Notes on an academic spat

This week on X (formerly Twitter), there was a notable dispute between the conservative journalist Charlotte Gill and British humanities academics. In a series of posts which gained wide attention, Gill published the abstracts of projects which had received significant funding. Like the infamous Libs of TikTok account, Gill intended to mock.  

Whilst some of these projects are eccentric (see below), I cannot sympathize with Gill. Revealingly, one of her main targets was a project on the politics of the grain trade. Reading the abstract, this seems a worthy examination of an important topic. If such research were not undertaken, our society would be immensely diminished.

Beyond this anti-intellectualism, the methods of Gill are questionable. The journalist courts unpleasant parts of social media and exposes early-career researchers to ridicule. Whilst authors should account for their publications – after all, they are in the public domain – this tactic is cruel.

Yet it is difficult to defend the work of some of Gill’s targets. Certain projects examine trite subjects and, crucially, do not seem to use robust methods. Fields in which critical theory is prominent have long been eccentric – for example, the autoethnographic method involves little more than writing about oneself – and, 18 months ago, the masturbation paper disgraced them. From what I can see, these subjects continue to have major quality issues.

This conflict sheds light on the emerging relationship between academia and society. Earlier this week, I regretted the tendency of ‘low liberals’ to think in crude terms, mobilize on social media and achieve gratification through stigmatization of outgroups. Gill and her supporters are their conservative equivalents and, like low liberals, are thriving.

Whilst academia has considerable problems, people like Gill should not be involved in resolving them. Rows in US academia about plagiarism have similar dynamics. Some charges are serious, yet those who lead the campaign have dubious motives and do not understand the intricacies of the sector.

In academia, stratified and tribal conditions perpetuate challenges. Famously, left-liberals dominate the sector and conservatives are the main outgroup. This entails reluctance to scrutinize fields in which critical theory is prominent, even among scholars who privately dismiss such approaches. I had hoped that the scandal of the masturbation paper would encourage reform, yet have seen limited evidence of this.

The double standards grate. Given the partisanship of such fields, it is difficult to imagine an autoethnography about (say) a conservative voting for Brexit. Yet if such a paper appeared, many of the academics who normally ignore such methods would probably ridicule it.

Paradoxically, both sides need each other. For academics working in these areas, Gill’s anti-intellectualism makes it easier to dismiss all her charges and gives fields a common enemy. For conservative media, such material is ideal copy and the usual suspects have jumped on Gill’s story. Of course, the losers are those who desire well-funded universities which produce quality research.

This battle may rage for the foreseeable future. However, both sides are volatile and, in the longer term, one might prevail. Whilst conservatives may lose interest, entailing victory for the academics, this is far from guaranteed. Conservatives can mobilize large resources, making them dangerous. In the US, there have been notable attacks on universities in red states.

Fortunately, this coalition is not in the ascendancy in the UK. Almost certainly, the Conservative government will soon lose office and a moderate Labour government will replace it. But after the election, the Conservative Party may move to the right. If this happens, attacks on universities might achieve greater prominence and may influence the Labour government.

This comes at a dangerous time for British universities. The sector has financial problems and restructuring is underway. Alas, universities have limited public sympathy. This week, I presented the results of a survey experiment at the Political Studies Association conference, in which we offered nine policies to a sample of 2,000 UK voters. The choice included unpopular measures such as increased funding for universal credit and housing benefit, yet we found that increased university funding was the least popular policy.

Currently, British academia needs allies from across society. Given this, conditions in some fields and limited prospects of self-reform are concerning. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

---

If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊