Under Way

This chapter discusses the developments in terms of research grants and research funding of the newly established AHRB. By 2002 to 2003, during its fifth year, the AHRB's total budget had increased from £17.9 million to £64.8 million. During this period, non-programmed costs were capped at five per cent. Putting aside its administrative costs, the AHRB in its fifth year had programmatic expenditures of £61.7 million, a 20 per cent increase from the initially predicted expenditure. Of the £61.7 million, £9 million was allocated to the operation of museums and galleries of English institutions and the rest was equally divided between postgraduate awards and research awards throughout the UK. As funding rose, intellectual ambitions also increased. Several ambitious projects were initiated such as the editing of Francis Bacon's works, the creation of public policy concerning the film and television of Britain and Europe, the pursuing of the long-delayed multinational Romanian project, and several other projects. During this period, the AHRB garnered a distinct sense of direction and momentum. Over three years, the applications of research funding increased to 58 per cent. The applications for the postgraduate awards increased to 20 per cent in a year and the four year doctoral submission rate for arts and humanities students increased to 78 per cent.

AHRB on its Own

This chapter discusses the separation and independence of the AHRB from the HEFCE. In 2001, through the aid of Bahram Bekhradnia, the AHRB gained autonomy from the HEFCE. At the beginning of the fiscal year in April 2001, the ARHB became a company limited by guarantee. In September of the same year, the organisation gained legal status as a charity, hence affording it certain tax advantages. The newly independent company and charity took on new trustees, however it retained its broad responsibilities. It also took on the responsibility for producing its own audited Statutory Accounts. At the same time, the organisation's staff formally transferred to the employment of the ARHB and in the following year additional staff were recruited. In the month of October, the organisation signed a ten-year lease contract on its new office in Whitefriars Building in Bristol. In addition, the organisation was also attaining full realization of its programmes and objectives. It formed three award schemes including the Research Leave scheme. It also created the Fellowships in the Creative and Performing Arts. In addition, the organisation also formed new funding schemes and in 2002, upon the approval of the government, the Research Council funded projects throughout the UK. In sum, as Chief Executive David Eastwood puts it, the ARHB was achieving independence and operating in ways which still mirrored those of the research councils.

Deliberations and Predispositions

This chapter discusses deliberations and predispositions that were made before the final approval of the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council/Board. After the second reading of the Higher Education Bill, the AHRB and the Bill was subjected to a more detailed review. Between February and March, fifteen sittings of the Standing Committee H were conducted to examine the proposal and the legislation clause by clause. Whilst the head of the committee, Alan Johnson declared a seemingly unanimous support for the Bill as no demonstrations against the arts and humanities aspect of the Bill occurred. Many of the members of the committee averted that they needed time to consider and scrutinize every aspect of the bill. In the House of Lords the Bill was warmly welcomed. However, as with the House of Commons and the Standing Committee, some of the aspects of the Bill were met by antagonism. The most serious opposition against the Bill was against Part 1 of the Higher Education Bill which expressed that devolved administrations can perform arts and humanities research on their own. After much deliberation and considerations, on the evening of July 1, 2004, the Higher Education Bill received Royal Assent and was considered as the Higher Education Act.

Resistance

This chapter discusses the antagonism and resistance directed against the ARHB. When the Dearing Report first appeared, the University of Oxford stood against the establishment of a separate Research Council for humanities. It expressed doubts about the new public funding of such a new organization and on the transfer of control of expenditure away from the universities to a council envisaged as the instrument of a national policy for research in arts and humanities. Cambridge University also expressed, albeit not as adamantly as Oxford, their disapproval of a Humanities Research Council. Adding to these disapprovals were the conflicts it had caused in the contemporary UK political life, particularly with devolution. In the devolution process of the UK government, one of the devolved powers was education, which created adverse effects on the formulation of Humanities Research Council. The AHRB also met with criticism from other councils including the journals and newspapers of the UK.

Back on to the Agenda

This chapter discusses the reintegration of the need for Humanities Research Council back onto the public agenda and into the policy stream of the UK government. The issue of the Research Council for the humanities came into public and governmental attention when it was fastened to the dilemmas of financing higher education, which itself was tied to the uncertainty of the UK economy. In May 1996, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment together with Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland appointed Chairman Ron Dearing to create a body that would inquire into the higher education system of the UK. In 1997, the committee produced a report, Higher Education in a Learning Society, or the Dearing Report. The report charted a course for higher education in the UK for the next twenty years. This so-called intellectual capital called for a higher quality of teaching and the need for researchers and research facilities. It offered 93 specific recommendations, among which was a recommendation advocating the immediate establishment of a new Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). In 1998, the government recognized the need for the establishment of a research council for humanities and announced the provision of £8M in 1998–1999 for arts and humanities research, albeit after lengthy considerations.

Board to Council

The AHRB was given the core responsibility to produce 12,000 active arts and humanities researches over the UK. As of 1998, the Board had made over 4000 awards involving over 5000 researches. Across the UK, in the institutions of the government and the academy, several have been engaged with the AHRB and were actively committed to the fulfilment of the AHRB as a true Research Council. In 2005, the Arts and Humanities Research Council achieved its desired transformation after having built an impressive array of assets. This chapter discusses the transformation of the Arts and Humanities Research Board to a Research Council. In the process of the transformation of the Board, several changes were made. Among of these are the transition of the charitable status of the board and the transition of the AHRB's assets and obligations in to the new Non-Deparmental Public Body (NDPB). It also meant that the now AHRC must provide multi-year funding and the creation of strategic initiatives that would support intellectual urgency. The integration of the AHRC within the Research Councils also meant the restoration of arts and humanities to the circle of serious sciences and knowledge.

In Due Course: The Government Decides

This chapter discusses how the government agreed to the commitment of establishing an Arts and Humanities Research Council. Following the achievement, aspiration, and resistance in the early years of the AHRB, Margaret Hodge, who was the Minister of Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in the UK Department of Education and Skills, formulated a Review of Arts and Humanities Research Funding. This review was carried out on behalf of the Ministers responsible for the higher education in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The review aimed to recommend how to enhance support for arts and humanities, including how to encourage government support on such relevant issues. Of the 117 responses from the formal consultations, 114 – 97 per cent – agreed to the need for an organisation dedicated to arts and humanities. The review was subjected to the deliberations and considerations of the Steering Group. The report made by the group was eventually given to the Education Ministers. The Report of the Steering Group lauded the AHRB which despite its provisional start and status made contributions to society and the sciences. Whilst the government made slow progress on the approval of the creation of the AHRB, in January 22, 2003 the government approved the establishment of an Arts and Humanities Research Council which according to the government should be a fully functioning and statutory research council by 2005.

New Partners

This chapter discusses the emergence of new partners and alliances of the AHRB. In 2000, Brian Follet was appointed as the Chairman of the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB). As the appointed Chairman, Follet made a commitment to create new partners and allies of AHRB. Its ultimate goal was to bring together all areas which systematically create and shape knowledge or a ‘Wissenschaft’. During 2000–2001, the Council for Science and Technology (CST) led by Cambridge historian Emma Rothschild considered what bearing the arts and humanities might have on the strategies of sciences. In July 2001, the CST presented a report to the Prime Minister and other government leaders. This report, Imagination and Understanding: A Report on the Arts and Humanities in relation to Science and Technology found out that arts and humanities are an outstanding part of UK research, contributing in several ways to the nation's prosperity and well-being. In February 2001, the CST formed the first Quinquennial Review and in December 2001, the Quinquennial Review recommended the creation of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) Strategy Group which required Research Councils to work in partnership with other Councils including stakeholders. With this new policy, the AHRB worked and forged partnerships with Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Foundation for Science and Technology (FST), European Science Foundation (ESF).

A False Start

In general, modern governments invest only a small portion of the national income to the generation of new knowledge. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Science and Industrial Research carried out this task until 1965. Then the Science and Technology Act changed responsibility for the curiosity-driven research to five Research Councils which are funded through the Department of Education and Science. In 1993, a White Paper, Realizing Our Potential called for the reorganization of the Research Councils. This chapter discusses the struggles of the establishment and recognition of the need for Council for Research in the Humanities. In 1961, the British Academy suggested for the creation of Council for Research in the Humanities, however it was not granted in the legislation made in 1965. Instead, a separate Research Council for social science was established, which opened up the possibility of creating a separate Research Council for Humanities. In 1990s, discussions on the reorganization of UK research funding reopened the question of how the government funds and supports research in humanities. It also opened talks for the establishment of a freestanding Humanities Research Council. Sometime in 1992, after deliberate considerations of the possible contributions of a separate research council on humanities, a recommendation for the establishment of Humanities Research Council was made. However, on the same year, the government decided not to set up an agency that would support humanities, and, in 1993, the government made a firm decision not to include humanities in any form to the circle of Research Councils — a decision which irked humanities scholars and academy members.

At the Point of a Larger Conflict

This chapter discusses the existence of support for the AHRB during its struggle for recognition and acceptance. In January 22, 2003, the White Paper on the Future of Higher Education created uproar. This furore over the White Paper was due to concerns over the government's proposal to allow universities to raise fees and to provide deferred loans by which the students might meet those charges. The uproar was also heightened by the government's declared intention to concentrate on research funding. Amidst the din over the AHRB's establishment and the government's intention of giving research funds to research councils, the AHRB found immense support from various groups. Iain Gray, Scotland's Minister For Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, expressed support for the creation of the AHRB. The same warm response to the White Paper and to the prospect of the creation of the AHRB was also expressed by the RCUK Strategy Group which emphasized the importance of arts and humanities as equal to those of engineering, science, and technology. The same response was also accorded by the House of Commons. In addition to the positive responses to the proposal of creating a humanities research council, UK government and political officials were beginning to include the White Paper recommendations into their debates. By mid-summer, widespread support for the AHRB was garnered and on January 27 2004, a second reading of the Higher Education Bill approved the creation of the Arts and Humanities Research Council.