Our funding is 'transparent'
From Dr Michael Jubb Sir: Peter Williams (Arts, 28 June) is clearly unhappy with the way research in UK higher education in general is funded, but his characterisation of the Arts and Humanities Research Board was neither accurate nor fair. As a publicly funded organisation we must be transparent and rigorous in making awards. Like all the research councils, we judge the quality of the applications submitted to us using processes of peer review. Our reviewers are nominated by universities and learned societies, as well as through open advertisements.
Mr Williams's claim that we have failed to grasp the difference between culture and art is bizarre. Our brief is to improve knowledge and understanding of human culture both past and present, and to enhance the creative output of the nation. Where creative activity is integral to research, we will fund it. Our subject domain is vast, from archaeology and English to film and music. In many areas research may quite properly involve composition and performance, or other creative outputs, as well as historical and analytical work.
Although Peter Williams has never applied for funding from us, he suggests that the experience is depressing and degrading. In fact, we have the overwhelming support of the research community, who apply to us in increasing numbers.
Dr Michael Jubb
The Arts and Humanities Research Board, Bristol
The winner of The SpectatoriDom Perignon Competition is Tom Otley from Wiltshire. He wins a dinner for two at Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's, followed by a one-night stay at Claridge's, and a case of Dom Perignon.
Previous page
