A Hundred Years of Haldane

Philosopher-politician Richard Haldane

It was a very odd experience to read about the higher education green paper as I sat on a train rattling past Romford and Chelmsford. I was on my way to the first Eastern Academic Research Consortium conference at the University of Essex, and I was receiving emails and tweets about the approaching tsunami.

“If all its measures are enacted as planned,” suggested one commentator, “[it] will represent the biggest changes to the higher education sector since 1992.” I looked out the window. Chelmsford looked pretty much like it had always done. There was no evidence of “sweeping changes”, no apparent “battle lines drawn”. Just a grey autumn morning, rows of houses and early-morning dog walkers.

'Haldanegate'

The spat within the humanities community over allegations in Sunday's Observer that the AHRC had been forced to include the 'Big Society' in its research plans has now got its own name: haldanegate. I love the delicious combination of irreverence, scandal and hysteria that the name implies.

I mentioned the controversy in a post a couple of days ago, but a more measured (and hilarious) overview of the timeframe of 'haldanegate' has been provided by James Sumner of the University of Manchester. There's also a piece in the most recent Research Professional (issue 365) arguing that, rather than running counter to Haldane, the idea of research serving the needs of government was there from the start. What's different here, as Sumner says, is that the 'Big Society' is a party political initiative. And that's the worry.

In addition, whilst the AHRC has effectively refuted the Observer claims, there's still the question of how the Big Society ended up in the Delivery Plan. In some ways its worse that the Council's arm wasn't twisted: instead, they seem to have offered themselves up willingly to the service of Dave et al.

Finally, whilst the Observer journalist has been shown to have misquoted and conflated the thoughts of Peter Mandler, the chief source for the piece, there's still the question of his allegations over the British Academy. He said that he was talking about the BA rather than the AHRC. This doesn't seem to have been followed up by anyone. Sure, it was a smaller scale funder who was involved, but still...

Haldanegate will rubble on for some time, I think.

Haldane RIP?

For anyone who read the splurge of thematic priorities that was the AHRC Delivery Plan 2011-15, there was an interesting twist to the tale in the Observer on Sunday. Apparently the government had the Council 'over a barrel', and was demanding that they prioritise work on 'the Big Society', otherwise it would withdraw £100m of funding.
It's depressing news. Not only do the arts and humanities already receive the smallest share of the science budget, but a chunk of what they do get now has to be directed towards the spurious goals of the 'Big Society'.
There's a wider issue here. The government's alleged demands infringe on the demarcation between political priorities and independent research marked out in the Haldance principle 90 years ago. Whilst the origin of the principle is up for dispute, it's establishment since the 1960s should be treasured and guarded. Instead, a recent government - ahem - 'clarification' of the principle said (to quote the Observer) 'that research bodies must work to the government's national objectives, although the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that ministers will not meddle in individual projects.'
Not very reassuring. So will researchers take the King's shilling and scrabble aboard the Big Society, or make a stand against this political interference?