Research: the wrong priority for the arts and humanities?

Teaching without research would result in a groundhog day culture in Arts and Humanities. The curricula would be static, and academics would be simply recycling that congealing body of learning. What point is there in doing a PhD, some minister of witholding funding would be stirred to ask, if they are never to 'use' it. And what is the point, really in teaching hobbies? Why arts education? Do we need to fund a coterie of trainspotters? Yep, I fear you have played into the hands of STEM essentialists with the trainspotting analogy.

Art historian who has never engaged with the questions of his discipline posed by theories of visual culture. Yep, no need to read books, m8.

I agree wholeheartedly with David Oldfield. There may be some research in the area of arts and humanities which is of value but the focus must be on providing high quality and engaging teaching and learning which develops our students. They should be at the centre of our work and not at the periphery because lecturers are focused on their research which may be of questionable value.

David Oldfield's comments begin with an erroneous assumption. The disciplines of the Humanities are not and never have been static subjects just to be taught at university level or even at school level. They advance in the light of new insights and understanding which needs to be properly communicated to students in higher education. One of the key facets in developing their knowledge is an appreciation of this elementary point, hence the importance of research in the humanities at an advanced level.