That the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) felt it necessary to commission yet another report into the future of the humanities in the UK speaks volumes about the extent of concern.
Yet what could this paper, published this week, say that we have not already heard in work already conducted by the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Council? What solutions does it propose that have not already been suggested?
The report is surely right to restate the important connections between secondary education, choice of subject in higher education, and the development of essential skills. The removal of modern languages as a compulsory GCSE subject and Michael Gove’s deleterious reforms of GCSE English – which turned the subject into what one union boss called a “joyless slog” of memorisation – are now being felt in the decline in undergraduate numbers. And the consequences are clear for employers.
The Confederation of British Industry has long argued that linguistic skills and cultural awareness are essential to businesses, estimating that the lack of linguistically competent qualified graduates “loses the UK economy the equivalent 3.5 per cent of economic performance”. That is to say nothing of failure to develop the intercultural communication and diplomatic skills required if the government’s post-Brexit vision of “Global Britain” is to have any credibility on the world stage.
The traditional skills – clarity of thought, deep analysis, ability to navigate complexity, imagination – all remain valuable, both professionally and more widely. And we await the outcomes of the Department for Education’s £4 million pilot project to reintroduce Latin to 40 state schools from September 2022, recognising its ability to improve learning broadly, including in maths, and seeking to shift elitist conceptions of a classical education.
Yet the worlds of work and research are changing, and graduates require new digital competencies, as the new UK-Ireland digital humanities network has argued. Just as significant as numeracy, which is given particular emphasis in the Hepi report, may be an understanding of the algorithms that affect so many aspects of our daily lives, and that may be used to enable new findings in the humanities.
Training to work across sectors is also becoming more widespread in universities, through placements, internships and collaborative doctoral programmes. All this should be incentivised further to better prepare graduates to meet the needs of the future economy and society. However, the Hepi report’s suggestion that everyone be compelled to study at least one humanities subject at A level (strangely reminiscent of a 2011 think piece by new foreign secretary Liz Truss) is surely not the answer.
What is needed is a compelling vision for the humanities that resonates with the next generation and helps meet the challenges we all face. The impact case studies submitted to the latest research excellence framework, for instance, will no doubt provide evidence that humanities disciplines continue to reach out successfully to other disciplines and sectors, helping to create social and economic value. Humanities researchers and medics collaborate widely in pursuit of the well-being agenda, for instance, while STEM researchers call on their humanities colleagues to frame discussions around responsible research and innovation. These connections will continue to grow and shape the university curriculum.
It is reassuring that so much that the Hepi report suggests is already being addressed: not just digital literacy but also professional skills and employability, wider engagement and the “levelling up” and civic agendas. The British Academy is conducting “deep dives” into disciplines, for instance, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council is conducting its own “subject consultations”; these exercises are aimed at understanding both where disciplines are now and where they might go in the future. Subject communities and scholarly societies, meanwhile, are re-examining curricula, making concerted efforts to actively confront the lack of diversity that is damaging recruitment.
This is not to suggest that all is in hand; we know there is much more to be done, and much more we want to collectively achieve. And the report is right to remind us that change will not occur by simply stating our case, however cogent and persuasive. It will be critical to engage and involve the public in our research, make it more visible and demonstrate (rather than claim) its value in concrete and identifiable ways. But this applies to all disciplines, not just the humanities – and here we must make common cause.
The challenge is to produce more graduates who apply a human perspective to the big issues of the era, such as AI, climate change, global mobility, social justice and human rights, and what it means to live a meaningful life. Placing these critical issues – along with new digital skillsets – at the heart of our curriculum may help us to move beyond the crude measure of earnings to value the diverse careers that a humanities education fosters. And it might finally change the narrative of crisis and enable us to get on with reimagining the humanities now.
Jo Fox is pro vice-chancellor research and public engagement and dean of the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.
