I spend a lot of time thinking about how to use evidence to influence policy. In a burgeoning landscape of advice and toolkits for academics and think tankers seeking to gain traction in the system, there is often a more or less explicit emphasis on the importance of quantitative evidence and killer facts.
Further back in the system of knowledge production, there’s been a tilt towards STEM subjects being identified as a key source of important, policy-friendly evidence. Our politics is full of people talking up the value of science, tech and AI, while downgrading the significance of studying arts and humanities subjects. I talked about this in a blog about the Tories and education policy, where a fondness of branding some degrees as ’Mickey Mouse ‘or ’low quality’ was plain to see. There is a constant emphasis on market return on students’ courses – with creative arts frequently being labelled as delivering a ‘low premium’ in terms of graduate earnings.
Meanwhile, somewhere in your local university, you’ll find academics writing notes to put towards ‘impact case studies’ to illustrate the value of their research, and to secure future funding for their departments through the massive exercise known as the REF, the Research Excellence Framework. As part of this process, academics show how their work has had impact in the wider world, in influencing policy or contributing to well-being in society. It is often easier to demonstrate this in scientific and technical subjects, where new discoveries, products or treatments can result in readily identifiable effects on individual or social conditions. In social sciences, humanities and arts, such external impacts can be harder to pin down – enlightenment is rarely a tick-box exercise; informing public debate is not always easy to measure or prove.
And yet, in the headlines about the Post Office scandal, it is a TV drama, not a folio of facts or technical documents, which has finally provided the impetus towards resolution for the wrongly-accused postmasters, caught up in one of the major miscarriages of justice in recent times. The computer system used by staff to reconcile their accounts was known to be faulty, and yet people were being accused of wrongdoing, and asked to cover any apparent losses from their own funds. Within days of the broadcast of Mr Bates vs the Post Office on ITV, there were questions in parliament, and high profile consideration of a mass quashing of convictions for post office workers who have not yet been able to fully clear their names, nor obtain compensation. A petition signed by over 1 million people has resulted in the former CEO of the Post Office returning the CBE she was awarded at the end of her tenure.
Why has a drama had such impact? Because storytelling and empathy are critical to human understanding, and a communal cultural event like ’old-fashioned’ linear television breeds discussion amongst many people at once – the much vaunted ‘water cooler moments’ which have real resonance. A screed of position papers, and the dogged reporting of a select few journalists hasn’t managed to substantially shift the dial on the (very) long running Post Office saga until now. A drama with human stories at its heart, has cut through public apathy. As Toby Jones, the lead actor in Mr Bates vs the Post Office points out, drama has always been part of social change, conveying emotions and opening up new possibilities. Audiences can learn a lot through seeing other people’s experiences unfold. And having put themselves in others’ shoes, they can be spurred to action, as the aftermath of this TV drama so clearly demonstrates.
So, next time someone says that the arts are just for dreamers, or that drama degrees are a bit useless, remind them of the impact of Mr Bates vs the Post Office, and how it has helped to bend the arc of history towards justice. It shows that making a drama out of a crisis is just the right thing to do sometimes. Maybe the power of this programme should inspire new campaigns in favour of local arts funding, and against the closure of university departments. Only a few days ago, Suffolk county council proposed axing all arts funding in the face of wider cuts, and a number of universities are planning staff cuts and department closures, predominantly in arts and humanities fields. When they are gone, who knows which stories could be left untold?
wonklifebalance 