2011: A Year in Review – Crisis & Positive Change

As I get older and a new year approaches, I am struck by both how little has changed, fundamentally, in the past 12 months and how this year seems to have gone faster than the last.  At every turn there has been conflict and challenges to society, to education and to my own life.  I am left feeling that these are not easy times we are living through but crisis has led to positive change. 

This year is often seen as a year of crisis with the political and economic scenes having worsened, particularly in the Euro zone.  With countries arguing over who is in and out of Europe or certain sections of Europe, we have some of the fiercest political debate on our relationships in Europe that we have had in a generation.  It is splitting UK politics, it is splitting various members of Europe from each other and it is indeed splitting the EU from the rest of the world who look on, somewhat in horror, at what their “cultured” and “historic” friends are doing.  At home, the Unions have been protesting, anti-capitalists have been camping, the coalition has been divided, revelations have been made about phones that were hacked (or at least thought to have been) and sections of society have been out rioting and looting.  These are not easy times that we are living through. 

Within my own sector of Higher Education, departments are being cut, student numbers are not clear in the post-fees era and the economic outlook is far from sure.  The future of Universities has never been less clear and the role of institutions is not clear.  I was at a Christmas drinks event recently where people were trying to argue that universities were not producing graduates that were right for the work place.  My feeling is that their expectations of what education can do is false and that it is not simply about skills but about developing the mind, too.  In the economic rush for up-skilling individuals, the role of educating can be lost.  And the role of research has been challenged and its independence questioned.  These are not easy times that we are living through. 

Even at a personal level, it has been a year of huge change.  The issues around the separation of my old tutor and allocation of a new one have been challenging.  The slow progress I have been making with my own research has been disheartening.  The loss of my mother has been sad and heart-breaking.  These are not easy times we are living through. 

And yet, during my travels across Europe in the early autumn, it was clear that the European Union was here to stay in the close relationships shown between nations and the personal welcome and empathy shown to me.  There was a feeling that the EU has to work – for us the people – despite our politicians.  And similarly after the riots or realisation that the press were behaving badly, it was realised that this was our society.  The scenes of mass-clean-ups or wider-scale debate about individual freedoms were built on this.  There is some evidence of a higher level of debate and civic engagement than before.  Crisis has led to positive change. 

In Higher Education, you are seeing programmes for change management, academics taking things into their own hands and forming new colleges and more discussion about industry in the corridors.  Some of this may have already been happening already, some of it may only be transitory but, in the short term, a year of turmoil has made discussion wider.  Now don’t get me wrong, life is hard for the millions unemployed, for the graduates without jobs and for the individuals hurting from the evils in our lives so I do not want to paint an easy, perfect life but, in certain areas, crisis has led to positive change.  

And the change of tutor has driven me on and I feel I am working harder to finish the PhD and chapters are being written, revised, dismissed and accepted at a faster rate than ever in the three years of this project.  At home, the personal kindness I have been privileged to receive, the relationships which have matured within the family and the hope of future blessings have all meant that out of loss has come at least something positive.  Crisis has led to positive change. 

So, in the end, 2011 has been a year which has whizzed by with challenges witnessed at national and individual level but as we go towards 2012, I have to be hopeful that many good things can come out of this time.  These are not easy times we are living through but crisis has led to positive change.  

Europe – In, Out or Just Shaken All About?

There’s the old children’s game of hokey-cokey where various limbs are put in and out of a circle and then shaken all about.  And really the entire thing is a good metaphor for what has been happening in Brussels and in the UK over the last few weeks. 

It’s rather easy (and simplistic) to reduce the arguments in Brussels over the future of the European Union to a child’s game but in many ways the showing off, the whole “whose my friend” and, at times, down right bullying does have resonances with the playground.  Politics has often been like this but when the stakes are so high it becomes even more incongruous with the issues being discussed.  Britain has thrown its weight around in the past – like when Thatcher renegotiated how much we got back – so none of this is new.  Yet we live in very different times and although the City is 10% or so of the UK’s economy, there is much discussion on the extent to which the proposed treaty would have endangered London’s financial operation.  But still the UK’s presence in Europe is desired and various leaders have been emphasising this since the conference.  Perhaps the UK is not whole-heartedly “in” Europe but certainly a major player and economic power aligned to it. 

What this whole spat comes down to is Britain’s position on the edge of Europe – as has been said before the geography is reflective of a mind-set.  Our political parties are divided and, indeed, as is our government.  There is no real political refuge in the UK for those in favour of closer ties with Europe so those in favour of closer ties to Europe are very much “out” of things. 

The UK is often portrayed as the only country to have these issues but remember that the Czech Republic and Hungary wavered over the idea of a treaty, Sweden has deliberately kept itself outside the Euro and Iceland is heavily divided on whether it should join in. Divisions are not uncommon across Europe and Ireland, the Netherlands and France have all wobbled at times. 

But at a time when everything is being shaken all about so much through the economic crisis many see it as necessary to lean together and support each other.  And this is the fundamental problem that with much of UK politics (of all colours) and international relations, individuals are too focussed on themselves and forget neighbours (be they actual people or other nation states).  The lack of commitment to a wider society with responsibilities to each other is one of the reasons that policies from the Big Society to European Relations stumble.  Until all groups are committed to greater, communal projects and not just looking to national leaders or, more specifically, Germany to fund the European Union then this crisis is going to continue.  The social divisions at neighbourhood level are just magnified at national level. 

This is of fundamental importance to my research: I am assessing one of the education policies of the European Union and seeing if its social intentions are working.  When I started the research the future of the Euro and the EU seemed clear and certain; today it seems less so.   Yet, the European Union should not be assessed simply on the economic decisions it makes but also on the social and cultural impacts that it has.  In many ways whether certain groups or nations are “in or out” does not matter as with all the shaking all about due to a lack of hard commitment the entire Union may not exist in the same way for too much longer. 

Revising Research Questions: Academically not Personally Challenging

I spend a lot of my time revising research proposals, making sure that questions are realistic and correctly framed.  I find myself regularly saying they are too large or too grand or too many.  Questions need to be realistic, acheivable and engaging.  So, I can hand out the advice but when it comes to my own for the PhD it has not been as easy. 

I had 6 of them which included reviewing far too much literature and to be frank were full or jargon.  Leading by example, as you can see. 

And yet, we had a very painful tutorial back in November on how they need reframing and I have spend a lot of time revising them.  I also added some definitions of the terms which I am using.  All good but I found the whole thing incredably personal and challenging: I now know how my academics feel but I need to learn that it is my argument being attacked and not me. 

Universities: The Future – Some Predictions

I research European Higher Education Policy and work in a field of Higher Education which necessitates engagement with policy in the sector.  So I thought I might do some speculations on the future of HE and what we can see happening over the next few years. 

-       Students – application numbers to go down but actual acceptance will not go down massively following the introduction of the new funding regime.  Arts/Humanities will be particularly hit but those subjects with clear professional destinations like law/medicine will not suffer. 

-       2 year degrees or short, intensive programmes are going to become more common as people cannot afford to study in traditional forms. 

-       International – physical student mobility to decrease but off-sure provision to increase with a particular innovation in e-learning provision.  The EU may lead some of the funding to encourage this. 

-       University mission – not all universities will do everything.  Some universities will focus on research, others will become teaching-only.  There will be inconsistencies across universities with some departments being research active, others teaching only. 

-       Universities will increasingly be focussed on a more limited number of subjects where they can specialise. 

-       Funding – Commercial sponsorship is not a reliable way forward.  UK Business sees University’s as being state-supported so why should they?  Funding will increase in these areas but the use of the third sector (NGOs, charities) and public sector can grow in research as they cannot always have their own research functions. 

-       University – Mergers are to be likely.  As always during periods of growth, there has been a growth in the number of providers.  Now things are economically tighter, mergers will happen so that universities become an economically viable model and there are some obvious mergers out there.  And mergers with Further Education colleges are going to happen and closer relations with private colleges could be anticipated.  Indeed, we could see cross-European mergers starting.  I am aware of some German-Dutch companies which are providers in each country but with local quality adherence, language and delivery.  Why couldn’t we woke more closely with some of our EU partners?

-       University – Cross-European collaboration will continue to be important to bring in new skills and make use of more favourable funding regimes.  Ascension of some countries will be particularly encouraged and included if funding applications are to be successful.   The same is true of mobility/joint academic student programmes. 

The nature and role of the University is changing in our society and in many senses all of this is guesswork but it will be interesting to see what if this is true 1, 2, 5 or even 10 years out.  My career path and sector is changing, like everyone else’s, but the need for Higher Education remains consistent. 

Europe, the Euro & Which Currency to take on Holiday

A new hashtag has appeared on twitter: #Eurocrisis.  Now, of course, this is referring to the economic crisis which seems to flit from being a banking to a sovereign debt crisis.  In many ways it is both unnecessary and impossible to label the current situation. 

But 2 thoughts have occurred to me.  Firstly, the fact that a hashtag exists indicates a change in our relationship, awareness and communication of this financial crisis.  Unlike in previous economic crises there is wider political and popular debate of the issues.  In the 1930s (the most serious downturn), the media reports were far less and in the 1980s-90s the individually-driven content did not exist.  Not much of the discussion still happens amongst the political elite, despite the new ‘social media’, many of the actors are the traditional ones.  But there is a far greater awareness which drives the agenda and causes mass awareness to a crisis  All of this changes how this crisis may pan out and puts government under increased (sometimes ill-informed) opinion.  Governments need to react and tell us they have reacted in a faster way than previously and the need for quick reaction cuts time for thinking or to develop more innovative responses to the current situation. 

Secondly, my argument about the political/cultural future of Europe, as opposed to the economic is still valid.  Though founded on an economic model, the political and cultural elements are still particularly important.  As a nation on the edge of the European Union, we may not be the best to view the importance of Europe.  But when you travel across countries and see the shared values and communal beliefs, there should be no doubting the necessity of a European Alliance.  And despite the unhappiness in Germany and, to a different extent, France and other “wealthy” nations about the economic impact of the Euro, they would not want to completely dissolve the political union.  So one of the key issues is how Europe holds together despite its foundations (the economy from which it was born) is shaken to the core. 

I wrote recently on twitter wondering if I should take French Francs or US Dollars to France next week given the problems of the Euro.  In March 2008, an academic friend suggested that we could not bank on the Euro existing in 5 years’ time.  Given this was pre-crisis, she was mainly referring to a crumbling of the political union.  It is surprising that the economics might spell the end in the not too distant future and might make my joke about what currency to tale on holiday to Europe an interesting reality. 

Writing a Literature Review

This week I submitted my first draft of the literature review.  It wasn’t easy, I have to say and what I initially thought to be a lot of reading has turned out to be quite thin.  I divided it into about 6 sections, each with their own discussion point, all trying to justify my research questions and all trying to feed into the over-arching theme of the chapter and thesis. 

All of this might seem quite reasonable; I might have covered all the major arguments & authors in the fields.  I somewhat doubt it and  I certainly lack confidence in it.  And it made me suddenly realise that I am still quite a way off completing the PhD.  A significant part of the PhD is not what you know or what you uncover but how you argue it.  Now, I am relatively confident & able to argue my point in discussion, when looking at applications or in politics.  However, this confidence does not extend to my research.  So the level of work needed and engagement needs to continue.  But there will be a day – hopefully in the not too distant future – when I will be able to do this.  Then I will be confident I can add some letters before and after my name. 

Waiting and Working

Submitted my methodology chapter a week ago today and am now awaiting for the outcome. It is a little odd waiting for the reply and the outcome. Will they like it? Am I still miles off?
In the mean time, this weekend I am working on a draft of the Literature Review to be submitted by 2nd October. Not easy to know how much it should contain, what I should be saying in it and whether it is analytical enough. I am trying to weave the theories of social capital and soft power through but in such a way that the entire chapter builds to the discussion (and adoption) of these standpoints but without overlooking or rushing other arguments. This really is a little harder than I would have expected.
It is also about adapting a style that, for me, both tells a story and guides the reader simply through (like journalism) but also allows for discussion. I am aiming for the style of Peter Scott - himself a former journalist - in his writing about Higher Education. Some academics are said to be 'hard to read' or 'challengin'; whilst not wanting to reduce academic levels, what is the point in not trying to make sure the writing can be accessible and thought-provoking for as many as possible.
So whilst waiting for the feedback on the one chapter, working on another, it is clear that there is a long way to go in terms of being a confident, accessible and engaging academic writer.

The EU is more than the Euro & worth defending

Earlier today I wrote the following flow diagram on twitter:

EU economic crisis -> EU political crisis -> No money/will for EU Education/Social policies -> UK Unis could lose cash.

So the EU Economic crisis could affect EU Higher Education as there is not enough money to go around; thus the future of important international collaborations & student exchanges is unclear.

If cross-EU education projects are cut due to a lack of funds and a lack of confidence in the EU's aims, then future generations will be less aware of th EU's importance and the close bonds between European nations. Money - or specifically a currency - is only part of EU project. Robert Schuman saw his economic alliance as being way to political/social stability. Allowing economic issues to dominate or even end powerful this grouping of nations would be to miss out on its cultural, social and political impact.

Don't get me wrong, the Euro will most likely not exist in its current format in a year or two's time. The strongest argument I have heard is that Greece will exit (and probably sooner rather than later), a northern alliance of Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands will develop. The role of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy (each with their own economic issues) is less clear and a second level of economic union is imaginable with the likes of the UK, Denmark and Sweden remaing as part of the more political alliance. But there are an awful lot of strong relationships, close cultural/political relations have developped within the EU framework over the last 5 decades.

In other words: Eurosceptics will use this current economic crisis to condemn EU. Don't let them. The EU is far more than the Euro.

And anyway what would this do to my PhD on EU HE policy?! The introduction is almost out of date before it's finished.

#LoveEU #LoveHE

882 miles, 5 countries in 5 days & great discoveries in the low countries ... or why we need the EU.

Travelling over what used to be multiple borders, each with their own immigration and hardly hitting the break peddle is a strange experience.  One is aware that something has changed: the signs change colour and from one dialect to another, there are a few more bicyclists in one country, better road maintenance in another.  But during my travels through France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, it struck me that one eased between each country, both in terms of crossing the border and in terms of the culture.  Flemish, French, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon culture could be observed in varying amounts in almost every part of the 'low countries'.  Architecture, languages and borders were smudged, unclear. 

My travelling companion and I discussed the importance of the EU; his argument against the EU sort of went as follows: 
1. What activity could or would not happen at cross-national level? Is the EU just another level of government? 
2. Isn't the EU simply adding expense & regulation when the individual nation state or, even, the individual person would do better alone?  For example, Switzerland & Norway participate in EU programmes with tangential links to the EU, the UK & Denmark participate financially without the Euro. 

But, my counter arguments went as follows:
1. Activity is not at cross-national but multi-national level.  Student exchanges and research projects are increasingly not working between 2 countries but between 3, 6, 10; I am not convinced this would happen with any uniformity of service - if at all - without some co-ordinating power.   
2. The size of some states and their budgets would stop some of the activity.  For example, BeNeLux already felt an alliance was better as jointly they had more influence and capacity. 
3. There is a clear pride and sense of identity in being associated with the EU. 

And this is why the EU has to work; currencies may come and go but the idea of not travelling freely or working together would greatly impinge on the lives of many Europeans.  As a nation on the edge, the UK often condemns the EU but it is only when one sees the power, ease, complexity & uniform acceptance of co-operation face to face that it becomes clear it will last in some form. 

This is the position that Robert Schuman wanted Europe to get to when he founded the fore-father of the EU, the European Coal and Steel Community.  He wanted war not only to be impossible but to be unthinkable.  As a man born in Luxembourg, graduating from German Universities and then French when Alsace-Lorraine was annexed, he was a French & European politician, a true example of what it is to be European. 

Today, Schuman's vision is mostly true, my trip across Europe was proof of integration, our defence of the EU and the Euro needs to be in the same vain: there is too much to lose by not working together. 

So it’s been a while…

And there has been a good reason for this. AS you know, I’ve been changing tutors. 10 days ago it was confirmed that I am changing to Dr. Chris Lloyd and retaining Dr. David Rose.

All good news and I am pleased with the final resolution; that said given that and everything else that has been going on my life, the PhD is running a bit behind on me graduating in 15 months time and is mor looking like 2 years hence but it is still hopeful.

I am in the process of updating all the work and submitting drafts of the methodology and literature review chapters. As I do this, new thoughts are coming up and I am feeling more invogorated with the research. I am also feeling keen to finish the work. Just finishing will also help me to think where I am going in life and where I want my career to head.

So, no promises of regular blogs vut there should be now something to type about!!

The Budget: Remembered for Slower Growth, Fuel Cuts, Changing Research or Elizabeth Taylor?

This was the third major financial statement from Osborne since the coalition came to power 10 months ago. And this first year has not gone as well as he would have hoped. Economic growth has been slower, unemployment still rising and cuts still to take full effect. The Labour chants of ‘same old Tories’ (dull and untrue) and the Tory response ‘look what we inherited’ (dull and not completely true), is becoming repetitive and makes many political followers lose interest due to the lack of change in the argument.

Conversely, there is some positive new for universities. Increasing the number of University Technology Colleges, increasing the number of apprenticeships and a vocal (if not always financial) commitment to research and education. The Higher Education sector has already suffered but there was no changes in the scholarships available for students under the new funding regime or new funds for research. I also doubt that there are any new funds available for departmental research budgets. What there is, however, is a commitment to research in the UK and investing in business to undertake research.

There has been much discussion that the government is funding science/technology research at the expense of arts/humanities/social sciences. I think the policies are seeing a movement of research away from the university. Whether there can be enough, quality researchers (particularly at doctoral level) if there is not sufficient funding in universities can be left to be questioned. Business will fund research which makes money, it is yet to be clear what will happen to other research which has a cultural, society impact. That said, I doubt this nuance will make tonight’s news.

I think there is probably enough to hold off political attacks on the Tories for a little more time due to the fuel tax cuts. However, in the longer term they have got to hope that the activity which they have chosen will actually stimulate some growth in the economy. If stagnation continues then the criticisms that the Tories are harsh and failing will not be able to be washed away with attacks on the previous government.

That said, the announcement of the death of Elizabeth Taylor during Osborne’s speech may be a great stroke of luck and cause some distraction from the detail of today’s speech. The fortunate timing of some sad news, just needs to be backed up with some luck with the economy for the Chancellor over the next quarter.

I can think of some news editors who might be scratching their head on how to order tonight’s bulletins: Fuel, down grading growth or Taylor to be the top story?

Budget 2011 - Rolling Blog

Once again, a rolling blog as things unfold today during the budget announcement; most recent posts are at the top.  Mostly copied from my twitter feed but also with some more extend sections of analysis, particularly looking at the impact of the Chancellor's announcement for Higher Education. 

1455 @cjgrinbergs

My Blog: #Budget: Remembered for Slower Growth, Fuel Cuts, Changing University Research or Elizabeth Taylor? http://tinyurl.com/4k57op7



1343 @cjgrinbergs
@BigBigBen Given technical nature possibly but traditionally felt moreof a heavyweight speaker needed as such fundamental issue.

1342 @cjgrinbergs
RT @BigBigBen Ta for all those reminding me that the leader of the opposition responds to the budget. Would make more sense for the Shad Chancellor, no?

1342 @cjgrinbergs
@BigBigBen Leader of the opposition always replies to budget statements (though not to spending reviews).

1338 @cjgrinbergs
RT @BigBigBen Why isn't Balls responding? #budget11

1333 @cjgrinbergs
Content light from Leader of the Opposition - waving finger going quickly. #budget

1332 @cjgrinbergs
Fuel duty reduced by 1p/litre from 6pm & stabiliser to be introduced. #budget

1328 @cjgrinbergs
RT @BBCLauraK So here we go on fuel duty ...#BBCBudget
RT @Peston Here comes the big one: fuel duty. #bbcbudget

1321 @cjgrinbergs
Is the coverage of #budget today going to be overshadowed by sad death of Elizabeth Taylor. Osborne may be relieved.

1319 @cjgrinbergs
RT @fieldproducer ABC News reports that Elizabeth Taylor has died

1312 @cjgrinbergs
24 (up from 12) new university technical colleges. #budget

1311 @cjgrinbergs
Undertrained & under-educated citizens is one of the main challenges for the growing economy #budget

1309 @cjgrinbergs
Can business guarantee the quality of research without well qualified people from #universities? Need money for Unis, too. #budget

1305 @cjgrinbergs
All these #budgets changes to research seem to be confirming that research is no longer sole domain of #universities

1303 @cjgrinbergs
Osborne: "Research should not take place in our great universities" & increases support for business-based research. #budget #universities

1301 @cjgrinbergs
9 new #universities centres for innovative manufacturing. Some good news for Higher Ed. #budget

1252 @cjgrinbergs
RT @TheReverendDan Corporation Tax cut by 2% - 'BRITAIN IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS'. #Budget

1249 @cjgrinbergs
As predicted, Treasury to investigate merging National Insurance & Income Tax but without affecting those who do not pay NI. #Budget

1243 @cjgrinbergs
RT @MrUJOldfield These are quite modest revisions from the OBR. I wouldn't be as modest. There'll be growth but not as strong as 2.5% #bbcbudget

1241 @cjgrinbergs
Office for Budget Responsibility: Good way for Chancellor to avoid tricky #budget questions.

1240 @cjgrinbergs
Economic stats not good but could be worse. And it is not Osborne's numbers - the EU ones are also bad. #budget

1237 @cjgrinbergs
Live on My Blog: Rolling blog for #budget analysis including impact on #universities http://tinyurl.com/6bd492f

1234 @cjgrinbergs
So last #PMQs reply allows a final attack on the Labour #budget record but will the Chancellor be under attack himself now?

1230 @cjgrinbergs
#PMQs getting louder & attacks on Labour's eeconomic record become more regular as #budget approaches.

1224 @cjgrinbergs
RT @BBCLauraK PMQs always a bit strange before budget - everyone waiting for main event...wide range of questions tho

1218 @cjgrinbergs
Cameron hints at Council Tax freeze & investment in sci/tech local. Will #universities have access to the latter? #budget

1217 @cjgrinbergs
Good discussion on Libya in PMQs & some good answers from Cameron once again. #PMQs #Budget

1215 @cjgrinbergs
So PMQs has few bits on defense, disability allowance & other areas which may hint at #budget but noisy & little detail.

1151 @cjgrinbergs
All the BBC predictions say that the economy is not doing as well as Osbourne might have hoped so #budget tricky game.

1150 @cjgrinbergs
BBC pre-announcement predictions: possible good news for education but not sure that will extend to #universities #budget

1144 @cjgrinbergs
My Blog: Rolling blog for #budget analysis including impact on #universities http://tinyurl.com/6bd492f

1130 @cjgrinbergs
@chrisgolds @mattkmoore And now the BBC - too - good to know the Licence Fee can afford it (may have to be grounded after the budget)

1129 RT by @cjgrinbergs
chrisgolds “@mattkmoore: Sky News have a Budget Day skycopter! For an event that is both indoors and sedentary...” Brilliant! Made me LAUGH OUT

1030 @WellMax81
For those at work who want updates on the #budget2011 follow @cjgrinbergs for concise updates and analysis. (he's also a very nice chap)

0926 @cjgrinbergs
Despite #Budget2011 tweets also off to @IOE_London open evening.Will tweet reflections on my research, doctoral work & #universities generally

0925 @cjgrinbergs
Income Tax/National Insurance: politically introduced, politically removed. Who cares: still money out of pay packet. #Budget2011

0922 @cjgrinbergs
Changes to income Tax/National Insurance makes little dif to my work bar reducing to single calculation. #Budget2011 #universities

0920 @cjgrinbergs
Sci/tech/business will continue to be focus but perhaps a surprise few pounds in student fee wavers for lib dems? #Budget2011 #universities

0915 @cjgrinbergs
So far #bbcr4 predicts money for science & regions: no surprise but doesn't help arts/humanities research. #Budget2011 #universities

0900 @cjgrinbergs
Well it's budget day so I'll be tweeting on & off, especially on any Higher Education announcements. #Budget2011 #universities

Oslo: Being Confident in Speaking Out

Norway was a different country from the moment I got on the plane: Norwegian may have been ‘low-cost’ but it was no Ryanair. Calm, comfortable, classy with a rather expensive menu.
Then when on the bus, I received a call to say that the hotel I had booked was full but they had found us beds around the corner in a better quality hotel. Good service.

The next day when walking around Oslo, the wealth shone out in the cost of a coffee through to the upkeep of the public transport. There was, without doubt, high taxation everywhere but investment shone through.

At the same time the values also shine through. Families were everywhere, little graffiti or obvious poverty, no need for gay district as couples were free to hold hands, whatever their make-up.

This lead me to a tricky question: do the liberal values come about because people can afford to pay the taxes to under-write them or do the liberal values mean that people feel a duty to pay for the functions of state. No easy answer but I suspect it is a little bit of both.

My travelling companion (rather more conservative than me) challenged my views on immigration, on tax and on education. I am coming to the view point that if we want to pay for high-quality services like I saw in Oslo, then those that can, should pay more tax to help those with less. In my career and my research I believe in a market-led approach, the need for greater investment and liberal values within a conservative context. If I believe in these things – as I saw in Norway - then I need to say it despite it going against some traditional ‘tory’ lines. My family have always taught me to be true to myself and that includes in my politics.

As with so much of my life and travels, there was a song that summarised my trip. This time it was “Sing” by My Chemical Romance.

At the same time as trying to find a new way of living following the loss of my mother, re-assessing my research and re-evaluating my political values, then it is time to speak out about these things:

“Sing it out, boy, you’ve got to see what tomorrow brings.
Sing it out, girl, you’ve got to be what tomorrow is.
[…]
Sing it for the boys, sing it for the girls.
Every time that you lose it, sing it for the world.
Sing it from the heart, sing it ‘til you’re nuts.
Sing it out for the ones that hate your guts.
Sing it for the deaf, sing it for the blind.
Sing it for everyone that you left behind.
Sing it for the world.
We’ve got to see what tomorrow brings.
Boy you’ve got to be what the world needs.
Sing it for the world.”

Grief, Graduation and Going Forward

There’s been a bit of a gap in my blogging.

The event which we had predicted since diagnosis for 2 years ago has happened.

My Mother passed into somewhere peaceful on 24 February 2011.

As with so many sufferers, it was not her Motor Neuron Disease which actually killed her. It was an inter-cranial bleed following a fall in the kitchen.

She was with her GP at the time and so was in hospital quickly and through a drug-induced coma was in no pain.

She did not have to suffer a further loss of independence. She had fought this disease so hard that she ended with the dignity and elegance we would expect.

That said, it leaves a massive hole in our lives. In some senses it has not really sunk in. I still wander around and see her in the flowers or the sunshine, think of news to tell her or make her laugh. That will change as we find the ‘new normality’ without her.


Just 6 days after her passing I was due to graduate from my post-graduate diploma in social research methods. After a brief discussion, it was decided we would keep the date and we were right to. She was there in spirit and left me a card ‘just in case’. She was proud of what I had done. So we celebrated that day for her and the sun shone on one of those days were the warmth & hope of spring is just starting to show which my mother would have loved.


At the same time as leaving me a card for the post-graduate diploma, Mother has left me a card for the day when I get my PhD. So, in the short to medium term that has to be my focus. The idea of Dr. Grinbergs is fulfilling so much that my mother would have wanted and so much that my mother had encouraged me out. So I’m in the process of investigating a new supervisor, either at Roehampton or at the Institute of Education as this is becoming a bit of a block and not developing me or my research in the way I would like.
So, for my career, my research, my life and, despite the grief, for my mother – it’s time to go forward and get this done.

Dear PhD Supervisor: Why Academia’s failing me, not my brain.

Dear PhD Supervisor,

I have been wanting to write this for some time. Because I am unhappy. With you. With the PhD. With the nature of academia. Let me explain.

I remember our first conversation going down the wisteria arch at university and you asked if I really wanted to do this project or if I would prefer doing something questioning ‘what is internationalisation’; I didn’t want to do that and despite my attempts to find another tutor, I have ended up with you. You see me as stubborn, as not learning and growing through the PhD project. But in the end the whole thing feels like you are trying to turn me into a mini-you. And I’m not.

You like philosophy and see it as a way of framing the world. I see it as a way of creating artificial arguments without addressing or answering the problems of the world. Our politics and world view don’t match. I suspect you lean to the left and I know you oppose the neo-liberal agenda. I lean to the right and see market forces as a good way of making universities work. You see new media and journalism generally as dumbing down, reducing debates to nothing but core messages. I see it as requiring more intellectual precision to make knowledge accurate, brief, accessible and engaging. You think academics should be left to do research and not made to reach targets in terms of publications, income won and impact generated. I think it is important that we justify our existence in Higher Education, the amount of money spent in taxation and show how our research transfers to the non-academic (some might say ‘real’) world, just as other businesses have to. Yet none of this should matter if getting a PhD was about educating or developing an individual to be an academic. It does matter if the process aims to form someone in your own image.

In my recent essay you commented:

Christopher’s journalist background [sic] comes through in his writing style – short, pithy statements - and this is at odds with the problems he is grappling with and therefore there is an uneasy tension. He is aware of this and is working hard to find his writing style.

To be honest, I smiled at this as I wasn’t a very good journalist as I was too wordy. My academic tutors at both BA and MA level would have described my “short, pithy statements” as “engaging” and that reading across the whole piece developed a sense of discussion and nuance rather than in any particular sentence. I think I have developed a ‘style’ but not one you like as it happens to be the opposite of your slightly wordy style which seems to repeat itself and can lose the reader (particularly the non-academic one).

And this is the whole trouble: my job, world view and engagement with new media has been shaped by people beyond academia, by issues that affect the wider world and by forms of media that try to bring my work to a wider audience. ‘Traditional’ academia, of course, wanted to be relevant and accessible, too, but just as the internet has changed our social interaction and ability to access knowledge, so must it change access to academia and the way universities operate. Academia should not lose its rigour, its use of peer review and independence. But, for me, academia needs to change the questions it asks and the people it engages with. All of this challenges your role and status as an academic. Perhaps I am part of a generation constrained by fewer social norms and constraints than those before me that I want this to be extended to my research.

But I do not and will not believe – as you would have me believe – that this challenging and changing of academia makes me unsuitable, unable or, indeed, intellectually incapable of finishing my doctorate.

All good wishes,

Your PhD tutee

What I Really Learnt about Social Research Methods

For those who have been following my twitter feed or Facebook status, you will have noticed that I have just passed the Post Graduate Diploma in Social Research Methods with a distinction. Thank you to all of you who have sent kind wishes. So I have another qualification to my name and a few more letters. But what does this say about me as a researcher and about my research?

Well, I do know more about research methods – or at least the questions I should be reflecting on when deciding the methods. A lot of the programme was less about saying how particular methods work and much more about reflecting on how to define the most appropriate methods. Each module made us ask a different question:

- What statistics are needed – and what do they really show?
- How important is the individual researcher in qualitative research?
- What are the philosophical and ethical underpinnings to the research?
- Is the research design possible, reasonable and related to the questions posed?
- What responsibilities does the researcher have to the discipline and the research community?

These are universal questions to do with research but require far more self-awareness than I had originally thought. When undertaking arts/humanities research (in France and the UK) the importance of the individual was hardly evident other than in our (academically worded) ‘opinions’ on the products of human endeavour. When looking at journalism research (as part of the MA), the aim was to remove the individual researcher from the reporting but being reflective of their practice is a fundamental skill.

Some of this has changed my opinions, other elements have reinforced what I feel. At times I have felt lost when trying to position myself in all of these debates. I am more of a numbers person but the programme (and my tutor) are more words and qualitative people. Both my research area and questions require a more nuanced way of looking at things. One of the causes of the current economic situation is an over-reliance on false-statistics and only metrics which are measurable. Life is more complicated than that and requires us to examine a variety of numeric and non-numeric data to understand it. That said, as I tried to argue in the philosophy essay, just because I am not using pure numeric data, doesn’t mean that my research should not have the same rigour as quantitative research.

So, ultimately, what did I learn from my Post Graduate Diploma in Research Methods? Perhaps that social research – by which I mean research looking at society or its members – is about reflecting about my own role and the impact of my research. This means making sure that the questions posed and researched are created and answered in a reflective, self-aware way. Research may not produce as concrete answers due to this but given the trouble that ‘absolute’ answers gets us into – perhaps that is no bad thing, either.

Adding Morals to Markets: Why markets and neo-liberalism are evolving and not dying

There seems to be a whole body of discussion on whether we are post neo-liberal now or in a revised form of it. But what on earth is neo-liberalism? It may be seen as the dominant political context but few people seem to define it.
Neo-liberalism – for me – is about a market-lead approach, freeing the markets to lead economic growth and service provision. It is also about rendering the individual citizen a contributor and beneficiary of a market system.

Now many against neo-liberalism argue that all values thus become economic, driven by targets and other social and philosophical values are lost.

Those in favour, see it as method for financial gains individually and nationally, smaller, more efficient government which leaves the citizen in control.

During the economic crisis it was deemed that neo-liberalism had failed; leaving banks and markets to decide the worth of anything lead to a melt-down. But it has to be questioned what form of neo-liberalism failed as it has gradually evolved.

Thatcher and Reagan are seen as the original creators of neo-liberalism though they themselves would not use the term nor particularly see themselves as liberals. They lead the large-scale opening up of markets, encouraging home ownership (and thus individual participation in a market) and changed our relationship with public services.

This model was then revised by Clinton and Blair with the so-called ‘third way’: put simply, market liberalism with a social conscience which meant more state investment in services. And yet for some this lacked the economic rigour for some and thus was doomed to failure.

The thing is that we are yet to see a huge divergence away from the models identified above. Despite the cycles of market growth and constriction, it appears to have worked as a model for increasing wealth. Indeed it is still ensuring huge growth in China, India and Brazil.

What 2008 did was make excessive money (and particularly bankers) look wrong and cause people to ask that a wider set of values be attributed to our markets, governance and, indeed, our lives. I can see neo-liberalism evolving to take on these values; causing a third stage of the concept’s development.

As someone researching European Higher Education, many of the key questions tied to it are attributed to neo-liberalism: the current form of the EU, globalisation, the market approach to HE, the understanding of education/learning etc. My tutor (rightly) argues that I need to challenge these ideas and look for alternative models. My problem is this: I have this feeling that, from my perspective, neo-liberalism works and – with the above evolution – should work better.

Due to neo-liberalism (though some would say despite it), universities have grown and been successful, people are more mobile and aware of the world and the individual’s capacity to bring about change have become clear.

There are faults and the current coalition government are aware of them. But what’s required is a revision to the neo-liberal model - rather than a whole scale scrapping of it as it remains an important model for our universities, country and world.

Research Update 24/01/11

So the plan of writing every day with what I had done does not seem to have worked either, does it? So let’s scrap that for a work. The thing is I don’t make the greatest diarist but be assured that I have been working for at least an hour a day. The essay on the philosophy of social scientific research went through 3 further drafts and has resulted in quite a bit of reading on the History of the European Union and on neo-liberalism. A post follows on that and I think this will have to remain my main way of writing as daily (or even regular blogging) does not appear to work for me!!

Research Diary 04/01/12

Hours Carried Forward from Last Session: -3 hours (none done first 3 days of year)

Hours & Work Undertaken: 5 hours - redrafting philosophy of research essay. 

Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List: +2 hours - reflect on 2nd draft of essay, start condencing reading for lit review. 

Notes:
After not finishing the re-draft of the essay at home (too many other distractions), I finished this evening and have sent it to a couple of friends to have a look at. 

Found sorting the philosophical considerations behind my research a little tough.  You're not meant to fit your methodology or paradigm to the methods or the research questions but in a sense I feel I have had to after not sorting this to start off with.  I suppose this is part of the learning process in doing a major research project.  Next time I will sort the lit review and methodology ahead of actually starting the research. 

Sort of got hear around the whole epistemology and ontology question (I am an interpretivist and social constructionist, on the whole) but need to work out how I express that. 

Style wise - a little muddy I suspect in places.  Tried to get it that each section (epistemologival, ontological and political considerations) to one author/thinker.   Almost there on the first and last but not really got to the bottom of who the key thinker in social constructionism is, yet.  It would be tidier and more pleasing stylistically if I could simplify the structure. 

Tomorrow I will have a break on this and look at the lit review.  Need a change of task and just a quick data-basing my reading will make a nice contrast and help me focus on what I am reading.

New Year New Blog

So I am going to aim and fill in a (short) blog every time I do some research on the PhD. The aim has always been to do an hour and I will keep a brief diary of the format below. Every day for a year so you can see what is going on. Feel free to feedback on any of my thoughts! That doesn't mean there weren't be other posts on other issues (particularly politics, news, university items and general reflections); I just want to keep a better record of my research


Hours Carried Forward from Last Session:

Hours & Work Undertaken:

Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List:

Notes:

Reflections on Citizen Journalism

10 days ago I was stuck in the protests on Oxford Street and proceeded to capture the event using my mobile to tweet and record the event, blogging about it afterwards and disseminating my findings by email & social media. 

This reminded me of discussions about citizen journalism when I studied to be a journalist at the University of Sheffield.  Now much has been written about citzen journalism and there's even a good wikipedia summarising many of the debates.  Now the 2 of the problems with citizen journalism are obvious: skills (whether someone is trained to report) and editorial rigour (anyone can blog, that doesn't necessarily make it fair/balanced journalism). 

Now unlike many 'citizen' journalists, I have actually trained formally as a journalist and I was conscious of one key limitation during my time on Oxford Street: the lack of editorial oversight available.  If I had been linked to a newsroom, more details on what was happening elsewhere could have been fed back to me and a wider context passed on which would have allowed me to focus on the important areas in what I was witnessing.  This would have helped with independence of the journalist (even if most journalists can self-regulate themselves) but more importantly told me where to focus my efforts. 

As part of the MA dissertation handbook, I remember reading that good academic research is like good journlism: thorough, verifiable and fairly presented.  As an academic researcher now, I have the framework (libraries, online publications, colleagues etc.) to fraw on to verify my work.  As a journalist you have the desk-based research, news wires and colleagues to rely on.  As a citizen journalist, I felt alone and could not guarantee I was getting it all - let alone getting it all right. 

Over the last few days I have been drawing on a reflection on objectivity I wrote as part of my MA dissertation.  In that work, I argued that objectivity is impossible but the rigours of trying to achieve it at least ensure work is balanced and possibly of a higher, more ethical standard.  Much to my tutor's disbelief I think the same is true for my PhD research: the ability to critically reflect on one's work is important.  Now as an MA and PhD student, that is part of what academia helps instil.  As a journalist, the profession and the editor help instil this.  As a citizen journalist, I lacked both the guidance of a team to deliver journalism that would work in the wider world. 

Elsewhere on this blog, I have discussed the changing media habits (look at my blog a few moments before the protests for my first thoughts): there is a clear 2 tier news system with an 'official stream' (made up of journalists & mainstream media) for hard facts & comment and an 'unofficial stream' (made up of citizen journalists & commentators) for analysis.  Now this has always existed - look at any historical event and the official media has always been challenged; some would argue that the pamphlets of the 1968 protests, for example, have become the blogs of today. 

However, in a modern media world, there is a need to ensure wider media education so that people can assess and access all types of media.  Not all forms are equal and should be given the same credance.  And that includes my report from Oxford Street.  My report lacks the journalistic rigour that official media would give it - even though I would vouch for its accuracy. 

On Saturday's 'Today' programme, there was a discussion over whether blogging is dead and what media will take things forward.  This would leave citizen journalists looking either out of a job or looking for a new way forward.  But in age where media seems all dominating, though the format may change, there is still a need for citizen journalists to be there. 

So for all my faults on Oxford Street, I come to the same conclusion about my citizen journalism as I did for my MA & PhD and my professional journalism: that trying to follow the research & reporting protocols of the 'trade' may not result in a perfect product but it at least means a story gets out there.