Thread by @Skourkos1

It is worth unpacking how this letter redefines research and scholarship in the humanities and law. The repercussions of this redefinition extend far beyond Birmingham. thread 1/15

https://twitter.com/USSbriefs/status/1108279168599502849

Key premise: research activity not externally funded is ‘unfunded time’ and therefore a problem to be solved. It is not a university’s role to fund research time. 2/15

It follows that growing levels of research time mean time wasted – in activities detrimental to “Education” - it is unclear what education means here other than TEF league table scores. 3/15

Thus redefined Research and Education are prised apart and become antagonistic – with Education presented as a neglected and marginalised area of university work especially by those who waste time in unfunded research 4/15

The letter then proceeds to spell out that there is no necessary correlation between time reserved for unfunded research and reputation – because only securing
external funding can enhance reputation. 5/15

This is because only large grants can support international collaborations necessary for the production of reputation 6/15

In the logic of this letter “ it is the combination of such collaborations and world-class outputs that are most likely to attract the most prestigious and interesting visiting scholars” 7/15

It follows that humanities (and social science) models of research – or, as the letter calls these, “lone scholar” work, is unlikely to produce 4* outputs 8/15

In short, unfunded research contributes neither to education nor to university reputation – rather it is a parasitic activity which has grown to worrying levels and needs to be managed. 9/15

Academics in the humanities and law must find a way to fall in line with a STEM-like model of productivity and of doing research 10/15

This conclusion is articulated in the obligatory consultese and through
a discourse of natural forces moving inexorably forward and to which we have no choice but to adapt: in education ‘activities and demands are constantly evolving’ 11/15

‘Change is necessary’ – ‘inaction is not an option’ - ie it is not our decision to do this, our hand is forced by the agency of facts and figures and the need to balance our ledgers 12/15

Of course nothing is finalised yet “the proposed new values will be discussed more widely” - the promise of consultation aka the customary fig leaf of authoritarian governance 13/15

Except everything is finalised: ‘incentivising grant capture is in the interests of all of us’ – because nobody wants the alternative - redundancies 14/15

Nothing like a gun to the head to persuade uppity
university workers that their interests align with those of SMT. #YesUniCan 15/15