May I welcome you on behalf of SCASS to the Ninth Public Conference, on Arts and Social Sciences: the Research Future. May I also welcome our guests: as keynote speakers Professor Laver, Chairman of the Humanities Research Board, and Professor Ronald Amann, Chief Executive of the ESRC; as panel members Mr John Bagnall, Librarian, University of Dundee, Dr Marilyn Butler, Principal, Exeter College, University of Oxford, Professor Mike Harloe, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Essex; and among the Chairs of the Workshop Groups, Dr Ronald Barnett, Institute of Education, University of London and Dr Steven Smith of the Institute of Historical Research. May I also take the opportunity to express once again our gratitude to the Institute for so kindly making its facilities available. We have apologies from Professors John Griffith and Ron Johnston and from Wendy Rigby (HEFCE).
The question of what kind of research future can be envisaged for arts and social sciences is one which currently exercises us all. The research dimension to our work is the one that determines its perspective and possibilities overall. With the facilities to engage in research, our work remains open to innovation and we ourselves have the spur and the scope for creative criticism within our disciplines. Without a research capacity, we risk being limited to reproducing that which already is, both in our own thinking and in our teaching. We find ourselves ploughing over known ground until we have exhausted its usefulness. Limits on research are also limits on teaching. Departments that are properly funded for individual staff research have more choice about what levels they can teach at. They have more choice about what kind of courses they can teach, what size of classes they will have, what range of teaching methods they can afford and what opportunities they can give to students to develop their own capacity for independent creative thought. Crucially, for example, they will have more money for library investment.
The Government policies that SCASS has been tracking for the last few years and of which all present have had first-hand experience are now coming together to create a pressing set of problems. First, as ever, comes the problem of inadequate funding for an expanded system, exacerbated by the splitting of funding for teaching and research and the effects of selective research funding. These factors together are now redrawing the binary line to worse effect than before, in ways that are more restrictive of opportunity of all kinds, more damaging to the healthy growth of the system as a whole, and much harder to remedy. Secondly, there is the continuing difficulty of working with a funding system that is blind to the needs of a substantial part of the sector it is supposed to serve. Science-led funding patterns, geared to disciplines with heavy space and equipment costs, where resources can be concentrated to good effect, are not well-matched to disciplines where teamwork is still less common and in many instances less appropriate than individual research, where scholarly networks are wide-meshed and widespread, and where researchers need access to a range of diverse and widely scattered materials. And thirdly, there is the problem of working within the market-led priorities of a Government which is increasingly overt about its preference for funding 'useful' research. Our work is useful, but not in ways that show up very easily on a balance sheet. The politics of wealth creation must be a major issue on today's agenda.
There have of course also been positive developments within the present situation. One is the availability of new technology to improve access to data. The Follitt Report has been important in bringing this to the forefront, though we may not like all the funding decisions that are being taken in consequence of it. Important too is the breaking-down of boundaries between disciplines and the fact that it is beginning to get easier to carry out interdisciplinary work. There is - thanks to a great deal of lobbying - a new awareness of the importance of the postgraduate sector and the need to expand and fund it. And finally, as important as any of these are the organisational changes in the funding bodies that support our work. Reorganisation of the Research Councils has not been entirely advantageous to the ESRC, but even so the ESRC has gained considerable additional status in recent years, thanks to the effort and enterprise of Howard Newby. It now passes into the capable hands of Ron Amann, and we look forward to further productive developments. The Humanities Research Board has not been established very long, but thanks to John Laver's hard work it is already firmly on the map. Humanities academics have much appreciated the efforts John has made over the past year to meet people, to talk to them about new projects and to draw the research community together in defence of its own interests.
Today's business is to take an overview of the position, understand where the problems lie and canvass possible solutions. We start with statements from the keynote speakers about their particular areas of responsibility, followed by questions from the floor. The Workshop Groups in the afternoon should let people investigate topics in greater depth. Could I ask Chairs to make sure that notes are taken so that we can have a report of each group for publication in the Proceedings, and also to prepare a question for the afternoon Panel which will focus the central points of their debate. May I now without further ado hand you over to Professor Laver.