I've just come across an interesting and disturbing article (via Times Online) describing the changes in British government policy towards the value assesment of academic research excellence. It’s old (Nov 2009), but still relevant.
The article is entitled:
Impact on Humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen.
It describes a tragedy which is likely to unfold in more countries around the world as good old Money Money Money remains the only significant measure of value in a capitalist society.
The new "Research Excellence Framework" should come into effect in 2012 and includes quantitative tick-boxes like "quality of research outputs", "wider impact of research" and "vitality of the research environment".
Not only are these factors as hard to measure as quantitative impressions like "peer esteem" and "cultural repercussions", but they encourage a false focus in academia.
It's like judging whether you are a valuable member of society based on the number of friends you have on facebook.
The article stated:
"Art is a valuable human activity: showing that it also “generates” several million pounds for the economy in terms of visits, purchases, employment etc does not make it a more valuable human activity."
If you ask an individual, they are likely to be able to name a book that changed their life, a movie that inspired them, a person who made them see the world in a new way, a song that comforted them...
But if you ask a larger group, a society, a nation, then suddenly the reason (and reasonable funding) for art, for thought, for research and exploration, has to be based on something - more measurable? More generic? The best possible book for the biggest possible number of people?
That seems a disturbingly obvious way to stifle deep understanding, sudden discovery and playful innovation.
Never mind computers or robots taking over the world - we have already become slaves to some grand set of numbers less free and flexible than the human minds that created them.
