This chapter turns to the conception of ‘legitimate’ knowledge, first examining constructions of ‘legitimacy’, drawing on political, sociological, and philosophical conceptions. The construction of legitimate knowledge in relation to the conceptions of belief, truth, and justification are considered. In addition, debates pertaining to the recent discourses of the democratisation of knowledge, linked to the notion of ‘expertise’ and ‘stakeholders’, indigenous knowledge and decolonising knowledge are discussed; this entails a critical exploration of various types of factors complicit in the formulation of knowledge, including positionality, with respect to class, political interest, gender, race, and so on; university diversity initiatives; disciplinary quality; methodology and the ‘Canon’; skills, employment, and research assessment initiatives; funding and international partnerships; and global legitimating systems such as global university rankings, publication systems, and citation practices. Furthermore, it is argued that the production of research does not sit outside these positionalities and the politics of knowledge production.

This chapter introduces the context and rationale for the book, noting the increased media and policy focus over the last decade, as well as the broader sociopolitical context of the Covid-19 pandemic, post-Brexit, and post-Trump milieux. The case is made for revisiting and challenging the dominant national frame for understanding academic freedom, noting the internationalisation and massification of higher education globally. The outline of the book is situated as addressing this gap and examining three theoretical and interrelated challenges: i) the presumed dichotomy between freedom and diversity/inclusion, ii) the relative lack of attention to the role of academic freedom in knowledge production, and iii) the lack of recognition of the transnational nature of academic freedom.

The relationship between academic freedom and knowledge production is examined in in this chapter. Various contested constructions of knowledge within and across the different geographical contexts and by discipline are critically interrogated, and the implications of these constructions are considered for pedagogy, research, and understanding of academic freedom. As such, conceptions of knowledge invoke particular conceptions of the value of education and its aims. This is examined in relation to neoliberal discourses of skills, impact and marketability, positionality, and decolonisation of knowledge initiatives. The temporal and geographical positionality of knowledge is critically interrogated, recognising the Western hegemony of knowledge and its production, calling for the need to situate knowledge sociopolitically and historically. This necessitates the recognition that academic freedom is similarly situated in space and time, with discussions of examples across the four national contexts. Debates surrounding the organisation and gatekeeping of knowledge through the disciplines and the rise of interdisciplinarity are also addressed in this chapter.

This chapter considers a range of internal and external restrictions (individual, institutional, national, and international) on the production of knowledge, which is situated in the dominant framing discourse of global neoliberalism. Recognising forms of restrictions on knowledge relates to how academic freedom itself is constructed, invoking the proposition that certain prerequisites are necessary for the practice of academic freedom. The chapter examines how university governance and funding mechanisms can constrain academic freedom. Within the university context, it extends its consideration to the role of ethics committees, bureaucratisation of university procedures, role of students, and university environment. The role of self-censorship at the individual level and the notion of scholars’ responsibility as well as freedom are critically examined. State-level restrictions are also considered. The chapter also situates these university-level and state-level restrictions within transnational restrictions, including international law and movement across borders.

This chapter draws together the findings to argue for a transnational theory of academic freedom and the production of knowledge. Based on original empirical data from Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States, I argue for the necessity of taking account of the complexities of globalisation, internationalisation, and geographical and historical inter-connectivities, as well as the particularities of context. I argue that the construct of academic freedom is premised on inclusivity, rather than the principles of academic freedom being construed as in tension with the principles of diversity and inclusion. This argument is developed from the recognition of the positionality of the knowledge producer, thereby positioning knowledge as relational, contextualised, and within the politics of power relations. Methodological conclusions consolidate arguments for a move away from the methodological nationalism underpinning the study of academic freedom and for its transnational framing in theorising the relationship between academic freedom and the production of knowledge.

This chapter addresses a fundamental debate in the field – the presumed irreconcilability of the principles of academic freedom on the one hand and diversity and inclusion on the other. It examines contested conceptions of academic freedom through academics’ experiences in Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In response to polemical and polarised debates, it has been theorised that the principles of justice and inclusion and the principles of academic freedom are complementary rather than contradictory. However, this potential complementarity has not been examined to date in relation to the production of knowledge. This chapter makes the original proposition that this complementarity between inclusion and academic freedom is also a requisite in the production of ‘inclusive knowledge’.

This chapter investigates ‘forbidden’ knowledge, examining the structures and processes that impede the production of knowledge, and how such knowledge can threaten powerful interests mediated through institutions and sociopolitical and religious cultures. This can entail both formal and informal processes including self-censorship, peer review, internal university restrictions, and external sociopolitical restrictions. The chapter considers the construct of ‘forbidden’ knowledge, recognising it as more than gaps in knowledge, and also in terms of structural and sociopolitical processes, consolidating this knowledge as too dangerous or ‘taboo’ to produce. Drawing on empirical accounts of the daily lived experiences of academics operating within this terrain, four areas of forbidden knowledge – ‘bioethics, psychology, and genetics’; ‘Palestine’; ‘gender and sexuality; and ‘race, religion, security, and extremism’ are explored. In addition, questions of power, agency, positionality, and sociopolitical and historical contexts are critically elucidated.

This chapter examines the discourses of the perceived role of the university and how this relates to the constructions of knowledge and its implications for pedagogy, research, and academic freedom. Furthermore, it examines the role of the university transnationally going beyond the familiar democratic contexts, taking account of increased globalisation and its sociopolitical implications for academic freedom and the production of knowledge. University missions illustrate a range of framings in terms of the conceptions of ‘truth’, ‘public good’, and ‘knowledge economy’, and how these conceptions are translated into curricula objectives is explored in the different contexts of Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Introduction

Academic freedom has increasingly become a focus for heated debate, which is typically polarised and vitriolic, with a highly charged commentary of academic freedom being under attack. There is a presumed irreconcilability of the principles of academic freedom on the one hand, and diversity and inclusion on the other. Traditional libertarian approaches typically place a primacy on protecting free speech, in contrast to approaches expressing concerns that unfettered free speech can be utilised by those traditionally holding power in ways that harm traditionally marginalised communities. These disputes in turn impact on assumptions about what kind of political education is feasible in today's society.

In addition to dominant media and political discourses that academic freedom is increasingly under threat globally, data from the Academic Freedom Index report a widespread decline based on a number of empirical measures in countries in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, as well as in the UK and the US. The most significant declines are reported to be in Hong Kong, Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, India and Russia, associated with significant declines in measures of democracy (Kinzelbach et al, 2022). However, it is argued that discourses claiming that academic freedom is under greater threat in contemporary times compared to the past are ahistorical, not recognising the ongoing debates on academic freedom and the related concept of free speech over several decades.

In the UK context in 2021, a Department for Education report on higher education and academic freedom set out the ‘case for change’ (DfE, 2021). The report argues that although UK universities have historically provided a space for academic freedom and freedom of speech, there is ‘growing concern within government of a chilling effect on university campuses’, citing a 2019 Policy Exchange report based on a survey of students (DfE, 2021, p 9). While noting that academic freedom is not absolute and, in order to be operationalised, will necessarily have boundaries, a concern is expressed about individuals’ need – or perceived need – to self-censor ‘unpopular’ views. The politics of knowledge production is not acknowledged, whereby the traditionally powerful in society have typically controlled the production of knowledge.