In defence of the humanities

Roy Hay

This article was published in the Geelong Advertiser on 23 November 2011 and reproduced on the Deakin University website at http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/stories/2011/11/23/the-value-of-the-humanities

It is not often that academics take leave of their research and teaching duties to plunge into political matters, but in the United Kingdom led by those at Oxford University they have passed a series of motions of no confidence in the David Willetts, the minister responsible for universities. The burden of their complaints is the increased cost of education to students through sharp rises in fees and the attack on funding for the humanities. It is the latter element with which this column is concerned, since it is not just a UK problem but a global one and Australia is facing a similar crisis.

Jonathan Bate, the new Provost of Worcester College, Oxford conducted some research among his peers while editing a collection of essays on the Public Value of the Humanities. He asked them how they would respond to a civil servant responsible for the research budget who told them he did not mind public money being spent on medical research but he objected to it being devoted to research in the humanities. He was intrigued by the responses as some argued for the strictly utilitarian benefits of such study, while others suggested that humanities matter because they take us beyond the realm of narrow economic or utilitarian values.

One historically minded philosopher said that a Syrian scholar wanted to translate his book into Arabic, because he thought the Islamic world needed an introduction of secular philosophy. “Given the billions that the military option wastes, wasn’t I more economically efficient?” Another picked up the point that if George W Bush’s and Tony Blair’s security and strategic advisers had studied the Middle East and Afghanistan thoroughly the world would have been a less dangerous place.

Yet another pointed out that Bertrand Russell’s and Noam Chomsky’s philosophical investigation into language and logic contributed to the artificial languages which underpin computer science today. More generally, broad critical thinking is pre-eminently what the humanities engender and this is indispensable to innovative work in any field and certainly to communicating it to others inside and outside academia.

At times of economic crisis it is always tempting to ask what can we cut first without causing the pips to squeak. So if you can define something as a luxury subject it is easier to take the axe to it, than something where the economic pay-off seems more immediate. But this is often very short-sighted since it is the fundamental research in broad areas of human existence which often turns up the key element for the future.

Take the recently departed Steve Jobs and his company Apple for an example. Their success was not dependent on original technology, but rather selective borrowing, while the design of the products to incorporate that technology was the key to their success. Design derived from centuries of art and creativity and a deep understanding of the psychology of human beings. Of all disciplines art and psychology depend on a fruitful blending of sciences and humanities, not their separation.

Here in Australia the public funding for arts and humanities is also under severe pressure. We do not have the American counterweight in a long and healthy tradition of private philanthropy. Last week Deakin University was delighted to report that Professor Kevin Nicholas had won a Grand Challenges Exploration grant of $100,000 to explore the use of wallaby milk to help babies absorb nutrients more easily to increase their chance of survival. Two points about this success are relevant. The grant comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, financed by the success of Gates’ Microsoft Company. Secondly, how are Nicholas and his team going to communicate the results of their work to the parents of children at risk in third world countries? It will not happen just because they have made a scientific breakthrough, but through a myriad of processes which derive just as much from research in the humanities about communication and cultural processes.

The Bradley Report into Australia’s higher education handed down this week is a weighty document at 304 pages and with 46 separate recommendations, so it is not to be taken lightly or quickly. The report points out that Australia is slipping behind other countries in its higher education provision, at a time when international competition requiring a highly educated population is increasing. It sets goals of raising the proportion of 25–34 year olds with at least a first degree from its current 29% to 40% by 2020. It also aims to increase the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education, including indigenous people, those living in rural and remote areas and those from low socio-economic backgrounds. A demand driven system is to be achieved by providing funding to students so they can select and pay for the higher education of their choice.

This assumes that students know what they want to study and where best to do so. This is a good and responsible position to start from. But in practice many students find that when they get to university or another institution of higher education, the subject and the way it is taught or the conditions attached to it are not what they expected or wanted. So they change. Can the institutions respond quickly enough to accommodate this? Should they be driven by a student popularity poll or by what the university or what society says they should be taught? For example, we are clearly short of scientists and mathematicians and health professionals, having to import these skills often from poorer countries that also lack the numbers they need. But if Australian students assess that they would prefer to do arts or social sciences should the institutions of higher learning simply become suppliers of liberal arts? There is a get-out clause in the report that would allow the government to exclude a course of study from the demand-driven system if it wished to regulate student or graduate numbers. This micro-management in turn would have implications for the institutions and the students.

Some of the analysis of key issues in the report is acute and if acted upon could ameliorate the damage done to universities in recent years. For example, ‘There are now clear signs that the quality of the educational experience is declining; the established mechanisms for assuring quality nationally need updating; and student-to-staff ratios are unacceptably high.’ Also, the underfunding of research infrastructure leads to universities cross-subsidising research from funds obtained for teaching which results in a further decline in the student experience.

The report recommends that the Australian Government should assume full responsibility for the regulation of higher education in Australia, but qualifies this by saying it is important to retain a strong element of local knowledge and responsiveness. A new independent regulatory body is required to implement policy and ensure compliance. The regulatory body must be independent of government to ensure objectivity in its decision-making and advice.

The report suggests that universities should not all be alike, and broadly there should be three types of institution, comprehensive universities (with research strength in three or more broad areas), specialist universities (research in one or two broad areas) and other higher education institutions (with scholarship but no research requirement).

Independently of the report, and potentially at variance from it, is a separate quality assurance exercise being developed in the research area, which is trying to move away from the current practice of measuring inputs and quantities towards outputs and quality.

Informed sources indicate that Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, who commissioned the report in March this year, is not at all pleased by certain of the recommendations. The government will not respond formally to the report until March next year, but it will be surprising if it is implemented in full. In particular the proposed funding is likely to come under close scrutiny. There is a political dimension. Is the minister spread too thin? Having done a sterling job with industrial relations is she going to be able to deliver this part of the education revolution the Rudd government promised before and after taking office?

Professor Stuart Macintyre of the University of Melbourne, former Dean of the Faculty of Arts, who also chaired the recent advisory panel on a new national history curriculum, suggests that breaking down the unified national system of universities into three tiers will promote a drift from regional universities and some metropolitan ones to the more prestigious ones. He thinks a national accreditation scheme is likely to be resisted by some of the leading universities, who are already self-accrediting, and by the states.

Deakin University Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sally Walker argues ‘that many of the proposals reflect Deakin’s goals as set out in our Strategic Plan – Delivering Effective Partnerships. In some cases, if the recommendation is approved by the Australian Government, we will receive assistance to achieve our objectives.’ The extent of the similarity between Deakin’s goals and the aims of the Review Panel is striking. For example, the Report says: ‘Providers in regional and remote areas need to be encouraged and supported to build up partnerships with local communities, providers in other sectors of education, business and industry.’ But she is aware, ‘There will be challenges for Deakin, particularly in relation to research, but Deakin has always risen to challenges and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.’