KILLINGS, daily columns and blog —

Politics

Humanities versus medicine: the Coalition’s funding battleground

by Julia Tulloh , October 7, 20131 Comment
pencils

Image credit: ArtfulVintage

Just prior to this year’s federal election, former Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and Liberal MP Jamie Briggs (Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) announced that one of the ways in which the Coalition would crack down on Labor’s financial waste would be through an audit of ‘increasingly ridiculous research grants’ awarded through the Australian Research Council (ARC), the statutory agency responsible for distributing federal funding to humanities and scientific research. The Coalition has promised that overall, research funding won’t be reduced; rather, according to Hockey in a press conference and interviews, up to $103 million will be taken from spending on irrelevant research funded through the ARC and redirected to medical research (which is funded separately), including investment in cures for and treatment of diabetes and dementia.

On the surface, the Coalition’s promise appears positive for Australia: an increase in funding for research into incurable diseases that affect a large proportion of the population, and a tightening up of the distribution rules for research funding more generally. A closer inspection of the Coalition’s comments, though, reveals a number of problems.

The first problem is a bias against humanities research. Briggs and Hockey singled out four ARC-funded humanities projects that ‘do little, if anything, to advance Australians’ research needs’: a philosophy project exploring notions of selfhood ($595,000); a project about sexuality and reproductive technology amongst Muslims in Egypt ($160,000); another philosophy project, called  ‘The God of Hegel’s Post-Kantian idealism’ ($443,000); and an exploration of how public art might respond to climate change ($164,000).

By listing these projects in particular, the Coalition implicitly pitted humanities research against medical research, as if some battleground existed where funding in one area resulted in poorer outcomes in the other. This is not the case. I imagine very few humanities researchers would support a reduction in health and medical research; furthermore, how does humanities funding, or ARC funding generally, causally affect how much money is invested in medical research? It does not, unless the government chooses to distribute funding this way, in so doing creating a sense of competition between research disciplines that need not exist.

Nevertheless, in creating this discussion, the Coalition has tapped into a pre-existing social bias that presumes that arts-based projects are self-indulgent. One commenter on an article in The Australian claimed that the projects listed above were  ‘esoteric’ and led to high numbers of  ‘unemployable graduates with HECS debts and worthless degrees cluttering up Centrelink offices.’ Ironically, such remarks are not based on evidence; more and more, governments and businesses are actively seeking to employ humanities graduates since their reading, writing and critical thinking skills are often superior to graduates from other disciplines—Google being the most famous example of this.

I concede that the projects cited by the Coalition may sound obscure if you’re unfamiliar with philosophy, sexuality studies, or contemporary art studies. However, as a humanities researcher myself, I experience the same sense of unfamiliarity when I hear the titles of science or health-based projects. This doesn’t mean I write them off as useless. It means I ask an expert for an explanation of the importance of the project. If the experts believe the project is not valuable, fine; that decision is for experts—not for politicians.

Thankfully, the experts have spoken out. Dr Lisa Wynn, who heads up the project about reproductive technology in Egypt, has responded via interview with ABC Local Radio and blog Culture Matters to explain the significance of her project. In summary, she explains:

‘It’s a case study that boils down to a very fundamental and interesting question: how much do religious authorities influence what Muslims think and do? Considering that Australia has 350,000 Muslims, I would think even the Liberal Party would like to know the answer to that question.

This is just one example of the way in which a research topic that may sound obscure to a layperson can actually yield results which affect national policy. Again, this reflects the importance of letting experts explain the significance of their research, rather than pre-judging them.

There is of course a broader problem with the Coalition’s approach to research funding – the belief that the relevance and outcomes of research improve when politicians, rather than experts, decide which projects receive funding.

This belief ignores the already rigorous and competitive process that ARC funding applicants must undertake in order to receive funding. Applicants must submit long, detailed and meticulously researched proposals for their intended research. Teams of highly qualified, experienced researchers then peer review all applications to ensure that only the best submissions (out of the thousands that apply) get funded. Furthermore, the ARC is subject to strict, regular evaluation regarding the quality of the research it funds by the Australian National Audit Office, as well as a number of other external bodies as outlined in the ARC Annual Report.

Since the Coalition’s announcement, academics around Australia have responded with incredulity and anger, observing that politicians were making sweeping statements about the worth of research that they knew nothing about. Many high profile researchers, universities and other research organisations have expressed deep concern about politicians replacing the existing ARC peer review process. Nobel Prize winner, Professor Peter Doherty from the University of Melbourne’s Medical School, hopes that ‘we’re not moving back to the Howard era where a committee of supremely unqualified people scrutinised ARC grant titles for “political correctness”’; Winthrop Professor Krishna Sen has argued that ‘Overt political interference can only diminish the quality of academic research and in many instances deprive government of the evidence-base needed for good policy making.’

Doherty’s and Sen’s statements reveal the contradiction at the heart of the Coalition’s comments: on the one hand, the Coalition wants to promote relevant and ground-breaking research; on the other, the Coalition wants to appoint a group of non-experts—i.e. themselves—as arbiters of this relevant research, threatening the autonomy of Australian research with political goals that are not necessarily evidence-based.

Julia Tulloh is a freelance writer, and is completing a PhD in Literature at the University of Melbourne. Her essay ‘What happens next?: 50 years of Doctor Who appears in Issue 15 of Kill Your Darlings. 




Frances Abbott

David Donaldson

Why #whitehousegate matters

A few days after the release of the budget, in which the Coalition government announced it was spreading the burden by increasing university fees, cutting school funding, and cutting welfare for young people comes a story that confirms what many already suspect to be the nature of opportunity: it’s much easier to come by if you’re born into privilege. Read more »

money

David Donaldson

When does lobbying become corruption?

Whether it’s Clive Palmer buying his way into parliament, the recent, varied ICAC revelations of dodgy fundraising in the NSW Liberal party, or the refusal or inability of successive governments to effectively tackle powerful corporate interests in industries like gambling, mining, media, and junk food, there is a feeling among many Australians that democracy is up for sale. Read more »

cluster munition

David Donaldson

How to make treaties and influence people

In an era when Russia can annex Ukrainian territory, when the Refugee Convention is regularly flouted, and when nobody seems to be able to do anything to stop the carnage in Syria, it can be tempting to ask: what can international law actually achieve? Read more »

My Salinger Year

Carody Culver

Searching for Mr Salinger

Joanna Rakoff’s book is ‘the truth, told as best [she] could’, of her year as an assistant at one of New York’s oldest literary agencies, a job for which many an Arts graduate would sell a kidney. Read more »

editing

Carody Culver

Giving voice to a silent profession

The role editors play in the process of ushering new writing into the world is both vitally important and strangely overlooked. Read more »

354_1

Hannah Kent

Highbrow vs Lowbrow: Hannah Kent defends Highbrow Literature

I understand why many people have a problem with highbrow literature. ‘Intellectual snobbery’ is a common accusation, as though the reason people read and write the stuff is solely to intimidate their dinner guests. ‘Highbrow literature is for wankers,’ I hear them say. Well, ladies and gentlemen, so is Fifty Shades of Grey. Read more »

Mariah Carey

Is she Mariah, the ‘elusive’ chanteuse?

Two weeks ago, Mariah Carey launched her fourteenth studio album, Me. I am Mariah…The Elusive Chanteuse. Yes, that’s the real name, and it’s hilarious not only because the title is so long and happily shameless but because Mariah has long styled herself as one of the least elusive pop stars in the pop music galaxy. Read more »

Douglass books

Julia Tulloh

High fantasy writers who aren’t George RR Martin, and who are also women

‘Tolkien is the greatest burden the modern fantasy author must labour under and eventually escape from if they are to succeed.’ So wrote Australian high fantasy writer, Sara Douglass, a decade and a half ago. Replace Tolkien with George RR Martin, and one might say the same principle applies today. Read more »

Conchita Wurst

Julia Tulloh

Why Eurovision 2014 was a bit disappointing

No one watches Eurovision to discover surprise new talent, or even to hear good singing. I watch it for the kitschy, pop-tastic visual onslaught which rarely fails to assault viewers. Read more »

Gabrielle

Rochelle Siemienowicz

Beyond tics, limps and prosthetics

Think of a disability – mental or physical – and there’s sure to be a film that features it. What about giving big roles to actors who actually live with the disability they’re depicting? Now that would be authentic. Read more »

Under the Skin

Rochelle Siemienowicz

Size Matters

Bigger isn’t always better, but some films will open themselves up to you and pour themselves out in new ways when you see them on a cinema screen. Read more »

Babadook

Rochelle Siemienowicz

Bad Mothers

Movies – especially horror and psychological thrillers – have always loved to explore and exorcise our deepest fears, and when it comes to mothers those fears are many. Read more »

5881861191_90de8b5bc9

Connor Tomas O'Brien

Making trolls eat their words

If we’re not conscious of a troll’s desired response, we risk inadvertently encouraging further trolling by allowing ourselves to be played. Read more »

filter

Reality vs. Instagram

It’s been over three years since Instagram launched, and we’re still not sure whether processing a photograph might be considered akin to doctoring a memory. Read more »

2014 Budget

Connor Tomas O'Brien

Could we crowdfund the dole?

Following the announcement of the 2014 budget, the director of a leading arts organisation posed a question on Facebook: ‘What recourse do the people have to stop these changes? What are next steps? Would be curious to know of any other effective measures to get the message across… apart from complaining on Twitter.’ Read more »

tumblr_inline_n6wz16ohb91r8e10g

Danielle Binks

YA is the New Black

Apparently those of us who do read and enjoy youth literature should be ‘embarrassed’. At least that’s what Ruth Graham said in her recent clickbait article for Slate, ‘Against YA’. Read more »

A Little Pretty Pocket Book

Danielle Binks

Who run the book world? GIRLS!

‘It’s no wonder boys aren’t reading – the children’s book market is run by women.’ So claimed the headline of an April article in The Times.

*Cue Liz Lemon eye-roll* Read more »

The Fault in Our Stars

Danielle Binks

The Fault in the Cult of John Green

I like John Green as much as the next YA-aficionado. I’ve snot-cried through his books, and chuckled over his YouTube videos. But now it’s time to talk about the media-led oversaturation of John Green, and the insulting way he’s been heralded as the saviour of young adult fiction. Read more »

splash

Chad Parkhill

Queering the Power: The Soft Pink Truth’s Why Do the Heathen Rage?

The Soft Pink Truth’s new album ‘Why Do the Heathen Rage’ demonstrates that despite their superficial differences, dance music and black metal have a lot in common. Read more »

The Knife

Chad Parkhill

Never Settled: The Knife’s Shaken-Up Versions

Making live electronic music engaging is a difficult task, and The Knife’s Silent Shout tour shows a band committed to breaking the visual cliché of performers standing still behind banks of electronic equipment. Read more »

Tori Amos

Chad Parkhill

Loving (and hating) Tori Amos

Tori Amos is hardly to blame for the existence of her fans’ expectations, nor for their disappointment when her work does not live up to them – but that doesn’t prevent that disappointment from feeling intensely personal. Read more »

Alg-90210-jpg

Stephanie Van Schilt

Sick-Person TV

The only upside to getting sick was the many afternoons I spent curled up on the couch at home, watching daytime TV. I inhaled the drama of pre-recorded episodes of Beverley Hills 90210 while playing with my Brandon and Dylan sticker collection (interspersed with sporadic vomiting). Read more »

The_Million_Dollar_Drop_logo

Nicholas J Johnson

Highbrow vs Lowbrow: Nicholas J Johnson defends Lowbrow TV

I can’t stop looking at Eddie McGuire’s smug, stupid face. It’s not my fault. It’s just I’ve never been this close to the man before, and it’s not until now that I’ve realised how oddly smooth and tanned his skin is. As if someone has stretched the orange bladder from a football over a slab of marble. Read more »

deadwood-03-1024

Zora Sanders

Highbrow vs Lowbrow: Zora Sanders defends Highbrow TV

I’m going to be honest with you. I feel a little guilty being gifted highbrow TV as a subject to defend. Highbrow TV doesn’t need a defender! It’s a battle that has been won! Highbrow TV is downright fucking awesome and every single person reading this already knows it. Read more »