Launch of Bacchus Reading Group
I suggest we start a monthly Bacchus reading group with the overall aim to explore the relation and possible overlaps and/or contradictions between promoting ‘research impact’ and maintaining ‘academic freedom’. Arguably, there may be friction between these two concepts as both are inferring a process and end-result simultaneously. For research impact the pre-selection bias of managerial decisions and research evaluation primarily refer to the end result deemed as beneficial per (REF) definition, yet achieving benefit is only ever possible through a process. Likewise, academic freedom as much as making demands of process also represents a desired goal. As such, any scientific approach to such big concepts needs to investigate both the negative and positive influence on society, in order to better understand how these processes functions. Hence, the reading group is to both serve as an open space for discussion and learn more about how to avoid biases in the process (see comment below).
Starting a new reading group is always difficult, especially given how incredibly busy everyone is. As such, why not start with a short four thousand-word essay on the very ‘Idea of a University today’ in order to triangulate the right level of abstraction/interest. In the ensuing discussion, we then can collectively decide which aspects of the impact generation or challenges to academic freedom to explore in future sessions to better understand how unintended consequences can arise within these processes/aims. The full reference is:
Anderson, R. (2010). The ‘Idea of a University’ today. History & Policy, 1, 22-26.
https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-idea-of-a-university-today
Likewise, to help ourselves start the conversation I have formulated three brief questions:
# How has the introduction of research impact assessment changed the landscape, as opposed to this ten-year-old paper?
# How do these wider developments of a changing university influence your own research interests?
# What avenues for action exist to voice dissent/strengthen ongoing developments?
Last but not least, I intend to keep a blog style log of the issues discussed. As to give individuals who could not attend that particular week a means to still participate and overview what the discussion issues were. So that they then can join in the subsequent sessions.
Comment: It could be argued that these biases occur, because university managerial decisions around impact take into consideration, economic feasibility, political viability, student recruitment, reputational cost and other aspects to just mention a few, that all can conflict with the actual benefit of a research project. Unintentionally curtailing academic freedom due to a cost benefit analysis of it being beneficial in one dimension, but not in all of them. Likewise, the REF panel evaluates impact based on ‘reach’ and ‘significance’, preselecting for impacts to align with these categories and not necessarily the rigour of the presentation or what issues exist with deeming something beneficial in the first place.
