Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’... Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption’s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research’s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and mathematics research and arts and humanities research’s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arts and Humanities in Higher Education SAGE

Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/are-sciences-essential-and-humanities-elective-disentangling-competing-oSNdqL1Kit

References (62)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
ISSN
1474-0222
eISSN
1741-265X
DOI
10.1177/1474022214534081
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption’s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research’s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and mathematics research and arts and humanities research’s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value.

Journal

Arts and Humanities in Higher EducationSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2015

There are no references for this article.