Should we ‘DOGE’ university research?
Partners:
Late last year, Cambridge researcher Ally Louks shared a triumphant selfie with her PhD dissertation, titled ‘The Politics of Smell’. The resultant social media freakout only highlighted a long-running trend: people are sick of humanities research. DOGE-like initiative Woke Waste generates exasperation by spotlighting ideologically skewed or frivolous research such as ‘(De)colonial Ecologies’ or ‘The Europe That Gay Porn Built’. The intellectual rot dominating fields such as queer and fat studies was exposed by journals publishing hoax academic papers deploying fashionable jargon to argue for nonsensical conclusions.
But is there a danger that well-targeted criticisms of poorly conceived and executed studies can turn into unwarranted cynicism over the value of research itself? After all, as recently as 2021, a survey reported that, in respect of the Research Excellence Framework (REF), 84 per cent of UK university activity was ‘world leading or internationally excellent’. Will the backlash against academic research itself backfire, undermining the teaching, institutions and the societal progress that research has long played a vital role in sustaining?
One concern is creeping political oversight. With the battle over DEI mandates to the fore, 200 senior UK academics warned that diversity and social-inclusion targets in the latest REF guidance threaten academic freedom and merit-based hiring. Critics counter that the battle against DEI – for example, in Trump’s America – is equally dangerous, fatally undermining important freedoms of institutions and academics to set their own research priorities.
Others worry research is distorted by ideology, whether by commissioning bodies, campaigning academics or influential NGOs. For example, if researchers work to favoured outcomes in public health, environmental interventions or realising particular innovations under the EU’s Horizon Europe programme, is this genuine research or simply ratification of pre-existing policy decisions? Meanwhile, peer review is also under fire, not only discredited as an effective safeguard against academic misconduct and human error, but skewed by anonymous, activist-led reviewers.
Has academic research lost public trust by prioritising ideological conformity over intellectual rigour? Should the public purse be expected to fund research that seems detached from ‘real-world’ concerns? To what extent has the flood of soft, politicised studies undermined confidence in universities as centres of serious scholarship? Are research councils and funding bodies rewarding activism rather than discovery? How should we defend university research and ensure it is fit for purpose?
