The AHRC and the "Big Society" (III)

This is almost getting too silly for words. In the latest issue of the Times Higher Professor Rick Rylance has defended the use of the language of the "big society" in the delivery plan of the AHRC once again. It has to be said, however, that the kind of defence offered is such as almost to make further attack unnecessary. Firstly, the defence is that whilst the notion of the "big society" was once a slogan attached to a particular political party, it is now, apparently, a legitimate area of research for the humanities given that it has become public policy. The suggestion appears to be that when something that was party political in an election campaign is subsequently adopted in government it has ceased to be a party political matter. This is surely a new view of the relationship between parties, policies and research!


The second "point" in favour is that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg apparently made a statement eliding the "big society" with a number of other words, including the word "liberalism" and this apparently shows for sure that the term "big society" has no specific party political content. The fact that Clegg could make such an astoundingly stupid comment does not licence Professor Rylance to retail it further. It remains a stupid comment, no matter how often repeated or by whom. The fact that the leader of one of the two parties in the Coalition (a party that did not previously tout the idea of the "big society") has now adopted the language of the other party in the Coalition hardly shows that the phrase in question has ceased to have political content.


Thirdly, Rylance claims that the phrase "big society" found its way into what he terms the "grey literature" which is, apparently, a place where advocacy and research literature get bound up together. Whatever the "grey literature" is it would appear to belong within the province of social science and not humanities so it is again unclear how this reference is supposed to produce an argument for the AHRC's research mission statement.


Finally, Rylance ends his piece by stating that adoption of the language of the government of the day does not imply support for their specific policies and it is a "caricature" to speak as though it does. The fact that there is a difference between the general language of the "big society" and specific proposals in support of it is true. However, it is also the case that the notion of the "big society" does indicate a particular attitude towards government and civil society and this attitude is not politically neutral. There could be research into why politicians adopt such phrases and into what is meant by focusing on them. That would be fair but to adopt the language itself as if it were neutral between approaches to social policy is hardly to manifest such neutrality, it speaks bias and Professor Rylance seems to wish the rest of us to think that it doesn't.

Related articles

• The AHRC and the "Big Society" (kantinternational.blogspot.com)
• Petition to remove "Big Society" as Strategic Area for AHRC (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• The AHRC and the "Big Society" (II) (kantinternational.blogspot.com)
• Row over research funding and David Cameron's Big Society (guardian.co.uk)
• "Petition to remove "The Big Society" as an AHRC research funding priority" and related posts (the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com)
• Research must not be tied to politics | Stefan Collini (guardian.co.uk)
• Research into Tory slogans: it gets worse (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)

The AHRC and the "Big Society" (II)

There remains a bit more to add on this question even after yesterday's posting. Firstly, I forgot to add the point that Professor Bob Brecher has resigned his membership of the AHRC's Peer Review College in protest against the way the theme of the "Big Society" has become an integral part of one of its priority research areas. Secondly, there is now a petition that can be signed in protest against the AHRC's decision to include reference to the "Big Society" in a key priority research area. Thirdly, there are also two postings on this topic that bear looking at: a) Iain Pears dissects this decision on the AHRC's part in relation to the so-called "Haldane Principle"; b) James Sumner uncovers the history of this story carefully bringing out that everyone should have started making a fuss about this a little earlier.

Related articles

• "Petition to remove "The Big Society" as an AHRC research funding priority" and related posts (the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com)
• Petition to remove "Big Society" as Strategic Area for AHRC (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• Research into Tory slogans: it gets worse (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• How will teaching be affected by the Big society curriculum? (liberalconspiracy.org)
• Tom Sutcliffe: When did the Big Society turn into Big Brother? (independent.co.uk)
• Academic fury over order to study the big society (guardian.co.uk)

The AHRC and the "Big Society"

I was somewhat surprised to find that the Observer reported yesterday on the news that the Arts and Humanities Research Council has been designating research into the "big society" a priority area. I was surprised because I didn't think this was new news, not least because it was discussed (albeit briefly) on this blog some days ago. However, I was even more surprised to read that the AHRC has replied to the Observer story by posting, on the main news list for philosophers in the UK, Philos-L, an apparent "denial" of the story.


The denial was issued by no less a person than Professor Rick Rylance, the Chief Executive of the AHRC though it is interesting to note precisely what Professor Rylance chose to deny from the Observer story. What Professor Rylance focuses on is the idea that the AHRC either was pressured to accept the "big society" idea as a priority research area or that it developed it in response to Tory election slogans from last year. Instead, the idea arose from within the AHRC itself and was something that, whilst relevant to the agenda of the current government, was not apparently commissioned by it. It is, though, true, as you can see by checking the AHRC's own site, that the focus on the "big society" and the using of the language of the "big society" is something explicit in the council's own description of one of its key priority research areas. That focus on such a notion can be defended by Professor Rylance is somewhat bizarre. Further it is explicitly stated in documentation of the area that there is a link not just with the language of government policy but with the explicit idea of it:

Radical new policies on the „Big Society‟ & localism at the heart of the new Coalition Government‟s strategy in England represent a major „social experiment‟ and research opportunity, have created urgent new needs for research to inform policy and require a step change in research engagement with local communities and groups, the third sector and local government.

So the substance of Professor Rylance's argument with the Observer story appears to boil down to the point that the AHRC thought of focusing on this idea of the "big society" before the government did but is happy to assert a link to it quite explicitly now it is government policy. And who is supposed to be satisfied with this as a response?


That no one is satisfied is apparent from the discussion of this same story that was run in the Times Higher where this time the defence is that the idea of the way this research priority area has been defined is due to needing to speak to government in a language it "understands". Such language has also defined here the specific nature and sense of the enquiry in question as is clear from the citation above. That the AHRC itself chose to make itself such a tool of government rather than requiring "pressure" from them makes the situation worse rather than better.

Related articles

• Academic fury over order to study the big society (guardian.co.uk)
• Academics required to gear research to coalition slogan (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)
• Why is the government imposing 'Big society' on academia? (liberalconspiracy.org)