Abstract
Underscoring the perils related to co-option and control that come with a shift towards an increased emphasis on state-directed research, this chapter offers a powerful defence of scholarly selected relevance. A conceptual ‘pentagon’ has come to prevail in the governance of academe, in general, and in relation to research funding, in particular. Its component elements are identified as (i) ‘marketized’ or ‘entrepreneurial’ universities, (ii) accountability, (iii) impact, (iv) state-directed relevance, and (v) political control of funding eligibility. The democratic relevance of these five dimensions is discussed in terms of their suitability for authoritarian schemes of tightening control over science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For instance, the British Academy found in 2008 that “a high proportion, often as high as 60%, of departmental research budgets is being allocated to short-term projects to meet current political and administrative demands”. Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers in the UK Government interviewed on behalf of the Academy said that they spent 40–60% of their research capacity on short-term and up to a further 20% on medium-term research (British Academy, 2008: X, 26, 32).
References
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411–431.
ARC [Australian Research Council]. (2018, November 27). Funding world-leading research. Media Release, https://www.arc.goc.au/new-publications/media/media-releases/funding-world-leading-research. Accessed 31 Mar 2020.
ARC [Australian Research Council]. (2020). Letter sent to assessors of grant applications.
ARC Controversy, The. (2018, December). Australian Book Review, 407. https://www.australianbookreview.com.au/abr-online/archive/2018/233-december-2018-no-407/5217-the-arc-controversy. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
Belot, H. (2018, October 31). Nobel Prize Winner Peter Doherty criticizes national interest test on research funding. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nobel-prize-winner-criticises-research-funding-overhaul/10450504. Accessed 23 Jan 2020.
Benjamin, R. (2018, October 31). I kicked a winning goal only to have the minister disallow it. Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-kicked-a-winning-goal-only-to-have-the-minister-disallow-it-20181030-p50cw2.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2020.
British Academy. (2008). Punching our weight: The humanities and social sciences in public policy making. The British Academy. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Punching-our-weight-Wilson.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2020.
Cerny, P. G. (1999). Globalization and the erosion of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 36, 1–26.
Committee. (2009, July 8). House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/168/168i.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2020.
Demeritt, D. (2000). The new social contract for science: Accountability, relevance and value in US and UK science and research policy. Antipode, 32, 308–329.
Dunleavy, P. (2012, October 22). REF advice note 1: Understanding Hefce’s definition of impact. LSE Blogs. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/72502/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-REF%20Advice%20Note%201%20Understanding%20Hefces%20definition%20of%20Impact.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2020.
Edgerton, D. (2009, July). The ‘Haldane Principle’ and other invented traditions in science policy. History and Policy. http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-haldane-principle-and-other-invented-traditions-in-science-policy. Accessed 26 Jan 2020.
Eisfeld, R. (2019). Empowering citizens, engaging the public: Political science for the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., & Nowotny, H., et al. (2010 [1994]). The new production of knowledge. Sage.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). Evaluation without evaluators: The impact of funding formulae on Australian University Research. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 127–151). Springer.
Gläser, J., & Velarde, K. S. (2018). Changing funding arrangements and the production of scientific knowledge. Minerva, 56, 1–10.
Hungarian Government. (2019). Ministry for Innovation and Technology: “The Reorganization of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is Reinforcing the Freedom of Research”. https://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-for-innovation-and-technology/news/the-reorganisation-of-the-hungarian-academy-of-sciences-is-reinforcing-the-freedom-of-research. Accessed 12 Apr 2020.
ICS. (2019, June 12). ICS president issues statement on academic freedom in Hungary. https://council.science/current/news/isc-president-issues-statement-on-academic-freedom-in-hungary/. Accessed 12 Apr 2020.
Impacts. (2014, October). (Canadian) Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences. The Impacts of Humanities and Social Science Research (Working Paper). https://www.ideas-idees.ca/sites/default/files/2014-10-03-impact-project-draft-report-english-version-final2.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2020.
Index Website. (2019). Hungarian academy of sciences stripped of its research network. https://index.hu/english/2019/07/02/hungarian_academy_of_sciences_research_network_taken_away_academic_freedom_ministry_of_innovation_and_technology/. Accessed 12 Apr 2020.
Jump, P. (2011, June 23). Haldane myth prevents a ‘grown-up approach’ to setting of research policy. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/haldane-myth-prevents-a-grown-up-approach-to-setting-of-research-policy/416585.ar-ticle. Accessed 26 Jan 2020.
Kelly, W. (2019). The emerging impact landscape. The Research Whisperer. https://researchwhisperer.org/2019/05/21/the-emerging-impact-landscape/. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
Knowledge and Innovation. A Policy Statement on Research and Research Training by the Australian Minister for Education. (1999). https://web.archive.org/web/20070221195656/, http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/whitepaper/report.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2020.
Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. (2015, April 23). Nature, 520, 429–431. https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.17351!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/520429a.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2020.
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. Yale University Press.
Maltby, J. (2008). There is no such thing as audit society. Ephemera, 8, 388–398.
Mandler, P. (2011, April 7). Wherefore Art Thou, Haldane? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/wherefore-art-thou-haldane-state-plans-for-humanities-research/415750.article. Accessed 26 Jan 2020.
MTA. (2019, June 12). International press conference at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. https://mta.hu./english/international-press-conference. Accessed 19 June 2019.
Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.
Newman, M. (2009, July 23). Abandon ‘out-of-date’ Haldane principle on research priorities. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/abandon-out-of-date-haldane-principle-on-research-priorities/407520.article. Accessed 27 Jan 2020.
Niedersächsischer Landtag. (2001). 14. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 14/2541. https://www.nilas.niedersachsen.de/starweb/NILAS/servlet.starweb?path=NILAS/lisshfl.web&id=NILASWEBFASTLINK&search=(NEDF,HEDF=%22HOCHSCHULGESETZ%22+AND+WP=14)+AND+NOT+%281SPER%2CSPER%3D%3F%2A%29&format=WEBVORGLFL. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2018, December 4). Journals of the Senate, 135. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/journals/24074a8f-3220-46da-b8b1-d5f01831a8ff/toc_pdf/sen-jn.pdf;fileType=application/pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (2000). The audit society—Second thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4, 111–119.
Research Excellence Framework (REF) - Key Facts. (2014). https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/REF%20Brief%20Guide%202014.pdf. Accessed 22 Mar 2020.
Roberts, A. (2014). Interview. British Academy Review, 23, 62–66. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/BAR23-12-Roberts.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2020.
Robson, A. (2008). G08 on removal of national governance protocols. https://go8.edu.au/?option=com_content&task=view&id=176, quoted in Vidovich & Currie, op. cit., p. 50.
Ross, J. (2019, March 4). New test makes Australian research boss a ‘political censor’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/new-test-makes-australian-research-boss-political-censor. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2012). https://sfdora.org/read/. Accessed 9 Mar 2020.
Schimank, U. (2005). ‘New public management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43, 361–376.
Schmidtlein, F. A. (2004). Assumptions commonly underlying government assessment practices. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 263–285.
Science Organizations in Germany. (2019, February 19). Open letter to minister for innovation and technology László Palkovics. https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopubli-cation/2019_02_19_Brief_an_ungarische_Regierung_Leibniz_01.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020.
Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and the new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32, 599–614.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. John Hopkins University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. W. W. Norton.
UCU [University and College Union, UK]. (2013). Statement opposing REF proposals. https://www.ucu.org.uk/REF/#statement. Accessed 28 Mar 2020.
UKRI. (2020). Impact, innovation, and interdisciplinary expectations. https://esrc.ukri.org/funding/guidance-for-applicants/impact-innovation-and-interdisciplinarity/. Accessed 6 May 2020.
Vavakova, B. (1998). The new social contract between governments, universities and society: Has the old one failed? Minerva, 36, 209–228.
Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 43–56.
Walker, S. (2019, June 13). Hungary eyes science research as latest target for state control. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/13/hungary-eyes-science-research-as-latest-target-for-state-control. Accessed 3 July 2019.
Weingart, P., & Maasen, S. (2007). Elite through rankings—The emergence of the enterprising university. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 75–99). Springer.
Whitley, R. (2007). Changing governance of the public sciences. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 3–27). Springer.
Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2018). The impact of changing funding and authority relationships on scientific innovations. Minerva, 56, 109–134.
Williams, K., & Grant, J. (2018). A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/273745/Kate%20Williams%20-%20Research%20Evaluation.pdf?sequence=3. Accessed 26 Mar 2020.
Wilsdon, J., et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2015-07/apo-nid56066.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2020.
Yates, L. (2019, July 18). Surf the tensions between your audiences. In L. Kamerlin & L. Yates et al. (Eds.), How to win a research grant. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/how-win-research-grant. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eisfeld, R. (2021). Towards a Tyranny of Politically Selected Relevance? Co-option Through State-Directed Research Funding. In: Eisfeld, R., Flinders, M. (eds) Political Science in the Shadow of the State. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75918-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75918-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75917-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75918-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)