The ecologies and economy of cultural value from research

Abstract

This study explored conceptually and empirically the ways in which those engaged with university-based arts and humanities research (researchers, managers, partners, beneficiaries) construct and respond to the challenges of generating, interpreting, and demonstrating the cultural value of research. Cultural value is a contested concept, beset by philosophical, practical and political tensions. We argue that interpretations of valuecultural or otherwiseare part of complex ecologies of cultural life, creation and understanding, while at the same time underpinning economies of description, prescription, inscription and ascription. Meaning, expression, narrative and practice, combined and recombined in experience, are core themes in our participants' description of the arts and the humanities. However, more needs to be done across all levels of the research governance system so that meaningful engagement is sustained and narratives in cultural terms are not perceived as a risk in accountability contexts.

Epistemic responsibility as an edifying force in academic research: investigating the moral challenges and opportunities of an impact agenda in the UK and Australia

“…The concept of value and valuing certain 'goods' like knowledge (epistemic value), was prominent throughout the interviews. Some suggested a hierarchy of value, where instrumental (e.g., economic and commercial) value was in some way "better", or at least easier to measure, than cultural and social value (Oancea et al, 2015. There was a recurrent observation that those conducting non-instrumental research felt the need to defend their more nuanced forms of impact and appeared to be unsure as to what constituted 'enough' impact.…”

Research governance and the future(s) of research assessment

“…The studies that provided the empirical background for this paper were funded by several grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council; HEIF; British Educational Research Association; and the University of Oxford. Some parts of the text are adapted with permission from Oancea (2015) and Oancea (2016).…”

“…The grounds for this selection are both a priori, as themes identified through conceptual and theoretical inquiry into the notions of research quality, performance and value/ evaluation; and a posteriori, as categories developed from empirical studies of RAE and REF submission data and of interview and survey data spanning four national exercises: RAE 1996, 2001, and REF 2014. While the theoretical arguments and the findings of these studies are reported elsewhere (e.g., Oancea, 2008Oancea, , 2010Oancea, , 2014Oancea et al, 2018), this paper attempts to draw them together reflectively in an exploration of ongoing trends and discursive threads underpinning recent public debates around research assessment and its future in the UK and beyond.…”

“…Others oppose them as a threat to quality, diversity and professional judgement, and see their use as out of tune with academic norms of scholarly argumentation, criticality and intellectual integrity. Some go with the tide, while acknowledging that they felt pressured to 'play safe' for research assessment in REF 2014 by sticking to the more easily measurable and demonstrable (see interview data reported in Oancea et al, 2018), rather than making wider claims for, for example, discursive or cultural contributions from research. Many exercise domesticated resistance while part of the performance management system, and relieved disdain when they no longer need comply.…”

“…Moreover, in some disciplines the expectation to submit impact case studies has also generated further boundary work. For example, the impact case study form separates research from its impact, which may pose particular challenges in artrelated fields where research and impact may be organically embedded in creative practice or practice-as-research (see examples in Oancea et al, 2018;Adams and McDougall, 2015).…”