incredible. I was reminded during the last US Presidential election for instance that Youtube did not play a large part in the 2004 election not because people hadn't got used to it but because it didn't actually exist then. MySpace, by now an old fogey among social networking sites, is almost twenty years my junior.

Society is changing, and we must change with it. Just don't expect me to like it much. 

'The Classroom Experiment' - BBC Two

I'm just watching the first episode. Early days yet, but it may be worth a look

From the desk of the THES: Science, religion and dispute

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413553&c=2 will link you to a Times Higher Education article about science, religion and their compatibility within the Academy. It is a fascinating topic, and one, I would argue, that is highly relevant. Speaking personally I would like to do more work on this - as a historian who is a Christian it's an area which I feel will be of great relevance to me. However even for those who intend to avoid religion and faith this is still a subject that should be picked up upon.

If I had any criticism of the THE piece, it is that it's too focussed on the 'science/religion' divide. As I'm sure I've said before (and if I haven't then I really should have), Christianity is an holistic paradigm - one cannot be a Christian simply philosophically or scientifically. As such this article touches upon one of the key academic methodological questions; to what extent should one's existing prejudices shape one's research. A more extreme example of this is summarised in Jeremy Black and Donald Macraild's Studying History (3rd edition, 2007)*, which has a brief section worth reading on Marxist historiography in the Soviet Union. They point to the work of M.N Pokrovskii, whose A History of Russia from the Earliest Times (1932) was 'the first full scale attempt to apply Marxist economic imperatives to the formation of Russian society and culture'. Now it may be possible, and even advisable, to do research on this subject in order to gain a greater understanding of Russian society and culture. Indeed Pokrovskii was probably someone with a genuine faith in Marxism (and thus in its role in historical analysis). As Black and Macraild point out though Pokrovskii's Short History of Russia (1920) was approved of by Lenin personally. This would seem to indicate that Pokrovskii was probably sailing somewhat close to the rocks of subjectivity and personal projection (topics hopefully covered in that post on Historiography I promised some time ago).

Ultimately it is impossible to be entirely objective about any subject the more complicated one's work on it becomes. To the best of my understanding this applies scientifically as well as in the humanities. The question is whether one's core beliefs stand up to categorical analysis. Now my belief in God has so far - I believe that being a Christian and being an Historian are compatible. You need to be careful though in applying said beliefs. Personal interpretation of relationships is one thing; personal projection of facts another.

I'm aware that some non-believers reading this may doubt whether or not a Christian can really mount a rigorous intellectual analysis. I discovered this passage the other day, and I do take some comfort in it. This is a extract from Job 13, verses 7-10:

'Are you defending God with lies? Do you make your dishonest arguments for His sake?....No, you will be in trouble with him if you secretly slant your testimony in His favour'.

Or more simply, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness'.





* The disclosure of relevant information section: Jeremy Black is my second supervisor.

Another from the THES

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413172&c=1

Interesting. The question is though whether this is an extension of an existing practice or the adoption of a new one.

I might go back and work sometime soon.

After 12 months and a few blog entries, my thoughts on being a PhD student

In about a month, it will be a year since I started my PhD. As this blog is entitled 'Accounts of a Confused Postgraduate', I thought I ought to break off from the musings to try and offer a few thoughts as to what to do if you ever start down this road:

1. Remember at all times that all secretaries are your friends. Your supervisor(s) may be the acknowledged world experts on your subject area, but secretaries are the one's who know where the forms go and where room X is.
   
   
2. Cultivate a hobby and stick with it. At this moment in time you love your proposed subject area and can't imagine anything better than researching it. Remember though that you are going to be spending the next three years concentrating exclusively on this topic. Have something to do that's not research-based, or you will go mad.
   
   
3. If you can't cook at all, learn. If you can cook, make sure you have a meal or two that you can always throw together in five minutes. Whatever happens, try and eat a well-balanced meal three times a day. Your brain is your key resource and it won't function at its best on junk food and beer.
   
   
4. It is possible to drink too much caffeine/eat too much chocolate. Remember 'a (reasonably) healthy mind in a (reasonably) healthy body'
   
   
5. Your chance of getting research funding varies according according to your proposal strength and subject area. Work like fury on that research proposal.
   
   
6. There will be point when you're tired, frazzled and can't think properly. You have no idea what to put into your thesis next, it's Friday night, and everyone outside seems to be having the time of their lives. Speaking as an humanities student, there are two ways of dealing with these moments. Firstly, have some other work you can go off and do while waiting for inspiration on your thesis (I chose either book reviews or papers) or just a random bit of escapism (video games for instance). The second is to simply press on and force a conclusion to what you're writing. It's up to you to learn when to use each technique.
   
   
7. Despite that though, remember that you are a human being. You are entitled to spend some time away from your work with friends. Don't let it overwhelm you and always have a clear idea as to what the aims of your research are. You will have to adapt any research plan as time goes on, but always have a few clear aims in mind as to why it is you're here.
   
   
8. Your supervisor(s) are immensely clever people, acknowledged experts in your area, with far better research skills than you. Remember though that they were once post-grad researchers themselves. Don't be afraid to ask them questions – that's what they're being paid to be supervisors for. If you have a question, don't be intrusive, but at the same time always ask if you think someone in your department/faculty can answer it. A question asked in honest inquiry is never unfruitful. What you learn might be that it's a bad question, but you have learnt something.
   
   
9. Learn the lingo and people involved. This year for instance I've been a HUSS SSLC PGR rep (school of Humanities and Social Sciences Staff-Student Liaison Committee Post-Graduate Researcher representative). Alright, that was perhaps an extreme example. Like all areas through of society post-graduate research has its own vocabulary and it is helpful to know it. Also, and this is more useful, learn the major bodies involved in your area. Know which is your Research Council, what the Leverhulme Trust is, and who the major society involved in your research is. Pick up on what are the major publications in your field. Learn the relevant deadlines for funding and make a note of them (buy a diary!). Get to know the important figures in research. Which leads us on to –
   
   
10. Officially your PhD is the process of your doing your thesis over 3-4 years (increasingly 3-4 years is the time limit research councils set universities). Unofficially there's more to it than that. Your PhD is the process of your becoming what it is you want to do next. If you want to be an academic, then you have to start submitting conference proposals and trying to get papers published. If there's an organising committee you can be on, get on it! If your university is offering a career development scheme, put your name down for as many classes as you can! The number of people leaving universities with PhDs in this country is far more than the number of available academic places. The Academy does not owe you a living; it's up to you to get yourself ready for the big wild world. Your thesis is still central to your doctorate, but there's a lot more to it than just that.

Whatever happens to you, remember that you're starting out on an exciting time in your life. Doing a doctorate enables you to do move onto a whole new level. You will be doing your own research, developing those skills and building on those experiences you've explored while doing your BA and MA. It is a lot of work, but there are a whole lot of great moments that make up for it – I got to leaf through a whole lot of Winston Churchill's handwritten letters this year, and as an historian let me tell you that that's pretty cool. You'll be mixing too with some of the fine young minds of this generation; cross-pollinating ideas and building the Academy of tomorrow.

Make sure you know what you're researching. Know which university and scholar you want to research with. Try your best to get calm, reasonable house-mates; it does matter a lot. Make mates, do your best and keep a level head while you're doing it.

God bless, and best of luck

From the desk of the Times Higher Education Supplement

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412994&c=1

I thought I ought to post something on 'higher' education, to contrast with the 'low' culture of the previous post. A welcome piece of news this, but not a conclusion surely that it should have taken serious research to come up with? The Library is the immediate research point at any university (and in my case the most often used; I simply don't have a large enough budget to go out on frequent research trips). A better equipped and better funded library therefore must be bound to have a beneficial effect on a university's research and its research income.