Conditions on the ground (post-Post Transit)

Posted on | August 22, 2007 | 2 Comments

Guy has written an important comment that I don’t want to get lost, as it adds depth and context to the partial picture I gave of the UEL conference. His final remarks are crucial: and give some concrete form to the complaints about neoliberalism that echoed around the event. I always wonder why there aren’t more explicit discussions of the material conditions for academic labour at disciplinary conferences, because it seems like the only viable place to have a genuine, ongoing, international dialogue about them (i.e. you’re stuck together for a number of days, and it takes that long to start a conversation sometimes). The Crossroads conference has attempted this in recent years, and I hope that next year in Jamaica we can do the same. I also think the professional development day in Adelaide later this year holds the potential for some of these issues to be raised for cultural studies workers.

To talk about the changed environment for scholarship – the myriad ways it gets funded, counted and evaluated in a corporate university context – is an important way of recognising that styles of intellectual practice inevitably develop in response to wider economic and political conditions (this in large part explains the narrative structure of my own book, Cultural Studies’ Affective Voices). So the modes of intervention effective or emblematic for one historical period may not be useful, or even available for new generations of scholars… unless we fight for them, which could be what Guy is asking us to consider by thinking about how the RQF will affect Australians’ work. Then again, it’s worth remembering that the Birmingham Centre itself wouldn’t have started without sponsorship from a major publisher in Penguin Books; for me, patronage has never been the key issue. Instead, it’s the dwindling security of tenure, short-term contracts and the sheer competitiveness of the job market for the many more graduates now entering “the market” which most clearly condition the forms and genres of writing people feel able to do. I’d be interested in what others think, tho.

Category: Academia, Politics, Work

Comments

2 Responses to “Conditions on the ground (post-Post Transit)”

  1. melgregg
    August 22nd, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

    Oh, and on the RQF, an email I received this morning is indicative of what we can expect in some areas (I love that “stalking” is becoming the key metaphor(?) for success in our wonderful network society…):

    FINDING YOUR VOICE: Getting published and stalking high impact journals – Friday 28 September 2007

    This half-day workshop is a step-by-step guide from that discreet ambition and half-formed thought to the glory of publication in an internationally-refereed journal. The beginning author will be introduced to techniques for overcoming obstacles to writing and publishing, stroking fickle editors, taming ferocious journal referees, and key tricks such as the graded build-up, the chameleon project/manuscript, the persevering author and the mpu will be exposed. We will take a good idea, develop it into a paper proposal, identify journals that are good prospects for publication, write and submit a manuscript, deal with the bloody referees’ comments, and finally get into print. High impact journals will be identified, foreshadowing a future glittering career. And we will take every opportunity to wring most benefit from our achievement for our self-promotion and advancement.

    Presenter: Dr Gavin Moodie, Principal Policy Adviser, Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Griffith University

    Time: 9.00am – 12.30pm

    Venue: Griffith University EcoCentre, Nathan Campus

    Cost: ATEM Members: $70.00; Non Members: $90.00 (includes morning tea)

  2. Melissa
    August 23rd, 2007 @ 8:40 am

    Tim Birkhead’s article on the RQF (posted by Guy) talks briefly of its impact for female researchers with children. Nine months out on maternity leave can have a big impact on your research output, he says. I know it was meant with the best possible intentions, but what a ridiculous understatement. If you were only talking in months it would hardly be a big deal: but primary caregiving evidently goes on for years, not the duration of maternity leave. Women with children have of course always been at a huge disadvantage when it comes to research, but as one of them myself, it’s hard not to despair entirely when I think about the discriminatory impact of an RQF framework.

Leave a Reply