Research Funding and 'Impact'

The government has recently announced that it wants to change the way it rates research excellence at UK universities. We've had the RAE (research assessment exercise) for a while now, and it's being replaced by the REF (research excellence framework). This is important because distribution of funding, as well as prestige, rests heavily on a department's score in this.

The main difference between the two, which is getting many, many researchers up in arms, is that 25% of the score will be determined by the 'impact' of the research -- economically, socially, etc. Now that sounds fairly innocuous on its own. Nobody wants their research to be devoid of impact. But the trouble is that impact in this framework is being defined in a very narrow, short-term and short-sighted way which completely fails to take account of ways that research in the humanities has impact. And the implication is that any research which fails to have 'impact' in this narrow, short-sighted way is ultimately 'pointless'. Researchers in all disciplines have been fighting against this, claiming that the proposed 'impact' metric fails miserably as a measure of social and economic value.

Lots of people have written about this already, so I'll link to a few rather than rehashing.

This long piece in the Times explains the issues helpfully.

This piece in the THE proposes a better way of increasing impact.

Comedian David Mitchell argues that this framework won't halt the worst kind of pointless research.

Two petitions: one on the government website, and one on the UCU website, against the proposals.

New Blog

I've started a new blog, entitled 'Carl Wanders', over at http://carlwanders.wordpress.com. It's a travel-themed blog. This is something I've been meaning to do for a while. I explain a little more about what I plan to do with the blog in the introductory post. There are already a couple of other substantive posts up there, too.

This new venture won't affect this blog; I won't be closing it down or anything. While I haven't updated very much recently (I've been averaging 2 posts a month for the last few months), I plan for the frequency to increase in the autumn. Although I don't think it will be increasing back to 2005 levels!

Photo Index

I store my photos on panoramio.com, but the site has lost some of its functionality as it's become more popular. Nobody but me can see my tag list on my homepage now, which kind of sucks. Because of this, I'm setting up this post so that there's a permanant list of my tags accessible to everybody.

100+ views
200+ views
Austria
Benin
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Kosovo
Macedonia
Mali
Montenegro
Scotland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
UK
USA

EU Promissory Note

My good friend Phil has posted a kind of response to my last post on the EU; in due course I will get around to responding to this. I say 'kind of response' since his post is a far more thought-through and thoroughgoing argument about the whole issue, whereas mine was only really intended as a comment about the way the debate is conducted. Nevertheless, there's plenty of interest in there, and I'll engage with it soon.

In addition, I just picked up a book called The Great European Rip-off. I want to read it to get some balance in these arguments. Despite the polemical title and subtitle, I think it's arguing for reform rather than abolishment. I'll blog on that, too, when I've gotten through it.

Two Views on the EU

UKIP believe that the UK should leave the European Union; they claim that it isn't good value for money. In arguing thus, they approach the EU like consumers: they EU is something that you buy into and expect to receive a certain return. But this is only one way of looking at the Union. I think there are at least two very different ways of judging the value of the EU. I should make it clear that I'm definitely pro-EU and pro-UK membership of the EU; I'm simply exploring the issues surrounding euroscepticism.

UKIP's way is what I will provocatively call the "selfish view" of the EU. According to this view, the value of the EU should be judged by how much value it directly provides for us as a nation. The simplest way of thinking about this would be to work out how much we're paying to be a part of the EU and whether this constitutes good value for the UK.

This seems like a rather Ptolemaic way of viewing the EU. I don't think our deliberations over whether EU membership is a good thing should just depend on the direct financial costs and benefits to us. I find it more helpful to think of things in a wider context. Is the EU a good thing for its members generally? Is the EU a good thing for those aspiring to become a part of it? Is the EU a good thing for the world? These questions are far less selfish, and far more difficult to answer by simple appeal to figures. If the answer to them is "Yes", then this in itself might constitute an argument in favour of EU membership.

One point that arises from recognising this distinction is this: it would presumably be consistent to think that the EU is a good thing for Europe (and/or the world) whilst also thinking that the UK shouldn't be a member, so long as your reasons for thinking the EU to be a good thing don't rest at all on the UK's membership of the bloc.

To my mind, it's pretty clear that EU membership and the prospect of EU membership is a great force for social good. This is evidenced most helpfully in Eastern Europe, where there is quite a mixture of recent new members and potential future members (see here for more details for applicant countries). In order to receive the privilege of EU membership, a country must meet a certain standard in 34 'acquis chapters' (more details in that previous link). Many of these are things which, as they are implemented, will improve life for Albanians, Macedonians, or whoever's trying to meet the conditions for membership. This is just one way in which it can be argued that the EU's existence is a positive thing.

New House

Inbetween all the conferencing, etc (St Andrews was fantastic, by the way) I've moved house. I'm just five minutes walk from where I used to be, and still within fifteen minutes walk of campus. Here it is:


Not much to look at, indeed, although quite quirky -- if you look closely you'll see that we've been left some plants in road tyres as well as a garden chair. Here's the inside:


I'm living with my friend Alice. We share a love of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which makes viewing choices quite easy. We have plans for decorating -- I'll take more pictures when that's completed. I'm also hoping to get a piano (which would have to go where that small bookshelf is in the photo) but am currently looking into the viability of this.

Lecturing news and general philosophy roundup

I received some good news a couple of weeks ago (which the facebookers among you will have seen already). Next spring I'll be standing in for a member of our academic faculty as the module leader for the department's Media Ethics module. This means that I'll be in charge of all the lectures, tutorials, marking, etc for that course. This is great news! I wasn't expecting to get experience of having that level of responsibility for a course whilst still a graduate student. Though it'll be hard work, I think it'll be good fun -- and my having been in charge of a module should be an asset to me on the job market in a few years.

Media Ethics is an 'elective' module, meaning that a good deal of its students are not doing degrees in philosophy. You can get an idea of what the course is about by looking at the reading list from this year's course.


Other happenings. I've been undertaking an obscene amount of 'philosophy-tourism' recently. I was in Dublin for a two-day workshop on relativism, and in Genoa, Italy for a three-day workshop on contextualism and relativism. Both of these workshops featured important figures in the field that I'm working on. Next week I'll be in St Andrews for the Arché Summer School, which should be an intense and incredibly valuable experience featuring a wide range of interesting philosophy from many interesting thinkers.

Reflections on Tutoring

I've come to the end of my second academic year of tutoring philosophy at the University of Leeds. Incredibly, I've now led almost 150 tutorials and marked well over 500 essays. Those are dizzying statistics. The 08/09 year was larger in quantity and breadth than last year -- I taught more groups and a wider range of courses. As I've previously mentioned, I was lucky enough to tutor on a third-year philosophy of literature course in the autumn term, and in the spring I taught for the first-year philosophy of religion course. In addition to this, I taught on the first-year core course again -- a series of four modules comprising Intro to Philosophy, Ethics, Descartes' Meditations, and Philosophy of Mind.

Teaching is a challenge, but an enjoyable challenge. It's a challenge because (a) one is obliged to put up with varying degrees of apathy on the part of the students and (b) the success (or otherwise) of a tutorial is often out of the tutor's hands. It's a sad fact that if a group of ten students turns up having not prepared the material and with no interest in the topic, there's little that the tutor can do to make that session a success. (In fact, the best course of action in that case can be simply to make them all read the relevant material in class, which is far from being the object of tutorials.) But when a group is well-prepared and enthusiastic about the topic, the resulting tutorials are a dream. Sessions like those are genuinely fun.

It's very difficult to know how best to encourage the independent thinking that makes the tutorial system successful. Tutorials really only work when -- as above -- students have prepared and are willing to get stuck into discussing the topic. But it's very hard to know how best to encourage (or force) students to do those things when they don't want to, especially in our framework which doesn't involve the students getting any academic credit for participation in tutorials.

I think I'm often too willing to settle for mediocre outcomes. The goal of tutorials isn't to teach students the basics -- that's for the lectures and reading -- but rather to help them develop skills of critical thinking, etc by engaging critically with the reading. But too often under-preparation means that the best outcome a tutorial can have is to make sure students go away understanding the basics.

Nevertheless, teaching is an enjoyable and valuable experience. I love doing philosophy, it's a good feeling to be able to help other people become interested in philosophical issues. Also, the art of communicating complex ideas to beginners is a great aid to thinking, talking and writing about philosophy generally.

This related article has some interesting points -- and it supports what I've said before about A-Levels being very poor preparation for degrees that require critical thinking skills.

The Elephant in the Room

I'm sure that those of you who've been following this blog for a while will have noticed a big change in tone around here over the last couple of years -- and I don't just mean that there's green where there used to be navy blue. My writings used to be dominated by posts about Christianity. Taking a peek at the October 2005 page, for example, you'll see that most of my posts in that month were about faith and related issues. But even given my more sporadic 2009-style blogging habits, direct talk about Christianity is an increasingly rare topic in this corner of the web. So what gives?

In one sense, the explanation is simple. I used to blog about Christianity a lot because I used to think about issues surrounding Christianity on a daily basis. But now those issues are very rarely on my mind, so I have few thoughts to blog on.

But obviously that's not the full story. The bare truth -- (I can't think of a delicate way to put it) -- is this: insofar as 'being a Christian' entails having any beliefs, thoughts, feelings, etc, directed towards God, Jesus, Church, etc, I am no longer a Christian. And it seems pretty clear to me that being a Christian does entail those things. So I no longer consider myself a Christian.

I came to this realisation about six months ago in conversation with an ex-Christian friend. The process was a gradual one that I wasn't fully aware of as it went on. My diagnosis is this: Christianity simply petered out in my life to the point where it was no longer important to me. A key factor for me is that I've felt very little emotion about the process. I couldn't honestly say that I miss being a Christian, and nor do I feel sad about the 'transformation'.

I should point out that I don't consider this to be the result of intellectual factors -- i.e. Christianity hasn't been philosophised out of me. There wasn't a 'deconversion event', I didn't suddenly become convinced by atheistic arguments, etc. I am not an atheist. I'm not even sure if I'm an agnostic. In fact, I couldn't tell you anything that I positively believe about God.

I haven't yet talked about this to anyone outside of Leeds. I've been worried about reactions of disappointment -- especially from those who invested a lot of time and effort in my faith when I was in my late teens. But I thought it was about time I talked about it here, to explain the changes that you've no doubt noticed anyway. I realise that some of you read/linked to this blog because of its Christian focus, so I guess that the appeal will be significantly lessened now.

I'm sure there's much more to say, but that will do for now.

Blogiversary

This blog has been running for almost exactly five years! Sounds like a good excuse for a cake and some candles. May 2004 seems like so long ago -- I was finishing up my gap year at the Salvation Army in Nottingham. Very little in my life is the same now as it was then (about which more in a shortly forthcoming post).

You can't have failed to notice that this blog has gradually become an 'occasional blog', as opposed to the four-or-five-posts-a-week-type blog that it used to be. Partly this is because I'm much busier these days than I was during my undergraduate career. Partly it's because many of the topics I used to blog on regularly are not things that are frequently on my mind anymore. For example, while during my BA I read piles and piles of books, I simply don't have much time anymore casual reading. This is something that saddens me, and I'm trying to get back into the habit. And, of course, the main topic that I used to blog on hardly appears here at all anymore. I'm about to write a post addressing that.

Encounters in Kosovo

Here's the long-promised post about observations from my short time in Kosovo -- specifically, the southern city of Prizren, which I decided to visit for two nights since it was easily accessible from Macedonia's capital Skopje. You might be interested to look at my photos from Kosovo in conjunction with this post -- either on facebook or panoramio.

Many people's first comment on hearing that I went/was going to Kosovo was something along the lines of "Is it safe?". The natural thought being that it's only little over a year ago since we were hearing about huge unrest in the area. Well, I understand that there is still tension in some areas of Kosovo -- especially the northern border area with Serbia -- but I didn't detect any of it in Prizren. The place seemed, on the face of it, to be relaxed and inviting. I'm aware that there is still underlying tension, which is evidenced by the fact that you can still see NATO peacekeeping troops patrolling the streets. They don't appear to have anything to do -- the French troops asked me for directions to one of the tourist monuments -- but I guess they're there in case something kicks off. Other indicators are NATO protection of Serb monuments like Orthodox Churches, and lots of pro-Albanian (and some anti-Serb) graffiti.

Some of the most eye-opening happenings were encounters I had with locals and members of the international communtiy (of which there are still many in Kosovo). The most enlightening was over my breakfast in Prizren. Also staying in my small B&B was an American anthropologist (who helped me to order breakfast, since the hosts only spoke Albanian and German). She told me lots about her work and I learnt lots from her about the predicament of the Albanians in Kosovo throughout the 20th century.

She's studying the failure (and, more rarely, the success) of international organisations who've been in Kosovo over the last decade. She was particularly scathing of the UN's actions in Kosovo, saying that they've come in with their own static self-imposed plans which weren't sensitive to the needs of the people. The success stories, she says, are those who customised their actions to the needs of local people -- which sounds ridiculously simple, but apparently hasn't been practised very much. She cited a Catholic organisation whose local boss was a Muslim (I forget what they were doing, but that detail stuck with me). She also taught me lots about just why the Albanians are so justifiably pissed off at the Serbs -- to cite a current example, the Serbs constitute 5% of Kosovo's population yet they have a veto on any legislation that passes through parliament. It's been said that the Serbs in Kosovo have more rights than any other minority in Europe. There are also countless horrific stories about how the Serbs have oppressed the Albanians throughout the 20th century.

In sum, it's all a huge mess. And it's difficult to see how the region could become stable -- my anthropologist friend said that those who think it'll all be fine in a decade are overly optimistic.

Nevertheless, Prizren was a fascinating and beautiful place, and I'm pleased I took the time to visit. It seems to be coming around to the idea that it might be a genuine tourist destination -- the town centre boasts a recently-installed 'touristic map'. But it's still the case that on hearing that you're a tourist, locals are visibly *slightly* surprised. (If I were better-built, they would have assumed I was a soldier -- the only other tourists I met, Germans, said they'd had this happen to them.)

Mixed Reviews

A quick observation about Metacritic -- which, if you haven't come across it before, is a site which collects reviews of music, films, games, etc, in one place and combines them into a 'meta-review' for each item.

The observation is that music is reviewed much more leniently than film and video games. Take a look at the music pages -- almost all releases get 60+/100. But for films and games, the picture is much more patchy -- films, especially, are incredibly harshly reviewed and most get below 60.

I wonder why this might be? Are music critics just lightweights? Or are film critics overly, er, critical?

Kosovo

I'm going to write about Kosovo properly soon, but here are a few quick facts about the place for context before I report on my brief time there:

• Kosovo is small, slightly smaller than Jamaica, slightly larger than Cyprus, and about half the size of Wales. It's bordered by Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, and Macedonia.
• 2 million people live in Kosovo, 70% of which are 27 or under.
  
• In modern-day Kosovo, 92% of the population is Albanian and just 4% Serb. (In 1968 the percentages were 68-23). Around 90% of the population is Muslim.
  
• Kosovo was an autonomous province in Yugoslavia for much of the second half of the 20th century.
• The Albanians and the Serbs have been at odds with one another for most of the 20th century.
• Kosovo is most infamous for the 1999 war between NATO and Yugoslav forces, which aimed to expel Yugoslav troops from Kosovo, send in peacekeepers, and allow refugees to return.
• In 2008 Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. 57 countries have recognised its independence; Serbia has not, and still views Kosovo as a UN-administrated province of its own country.
  

Mangoletsi Lectures: God, Science and Philosophy

If you're in the Leeds area at all during May you might be interested in this series of public lectures at Leeds:

The Mangoletsi Lectures 2009: God, Science and Philosophy

Peter van Inwagen, John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

6th May: God and Science I
13th May: God and Philosophy II
20th May: God and Philosophy II
27th May: God and Science II

The lectures will take place at 5.30pm in the Miall Lecture Theatre, Baines Wing. ALL WELCOME. If you would like to attend any of these lectures, please contact
Robin Le Poidevin, Department of Philosophy (r.d.lepoidevin@leeds.ac.uk)


Synposis of lectures

Lecture 1: God and Science I

In this lecture, I defend three theses. The first is the thesis that, although science has proved the non-existence of many things that various people had believed in, science cannot prove the non-existence of God. This conclusion is based on some very general reflections on what it is that science does. No particular scientific facts or theories are discussed at any length. (In the fourth lecture, we shall examine the theological implications of one important scientific theory, the Darwinian theory of evolution.) The second thesis is that if science cannot prove that God does not exist, any proof that God does not exist must be a philosophical proof. The third thesis is that, with the possible exception of arguments for the non-existence of God, there are no compelling arguments in philosophy; there are indeed no reasons that can be adduced in support of any philosophical thesis that decisively outweigh the reasons that can be adduced in support of its denial. If this is so, and if philosophical argument can establish the non-existence of God, there is exactly one important thesis that can be established in philosophy. That seems unlikely—but unlikely things have turned out to be true, and we shall go on to examine philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God.

Lecture 2: God and Philosophy I

There are only two philosophical arguments for the non-existence of God that are worthy of extended philosophical examination: that the vast amount of suffering in the world is incompatible with the existence of an omnisicent and benevolent being; that—since the natural sciences explain everything—it is superfluous to postulate the existence of any supernatural being (God or any other). The former argument is called “the argument from evil.” The latter has no standard name; I call it “the superfluity argument.” After a general discussion of the two arguments, I turn to the argument from evil.

Lecture 3: God and Philosophy II

The examination of the argument from evil that was begun in the second lecture continues. The latter part of the lecture is devoted to the superfluity argument.

Lecture 4: God and Science II

I return to the topic of a possible scientific disproof of the existence of God. Unlike the discussion in the first lecture, this lecture considers a particular scientific theory in detail—the Darwinian theory of evolution. I give a statement of the theory, present some reasons for being skeptical about whether it is in every respect true, and, present an argument for the conclusion that, whether the theory is true or false, its truth is consistent with the thesis that the universe was created by an intelligent being. Finally, I defend a stronger position than the consistency of the Darwinian theory with the existence of an intelligent creator; I defend the thesis that, if the Darwinian theory were true and known to be true, our knowing that it was true would not provide us with any reason to believe that the universe does not have an intelligent creator.

Skopje and Ohrid

I'm writing from Prizren, Kosovo. So much to tell about my day in Kosovo -- but in the interests of chronology I'll write about my time in Macedonia first and then post about Kosovo later. It's all just words for now, I'm afraid -- pictures will follow upon my return.

Skopje, Macedonia's capital, was unlucky enough to lose much of its notable architecture in an earthquake in the 1960s. (The old railway station building retains a clock which stopped at the time of the earthquake and has never worked since.) As anyone who's visited the UEA campus knows, the 60s was a bad decade to have to rebuild your city. So the 'new' part of Skopje will not win any prizes in beauty contests. For most, Skopje is simply a necessary stopover on the way to more interesting places. But parts of Skopje have a certain charm. North of the river is an old Turkish district, Čaršija, which we owe to the Ottomans who ruled here for centuries. There are old mosques, markets, and streets, as well as a monaestery, Sveti Spas, which has an incredible interior.

I spent three days in and around Ohrid, which is a large town on the lake of the same name. Ohrid is a very popular tourist destination in the summer (it always baffles me how this can be true of a place whilst it's still completely unknown in the UK). Lake Ohrid is one of the oldest lakes in the world, is apparently the cleanest lake in Europe, and has a beautiful setting surrounded by mountains on the Macedonia-Albania border. The town at Ohrid is picturesque, too, with loads of very old Orthodox churches etc.

I met several characters around Ohrid. I was amused by a boatman, Nikola, who was so proud that his tours are recommended in the Bradt Guide to Macedonia that he can tell you the exact page on which he's mentioned (in the English edition, the Chinese edition...you name it). Then there was another boatman, Kristofer -- in order to convince me that I should go on a trip with him, he first had to regale me for some time about many many things irrelevant to boating, Ohrid, or even Macedonia. He was a funny guy, though, and made for a good guide. Then there was the Bulgarian tourist group who I coincidentally ended up sharing both of the above boat trips with -- an odd bunch they were (though a couple of them were friendly and seemed genuinely interested in what on earth I was doing in Macedonia on my own).

For Skopje and Ohrid, pictures will tell the story better. For Kosovo, there are lots of words to be had as well. But they will have to wait for another day.  

Back in Eastern Europe

My infatuation with Eastern Europe is odd and inexplicable, yet perpetual. Here I am once again. I flew out to Bulgaria's capital Sofia this morning, and I'm heading to Macedonia tomorrow, where I will spend the bulk of my trip before returning next Wednesday. (At some point I also plan to spend a day in Kosovo, if things go well.) It's also my first lone travel experience. I'm not at all disappointed about that -- the main downside is just that eating alone in restaurants is a pretty lonely experience.

Sofia is nicer than I expected -- I've heard average reviews from Bulgarians and non-Bulgarians alike, but I think it's a pretty place with a nice atmosphere. The Alexander Nevsky Cathedral is simply stunning, and is accompanied by plenty of other impressive architecture with many different western and eastern influences -- and yet it's also impossible to ignore the evidence which shows that Bulgaria is the EU's poorest state. (Of course, Macedonia and Kosovo are poorer still.) On a lighter note, there seem to be uncountably many sex shops in Sofia...

Macedonia promises Orthodox monasteries, lakes, mountains, and the attraction of being completely off the beaten path. I doubt I'll get on the internet much during the next week, but I'll give you the lowdown when I return, if not before. I'll be twittering via text -- the updates appear on the left of this page or as my facebook status if you're friends with me on there.

The Next Election

By June 2010, the British public will be asked to go to the polls for a General Election. I can't imagine that any party is especially looking forward to an election -- Labour won't want judgement to be passed on them whilst the economy is so bad, and the Conservatives won't want to take power until things have improved. But nevertheless, the election must happen before 3 June next year.

At this early stage I have just one quick question about the election. The Conservatives will be telling us that we can't trust Labour with the country given that it made the mistake of not making hay whilst the sun shone (in the words of my Grandad, they should have read the story of Joseph). But Labour will say that the Conservatives won't handle the economy well, and will profess to have learnt from their mistakes.

The question is this: in the absence of any positive reasons to vote Tory, is the mere fact that Labour have made some serious mistakes enough reason not to vote for them? In other words, should we give more weight to past failings or to future prospects in choosing who to vote for? Common sense says that 'future prospects' is what we should go for, I take it -- but it seems likely that past failings are going to play a big part in deciding who we should go for at the next election. On the one hand it looks wrong that the Conservatives should win simply because of Labour's failings (and that would surely be the explanation of any Tory win), but on the other hand, the spirit of a democracy is that the other guy wins sometimes (to misquote the West Wing).