Uncategorized

e-book Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings book. Happy reading Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Culture & Values, Volume 1: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings Pocket Guide.

Buy It Now. Add to cart. Reich , Paperback.

ISBN 13: 9781305958104

Be the first to write a review About this product. About this product Product Information Instrumental Folio. Excellent solo arrangements of 12 hits, complete with CD accompaniment! Additional Product Features Table of Content.

وصف ال٠نتج

The Beginnings of Civilization. Early Greece. Classical Greece and the Hellenistic Period. The Roman Legacy. Ancient Civilizations of India and China. Judaism and Early Christianity. Charlemagne and the Rise of Medieval Culture. The Early Renaissance. The High Renaissance in Italy. The Renaissance in the North. The Baroque World. The Romantic Era. The Peoples and Cultures of Africa. Between the World Wars. The Contemporary Contour. Show More Show Less.

Navigation menu

Pre-owned Pre-owned. Compare similar products. You Are Viewing. Trending Price New. Show less Show more. No ratings or reviews yet. Be the first to write a review. Collini reasons that assessors see impact as an indicator of value in and of itself. The focus on publically accessible outputs means that a variety of humanities research is negatively affected.

Further evidence of this logic of accountability through public interaction is identifiable in the current mission statement of Research Council UK: 'Ensuring Excellence with Impact'. Such a statement reinforces the central role of impact in the evaluation of research excellence in the UK.

The rhetoric of 'economistic officialise' , p 19 that Collini critiques points to an outcome-led valuation of the humanities. To this end, he enquires. The specific language used to describe the impact of the humanities demonstrates an integration of business and management models. The accusation stands that the mechanisms of research evaluation are insufficient for measuring the values of cultural, creative or humanistic work. This accusation, specific to the academic humanities, will now be contextualised within its historical context of cultural policymaking in the UK.

Drawing a parallel between debates in accountability within art galleries and museums, I map emerging critiques from the humanities onto a broader history of cultural policy.

The Study of Culture Beliefs and Values

In this way, the intersections between 'impact' and 'accountability' will be made explicit and put to work. The following two sections highlight key moments in the development of cultural valuation in the UK: firstly, the economisation of the value of the arts under Margaret Thatcher; secondly, the emergence of the creative industries under New Labour. Analysis of these contexts of valuation enables us to better interrogate the current context of measuring the impact of the arts and humanities within HEIs.

Building on the evidence that this cultural history provides, this article concludes that assessment criteria is significantly limited and there is a need for bottom-up Ochsner, Hug and Galleron, studies concerning measurement of the impact in the humanities. The means of evaluating cultural organisations were drastically altered Halsey, ; Belfiore and Bennett, The s saw the rhetoric of economic justification becoming a formal requirement for government subsidy for creative and cultural ventures. The publication of The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain by the Policy Studies Institute evidences the shift towards economic valuation of arts and culture industries in the s.

Myerscough examines how the arts should best be valued 'as a form of productive activity, in terms of levels of employment, income generation and patterns of economic organisation' , p 3. Belfiore explains how Myerscough 'opened the way to an increasing number of similar studies claiming to be able to prove and measure the importance of the arts sector to the local and national economy' Myerscough provides the following formula for calculating the value of culture in society:. Alternative values that a cultural institution might offer are not accounted for. This logic is seen to have long-term implications on the cultural sector.

Writing in The Guardian , Billington argued the Prime Minister was responsible for 'the growth of a siege mentality in arts organisations' and that her legacy is identifiable 'in the frightening fact that we are still having to argue that subsidy of the arts is a fruitful investment rather than a frivolous expenditure' This in itself might not be surprising, as Bakhshi, Freeman, and Hitchen pragmatically remind us: '[w]hether we like it or not, governments choose between alternative expenditures. They cannot spend the same pound twice on a hospital and an art gallery' , p Instead, often a focus on outputs undermines the inherent value of the creative work and leads to a poorer quality result.

Cultural institutions dedicate a large amount of time to justify their impact and value rather than concentrating on creating work that might produce it. The necessity to generate such data is an indication of the deep-rooted effects of economic accountability upon the sector. Holden describes the effect of this audit culture within the museum sector, envisioning how. Library managers are drawing up budgets for their local authority bosses, and voluntary groups are filling in forms, seeking resources to restore historic buildings.

Holden argues that a significant portion of institutional attention is diverted towards developing business plans and writing funding proposals as opposed to cultural work. In the search for outcomes and ancillary benefits, the essence of culture has been lost' Holden, , p The dependence on public funding has led to cultural organisations conforming to the requirements of funding criteria. Focusing on outcome-driven valuation means that 'instead of talking about what they do, they demonstrate how they have contributed to wider policy agendas such as social inclusion, crime prevention and learning' Holden, , p Quantified metrics to stand in for qualitative benefits in a culture in which where something must be reported at any cost.

Her speech focused on deficits and austerity and called for the arts to 'reframe the argument [and] to hammer home the value of culture to our economy' Miller, Since the s, value in the cultural sector has repeatedly been imbued with an economic imperative Garnham, Belfiore draws links between value within the public arts sector and the present changes within higher education.

تفاصيل ال٠نتج

The narrative of accountability and mechanisms of justification within the cultural sector bears strong resemblance to the changes within contemporary HEIs in the UK. In focusing on the rhetoric, Robert Hewison protests that 'whoever wrote the documents for the REF, does not appear to have been trained in the humanities' Speaking at a conference at the University of Sheffield on 5 May , Hewison identifies how the language of impact is at odds with a notion of scholarship that is perceived to be considered and existentially open-ended. He describes how the REF documents are.

Hewison argues that the impact criterion of the REF marks a shift further along the lines of instrumentalisation of humanities research. He describes how research assessment exercises have 'undervalued long-term effort in favour of short-term gains' As Small identifies in her definition of humanities research above see p 3 'the individual response its content and its style ' , p 57 is a common methodological approach.

Such individualized critiques that contest the hegemonic agendas of impact are not compatible with leading economic instincts and therefore can all too easily be dismissed by policy-makers and university management. Academic capitalism sees the 'institution as marketer' , p 1 and 'knowledge [as] a critical raw material to be mined and extracted […] then sold in the marketplace for profit' , p 4.

Within this context, knowledge is made useful in its transfer into the marketplace and immeasurable values are disregarded if they cannot be reified.

Digital humanities

Values that are difficult to calculate in statistical terms are subject to detrimental implications within an economically-minded model of valuation. Somewhat ironically, the result of these implications has, to date, been largely conveyed in financial terms. For instance, significant sums of time and money are required in order to generate accounts of value that the REF requires Martin, ; Hazelkorn, Ben R.

Martin, Professor of Science, Technology and Policy Studies at the University of Sussex, describes how this problematic narrative of assessment is emerging within the context of contemporary higher education. Martin claims that. Martin argues that given the increased complexity of the REF 'the costs both direct and indirect are likely to be greater now the impact assessment has been added to it' , p The REF press office reported that the cycle accounted for '52, academic staff, , research outputs [and] 6, impact case studies' HEFCE, This is an administratively large undertaking for each department submitting research outputs and impact case studies.

There is no desire to step back from metric-based evaluation, only to improve the financial management. Martin argues that following the first round of the REF, the revised mechanism for measuring impact will likely become so bureaucratic that it potentially could cost more to run the exercise than the total economic value of the funding it seeks to assess. The current objection to the integration of business and management into the academic humanities bears many similarities to the context of the integration of economic valuation of the public cultural sector.

In a closing address of the CREATe All Hands Conference, 15—16 September , he observed that 'our research now has to meet impact criteria that were invented for accountability rather than public intellectuality' Schlesinger argues that the assessment criteria value increasing bureaucratic accountability over meaningful public engagement.

In doing so, it can be seen that from a policymaking perspective, the system rewards that which can be counted, and accounted for. It is essential to outline the ways in which the mechanisms and measurement of impact have an ideological and political position and how this effects the intrinsic value of humanities research.

The issue identifies how the mechanisms that funding bodies have implemented should be seen to be occupying an ideological position.


  • ADVERTISEMENT.
  • The Sperm Cell, Production, Maturation, Fertilization, Regeneration.
  • Books by Cunningham Lawrence Reich John.

Benneworth writes. I now develop this concern with further reference to the difficulty in speaking against the value of instrumentality. The example of the creative industries offers further historical specificity for understanding the impact agenda within UK policymaking. In this way 'a sense of nuance' , p 5 might be returned to a valuation of humanities research. The creative industries first rose to prominence in British policy under New Labour in the late s.

The DCMS was established under the leadership of Tony Blair in and the 'creative industries' were successively encouraged under Gordon Brown, through the late s. The term 'creative industries' derives from policy documents that were instituted in 'new policies for industries associated with the arts, media, design and digital content' Flew, , p 3. Therefore, from its inception, the term 'creative industries' was an invention of policymakers, and was designed to benefit governance.

Politicians frequently cite the creative industries as our greatest national export. For example, Ed Vaizey then acting Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries described the creative industries as 'British magic dust' which 'gives our country a unique edge' Footnote 11 Clearly, the creative industries are ideologically, as well as financially, valuable to policymakers.

These documents catalogued sectors of creative and cultural production that were of perceived benefit to the British economy. The creative industries were defined as industries that 'have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property' DCMS, The creative industries have, therefore, always described culture in terms of its economic potential. Footnote 12 The annual Creative Industries: Focus On report for details how 'exports of services from the Creative Industries accounted for 9.

Throughout the late s and early s, the creative industries were used by the DCMS as a symbol of success for post-industrial Britain.

Anne Boddington, Jos Boys and Catherine Speight observe how this New Labour philosophy 'conceived knowledge as a form of currency that could be shared, distributed and acquired' , p 6. Such framing devalues intrinsic qualities of creative knowledge. In addition, the value of currency makes cultural knowledge dependent on external benefactors who exchange the work for something, rather than permitting academic experts to be to arbiter of what work has value.

The value of cultural activity in the eyes of the creative industries is measured by the economic benefits it might produce and as a currency or commodity for exchange. This aligns with the definitions of the aforementioned model of Mode 2 within higher education wherein 'social accountability permeates the whole knowledge production process' in which 'sensitivity to the impact of the research is built in from the start' Gibbons et al.

In the creative industries the value of cultural knowledge is enmeshed within an interest in commercial values. John Hartley describes the creative industries as a term that 'combines—but then radically transforms—two older terms: the creative arts and the cultural industries ' , p 6, emphasis in original.

In the era of creative industries, arts and humanities practices can be seen to be 'embroiled in markets in a more diffuse and plural sense, because their intellectual values are inevitably shaped by their social context and application' Gibbons et al. I assert that the developing relationship between industry and cultural knowledge production is a nuanced phenomenon and cannot be understood as an entirely positive nor negative result for cultural value.

There is a long history of critiquing the commodification of culture in media studies, cultural studies, and the humanities. Such suspicions are not often acted upon within the academy. A study conducted for the global policy think tank RAND Corporation details: '[a]lthough many advocates of the arts believe intrinsic benefits are of primary importance, they are reluctant to introduce them into the policy discussion because they do not believe such ideas will resonate with most legislators and policymakers' McCarthy et al.

This reluctance of arts and humanities scholars and practitioners to directly engage in debates concerning the benefits and challenges of the creative industries is well documented. As with the example of the economisation of arts funding criteria in the s p 8—15 , institutions are reluctant to reject or criticise arguments that promote their societal value, albeit in solely economic terms.

Belfiore argues that the language of the creative industries has been widely adopted since. This conformity is problematic and ultimately leads to 'the collapse of value into impact of the sort that lends itself to be expressed in monetary terms' Belfiore, p The rhetoric of the cultural sector reveals that the popularity of adopting the criteria of impact is 'rooted in the anxiety of justification' p that has emerged under the present conditions of assessment and valuation within the cultural sector. This is significant to consider in the context of higher education: it demonstrates how public accountability and the economisation of cultural value work in tandem.

Describing cultural work as part of the creative industries, and in turn valuing it economically, can be seen to directly influence the contemporary valuation of the humanities within higher education. Here Smith explains how 'we [UUK] felt the language of economics was the only language that would secure the prosperity of our universities and higher education institutions' , p That the language of economics is believed to be the most persuasive tool to speak to government is unsurprising given the context outlined above. Smith admits that 'we tailored a narrative that did not start with the universities and what might be good for them, but with the economy, and specifically with the best strategy to ensure future economic growth' , p Further examples of institutional conformity to national economic narratives are widespread within HEIs and other educational bodies across the UK.

Such comments are evidence of the perceived need for the academic humanities to conform to economic models of valuation. Ellen Hazelkorn describes this process as marking a 'shift from valuing intellectual pursuits-for-their-own-sake to measuring research outcomes, impact and relevance' , p The intrinsic value of the humanities is disregarded in favour of a perspective that sees all degrees as means to jobs and all certification as a subset of a national labour market demand.

It is not necessarily damaging that significant number of arts and humanities graduates find employment in the creative industries in the UK. However, it is troubling that within public discourse there are very few instances when government officials have given any credibility to the idea of the intrinsic value of the arts and humanities research. Often such arguments against the utility of research are derided as elitist.

Holden testifies how in taking a hard-line in intrinsic defences of the value of the culture, critics appear 'to assert the value of their own judgement above that of others' , p Such accusations of snobbery inherent in the defence of the innate value of the arts and humanities should not be idly dismissed. One must not forget that to understand and enjoy museum objects, art and other cultural objects, a person has likely been afforded some degree of privilege Bourdieu et al.

With these considerations in mind, the concluding section of this article will seek to move beyond such stale divisions caricatured as the 'floppy bow ties vs. Whilst the division between intrinsic and instrumental value continues to form deep intellectual trenches between policymakers and practitioners, today there is less of a separation than might be observed from this binaristic perspective. Such observations capture the complex negotiation of cultural value in contemporary public sphere. Cultural institutions are caught in a difficult position, wherein they are forced to participate in the economic game playing inherent in the funding models and policy demands, even if they understand these metrics to misrepresent their work.

This in part is due to a difficulty that Bakhshi, Freeman and Hitchen highlight: 'there is a contradiction between the plea that the intrinsic value of art should be accounted for, and the idea that it is beyond accounting' , p The increase in accountability metrics created an increased demand upon public cultural organizations to provide economic evidence in order to receive further funding. However, to uphold that there is value in the arts and humanities beyond economic valuation need not be an inherently elitist statement.

Work within SSH evidences that humanities scholars themselves recognise alternative values, beyond the economic and commerical, in the work that they do Footnote For example 'being a courageous risk-taker with authentic intellecutal interests' Guetzkow et al. Sven Hug, Michael Ochsner and Hans-Dieter Daniel conducted the first empirical study for assessing research quality in the humanities entirely from within the humanities in This article calls for humanities scholars to build upon such evidence, in providing an alternative approach that engages with policymaking as opposed to avoiding it.

Frederic Jameson described the current landscape of higher education as the 'subsumption of whole fields and disciplines under the patronage of private business and, as it were, the assimilation to wage labour of the standard nonacademic type of researchers whose work is subsidized by monopolies who set the agenda and are likely to profit from the results' , p Within this, humanities scholars find themselves in a feedback loop in which their lack of articulation of value paints them as ineffective or elitist.

Public debate is saturated with instrumental arguments. What has thus far been left unexplored is the potential of rejecting the valuation of cultural work in solely instrumental terms. It is essential for humanities scholars to recognise the to. This dilemma highlights the need for further considerations of the intellectual qualities of the humanities from within the discipline.

Existing literature from SSH has predominantly drawn on social science methodologies Hemlin ; VolkswagenStiftung, ; Hug et al. This article concludes by proposing that as the value of the humanities comes under increasing public scrutiny, scholars will be required to use their disciplinary tools to best demonstrate the value of the work that they do. Or else, as the above narrative of the public cultural sector forewarns us, these values may cease to be understood in public discourse.

This article has demonstrated the difficulty of presenting unquantifiable cultural values in a context dominated by economic imperatives. This final section proposes a potential route for future research in this area. Footnote 15 He imitates: 'the Humanities teach us what it is to be human, the Arts deepen our spirit, the Humanities preserve our common cultural heritage, bleat, bleat, bleat' , p The individual testimonies of Hewison and Schlesinger above see p 12, 15, respectively demonstrate how humanities scholars are resistant to engage in processes of marketing, to speak 'economistic officialise' Collini, , p 19 , and this is a role quickly and happily assumed by those trained in business.

Humanities scholars must ask how might they retain ownership of this discourse since these articulations of value have long-term implications for their disciplines. Bennett argues that, despite being alive over a century ago, Matthew Arnold can be of use to contemporary debates concerning cultural policymaking. In direct application to contemporary politics, Bennett admits that much of Arnoldian cultural theory is flawed. Specifically, there is a problematic deference to great men of culture and a suspicion of freedom of thought for anyone else.

As above, it is important that the arts and humanities remain aware of the accusations of elitism in an intrinsic defence. Therefore, Bennett encourages an Arnoldian disposition of a 'constant and public interrogation of what is actually constituted as the best' , p This might be a useful methodological tool through which a socially and historically informed assessment of mechanisms for attributing value might be further developed.

In our present moment, it is worth considering how 'the search for cultural value would become itself the driving force of cultural policy' , p as Arnold also argued in Culture and Anarchy. The broader history of impact within the cultural sector that I have outlined above has demonstrated the expansive expertise and enduring potential of critical conversations. I propose this knowledge might be better applied and put to use in the present 'impact' agenda facing the academic humanities.

The responsibility for the resolution of this dilemma appears to be two-fold. True, ultimately policymakers are required to pay attention to alternative values, but firstly, it requires humanities scholars to address these debates with their own analytical discourse. Writing in the introduction to Culture and Anarchy published in , J.

Wilson observes 'of all the nineteenth-century prophets who pronounced the condition of England, Matthew Arnold knew his England best' , P xiv—xv. Similarly, in our contemporary context working within HEIs, there is no one who can better articulate the value of the humanities than those working within it.


  • Culture and Values, Volume II: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings by Lawrence S. Cunningham.
  • See a Problem?.
  • Account Options.
  • Globalization And the Physical Environment (The New Global Society).

If what matters is not measured, and therefore not being counted in the current metrics of value, it might cease to exist at all in public discourse. Such examination is the work for the humanities, to historicize, to read cultural policy, to interrogate it. This article is an example of such an approach, that is urgently required in order to better understand and articulate the creation of cultural value and the mechanisms that drive its assessment.

The UK is currently experiencing a challenge to the ideals of higher education and how it should be evidenced. The processes of marketisation and economic determination are seen to dominate the governance of higher education. However, as Schlesinger argues 'we should take our distance from the underlying conditions that shape our research agendas' It is important to work towards a positive valuation of the humanities within this context as opposed to a reactionary one.

It is the responsibility of humanities scholars to ensure that alternative values and accounts are pursued. Martha Nussbaum reminds us. World history and economic understanding, then, must be humanistic and critical if they are to be at all useful in forming intelligent global citizens , p It matters that we respond to the demand for scholarly impact by supplying valuable research. Those working in the humanities should be accountable. Accountable to ourselves, to society and to the parts of society that are not able to speak up for themselves.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. For commentary see Lears ; Anderson For conferences, see Hewison ; Schlesinger See Oancea and Furlong ; Bakioglu and Kurnaz For Europe see Spaapen et al.

The nature of the initial request of Lord Mandelson, to examine the contributors to the costs of education pre-empted the heavily economic focus of this report.

officegoodlucks.com/order/11/1644-microfono-espia-madrid.php

Culture and Values, Volume I: A Survey of the Humanities with Readings by Lawrence S. Cunningham

Impact is present in higher education rhetoric for several years preceding this formal categorisation in the UK framework. See Donovan ; Spaapen et al. As some readers will recall the focus of the RAE assessment was focused solely on the academic excellence of the research that institutions had produced. The UK is currently experiencing cuts to public funding in the arts which are worse than under Thatcher.

See Cartwright See Sastry and Bahram The list demonstrates the economic categorisation that shapes the definition of the 'creative industries'. For cultural studies see McRobbie ; Harney For critical humanities response see Brown ; Bourdieu See Hemlin ; Guetzkow et al. Which follows assertions made by Walters, T. Arts and Humanities Research. Arts and Humanities Research Council. Accessed 12 Nov Accessed 20 Jun Arnold M Culture and Anarchy. Accessed 30 Aug Bakioglu A Quality criteria of research perceived by academics in social sciences at higher education.

Online Submiss 6 3 :1— Art Humanit High Educ 14 1 —