Contents: AHRC: New Postgraduate Scholarship scheme; Metrics consultation; AHRC and PhD submission rates; ERIH journals consultation; Benchmarking; RAE consultation; Philosophy in schools; New Chair of BPA; Elections 2006; Constitutional changes.

Chair - Baroness Onora O’Neill
Secretary - Professor Jonathan Wolff
Treasurer - Professor Daniel Hutto

Editor: Jonathan Wolff, Secretary, BPA, Department of Philosophy, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT (j.wolff@ucl.ac.uk)

    Contents:

  1. Introduction
  2. AHRC: New Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme
  3. Metrics Consultation
  4. AHRC: PhD Submission Rates
  5. ERIH Journals Consultation
  6. Benchmarking
  7. RAE: Consultation. Briefing at the BPA AGM
  8. Philosophy in Schools
  9. New Chair of BPA
  10. Election 2006
  11. Constitutional Changes
  1. Introduction

    2. One of the main motivations for setting up the BPA was to have an organization that could speak with a single voice for the profession in consultation with government agencies. The past year has shown just how important this function is, with major consultations with, and representations to, HEFCE, the AHRC, and the QAA, among others. The BPA is now a respected voice among the subject associations in the UK. The BPA aims to be an effective voice in communicating the concerns of philosophers to those who determine the environment in which we work, and, where possible, to have some influence. In this newsletter we set out some of the activities the BPA has been involved in over the past year.

  2. AHRC: New Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme

    3. The AHRC has proposed some very radical changes to the post-graduate studentship scheme, suggesting that in the future institutions should make a bid for five years of scholarship funding, and then determine their own awards. At the time of writing the BPA is in the process of organizing a response, once more in consultation with our members. The final response will be posted on the BPA website when it is ready.

  3. Metrics Consultation

    4. Discussions on what will replace the RAE are in process, and, in particular whether there is a role for metrics. The DES initiated a consultation on this issue, and once more the BPA co-ordinated the responses of the membership. In addition, HEFCE/AHRC set up an ‘expert group’ to make proposals. We were able to report very strong support for the centrality of peer review of research outputs to any future scheme, and this was communicated both to the expert group and the DES. See also the details of the BPA’s response (word document).

  4. AHRC: Lobbying on changes to PhD Submission Rates

    5. The Arts and Humanities Research Council, which awards scholarships to doctoral students, has, for the last few years, insisted on a submission rate of 50%, meaning that 50% of AHRC funded doctoral students, either in the current cohort, or in the past three years, must submit their thesis within four years of receiving their grant. (Allowance is made for students with a genuine excuse for late submission. Also departments with very small numbers of funded students are excluded from the exercise.) Departments which fail to meet this target are blacklisted for two years, meaning that they cannot hold doctoral awards during that time. In 2004-5 this target was increased to 60%, and for 2005-6 the AHRC has announced plans to increase it to 70%. This has been of great concern to a number of departments, who point out that a target of 70% is very uneven in its effects. For example, for a cohort of three students it is effectively 100%. Also the penalty seems overly harsh and damaging.

    In response the AHRC has agreed that there will be a transitional period in which those departments falling between 60% and 70% will receive a warning but not a penalty, and they have agreed to look very sympathetically at individual cases where there are good reasons why a student may not have completed on time. However they stress that they need to be made aware of any such cases as early as possible, in order to make the necessary allowances. In general, the AHRC say they intend to be flexible over this. If any department finds themselves in difficulty over this they are urged to contact Jo Wolff, so that the BPA can take up the matter with the AHRC.

  5. ERIH Journals Consultation

    6. Earlier this year, on behalf of the European Science Foundation, the AHRC organized a meeting, and then a consultation, on the ‘Reference Project’ in the humanities, in which all humanities journals published in Europe, and the best from elsewhere, were listed as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or unclassified on the basis of a number of quality indicators. The BPA was asked to make recommendations for changes. However many members of the committee were opposed to the existence of such a ranking, and a much wider consultation took place. Many members were worried about the effects of the existence of such a list on the practices of publishing, while a number of philosophical societies associated with particular journals felt that their journal had been harshly treated. The BPA responded to the AHRC making its concerns clear, as did many other subject associations. As a result the AHRC has distanced itself from this exercise, making clear that it was acting on behalf of the ESF, rather then in its own right. It is now unclear what use, if any, will be made of such a list.

  6. Benchmarking

    7. The BPA was asked by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to take a lead in the revision of the Philosophy Benchmarking statement. The BPA membership were consulted on how, if at all, they used the Benchmarking statement, and what changes they would like to see. In the light of the feedback received the BPA recommended a number of small changes, largely to remove some now obsolete elements. At the time of writing the new draft has been sent out by the QAA for consultation.

  7. RAE: Consultation. Briefing at the BPA AGM

    8. The BPA has been active in coordinating responses to the RAE consultation process on behalf of members. The final criteria have now been published, and although notice was taken of some of the points made, the Philosophy Sub-Panel was disappointed to find that a number of their recommendations, based on consultation with the profession, were not accepted by HEFCE officials. The BPA has joined with the Chair of the Sub-Panel, Professor Antony Duff to protest about this situation.

    Subsequently Professor Duff held a briefing session on the RAE at our AGM, and provided a very helpful dummy submission to illustrate how the process will be applied. This is included here as Appendix 1.

  8. Philosophy in Schools

    9. The BPA has continued to develop its interest in the teaching of philosophy in schools. Accordingly members of the BPA Executive Committee now sit on a number of committees at the AQA, which runs A levels in Philosophy, and in Religious Studies, with a view to aiding curriculum review and reform.

    In addition the BPA, in association with the Royal Institute of Philosophy, has organized a conference for schoolteachers entitled ‘State of the Art’, to take place in Manchester on November 20th. Speakers will be Simon Blackburn, Anthony O’Hear and Brad Hooker. For details please contact Tom Sorell

  9. New Chair of BPA

    10. After three years as inaugural Chair of the BPA, Baroness Onora O’Neill stepped down, in order to devote herself to her new role as President of the British Academy. We thanks her for her help in setting the BPA off to such a good start and wish her every success in this new role. The BPA is very pleased to see a philosopher, and loyal member of the Association, in such an important and influential position.

    Our new President is Professor Brad Hooker, of the University of Reading, who will be well known to many of our members. Brad has been a member of the BPA committee since its foundation.

  10. Election 2006

    11. Each year four members of the committee come to the end of their elected term. This year the committee members concerned were Helen Beebee, Brad Hooker, Onora O’Neill, and Jo Wolff. Onora decided not to seek re-election, while the remaining three chose to stand for a second term. Alessandra Tanesini also stood for election. As there were, therefore, four candidates and four vacancies, the candidates were elected unopposed.

  11. Membership: Schools and Colleges

    12. Over the last year or two the BPA has had enquiries from departments of philosophy at schools and colleges wishing to be members. After discussion the Executive Committee decided to recommend to the membership that this was to be welcomed. Hence an amendment to the constitution was proposed at the AGM, and the change was agreed. The new wording is as follows:
    5 (ii) (b) philosophy departments or equivalent units within UK higher education institutions, COLLEGES OF FURTHER EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS (hereafter referred to as ‘departments’), and learned societies having among their principal objects the promoting of study in areas which are wholly or primarily philosophical (such members are referred to hereafter as ‘corporate members’).

    ii) Titles of Officers
    A number of other organizations and associations are beginning to abandon the title ‘Secretary’ as this no longer carries the meaning it once had. The BPA decided to follow this path, and the Executive Committee recommended to the membership that the title should be changed to ‘Director’. This was agreed.