Skip to page content

Promoting history in higher education

News

Report on HEFCE Workshop on Impact June 2010

Letter from Jackie Eales, Co-Convenor, to The Guardian

Letter to Lord Mandelson from the Co-Convenors

Letter opposing cuts in History provision at Sussex

David Nicholls Report on Graduate Employability

Report: 10th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning History

Report on HEFCE REF Workshop: Exploring the Impact of Research in the Humanities

The workshop – for approximately 40 scholars from history, history of art, classics, philosophy, theology and languages – included general briefings from David Sweeney (HEFCE Director of Research), Roger Kain (Dean of School of Advanced Study, University of London), Bruce Brown (Chair of the performing arts panel for the last RAE) and Judy Simons (Chair of the English panel assessing the Impact pilot submissions), followed by ‘break-out’ sessions where we discussed nine case studies (including one from Keele) submitted from a range of institutions and disciplines.

 David Sweeney: predicted (as is now confirmed) that the REF would be postponed to a census date of December 2013 with results in 2014. The delay is prompted especially by the government’s doubts about the effectiveness of the current proposals for assessing impact. A fuller conference on all the Impact pilot schemes had recently taken place at King’s College and he recommended a full account of it to be found on Chemistry World Online. Sweeney acknowledged that issues of time-lag, attribution and the nature of evidence for impact remained problems but his main argument was that researchers, particularly in the humanities, needed to be more self-confident in explaining how their research makes a difference. It was important to think more broadly about ‘public benefit’ as most case studies in the pilot exercise had been too narrowly focused.

Roger Kain: stressed that demonstrating impact was essential to the continuation of QR funding in the Arts and Humanities; that impact was about ‘making a difference’ in a broad way, not only in the economy. The REF would assess the ‘historic’ impact of research (not future impact as in research council applications). The weighting for impact would almost certainly be lower than the 25% initially proposed.  Like several other speakers he explained that although impact might flow from ‘public engagement’ it is not the same – we need to find ways of showing how our research had made a difference.

Bruce Brown: reported on the conclusions of a similar workshop for the creative arts. He too argued that impact case studies needed to be more ambitious, with ‘bigger narratives’ as well as precise evidence. The concept of ‘research pathways’ was important so that we could track explicitly the ways in which our research reached and benefitted a variety of audiences.

Judy Simons: gave a very useful report on the English pilot exercise. A panel of 16 looked at case studies from 13 institutions. There were representatives of ‘users’ as well as academics (the categories overlapped) – from the BBC, the British Library, the British Council, Arts festivals, publishing, creative writing, PR and journalism. Initial scepticism on the part of some of the panel had largely been overcome. They were convinced that good cases for the impact of research in English could be made and fairly assessed. A ‘powerful story’ emerged.  They did not like the terminology of impact and preferred the language of ‘benefit’ although that too had problems, and did find institutions struggled to distinguish engagement and impact. The best case studies focused on high quality research and used the language of the discipline rather than ‘Hefce speak’. The panel could tell when the case studies and impact statements had been written by managers rather than researchers themselves and the latter scored more highly. They had not found the current Hefce criteria for assessing impact useful for English and had worked with the BBC’s ‘framework for public value’ which encompassed: stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; promoting education and learning; contributions to the creative economy; preserving cultural heritage.

The best case studies in English had originality, specificity and clarity with hard supportive evidence (names, dates, figures) and a clear sense of how the exploitation of research was central to unit and institutional strategies. Sustainability was also crucial.

Some of her specific insights or examples are relevant to history and other disciplines. Although individual research-informed teaching does not count as impact, broader contributions to learning can. So text-books that are derived from excellent research and have transformed school and college curricula could be examples of impact. Academic contributions to publishing, as a major part of the creative economy, can be stressed, as can the ways in which research promotes or enriches regional and national cultural communities through arts festivals, public events and exhibitions. There was much discussion of how international impact could be demonstrated but Simons insisted that English was a ‘global brand’.

 Questions for the plenary speakers included: problems of attribution given staff mobility – no real solution has yet emerged; whether teams or individuals were better for case studies – Judy Simons said individually based case-studies were just as highly rated and obviously artificial groups did badly; whether local and international impact could be equally strong – in theory yes, although some were sceptical. There was some unease about ‘public benefit’ which may replace impact in the terminology: who makes the judgement about benefit? Should some impact be negative?

 We were reminded that the REF will not assess the impact of all research, but a small sample of it, chosen by institutions. Units of assessment will demonstrate research excellence in a ‘mixed economy’.

Case-studies: the nine discussed in small groups and a final plenary were real, draft examples. Most were at least partly convincing but demonstrated some key challenges: the need to be specific on both impact, and on the nature of the underlying research; how to demonstrate impact as well as engagement, how to attribute impact (if several units are involved with exhibitions, or external institutions, for example) and how to provide convincing evidence. Simply describing dissemination strategies without explaining how opinions or behaviour were transformed is insufficient. Sustained public engagement might amount to cultural enrichment (altering the practices of creative industries or local organisations, for example); and repeated involvement in policy advice might also count, given the frequency with which governments reject the precise advice given by academics. Audience feedback (systematic rather than anecdotal), detailed audience demographics, critical reviews and authenticated personal testimony were amongst the examples of convincing evidence.

Conclusion: this was mostly an optimistic meeting with a range of interesting examples discussed. Disciplines were encouraged to be ambitious in the impacts/public benefits they claimed, although it was also recognised that the most ambitious and exciting examples would be the most difficult to substantiate. The need for precise concrete evidence was repeatedly stressed – each case study would be considered by a panel for something between 7 and 30 minutes, so it would need to convince quickly. Units of assessment need to define soon what their case studies could be so that evidence for impact can be collected. The focus will be on impact over the period of the REF – for research up to 15 years ago.

 

Ann Hughes 14 July 2010

 

 

 
Letter Published in the Guardian 3.6.10:

Your report that Niall Ferguson and Simon Schama (Empire Strikes Back: rightwing historian to get curriculum role - Monday 31 May 2010) both want to advise the government on overhauling history in schools raises important concerns. Is it wise to rely on the opinions of one or two high profile individuals? How far can historians based in the USA truly understand the daily problems encountered by history teachers and lecturers here? In particular, the disastrous narrowing of the history curriculum in schools has damaged the historical understanding of a generation of undergraduates. This needs to be addressed swiftly, as university lecturers use far too much of their time and resources in trying to remedy this defect. The government must not be seduced by celebrity, but should consult widely with the Historical Association, the Royal Historical Society, the Higher Education Academy History Subject Centre and History UK (HE), the latter representing Historians teaching in Universities. These professional bodies also look forward to Michael Gove's ministerial call. 

Published version available at The Guardian

Letter to Lord Mandelson from the Co-Convenors

                                                                   14 March 2010

 

Dear Lord Mandelson,

 

We write as the co-convenors of History UK (HE), the body representing historians in higher education, prompted by recent media coverage on the risks to the arts and humanities in universities posed by current funding cuts and government policies. We were heartened by your comments in support of the arts quoted in The Guardian (8 February 2010) that they ‘keep this country civilised’, but we remain concerned that government policy and funding, and consequently the strategies of many institutions, disadvantage the arts and humanities in the drive to protect science, medicine, engineering and technology. We note that BIS’s Higher Ambitions: the future of universities in a knowledge economy acknowledged the international excellence and impact of arts and humanities disciplines in the United Kingdom, which were responsible for 33% of the world's output between 2006 and 2008. However, the document underplayed the role history and other humanities disciplines play in fostering economic recovery and growth, and in responding to economic challenges. These government priorities were linked only to enhanced support for STEM subjects and to competitive funding for universities responding to economic challenges.

 

We have no wish to undervalue the vital contribution made by STEM subjects to the British economy or to the well-being of its people, but we would insist also on the importance of the humanities in general and history in particular. History is one of the most popular areas for study in higher education, with some 35,000 full-time undergraduates taking history degrees. History graduates are skilled, adaptable and eminently employable. Their studies have fostered a broad and open-minded appreciation of a range of cultures and periods, the capacity for independent research, and the development of advanced critical, communication and team-working skills.  History graduates prosper and contribute to many fields, to teaching and research, to the creative and heritage industries, and to business, law and public service. In your own department we note that Rosie Winterton, the minister for regional economic development has a history degree, as, of course, does the Prime Minister. History graduates, like students of science or technology, will make substantial contributions to future economic recovery.

 

History students benefit from the teaching of world-class researchers. In the last Research Assessment Exercise there were 83 submissions from history departments and units, in all of which there was evidence of international quality.  In only four disciplines were more staff submitted. Historians working in our universities have a world-wide impact and play a major part in sustaining the international reputation of British universities. Most are also enthusiastically committed to public engagement in the United Kingdom through links with schools, museums, government, business and the media. Historical expertise has a direct economic impact through its contributions to tourism, to the creative industries, to the archives, museums and heritage sites which attract millions of visitors each year. As the ‘History and Policy’ group established by Cambridge and London historians has demonstrated, historians’ knowledge, and their research and forensic skills make significant contributions to public policy and debate on such issues as equality, public health, pensions and international relations: we note that two historians are serving on the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war.

 

‘Higher Ambitions’ emphasised universities' role ‘at the heart of our communities and shared intellectual life’, but again linked this role rather narrowly to ‘regional economic development’, whereas we want to insist that historians are at the heart of most universities’ interaction with their local communities. History is one of the most popular areas of life-long learning, delivered sometimes directly through classes at universities, but more often through voluntary groups and local societies that draw on expertise and support of university historians. The public enthusiasm for understanding the past can easily be demonstrated.  In 2006, for example, the National Trust project ‘History Matters’ attracted one million participants in a range of events. The project report highlights the essential place of history as a source of values in a complex and diverse world in which many different peoples have to find ways of understanding each other and living together. History fosters reflective and complex conceptions of identity, and helps to develop critical understandings of the contested impact of visions of the past on the present. The broad public interest in history and the appeals to the past that pervade our culture and public life all draw on and depend ultimately on the resilience of advanced teaching and research in higher education.

 

There are many ways then in which history both ‘keeps us civilised’, and contributes to economic well-being. We urge you to encourage policies even in these difficult times that will enable HEFCE and individual universities to support history and the humanities effectively.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Jackie Eales, Professor of History, Canterbury Christ Church University

Ann Hughes, Professor of Early Modern History, Keele University

Co-convenors, History UK (HE)

 

Lord Mandelson,

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

1 Victoria Street,

London SW1H OET

Letter from Sussex-trained historians opposing proposed cuts in History provision at University of Sussex

Sir / Madam
 
As historians who owe so much to the unique environment of the University of Sussex in which we were trained, we are calling on the University to stop its proposals to withdraw from research, and research-led teaching, in English social history before 1700 and the history of continental Europe before 1900.
 
We wish to express our solidarity with our internationally recognised
colleagues threatened with redundancy. We seriously question how a
university can abandon areas in which it has built such strength over
half a century and expect to maintain the reputation on which it trades.
As specialists of contemporary Europe, we have no self-interested motive
in defending early modern history. Yet to cut everything but the most
modern puts in peril the public function of history, entrenching the
arrogance of the present and making a mockery of the claim by the
minister behind these cuts that 'we also wish to keep this country
civilised'. And for a university which has long prided itself on its
European links to abandon the serious study of such pivotal areas of modern
history as the French Revolution will mean depriving Sussex graduates of
the mental furniture of educated Europeans. By cutting European literature
at the same time, the University risks damaging its reputation as a centre
of knowledge for European culture and history more widely.
 
The unconvincing replies we have received in response to our concerns boil
down to: Sussex will continue to offer a little teaching in these areas,
but by non-specialists who are not publishing in these areas. We urge
Sussex to think beyond potential short-term savings and bear in mind that
it would be unimaginable to suggest that hard science could be taught with
no research base. Students deserve better than this.
 
Yours sincerely,
Dr K.H.Adler, Lecturer in History, University of Nottingham and Editor,
Gender & History
Dr David Berry, European Studies, Lougborough University
Dr Jackie Clarke, Programme Leader in French, University of Southampton
Dr Hanna Diamond, Reader in French History and European Studies,
University of Bath
Professor Geoff Eley, Karl Pohrt Distinguished University Professor of
Contemporary History and Chair, Department of History, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr Daniel Gordon, Senior Lecturer in History, Edge Hill University
Professor John Horne, Professor of Modern European History, Trinity
College Dublin
Dr Simon Kitson, Director of Research, University of London Institute in
Paris
Dr Katharine Lerman, Senior Lecturer in History, London Metropolitan
University
Dr Annika Mombauer, Senior Lecturer in European History, Open University
Dr Chris Pearson, Research Associate, University of Bristol
Dr Scott Soo, Lecturer in Modern Languages, University of Southampton
Dr Matthew Seligmann, Reader in History, University of Northampton
Professor Glenda Sluga, Professor of International History, University of
Sydney
Dr Matthew Stibbe, Reader in History, Sheffield Hallam University

David Nicholls Report on Graduate Employability

David Nicholls report on Graduate employability is available on the History Subject Centre website.

The full report can be accessed by clicking here:

Report: 10th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning History

Helen Yallop, the Steering Committee's postgraduate representative, has written a report on the 10th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning History. This postgraduate conference was held at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, on 2 April 2008. Read the report (Word file, 44KB).

| back to top