tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425947044988938623.post5512521754663236820..comments2023-07-25T05:25:24.882-07:00Comments on future thoughts: More on the AHRCbooneryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11462594519638838908noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425947044988938623.post-20988477851127203662011-03-31T14:11:00.337-07:002011-03-31T14:11:00.337-07:00So the third option needs to be taken, without loo...So the third option needs to be taken, without looking like it. That is perfectly feasible. The AHRC response to the Observer story includes the following words.<br /><br />"What the document quoted actually says is that ‘significant’ funding will be put into SIX (not one) ‘strategic research areas’. These are language-based disciplines, the creative economy, interdisciplinary collaborations, and cultural heritage as well as issues related to communities and civic values. This will occur as part of an extensive portfolio of funding covering many different types of research which, once again, was developed through extensive consultation with researchers over a two year period."<br /><br />All the AHRC need now say is something like this:<br /><br />"The earlier document led to considerable uncertainty, and was open to misinterpretation. We therefore confirm that nearly all of the projects that we have funded over the past few years would have fallen within the scope of our funding priorities. A given topic of research will speak in favour of, or against, the project's being funded to the same extent as the same topic would have done in previous years. The list of strategic research areas should be read more as a prediction than as a prescription."<br /><br />That is not perfect, but you get the idea. The "strategic research areas" are so broad that there is wriggle room. I just hope that someone wriggles.Richard Baronhttp://www.rbphilo.comnoreply@blogger.com