The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) unconditionally and absolutely refutes the allegations reported in the Observer (‘Academic Fury over order to study the big society’, 27 March). We did NOT receive our funding settlement on condition that we supported the ‘Big Society’, and we were NOT instructed, pressured or otherwise coerced by BIS or anyone else into support for this initiative.

The AHRC has been working for over two years, since 2008, with four other research councils, on the Connected Communities Research Programme which has been developed through extensive – and continuing – consultation with researchers. At the core of this Programme is research to understand the changing nature of communities in their historical and cultural contexts, and the value of communities in sustaining and enhancing our quality of life. These issues are serious and of major concern. They also happen to be relevant to debates about the ‘Big Society’ which came two years later. To imply that these important areas for investigation constitute a government-directed research programme is false.

Specific research applications are funded on the basis of academic peer review, not government command. If academic peer reviewers do not feel the research is excellent, and of sufficient importance and value for money, it does not get funded.

There are further inaccuracies in the Observer article that rest on rumour and misrepresentation.

First, the Observer article implies that ‘significant’ funding will be put exclusively into ‘Big Society’ projects. What the document quoted actually says is that ‘significant’ funding will be put into SIX (not one) ‘strategic research areas’. These are language-based disciplines, the creative economy, interdisciplinary collaborations, and cultural heritage as well as issues related to communities and civic values. This will occur as part of an extensive portfolio of funding covering many different types of research which, once again, was developed through extensive consultation with researchers over a two year period.

Second, it is reported that the AHRC ‘was forced to accept the change by officials working for the minister for higher education, David Willetts.’ There is a confusing subsidiary allegation that ‘the word is that it has come down from the secretary of state, Vince Cable’. Neither is true. If there is evidence to demonstrate these allegations (as distinct from relying on phrases like ‘the word is’) then it should be revealed. But there is no such evidence because it did not happen.