Dr Zoe Bulaitis is a Research Associate in the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures at the University of Manchester working in the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC). She is a literary scholar and critical theorist with a background in cultural and higher education policy. Her research focuses on the articulation of cultural value in contemporary higher education and the creative sector, in particular the economisation of cultural value; policy analysis and critique; histories of liberal and neoliberal education; humanities-oriented methodologies; and the public value of arts and humanities research.
Zoe is passionate about the interconnections between teaching and research, both within higher education and within a wider learning ecosystem. She holds a PhD from the University of Exeter where she taught literature and critical theory within the English Department from 2013-18. Before joining the PEC, she held teaching posts at the University of Birmingham and the University of Wolverhampton. In addition, Zoe is the Managing Editor of Alluvium, an open access scholarly journal dedicated to 21st-century writing as well as 21st-century approaches to the literary canon. Supervisors: Professor Regenia Gagnier and Dr Siân Harris
The European Consortium for Humanities Institutes And Centres’ (ECHIC) annual conference offers a... more The European Consortium for Humanities Institutes And Centres’ (ECHIC) annual conference offers a space for scholars to share key research activities and methods of advocacy concerning the value of the humanities in the twenty-first century. Following a string of successful conferences in major European cities (Dublin, Utrecht, Nottingham, Oporto, Pamplona, Macerata, Edinburgh and Leuven) the 2019 conference was held in Athens at the Byzantine Museum. This conference report for Alluvium explores three main areas, that are of particular significance to scholars working within contemporary literature, but which have wider resonances across the academic humanities. First, I discuss the benefit of making academic connections across national borders and disciplinary boundaries; second, I summarise a key argument from Professor Rick Rylance’s keynote lecture on “The Creative Economy and New Challenges for Humanities Research”; finally, I reflect on the conference theme of “Creative Industries and Cultural Democracy” and consider how these two ideas can sit together within the contemporary academy.
This article addresses the future of research assessment within higher education in the UK from a... more This article addresses the future of research assessment within higher education in the UK from a humanities perspective. Recent changes to policy (such as The Browne Report 2010 and the 2014 REF) indicates that humanities research is increasingly required to provide quantifiable or commercial results in order to attain value. Although research assessment exercises have been a formal part of UK higher education since the first Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1986, the last 6 years have seen a significant change in how research is valued within the academy. Specifically, this paper responds to the increasing prioritisation of 'impact' measurement in research assessment criteria. The article situates recent changes in higher education within a historical context of cultural policymaking in the UK from the 1980s to the present day. Such an undertaking highlights the specific challenges and nuances within the shift towards 'impact'. Firstly, this paper details how public cultural institutions (such as museums and art galleries) became subject to practises of economisation and social accountability as a result of 1980s cultural policy. A rich field of literature from museology and arts management provides valuable sources and testimonies that should be considered in the future of the academic humanities. Secondly, this paper considers the implications of the creative industries upon the perception of knowledge production since the 1990s. Following this specific history of cultural assessment mechanisms in the UK, this article concludes by demonstrating that neither the adoption of a purely economic approach nor a refusal of accountability will serve the humanities. Whilst there is a wealth of social science research that explores valuation methods and assessment culture there is a lack of humanities research within this vital debate. This article presents a response from a humanities perspective. As a result, this contribution raises awareness of the urgent need for humanities scholars to engage in these emerging and significant debates concerning the future of research assessment in the UK.
Blackmore, P., Bulaitis, Z.H., Jackman, A.H., Tan, E. (Forthcoming) Employability in higher educa... more Blackmore, P., Bulaitis, Z.H., Jackman, A.H., Tan, E. (Forthcoming) Employability in higher education: A review of practice and strategies around the world, Pearson, London
It is a pleasure to introduce a new voice to this blog with this latest post: cultural policy sch... more It is a pleasure to introduce a new voice to this blog with this latest post: cultural policy scholar in training and a member of the University of Exeter’s Arts and Culture team, Zoe Bulaitis reports for The #culturalvalue Initiative project on a recent event on regional arts funding entitled Funding not Drowning: the crisis in regional arts funding which featured Professor Christopher Frayling as the main speaker. The event took place at Exeter Northcott Theatre on the12th June 2013, in the context of the anxiety over the level of cuts that cultural sector would have to endure, and which – as transpired just a couple of days later when news of the settlement between DCMS and the Treasury were broke out – now sit at a further 8% (resulting in arts and museums in England being expected to receive a cut of around 5%). Frayling used this opportunity to sing the praise of the UK’s mixed funding approach to financing the arts and culture; but with public funding consistently decreasing in these times of economic duress, and a recent Art & Business report suggesting that about 90% of all English individual donations to the arts and 67.8% of all business investment goes to London, the reality of nurturing the cultural ecosystem in the regions and in rural areas of the country remains a live issue.
The furious ‘two cultures’ debate between C.P Snow and F.R Leavis of the 1960s is a milestone in ... more The furious ‘two cultures’ debate between C.P Snow and F.R Leavis of the 1960s is a milestone in the history of the interrelation between Science and English Literature. Much has been said already about the arguments put forward by both scholars. However, in the current moment in higher education, we should reconsider the argument anew.
We are experiencing great changes to the structures of education in England at the present time, from the revision of GCSE courses to the re-structuring of the university system under the free market and privatization. This article addresses the similarities between Snow and Leavis rather than the more famous and easily identifiable differences. Accusations that GCSE science is ‘dumbed down’ and that university humanities departments will decline if they cannot prove their economic value paints a worrying tableau for educators in the sciences and English alike. I argue that regardless of the disciplinary disagreements between Snow and Leavis, the impassioned discourses on education of ‘The Two Cultures’ debates are most useful in evaluating the present moment.
While fifty years ago there was little doubt about the value of intellectual pursuit on its own terms, today, questions about the role of the sciences and of the humanities in education focus on the organization of the curriculum and the distribution of funds. Attention to the intrinsic values and importance of education are neglected in the emphasis on economic changes to education systems. This article addresses the blind-spots of the current marketization of HEIs by demonstrating that the two rival arguments of the 1960s actually agree on something vitally important.
Dissidence Conference
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus ... more Dissidence Conference
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus on governmental white papers, intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and the limiting parameters of RAE guidelines as the subject of their attack. Some strong arguments have suggested optimistic routes of defiance within the changing system, however little has been done to look at the future of English, and its valuation from an external perspective.
My paper will discuss representations of the academic study of English, and of scholars as people in popular cultural media. In a conference about dissidence, I want to challenge the grounds on which we define ourselves as humanities scholars. I argue that by looking fiction, and fictional depictions we are able to suspend the current economic mode of thinking. We are better able to formulate a counter-point to economic debates in fiction than in critical discussion and agitation. In the CFP you ask: “ Do we simply need “stories we can believe in”, or do we need to cultivate new methods of critique?” In my paper, I argue that we need more stories to be told. We need to tell more stories. My assertion is that by reading texts about ourselves, the expectations which the public has for future of humanities scholarship, and specifically the discipline of English, may better be articulated, and articulated anew. The art of English has long involved skills of structure, definition and interpretation, so perhaps it is time to practise these skills upon fictional representations of ourselves.
My paper will discuss the ways in which popular representations of English academics in popular c... more My paper will discuss the ways in which popular representations of English academics in popular cultural media can be of great benefit to debates concerning the value of the humanities in Higher Education. I shall discuss Booker winning authors (Zadie Smith’s On Beauty), BAFTA winning films (Educating Rita), and contemporary TV sitcoms (Campus and Fresh Meat). A popular analysis of the study of English, I argue, leads to academics articulating themselves through an external judgment aside from the politics of Higher Education policy and provides a fresh perspective on Higher Education.
The practise of literary criticism has traditionally been valued for its humanistic evaluation of... more The practise of literary criticism has traditionally been valued for its humanistic evaluation of social life and the structures that formulate it. The justification of the discipline has frequently been “to insist — loudly and repeatedly — that liberal education aspires to make people not merely successful but also fulfilled not merely autonomous thinkers but also contributing citizens, engaged and creative participants in the community”[i].
In the context of the rapidly changing landscape of Higher Education, with the marketization taking hold in the UK, qualitative practises are increasingly found to be under the pressures of economisation, efficiency and a demand for quantified results. With the student as a customer, the more abstract benefits of humanities disciplines are forced to articulate themselves within new frameworks. Literary critics have attacked quantification of education defined by intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and restrictive parameters of RAE guidelines.
I argue that this binaristic debate between economics and emotion is limiting. I assert that there are better ways in which literary criticism should be able to articulate themselves in the twenty first century. I use literary theory as a tool to access and explore some of the greatest challenges facing literary theorists in an intensely economized and efficient Higher Education market.
The fourth international Theorising the Popular conference was held from July 1-3 at the conferen... more The fourth international Theorising the Popular conference was held from July 1-3 at the conference centre, Liverpool Hope. The conference's premise was to debunk arbitrary barriers between 'high' and 'low' culture and to recognise the academic integrity of popular forms, whilst uncovering their commonalities with traditional disciplines
The European Consortium for Humanities Institutes And Centres’ (ECHIC) annual conference offers a... more The European Consortium for Humanities Institutes And Centres’ (ECHIC) annual conference offers a space for scholars to share key research activities and methods of advocacy concerning the value of the humanities in the twenty-first century. Following a string of successful conferences in major European cities (Dublin, Utrecht, Nottingham, Oporto, Pamplona, Macerata, Edinburgh and Leuven) the 2019 conference was held in Athens at the Byzantine Museum. This conference report for Alluvium explores three main areas, that are of particular significance to scholars working within contemporary literature, but which have wider resonances across the academic humanities. First, I discuss the benefit of making academic connections across national borders and disciplinary boundaries; second, I summarise a key argument from Professor Rick Rylance’s keynote lecture on “The Creative Economy and New Challenges for Humanities Research”; finally, I reflect on the conference theme of “Creative Industries and Cultural Democracy” and consider how these two ideas can sit together within the contemporary academy.
This article addresses the future of research assessment within higher education in the UK from a... more This article addresses the future of research assessment within higher education in the UK from a humanities perspective. Recent changes to policy (such as The Browne Report 2010 and the 2014 REF) indicates that humanities research is increasingly required to provide quantifiable or commercial results in order to attain value. Although research assessment exercises have been a formal part of UK higher education since the first Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1986, the last 6 years have seen a significant change in how research is valued within the academy. Specifically, this paper responds to the increasing prioritisation of 'impact' measurement in research assessment criteria. The article situates recent changes in higher education within a historical context of cultural policymaking in the UK from the 1980s to the present day. Such an undertaking highlights the specific challenges and nuances within the shift towards 'impact'. Firstly, this paper details how public cultural institutions (such as museums and art galleries) became subject to practises of economisation and social accountability as a result of 1980s cultural policy. A rich field of literature from museology and arts management provides valuable sources and testimonies that should be considered in the future of the academic humanities. Secondly, this paper considers the implications of the creative industries upon the perception of knowledge production since the 1990s. Following this specific history of cultural assessment mechanisms in the UK, this article concludes by demonstrating that neither the adoption of a purely economic approach nor a refusal of accountability will serve the humanities. Whilst there is a wealth of social science research that explores valuation methods and assessment culture there is a lack of humanities research within this vital debate. This article presents a response from a humanities perspective. As a result, this contribution raises awareness of the urgent need for humanities scholars to engage in these emerging and significant debates concerning the future of research assessment in the UK.
Blackmore, P., Bulaitis, Z.H., Jackman, A.H., Tan, E. (Forthcoming) Employability in higher educa... more Blackmore, P., Bulaitis, Z.H., Jackman, A.H., Tan, E. (Forthcoming) Employability in higher education: A review of practice and strategies around the world, Pearson, London
It is a pleasure to introduce a new voice to this blog with this latest post: cultural policy sch... more It is a pleasure to introduce a new voice to this blog with this latest post: cultural policy scholar in training and a member of the University of Exeter’s Arts and Culture team, Zoe Bulaitis reports for The #culturalvalue Initiative project on a recent event on regional arts funding entitled Funding not Drowning: the crisis in regional arts funding which featured Professor Christopher Frayling as the main speaker. The event took place at Exeter Northcott Theatre on the12th June 2013, in the context of the anxiety over the level of cuts that cultural sector would have to endure, and which – as transpired just a couple of days later when news of the settlement between DCMS and the Treasury were broke out – now sit at a further 8% (resulting in arts and museums in England being expected to receive a cut of around 5%). Frayling used this opportunity to sing the praise of the UK’s mixed funding approach to financing the arts and culture; but with public funding consistently decreasing in these times of economic duress, and a recent Art & Business report suggesting that about 90% of all English individual donations to the arts and 67.8% of all business investment goes to London, the reality of nurturing the cultural ecosystem in the regions and in rural areas of the country remains a live issue.
The furious ‘two cultures’ debate between C.P Snow and F.R Leavis of the 1960s is a milestone in ... more The furious ‘two cultures’ debate between C.P Snow and F.R Leavis of the 1960s is a milestone in the history of the interrelation between Science and English Literature. Much has been said already about the arguments put forward by both scholars. However, in the current moment in higher education, we should reconsider the argument anew.
We are experiencing great changes to the structures of education in England at the present time, from the revision of GCSE courses to the re-structuring of the university system under the free market and privatization. This article addresses the similarities between Snow and Leavis rather than the more famous and easily identifiable differences. Accusations that GCSE science is ‘dumbed down’ and that university humanities departments will decline if they cannot prove their economic value paints a worrying tableau for educators in the sciences and English alike. I argue that regardless of the disciplinary disagreements between Snow and Leavis, the impassioned discourses on education of ‘The Two Cultures’ debates are most useful in evaluating the present moment.
While fifty years ago there was little doubt about the value of intellectual pursuit on its own terms, today, questions about the role of the sciences and of the humanities in education focus on the organization of the curriculum and the distribution of funds. Attention to the intrinsic values and importance of education are neglected in the emphasis on economic changes to education systems. This article addresses the blind-spots of the current marketization of HEIs by demonstrating that the two rival arguments of the 1960s actually agree on something vitally important.
Dissidence Conference
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus ... more Dissidence Conference
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus on governmental white papers, intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and the limiting parameters of RAE guidelines as the subject of their attack. Some strong arguments have suggested optimistic routes of defiance within the changing system, however little has been done to look at the future of English, and its valuation from an external perspective.
My paper will discuss representations of the academic study of English, and of scholars as people in popular cultural media. In a conference about dissidence, I want to challenge the grounds on which we define ourselves as humanities scholars. I argue that by looking fiction, and fictional depictions we are able to suspend the current economic mode of thinking. We are better able to formulate a counter-point to economic debates in fiction than in critical discussion and agitation. In the CFP you ask: “ Do we simply need “stories we can believe in”, or do we need to cultivate new methods of critique?” In my paper, I argue that we need more stories to be told. We need to tell more stories. My assertion is that by reading texts about ourselves, the expectations which the public has for future of humanities scholarship, and specifically the discipline of English, may better be articulated, and articulated anew. The art of English has long involved skills of structure, definition and interpretation, so perhaps it is time to practise these skills upon fictional representations of ourselves.
My paper will discuss the ways in which popular representations of English academics in popular c... more My paper will discuss the ways in which popular representations of English academics in popular cultural media can be of great benefit to debates concerning the value of the humanities in Higher Education. I shall discuss Booker winning authors (Zadie Smith’s On Beauty), BAFTA winning films (Educating Rita), and contemporary TV sitcoms (Campus and Fresh Meat). A popular analysis of the study of English, I argue, leads to academics articulating themselves through an external judgment aside from the politics of Higher Education policy and provides a fresh perspective on Higher Education.
The practise of literary criticism has traditionally been valued for its humanistic evaluation of... more The practise of literary criticism has traditionally been valued for its humanistic evaluation of social life and the structures that formulate it. The justification of the discipline has frequently been “to insist — loudly and repeatedly — that liberal education aspires to make people not merely successful but also fulfilled not merely autonomous thinkers but also contributing citizens, engaged and creative participants in the community”[i].
In the context of the rapidly changing landscape of Higher Education, with the marketization taking hold in the UK, qualitative practises are increasingly found to be under the pressures of economisation, efficiency and a demand for quantified results. With the student as a customer, the more abstract benefits of humanities disciplines are forced to articulate themselves within new frameworks. Literary critics have attacked quantification of education defined by intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and restrictive parameters of RAE guidelines.
I argue that this binaristic debate between economics and emotion is limiting. I assert that there are better ways in which literary criticism should be able to articulate themselves in the twenty first century. I use literary theory as a tool to access and explore some of the greatest challenges facing literary theorists in an intensely economized and efficient Higher Education market.
The fourth international Theorising the Popular conference was held from July 1-3 at the conferen... more The fourth international Theorising the Popular conference was held from July 1-3 at the conference centre, Liverpool Hope. The conference's premise was to debunk arbitrary barriers between 'high' and 'low' culture and to recognise the academic integrity of popular forms, whilst uncovering their commonalities with traditional disciplines
Uploads
Papers by Zoe Bulaitis
We are experiencing great changes to the structures of education in England at the present time, from the revision of GCSE courses to the re-structuring of the university system under the free market and privatization. This article addresses the similarities between Snow and Leavis rather than the more famous and easily identifiable differences. Accusations that GCSE science is ‘dumbed down’ and that university humanities departments will decline if they cannot prove their economic value paints a worrying tableau for educators in the sciences and English alike. I argue that regardless of the disciplinary disagreements between Snow and Leavis, the impassioned discourses on education of ‘The Two Cultures’ debates are most useful in evaluating the present moment.
While fifty years ago there was little doubt about the value of intellectual pursuit on its own terms, today, questions about the role of the sciences and of the humanities in education focus on the organization of the curriculum and the distribution of funds. Attention to the intrinsic values and importance of education are neglected in the emphasis on economic changes to education systems. This article addresses the blind-spots of the current marketization of HEIs by demonstrating that the two rival arguments of the 1960s actually agree on something vitally important.
Talks by Zoe Bulaitis
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus on governmental white papers, intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and the limiting parameters of RAE guidelines as the subject of their attack. Some strong arguments have suggested optimistic routes of defiance within the changing system, however little has been done to look at the future of English, and its valuation from an external perspective.
My paper will discuss representations of the academic study of English, and of scholars as people in popular cultural media. In a conference about dissidence, I want to challenge the grounds on which we define ourselves as humanities scholars. I argue that by looking fiction, and fictional depictions we are able to suspend the current economic mode of thinking. We are better able to formulate a counter-point to economic debates in fiction than in critical discussion and agitation. In the CFP you ask: “ Do we simply need “stories we can believe in”, or do we need to cultivate new methods of critique?” In my paper, I argue that we need more stories to be told. We need to tell more stories. My assertion is that by reading texts about ourselves, the expectations which the public has for future of humanities scholarship, and specifically the discipline of English, may better be articulated, and articulated anew. The art of English has long involved skills of structure, definition and interpretation, so perhaps it is time to practise these skills upon fictional representations of ourselves.
In the context of the rapidly changing landscape of Higher Education, with the marketization taking hold in the UK, qualitative practises are increasingly found to be under the pressures of economisation, efficiency and a demand for quantified results. With the student as a customer, the more abstract benefits of humanities disciplines are forced to articulate themselves within new frameworks. Literary critics have attacked quantification of education defined by intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and restrictive parameters of RAE guidelines.
I argue that this binaristic debate between economics and emotion is limiting. I assert that there are better ways in which literary criticism should be able to articulate themselves in the twenty first century. I use literary theory as a tool to access and explore some of the greatest challenges facing literary theorists in an intensely economized and efficient Higher Education market.
[1] For example see Professor Peter Burian on ‘Defending the Humanities’ June 2012 http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/06/25/essay-how-defend-humanities
Book Reviews by Zoe Bulaitis
We are experiencing great changes to the structures of education in England at the present time, from the revision of GCSE courses to the re-structuring of the university system under the free market and privatization. This article addresses the similarities between Snow and Leavis rather than the more famous and easily identifiable differences. Accusations that GCSE science is ‘dumbed down’ and that university humanities departments will decline if they cannot prove their economic value paints a worrying tableau for educators in the sciences and English alike. I argue that regardless of the disciplinary disagreements between Snow and Leavis, the impassioned discourses on education of ‘The Two Cultures’ debates are most useful in evaluating the present moment.
While fifty years ago there was little doubt about the value of intellectual pursuit on its own terms, today, questions about the role of the sciences and of the humanities in education focus on the organization of the curriculum and the distribution of funds. Attention to the intrinsic values and importance of education are neglected in the emphasis on economic changes to education systems. This article addresses the blind-spots of the current marketization of HEIs by demonstrating that the two rival arguments of the 1960s actually agree on something vitally important.
Traditionally scholars defending the discipline of English chose to focus on governmental white papers, intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and the limiting parameters of RAE guidelines as the subject of their attack. Some strong arguments have suggested optimistic routes of defiance within the changing system, however little has been done to look at the future of English, and its valuation from an external perspective.
My paper will discuss representations of the academic study of English, and of scholars as people in popular cultural media. In a conference about dissidence, I want to challenge the grounds on which we define ourselves as humanities scholars. I argue that by looking fiction, and fictional depictions we are able to suspend the current economic mode of thinking. We are better able to formulate a counter-point to economic debates in fiction than in critical discussion and agitation. In the CFP you ask: “ Do we simply need “stories we can believe in”, or do we need to cultivate new methods of critique?” In my paper, I argue that we need more stories to be told. We need to tell more stories. My assertion is that by reading texts about ourselves, the expectations which the public has for future of humanities scholarship, and specifically the discipline of English, may better be articulated, and articulated anew. The art of English has long involved skills of structure, definition and interpretation, so perhaps it is time to practise these skills upon fictional representations of ourselves.
In the context of the rapidly changing landscape of Higher Education, with the marketization taking hold in the UK, qualitative practises are increasingly found to be under the pressures of economisation, efficiency and a demand for quantified results. With the student as a customer, the more abstract benefits of humanities disciplines are forced to articulate themselves within new frameworks. Literary critics have attacked quantification of education defined by intra-collegiate funding allocation statistics and restrictive parameters of RAE guidelines.
I argue that this binaristic debate between economics and emotion is limiting. I assert that there are better ways in which literary criticism should be able to articulate themselves in the twenty first century. I use literary theory as a tool to access and explore some of the greatest challenges facing literary theorists in an intensely economized and efficient Higher Education market.
[1] For example see Professor Peter Burian on ‘Defending the Humanities’ June 2012 http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/06/25/essay-how-defend-humanities