The vast majority of UK academics supported Remain. The free movement of ideas and people is vital to what we do. EU colleagues have brought expertise, students fresh perspectives, and, of course, the UK benefitted disproportionately from EU funding programmes. Despite this near unanimity, there is a divide in UK academe that I fear Brexit will only sharpen.
Throughout the pre-referendum ferment and into the frankly frightening aftermath, I was one of many non-scientists who followed Scientists for EU. It’s a great initiative – probably the most active and visible academic campaign. Everyone knows (or at least says) science matters, right? It’s easy for a campaigner on the doorstep, or a Minister on TV to talk the talk of celebrating UK science and the need to protect investment, if only as some kind of marker of international prestige when few others come to mind (whether they walk the walk is, of course, another thing…)
The problem is – and this is no criticism of Scientists for EU – that it’s not just science at stake here. Of the ten most vulnerable subjects to EU research funding, six fall outside the STEM designation. Beyond money, there’s an intellectual case too. The lone scholar in the humanities is a prevalent but only a partial picture – and a potentially damaging one. All disciplines thrive on collaboration and conversation, even if (and even when) our labour is often solitary. Sustaining a meaningful, productive community of enquiry in the humanities means people meeting, talking, sharing, debating and generally pushing against the boundaries of what we think we know. Scholarship is always a collective endeavour. There is more we have in common within academe than divides us along disciplinary boundaries.
But leaving both those arguments aside, perhaps the most powerful case from a policy perspective for dealing with scholarship rather than just science is that, when it comes to solving problems, it’s the mix that matters. In the UK, we’re just starting to think about how to deal with one of the most complex, divisive and unstable set of social, economic and political problems. Whatever the toxic views that were peddled about experts in the lead-up to the referendum, we should surely be drawing on all the cognitive resources we can possibly access as we tackle its consequences. That includes the humanities. In my recent book, I argue that ‘policy is multi-dimensional, messy, uncertain, ambigious, shifting and contested because so too are the human beliefs, commitments, decisions and interactions at the core of the exercise of power.’ The humanities give us insights into and purchase on the inescapably human dimensions of life – including constitutional crises…
It worries me that in a context where STEM subjects are perceived as the only useful forms of knowledge, science becomes a proxy for the total research base as the impact of Brexit is evaluated and policy responses formulated. There is an opportunity now for advocacy groups such as Scientists for EU to defend science not just in its own terms, but also as part of a broader collaborative effort to make the case for scholarship and evidence in the broadest sense (even if people in this country had indeed ‘had enough of experts‘ before the vote, they seem to be grasping for expertise now). And it should be in scientists’ interests that the UK maintains a vibrant mix of intellectual activity. Dynamic trans-, multi- and interdisciplinary work relies on active, sustainable, ambitious and confident disciplinary cultures.
This agenda also means historians, philosophers and linguists (i.e. all of us humanists) being willing to engage with greater commitment, and to take a platform in the way Scientists for EU have done. My sense is we have much to learn from the ways they used social media to take an active role in public debate, including tweeting and vlogging on Facebook and Youtube. We too need to be open to pressing not just for the value of our own fields, but for a genuinely rich ecosystem of enquiry and expertise.
No policy issue is ever purely technical and no one discipline can ever produce all the answers. As scholars, we need to see science, social science and the arts and humanities as complementary forms of knowledge rather than as competing in some zero-sum policy and funding game. Advocacy groups have a core purpose in their own domain, but that shouldn’t preclude some timely and targeted joint efforts. It’s both/and rather than either/or. Surely now of all moments we should be making common cause?