Abstract: "While a growing literature exists on the “corporatization” of post-secondary education and research across many countries, relatively little has been written about such trends in the case of Alberta. In addition to the budgetary pressures that have affected higher education and research everywhere, as a result of decades of neoliberal governments, local political economies also shape decisions about funding priorities. In Alberta, petro-state imperatives have been both normalized and resisted throughout civil society over five decades. Post-secondary education and research institutions—situated at the nexus of state and civil society—constitute an important terrain of contestation about the province’s future path of development. My research focuses on the period since 2000, when investment in Alberta’s bituminous sands took off, mapping changes to the province’s research infrastructure brought about by government policy and budgetary decisions (both provincial and federal), as well as the role of the corporate funders of capital projects and research. I am particularly interested in tracing investment in energy and environment-related research, asking what kinds of R&D have been prioritized, and what the implications of these patterns are for the goals of economic diversification and ecologically sustainable development. It is generally known that dominant economic interests have played increasingly more influential roles in post-secondary institutions’ governance and in shaping the priorities of publicly-funded research. However, until now, such influence has not been well documented, and its implications for rapid movement toward post-carbon economies have not received enough attention."

Abstract: This research looks at the ways austerity operates as a knowledge regime informing a public policy regime, creating the conditions for its existence by organizing cuts to policy areas which could critique its effectiveness. The recent depoliticization of knowledge enduring since the positivist turn has given rise to ‘evidence-based policy’ (EBP) so that policy making would be “optimal, legitimate and publicly accountable” (Frieberg & Carson 2010). While existing research has outlined various areas in which austerity has fashioned cuts, it has not connected it to EBP, whose literature often assumes reasonable levels of data collection, processing, access, and interpretive capacities which are undercut by austerity. This paper is not explicitly about the politics of knowledge (e.g. framing), but of its increasingly institutionalized absence and subsequent effects on policy-making. It asks: How does macroeconomic fiscal consolidation (austerity) affect knowledge policy in Canada? In this paper, I seek to excavate the politics of agnotology (the construction of ignorance) through an analysis of how the Canadian government has politically insulated itself and citizens from knowledge, undermining policy-making and public accountability in a time of austerity. I will focus on the numerous ways cuts (austerity) in public research intersects with the rise of the knowledge economy, driving a simultaneous retrenchment and commercialization of public knowledge in the university and the state (via cuts to research staff, departments, and the census). As a result, agnotology increases: policy making is weakened, the public is less informed, and policy narratives take precedence over policy evidence.

Paper / Communication

Abstract: Critics of the prioritization of economic growth have long demanded alternatives to GDP as a progress indicator. In recent years, GDP’s limitations have increasingly been recognized by the political mainstream and numerous initiatives have emerged to introduce new prosperity and wellbeing indicators. Britain’s former top civil servant has even proclaimed “the end of the GDP-only world.” These developments have raised hopes in some circles of “dethroning” GDP.” But does the emergence of new wellbeing measurements, and the related politics of wellbeing, actually imply a transformative shift in societal priorities? Although use of “beyond GDP” indicators is still in its infancy, the early experience can be assessed to gain a sense of the possibilities and limitations of these new measures. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in producing, using, and advocating “beyond GDP” indicators in Britain. It will be argued that a transformative vision linking new indicators to a vision of a post-growth society with greater equity has, to date, been overshadowed by a more limited vision of using wellbeing data to produce better policy “at the margins.” This has led to concerns that the agenda has been coopted or become a “distraction.” The potential for the new wellbeing agenda to take a dystopian turn, with increasing pressure on individuals to change thought patterns and lifestyles, will also be considered. The paper will conclude with thoughts on the much more substantial changes that would be needed alongside “beyond GDP” indicators if they are to change dominant social priorities.

Paper / Communication