Hi David. Minister Collins's idea of making research serve the goal of economic growth is, of course, narrowly and absurdly utilitarian. And I'm sure many scholars in humanities and social sciences feel angry about their panels being dumped. On the other hand, this will relieve them of a lot of time-wasting, stess and pressure as applicants (or supplicants) for funding. They won't have those academic gatekeepers and powerbrokers controlling what they do. They won't have to second-guess what the committee might think as they massage their proposals. Although Collins never meant it this way, ending those funding panels may allow scholars to be more free to undertake open critical inquiry. And there's no shortage of free material to study these days. I never once applied to Marsden, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time. My results may not have been all that impressive (see my Google scholar profile) but I was productive – without having to ask the permission of a funding committee. Along with the scrapping of the invidious PBRF assessment, I see this policy, counter-intuitively, as potentially reducing bureaucratic interference in academic freedom. There's a silver lining. Cheers, Grant.
Kia ora Grant, and thank you for taking the time to comment. You raise a challengingly different point of view, and I take it that when you refer to an unforeseen silver lining, you're making the best of a bad job.
But I want to insist that it really is a bad job. It is not for cabinet ministers to decide on the apparent value of different disciplines for the academic community, any more than say, the content of publicly-supported radio. Or for that matter, the topics that you yourself could teach in political science.
It's sadly reminiscent of the Harris Government in Ontario in the mid-90s, which publicly denigrated the humanities and social sciences, as part of the process of converting the province into a neoliberal haven.
As you say, there's an issue of academic freedom here. Collins and Harris both moved to limit freedom of action for tertiary staff. In this context I recall a remark you made years ago, directed to academics, "You've got academic freedom [under the Education Act], you have to exercise it." The angle is rather different in the Marsden issue, but academic freedom remains a vital matter.
You're right that it can be an invidious process applying for research funds. Even so, tertiary staff put themselves through it because they want funds to enable research and not incidentally, to get time off often heavy teaching loads to carry out their projects. Because of this kind of funding, scarce though it is, we benefit as a nation from numerous projects like Prof Linda Mitchell's Marsden on Early Childhood Education or Prof Martin Tolich's project on ethical review of research studies.
The crucial difference is that it is the tertiary sector that makes the decisions to fund or not to fund, not a cabinet minister working from a particular ideology and looking for political gain.
In other words, as I'm sure you know, Collins' decision is itself a form of bureaucratic interference that further limits the creative construction of knowledge in the tertiary sector. That suggests we need to consider the wider systemic outlook and ask where this kind of government intervention is going. So here's a couple of obvious questions: Is it in the national interest to prioritise STEM and business-industry interests through the tertiary sector? And what else does government have in mind for tertiary?
It isn't new. For years Tertiary Education Strategies have promoted the value of education for industry and employment. For 2007-2012, The Tertiary Education Strategy called for “improving the responsiveness of the tertiary education system to the skills needs of industry and business” (p. 13). Then in the next round, Priority 1 "Delivering skills for industry," stated, "The priority is to ensure that the skills people develop in tertiary education are well matched to labour market needs.," (TES 2014-2019, p. 10a)
So there's a question of democratic action at play here over a government elected to represent the interests of its people vs a government deciding instead to represent its own interests.
There's also a question of corporatism in choosing to turn part of the tertiary sector decidedly towards business interests. We might recall the previous National Government in which Tertiary Minister Steven Joyce converted tertiary councils into a corporate model, cutting out staff and student voices amongst others. One notes he's presently a highly paid advisor to the current Government.
There's something to make clear here. None of the above is an argument to do away with the political process or MMP. Nor is it an argument for simply panning a position because "it's ideological." Nor is it a case against recognising ideology in decision-making of governments or the tertiary sector. On the contrary, as you would well know, it's essential to acknowledge and interpret the kinds of ideologies constantly at play in our lives.
Thank you for your comment, and sorry for the overly earnest tone above.
Kia ora David. Thanks for your reply. I endorse all that you've said. It's just that there are two sides to this coin. Academic staff have been increasingly (and anxiously) navigating what I'd call a 'permission structure' in order to do research and to have their research validated. Assessment panels, funding committees, ethics committees, promotions committees and peer-review all require academics to 'second-guess' what (often anonymous) colleagues might think so that they can get permission and/or funding, and often just keep their jobs. The PBRF assessment was an appalling time-waster, and Marsden is part of that whole academic-institutional power structure. Because I never sought a 'licence to think' from those academic gatekeepers, my research was never 'celebrated' by them, but neither was it controlled by them – nor could they reduce it to mediocrity. And I always had a full teaching load. I never even asked for 'buy-out'. Consequently, I often did teaching-led research. And, if you'll forgive a moment of immodesty, I'd argue that some of my work was leading its field intellectually. I'd advise colleagues again to just get on and work for their academic freedom, rather than scrabble for permission in the form of dollars granted by institutional power-brokers. Getting out of Marsden will free up time and reduce competition between colleagues for scarce resources. But that doesn't contradict what you've said! Cheers. Grant
Hi David. Minister Collins's idea of making research serve the goal of economic growth is, of course, narrowly and absurdly utilitarian. And I'm sure many scholars in humanities and social sciences feel angry about their panels being dumped. On the other hand, this will relieve them of a lot of time-wasting, stess and pressure as applicants (or supplicants) for funding. They won't have those academic gatekeepers and powerbrokers controlling what they do. They won't have to second-guess what the committee might think as they massage their proposals. Although Collins never meant it this way, ending those funding panels may allow scholars to be more free to undertake open critical inquiry. And there's no shortage of free material to study these days. I never once applied to Marsden, and I'm glad I didn't waste my time. My results may not have been all that impressive (see my Google scholar profile) but I was productive – without having to ask the permission of a funding committee. Along with the scrapping of the invidious PBRF assessment, I see this policy, counter-intuitively, as potentially reducing bureaucratic interference in academic freedom. There's a silver lining. Cheers, Grant.
Kia ora Grant, and thank you for taking the time to comment. You raise a challengingly different point of view, and I take it that when you refer to an unforeseen silver lining, you're making the best of a bad job.
But I want to insist that it really is a bad job. It is not for cabinet ministers to decide on the apparent value of different disciplines for the academic community, any more than say, the content of publicly-supported radio. Or for that matter, the topics that you yourself could teach in political science.
It's sadly reminiscent of the Harris Government in Ontario in the mid-90s, which publicly denigrated the humanities and social sciences, as part of the process of converting the province into a neoliberal haven.
As you say, there's an issue of academic freedom here. Collins and Harris both moved to limit freedom of action for tertiary staff. In this context I recall a remark you made years ago, directed to academics, "You've got academic freedom [under the Education Act], you have to exercise it." The angle is rather different in the Marsden issue, but academic freedom remains a vital matter.
You're right that it can be an invidious process applying for research funds. Even so, tertiary staff put themselves through it because they want funds to enable research and not incidentally, to get time off often heavy teaching loads to carry out their projects. Because of this kind of funding, scarce though it is, we benefit as a nation from numerous projects like Prof Linda Mitchell's Marsden on Early Childhood Education or Prof Martin Tolich's project on ethical review of research studies.
The crucial difference is that it is the tertiary sector that makes the decisions to fund or not to fund, not a cabinet minister working from a particular ideology and looking for political gain.
In other words, as I'm sure you know, Collins' decision is itself a form of bureaucratic interference that further limits the creative construction of knowledge in the tertiary sector. That suggests we need to consider the wider systemic outlook and ask where this kind of government intervention is going. So here's a couple of obvious questions: Is it in the national interest to prioritise STEM and business-industry interests through the tertiary sector? And what else does government have in mind for tertiary?
It isn't new. For years Tertiary Education Strategies have promoted the value of education for industry and employment. For 2007-2012, The Tertiary Education Strategy called for “improving the responsiveness of the tertiary education system to the skills needs of industry and business” (p. 13). Then in the next round, Priority 1 "Delivering skills for industry," stated, "The priority is to ensure that the skills people develop in tertiary education are well matched to labour market needs.," (TES 2014-2019, p. 10a)
So there's a question of democratic action at play here over a government elected to represent the interests of its people vs a government deciding instead to represent its own interests.
There's also a question of corporatism in choosing to turn part of the tertiary sector decidedly towards business interests. We might recall the previous National Government in which Tertiary Minister Steven Joyce converted tertiary councils into a corporate model, cutting out staff and student voices amongst others. One notes he's presently a highly paid advisor to the current Government.
There's something to make clear here. None of the above is an argument to do away with the political process or MMP. Nor is it an argument for simply panning a position because "it's ideological." Nor is it a case against recognising ideology in decision-making of governments or the tertiary sector. On the contrary, as you would well know, it's essential to acknowledge and interpret the kinds of ideologies constantly at play in our lives.
Thank you for your comment, and sorry for the overly earnest tone above.
Kia kaha, David
Kia ora David. Thanks for your reply. I endorse all that you've said. It's just that there are two sides to this coin. Academic staff have been increasingly (and anxiously) navigating what I'd call a 'permission structure' in order to do research and to have their research validated. Assessment panels, funding committees, ethics committees, promotions committees and peer-review all require academics to 'second-guess' what (often anonymous) colleagues might think so that they can get permission and/or funding, and often just keep their jobs. The PBRF assessment was an appalling time-waster, and Marsden is part of that whole academic-institutional power structure. Because I never sought a 'licence to think' from those academic gatekeepers, my research was never 'celebrated' by them, but neither was it controlled by them – nor could they reduce it to mediocrity. And I always had a full teaching load. I never even asked for 'buy-out'. Consequently, I often did teaching-led research. And, if you'll forgive a moment of immodesty, I'd argue that some of my work was leading its field intellectually. I'd advise colleagues again to just get on and work for their academic freedom, rather than scrabble for permission in the form of dollars granted by institutional power-brokers. Getting out of Marsden will free up time and reduce competition between colleagues for scarce resources. But that doesn't contradict what you've said! Cheers. Grant