The BPA have produced a statement about the role of metrics (citation-counts, journal-rankings etc.) in making judgements about the quality of philosophical work. This was in response to HEFCE’s call for evidence about metrics, as part of their ongoing review. You can read the statement here.
The BPA responded to HEFCE’s consultation process and produced its own position paper on the issue. The latter provided information about the Government’s proposals, stated the BPA’s views on and criticisms of various aspects of the policy, and suggested ways in which philosophers might respond so as to protect and promote philosophy publishing.
You can read the 2011 report, ‘Women in Philosophy in the UK’, produced by the Joint BPA/SWIP Committee for Women in Philosophy, here. Further resources, including pages related to the new BPA/SWIP Good Practice Guidelines, are available here.
Improving Careers in Philosophy: This document outlines some of the problems surrounding working conditions and career progression that are faced by casual and temporary staff working in philosophy departments, and includes a list of proposals that we would like heads of department to consider implementing.
The BPA’s position paper (November 2009) on the assessment of impact in the REF is here. Our July 2010 letter to David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, is here, and his reply is here. We also wrote to the British Academy (June 2010); click here.