A cause for concern: Obstacles To Knowledge Production in the British Academy

For more than three decades the British Academy has been struggling with the demands of the government, directed at it through the UK higher education funding councils. Conducting research demands large funds, and all over the world Institutions of higher education struggle to receive these sums from their governments or private investors. In the UK, these funding councils attempt to assess the value of academic research  through different variables and allocate funding according to their evaluation.  This has caused turmoil in the Universities, and the staff have been forced to devote much of their time to REF reporting, and applying for grants for specific research projects from RCUK. The technical and literary knowledge required to achieve these grants is a research challenge in  itself. However the most important problem with this system, is that it has influenced the very topics which researchers chose to investigate and  how they conduct and present their research. Certain fields especially those related to humanities and social sciences have been neglected, because they are less likely to receive high REF evaluations, and this means less funding for the University. Defining  and predicting impact in advance in these qualitative fields is far more challenging than empirical research  and proving impact after the process is far more difficult. However qualitative research is no less important to society than empirical research since it includes fields such as psychology, sociology and philosophy. Every research process, including empirical research,  is affected by psychological influences, and human relationships between researchers and their supervisors. These are the academic staff of the institution representing the old and accepted paradigm. The power relationships between all the participants, can be a significant factor in the chance of completing or even being authorised to embark upon a research project. Therefore, there is an urgent necessity for change in the conduct of research in the Academy and how it is funded .

Another huge concern for the British Academy, which is an a example to the whole world, has been the issue of Open Access publication of academic research. The research councils rightly demand that the outcomes of research funded by public money, be openly published for all readers to learn from. However publication via the gold route requires payment which the University cannot provide in order to publish all its research. Furthermore, the payment does not always guarantee that the research will in fact be published, if it is not attractively marketed to the publishers. Gold route publication also means overcoming the obstacle of peer review of the journal's editorial board, who may have a personal objection to the content of the research. The University may have a financial or reputational interest to publish research via the traditional route in academically prestigious journals.  If the research is published through the green route, the impact is considered   smaller, and less funding is likely to be allocated for further research. All this may prevent the publication of worthy research, especially in qualitative research areas, and the knowledge produced is not made easily accessible to other researchers.

During the last decade the British academy has benefited from funding from the EU. A large number of students from other EU countries have come to the UK to study, and the Universities have gained financially from the fees they pay. The European academy has also benefited from research collaboration between the EU countries and the funds related to it.  Now after Brexit, all these positive inputs will likely be reduced or cease, having detrimental effects on the British academy, and especially the research we conduct. The continuation of collaboration between British and European researchers  will be at risk, which will ultimately mean less comprehensive research, without the variety of input from researchers from different cultures and societies.

Two of us are mature international doctoral (Ed.D) students at a UK University  and made these observations while looking more closely at the functioning of our specific University, with regard to P.G.Research. These observations became a cause for concern:  

(1) There was a distinct separation between students and staff conducting PhD-emperical  research and those conducting professional practice (D.Prof/Ed.D) doctoral research. EdD students and their supervisors seemed to be considered to be inferior by PhD students and their supervisors.

(2) Although collaboration between researchers was something encouraged theoretically in University publications, in practice the students were rarely permitted to conduct and present research as a team.

(3) We intended to investigate our professional practice,  improve our decision making process for management of our cases, and train other practitioners in our field. We soon realised that the extraction of tacit knowledge could not be accomplished through collection data from our patients through case reports or questionnaires and viable conclusions could not derived from this. Due to the nature of the task, only  a model derived from the interaction of two practitioners providing bilateral feedback on each other’s work, would have widespread practical professional significance and impact, and could be responsibly disseminated to other practitioners. There is always a discrepancy between the way a person claims to behave and his behaviour in practice. A practitioner must recognise that his description of  his techniques of practice, differ from the way he actually conducts his work. By definition extraction of tacit knowledge means  discussing the techniques embedded in intuitive professional procedures. Also by definition, intuition is partially subconscious. Nothing can be achieved when a  practitioner discusses his professional procedures with himself. Only another practitioner- psychotherapist can identify the discrepancies between his description of  his techniques and his narcissistic aspirations, and the way he actually conducts his work. The second practitioner can then provide feedback, and the dialog and dialectic negotiation will create a cognitive arena in which new ideas can be produced. This leads to derivation of practical  knowledge which can be tested in the field and facilitate improvement in practice management.  Despite the fact that we openly described practicing professionally and researching together, our supervisors did not encourage and even impeded producing research whose rigorousness depended upon our collaboration.

(4) The choice of research topics and the way the research was conducted and presented at the University was significantly influenced by REF guidelines.  Since it was difficult to prove the quality and impact of qualitative research according to the REF guidelines, the University seemed less interested in investing time and effort in professional practitioner research like ours.  The staff were also interested in short research processes which could be published sooner and evaluated. This is not possible in  professional practitioner research, which is usually a long process where the research questions and methodology are unclear at the outset and evolve during the process.

These are some of our insights  which evolved from these observations,  during the period of our studies on the Ed.D programme.

In order to create new knowledge through research, initial  conditions  of uncertainty exist, and the researcher confronts the unknown. This is a psychological quest which the researcher must be capable of overcoming, in order to investigate a phenomena. A model is required that can  help the researcher to overcome both the anxiety created by the uncertainty of the initial circumstances he intends to investigate, and the academic establishment which strives to uphold the old paradigm. The use of the model will equip the researcher to use the uncertainty to motivate him to challenge the old paradigm instead of impeding the evolution of new knowledge. For practitioners, creation of new professional knowledge means defying the accepted protocol, and if the new knowledge proves worthy, it may mean causing the academic staff to admit that there is something better, displacing them from their position of superior knowledge. In empirical research it is easier to prove new superior knowledge  and better understanding of the laws of nature than the old paradigm, through well designed research. Doing this in qualitative research means that the researcher must be persuasive in arguing his findings, despite power relations in the academy, and find a responsible and ethical approach through which to present them.

We were producing research in adolescent Psychotherapy, and were allocated to a supervisor who published a book about his opposition to “therapeutic education”. In order to produce real new knowledge we would have to overcome the opinions, and the academic and social standing of our supervisor. Would it have been possible to have his name on our doctoral thesis, when he had made a reputation through his views which were opposed to the outcomes of our research?

All of the above observations led us to  develop a new model for conducting academic research across various fields, derived from our doctoral research.  Our RO model of  knowledge evolution involves teams of researchers from both philosophical and professional -practical schools, conducting research in collaboration, in one specific field. The roles of the researchers in the process will be rotated after a set period of time. New data will constantly be collected from the field, analysed and discussed by the team. Knowledge will be produced from their interaction and feedback on each others work, old paradigms, concepts and theories challenged and new ones composed. This cycle continues indefinitely, and whenever significant new knowledge is produced it will  be published  by the team. We are developing a method of producing level 12 academic knowledge in practical  professional fields, providing clear evidence for the claims presented. We will ensure that the knowledge produced will have practical applications in society and industry, with all the economic implications of this. The theoretical knowledge will also be compiled into  teachable packages which will be will evaluated financially and taught in Universities. Academics in many fields will benefit from our model of research and knowledge evolution, which will produce higher quality research, and allow the academy  and the field to work together in close proximity.  It will also allow the team to fund  the research independently, reducing or eliminating the necessity  for government funding. A plan is being formed  for the unification of all the publication routes, making all research open for all to read and not dependent on payment or the authorisation of one editor with specific academic opinions. All new knowledge must be made available to the public, but the intellectual property rights will be protected by an up to date technological processes and applications that we are developing.

We presented our authentic collaborative research process to the University staff. Our supervisors, programme leaders and research managers refused to acknowledge our work, and opposed and impeded us, despite our important outcomes and insights.  They  ignored  the fact that we conducted our research together and our findings were derived solely from the  interaction between us. They attempted to cause a personal and professional dispute between us, in order to further their goal for two separate research presentations. In fact they refused to enter into any academic discussion with us which would allow us to justify our research process.

Submitting to our supervisors demands to present our research separately, would mean lying about the process we had conducted and distorting our outcomes. This would make justification of the rigorousness of our research at our viva voca exam impossible, but nevertheless would afford us with the doctoral award. This was the direction advised by our supervisors, despite the fact that the real outcomes had widespread significance for other practitioners in Psychotherapy and related fields, and for conducting research in general. Later we would be asked by our colleagues, trainee practitioners and patients how we wrote these outcomes in our thesis, and yet teach and practice completely different approaches.  We would have to admit preaching lies in order to attain our award.  One of our supervisors was also a proponent  for academic freedom and freedom of speech, yet refused to provide us with a single opportunity to academically justify our research. He impeded our research because it opposed his academic outlook.

Over the recent months we have appealed to all of the authorities whose role is to monitor and supervise the academic functioning of the UK Universities. We corresponded extensively with the OIA, the QAA, BERRA, the Competitions and Marketing Authority, and RCUK. All these organisations publish sincere declarations about their support for excellent academic standards and the production of authentic, innovative research, on their websites. They also dictate the academic and  ethical standards for academic research. However, the representatives of all these organisations  replied with statements removing themselves from taking responsibility for monitoring the behaviour of the staff of our University. Numerous such organisations exist but we have evidence that none of them actually investigate and take action when faced with such academic complaints. The reactions of these organisations astounded us and we replied to these letters with further explanations, again appealing for action, only to receive further refusal to involve themselves. This offended us far beyond the original impact of the offence caused by the misconduct of our supervisors, and astonished us considering our previous respect for the reputation of the British Academy. This is a general phenomenon in the British Academic environment. We then appealed to  the Fraud squad of the the British Police with a complaint that neither the University or the supervisory organisations were fulfilling the roles they are supposed to, but they also did not feel it necessary to investigate our claims.  Only the OIA were willing to address the administrative aspect of the complaint made by one of us to them, and found it justified. However we have yet to discover the authority who is responsible for monitoring the academic functioning of supervisory staff at doctoral level and take action. A curious fact is that we are able to observe the number of times that the representatives of these organisations have opened our emails. They have read them repeatedly both before and after sending us letters refusing to help us. The fact that we have been capable of raising significant concern with these organisations  over the last few months,  means that they acknowledge the seriousness and legitimacy of our claims. We are achieving impact.

We are still hoping that someone in the UK can actually assist us with this personal struggle and generalised problematic situation in the British academy, and that someone will stick his neck out to take action towards long overdue changes. Our next address will be in a letter to all the relevant British politicians.

Ofer Erez

Anat Ben Salmon

Dr. Anna Cristal-Lilov