52 research outputs found
In the name of employability: Faculties and futures for the arts and humanities in higher education
Full text linkThis introductory overview sets out the scope and aims of the special issue, which is concerned with establishing more meaningful understandings and discourses on the relationship between arts and humanities and graduate employability. The issue comes at a time of increased government-level questioning of the social and economic value of higher education (HE), and particularly humanities disciplines. The propositions developed in this introduction and the contributing authors’ papers aim towards developing stronger and more meaningful engagement with the future place and role of arts and humanities within HE and wider society. We establish a variety of themes in the value of HE and make connections to the contributing authors’ articles. We finish with critical questions for continued debate and research in the nexus between arts and humanities and graduate outcomes. These are all pertinent to the questions of value that underpin many of the papers in this issue
"Minimum expectations" are no way to value the arts, humanities, and social sciences
No full textThe UK government recently announced its intention to reduce funding for ‘low value’ degrees in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Drawing on her research into the history of higher education policy, Zoe Hope Bulaitis argues that current government demands for courses to demonstrate value fail on their own limited terms and that like previous debates around minimum expectations reflect questions of resource allocation, rather than value
Minimum expectations are no way to value the arts, humanities, and social sciences
No full textThe UK government recently announced its intention to reduce funding for ‘low value’ degrees in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Drawing on her research into the history of higher education policy, Zoe Hope Bulaitis argues that current government demands for courses to demonstrate value fail on their own limited terms and that like previous debates around minimum expectations reflect questions of resource allocation, rather than value
"Minimum expectations" are no way to value the arts, humanities, and social sciences
No full textThe UK government recently announced its intention to reduce funding for ‘low value’ degrees in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Drawing on her research into the history of higher education policy, Zoe Hope Bulaitis argues that current government demands for courses to demonstrate value fail on their own limited terms and that like previous debates around minimum expectations reflect questions of resource allocation, rather than value
Value and the Humanities:The Neoliberal University and Our Victorian Inheritance
Full text linkTracing the shift from liberal to neoliberal education from the nineteenth century to the present day, this open access book provides a rich and previously underdeveloped narrative of value in higher education in England. Value and the Humanities draws upon historical, financial, and critical debates concerning educational and cultural policy. Rather than writing a singular defence of the humanities against economic rationalism, Zoe Hope Bulaitis constructs a nuanced map of the intersections of value in the humanities, encompassing an exploration of policy engagement, scientific discourses, fictional representation, and the humanities in public life. The book articulates a kaleidoscopic range of humanities practices which demonstrate that although recent policy encourages higher education to be entirely motivated by outcomes, fiscal targets, and the acquisition of employability skills, the humanities continue to inspire and aspire beyond these limits. This book is a historically-grounded and theoretically-informed analysis of the value of the humanities within the context of the market
Impact, innovation, and the public humanities:evaluating the societal impact of research in the United Kingdom
No full textThis chapter addresses two interrelated terms - “impact” and “innovation”. The chapter argues that understanding the effects and influences of these terms is vital in capturing a contemporary picture of the evaluation of the societal relevance of SSH within the UK higher education system. First, in analysing the REF’s implementation of the impact criterion, the chapter illuminates how the mundane operations of research evaluation are directly implicated in systemic valuation of SSH research. Second, in addressing the rise of innovation, the chapter describes an emerging eco-system of business engagement and entrepreneurialism within the contemporary British university. Taking the case study of creative industries research, this chapter details the growing body of academic research engaged with triple-helix models of knowledge creation. Examining current flagship research projects reveals how national funding bodies are encouraging and incentivising SSH scholars to adopt new professional identities. I conclude with an alternative model, introducing the field of the public humanities
Accountability in academic life:introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation
No full textAccountability in Academic Life: European Perspectives on Societal Impact Evaluation is an edited collection dedicated to providing European perspectives on the state of societal impact evaluation at the beginning of the twenty-first century, paying special attention to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The book explores the consequences of the trend for evaluating the quality of research in terms of the basis of the impact that it creates in society, and, we argue, that it is in SSH disciplines that the effects of societal impact evaluation are most visible. Across Europe, the implementation of systematic societal impact evaluation has taken off over the last decade, and we can already see its profound influences on the choices and decisions taken by universities, by faculties and departments, and individual researchers. This introductory chapter explains this international and contemporary context for the edited collection and explains the two-part structure of the book. Accountability in Academic Life documents and articulates the effects that the evaluation of the social impact of research is having on the ways that SSH researchers steer and regulate themselves, and ultimately on SSH research itself. Through this analysis, it also sets out to think more profoundly about the research-society nexus and its relation to research evaluation
The need for historical inquiry into societal impact evaluation:towards a genealogy of the notion of useful research
No full textThis chapter calls for the need for historical inquiry when discussing current societal impact evaluation. The chapter offers a critique of The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Gibbons et al., 1994). We also observe how their ideas lie at the heart of the current impact agenda in Europe. The chapter challenges the idea of societal impact as a new or emerging phenomenon due to the nature of how research and society develop by analysing the main assumptions of their arguments and showing how the same claims have been made several times throughout history. In doing so, we reveal that it is not the relation between science and society that is changing but the ideology in governance. Second, we propose a typology that helps us to systematise approaches towards conceptualising the research-society nexus. This offers the possibility of contextualising current societal impact evaluation practices and in identifying potential alternatives. It serves as a tool for the future development of a “genealogy of useful research” that will deepen our understanding of the relation between research and society
Pietro Deandrea, New Slaveries in Contemporary British Literature and Visual Arts:the Ghost and the Camp. Reviewed by Zoe Bulaitis
No full textManifesto for a better societal impact evaluation
No full textIn this chapter, ENRESSH collaborators write a “Manifesto for a Better Societal Impact” Evaluation. In this, authors have extracted key principles based on some conclusions from the individual country reports which are broken down and/or extrapolated into generalisable findings drawing from the cross-national comparison. In doing so, this manifesto explores what scholars and policymakers from other European countries, and indeed from far wider international backgrounds, can learn from those countries’ experiences and the cross-national comparison. The chapter also goes beyond analysis, in providing a series of condensed recommendations for the evaluation of societal impact in the SSH with a special focus on how the evaluation can impact the work of academics in a positive way. In this collaborative task, we have sought to simultaneously respect disciplinary differences in knowledge production practices as well as in societal functions of research, while making this process as visible as possible
- …
