A Very Rugged Landscape: The End of Disciplines? The View from a Head of School of Sociology and Anthropology (University of Canterbury)

Argument Teaching in universities is being reorganized in ways that undermine disciplinary expertise Audit and funding mechanisms intended to enhance research reinforcing an increasingly chaotic / rugged social science landscape

The Landscape of Knowledge Production / Disciplines in the Social Sciences (RSNZ) Sorting of social science community in new RSNZ journal / disciplines and administrative or budget units at UC Psychology and Human Geography (College of Science) Economics (College of Business and Economics), Sociology, Education, Political science, Anthropology and Social work (College of Arts).

Current Landscape of teaching ‘problems’ /studies in Social Sciences (RSNZ) Development studies, Criminology, Ethnic studies (Sociology) Sustainability, Health (Geography, Sociology) Conflict resolution, International relations, Security studies, Human rights, (Political Science) Media studies and Communications (School of Political Science and Communication) Cultural studies, Gender Studies (School of Culture, Literature and Society) Ethics (Philosophy)

Disciplines / Fields of Study Does sociology in NZ have an in-built accountability of a self monitoring and epistemological kind or is it a fractional array of people with different interests? Sociology – which is more than social policy- increasingly a collection of problems / studies Discipline no longer have a common ethos / canon recorded in a combination of theory and method (Compare UK, USA). Studies or problems ‘unlimited’ remain dependent on disciplines

Landscape / Infrastructure of Teaching Falling numbers of PhD students - Teaching / training of graduates by disciplines increasingly difficult Redistribution of students occurring both within disciplines (to more applied fields) and to vocational professional schools Destabilisation compounded by University Funding regimes setting existing and arbitrary units / schools up as competitors rather than collaborators Need to restructure degrees towards taught Masters as in the UK and USA?

Landscape of Research PBRF attempts to promote interdisciplinary / cross institutional research (BRCCS) Other consequences: problems of ‘recognition’ / ‘measurement’ of NZ research Model of end-user research not embraced / continuation of ‘private’ research ‘Migrant’ academics tie back to community of origin and continue to publish (UK, USA, European Countries etc) or exit NZ.

The Rugged Landscape: Audit and the Managed University The Multi-disciplinary University is a managed or corporate university. A networked world of administrators and accountants with (student) interests in (popular) inter-disciplinary teaching and research Pressure from above to increase primary / relevant research to capture research income Weakened disciplines and competitive relations between interdisciplinary studies leads to (PBRF encouraged) individualised and opportunistic teaching and research

Control and Responsibility Audit and External monitoring yet to translate into internally generated motivation or transform research habits Audit viewed as a productivity exercise – a major shift of power to managers Targeting of research monies for problem oriented research undertaken by ‘experts’ shifts control from academics We still have to (as is the intention of PBRF) reconstruct teaching and research nexus in a way that recognises relations of interdependence between academics

Concerns at Level of School within Universities Concern that defensive struggles and competition between components of social sciences for students as much as competition for research money is driving reorientation of the Social Sciences in NZ Competitive struggles undermining more general capacity for social sciences to collaborate both within and across Universities and other arenas. No recognition of these aspects of academic life in reports

Registering Hope Hope that academic products in the new RSNZ Social Science Journal ( a case of audit making things auditable) will return knowledge taken out of the public domain to the public. To achieve this end it is necessary to keep multiple regimes of worth (disciplines and studies) in play in order to be able exploit the resulting ambiguity and creative tensions that arise between them.