Who is Funding Your Studies? The Fisher- Bulmer Debate on Philanthropic Support ****************************************************************************************** * Who is Funding Your Studies? The Fisher- Bulmer Debate on Philanthropic Support for the and its Importance to Contemporary Society. ****************************************************************************************** On the 11th of November the Faculty of Humanities at Charles University invited Professor from the University of Surrey, United Kingdom, to discuss philanthropic support for social a workshop entitled ‘Interests and Motivations Explaining Philanthropic Support for Social Fisher-Bulmer Debate.’  Bulmer’s lecture focused on the Bulmer-Fisher debate, a debate bet Martin Bulmer and Professor Donald Fisher in the 1980s over the role of support of philant sciences in the inter-war period, which Bulmer linked and asserted the importance to conte science. The argument between Bulmer and Fisher is about the role funding institutions, like the Ro Foundation, play in academic research. Bulmer categorised Fisher’s argument as the belief philanthropic institutions reproduce cultural hegemony of the dominant culture in science science research. Bulmer on the other hand believes that whilst the origins of the money a capitalist enterprise that have often caused much destruction and many problems in society argument is crude, simplistic and ignores key evidence. Bulmer argued that in the case of funding the donations which were controlled by a board of trustees that the Rockefeller fa appointed and that the actual Rockefeller family had little input into the donations; Bulm this was typical of most philanthropic institutions. Bulmer therefore argued that how coul maintaining and reproduction of the status quo through cultural hegemony. This point made if the board of trustees (who were predominately white business men) interests could not i towards the funding of research that would further their interests, which would be the sam hegemonic culture. Bulmer also criticised Fisher’s argument in addressing a key issue that affects all work a cultural hegemony; how can you measure cultural hegemony? Much research funded by Rockefel philanthropic institutions can also be seen as resistance to the cultural hegemony. Theref argument can also be seen to be patronising and does not acknowledge people’s agency to su ‘hegemonic’ funded enterprises. Bulmer also discussed the increasing professionalism and empiricism of social sciences whi as beginning at the end of nineteenth century, start for the twentieth century correspondi of philanthropic support for social science. Bulmer argues that the link between increasin and empiricism was accelerated by most philanthropic support but not caused by it. Unlike that believes the increasing drive of empiricism and professionalism was an example of phi support causing cultural hegemony.  Another presentation at the workshop by Doctor Jan Balon entitled ‘The Great Transformatio Science in the Face of the Great Depression: The Social Science Research Council and the P of Sociology in the Time of Crisis?’ looked at the promotion of empiricism and professiona philanthropic institutions. Balon noted the issues with this promotion, it often meant wor Rockefeller had to ignore previous research which was not empirical and the fragmentation which meant they could not help with practical issues. Bulmer mentioned some of the benefi professionalism as it creates a space, time and funding for social sciences. However, who benefits needs to be interrogated. The professionalism of social sciences and often favour promotion of empiricism in contemporary academia means these are importance issues for con science that Bulmer and Balon are addressing. The final presentation of the workshop, which unfortunately due to time reasons had to be Doctor Marek Skovajsa put Fisher’s cultural hegemony argument and the workshop into a more context. Skovajsa’s presentation was entitled ‘Can the ‘Cultural Hegemony’ Thesis Be Appli Rockefeller Foundation’s Support for Czechoslovak Social Sciences?’ using a debate based o States putting it in a global context. Skovajsa stated that Rockefeller could be argued to capitalism in Czechoslovakia but the relationship was not that simple. This shows that the be useful in an international context it is westocentric and would need to be developed to context of different power relations, such as the Soviet Union. The Bulmer-Fisher argument addressed key issues about contemporary academia which was usef for a privately funded post-graduate to state funded undergraduate like myself. It brought issues about funding and how that affects the studies available to us and why they are the to us. It is also a reminder of the importance of the process of studying and how it is no but part of the construction of society. It also discussed key issues of professionalism, westocentric in social sciences.