September 2021
This month reports summarises four pieces of research that in/directly relate to the impact of universities. The first item represents a book chapter in Russell’s (2016) book on ‘The Impact of Science on Society’. The second constitutes a call to action and rethinking of open access publication (MacLeavy et al., 2020). The third piece represents an exploration of the role of the university in an age of supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000). The last study explores the unintended consequences of the research impact agenda (Brauer et al, 2021).
[1]) In this Chapter on ‘Science and Values’ Russell discusses the factors that may impede the benign influence of science upon society, and misusing the very advances brought about by science. Largely, he identifies two groups as potential culprits for the misuse of science. The first one being the pragmatists, that regard truth as a mere means of utility in their struggle for power, and secondly fanatics, both ideological and religious, in their pursuit of their utopia. His argument is that only a scientific spirit that is humble, rational and guided by "Christian love" can represent the bulwark of thwarting the misuse of science away from beneficial aims for the good of all mankind.
[2]) The authors argue that open access and the commercialisation of academic publication creates inequalities within academic knowledge production. For example, they claim that article publishing charges “create different impediments to ensuring society's access to knowledge by creating new inequalities between subjects and individual academics, some working in cash-rich areas, others not.” (p. 11). Furthermore, the humanities and social sciences – as well as the Global South – is then excluded from the production of knowledge as they usually do not operate with large budgets. The authors suggest a return to publication model managed by professional societies as non-profit venture as a potential solution.
[3]) The publication was originally a speech delivered to the University of Bahrain, and in it Barnett acknowledges that the 21th century creates an existential challenge for university and education. He acknowledges that the technological reality creates an age of supercomplexity, where any knowledge claims are contingent, and have to vie for justification amongst other potentially competing claims. Furthermore, this is not just a postmodern incredulity with metanarratives but a situation characterised by anxiety and stress, as no solid epistemological grounds for knowledge exist. Nevertheless, he argues that there is hope in re-discovering the cultural mission of the university, emphasising self-improvement and rationality as potential to therapeutic forms of knowledge.
[4]) Within the conceptual piece the authors argue that the impact agenda propositions a different end for research, instead of the traditional advancement of knowledge the societal benefit is emphasized. With this shift in end-goal, there is a shift in the associated logic of how knowledge claims are construed. The impact logic cannot tolerate criticism, without lowering its own claims of significance within the political contestation of what ought to count as beneficial in the first place. The unintended consequences is the ossification of contemporary values, from which the logic departs in order to main its justification. The newly established, impact or starve paradigm then propagates an audit logic to every aspect of the research aspect, in the process stifling innovation and increasing social tensions.
[1] Russell, B., [1953] (2016). ‘Science and Values’. In Russel, B. The impact of science on society. Routledge. pp. 77-95.
[2] MacLeavy, J., Harris, R., & Johnston, R. (2020). The unintended consequences of Open Access publishing–And possible futures. Geoforum, 112, 9-12.
[3] Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher education, 40(4), 409-422.
[4] Brauer, R., Dymitrow, M., Worsdell, F., & Walsh, J. (2021). What is the research impact of (the ideal of) scientific truth?. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(2), 113–136.
