Social Science Research in Turbulent Times
AISSR debate on the future of social science research in the Netherlands
On March 14, 2011 the AISSR organized a debate on the future of social science research in the Netherlands. Questions were addressed like: what kind of impact will the increased importance of research priority areas have on current research environments? Do social sciences stand a fair chance in international funding competitions?
Intro
On March 14, 2011 the AISSR organized a debate on the future of social science research in the Netherlands. In the future universities will increase their focus on research priority areas (zwaartepunten), the Dutch government will further limit their budgets for research funding, and researchers will become more dependent on (inter)national funding competitions. During the debate social science researchers addressed questions like: what kind of impact will the increased importance of research priority areas have on current research environments? Do social sciences stand a fair chance in international funding competitions? And, how do local institutional contexts influence competitions in international funding schemes?
Social Science Research at AISSR
The debate was opened by the academic director Prof. Dr. Anita Hardon, followed by a short film that presented selected research projects that were funded in 2010. In its first year AISSR has been very successful in obtaining research grants from the Dutch Council for Scientific Research (NWO), the European Research Council (ERC), and the Seventh Framework of the European Commission (FP7), thereby adding to its already rich research curriculum. Researchers are now active in almost 100 research projects.
Acknowledgement of social science research
Presentation by Prof. Herman van de Werfhorst, Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam, AISSR
Prof. Herman van de Werfhorst sketched the current position of the social sciences by looking at output numbers and scoring rates in national funding competitions. He showed how the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, and specifically social sciences, perform really well compared to other science branches when looking at publication output and funding grants. At the same time, however, social sciences’ chances to successfully compete in NWO funding competitions turn out to be much slimmer. Prof. van de Werfhorst related this awkward imbalance to current evaluation policies that are typically dictated by natural and behavioural sciences and focus exclusively on peer-reviewed journals, thereby ignoring other highly relevant publications like edited volumes and monographs.
Also at a European level the social sciences will have to struggle relatively harder in funding competitions when a much smaller proportion of the research budget will be reserved for the social sciences and humanities in the 8th framework programme.
Prof. van de Werfhorst urges that these developments be acknowledged by university managing boards and policymakers and that equal chances for all science branches should be created.
Diversify and strengthen the UvA profile
Presentation by Dymph van den Boom, rector magnificus University of Amsterdam
Dymph van den Boom explained more about current UvA policies regarding research funding. The UvA intends to invest around 50 percent of its research budget in the so-called research priority areas. These priority areas should represent the very best that the UvA has to offer in terms of research and are areas in which the University is a leader worldwide. With this funding strategy the UvA wishes to strengthen its profile and diversify from other Dutch universities. Currently Dutch universities do well on average but there are not many differences between them. Such diversification has been recommended by the commission Veerman that advised Dutch policies on the future of the higher education system. The rector magnificus also advised to increase our chances in European level funding competitions by, next to working on a strong profile, cooperating with other Dutch universities where there is thematic overlap.
How the extra funds for research priority areas will be distributed is still being discussed by the UvA managing board.
The distorted relationship in Dutch research systems
Presentation by Prof. Bert Klandermans, professor in Applied Social Psychology at the Free University Amsterdam
Prof. Dr. Bert Klandermans underlined the criticism he also gave in his address on the occasion of his departure as professor in Applied Social Psychology. This concerned the imbalance between social and medical sciences in the Netherlands and the basic structural underfunding of the social sciences. 75 percent of the national research budget is allocated to medical sciences, and within the NWO this is even 85 percent. Prof. Klandermans observed two major obstacles in the current funding system: frozen national research budgets and flawed allocation methods based on dubious assessments of work quality. He advised to put pressure on the Dutch government and the NWO to guarantee competitions that allow for equal chances and to re-allocate current research funding, meaning that the social sciences should receive a fair share.
Debate: research flexibly and the ‘social’ of science
The presentations were followed by a lively debate. Researchers were especially concerned about the increased focus on research priority areas. Definitions of and the focus on research priority areas seem to imply that other research is of less quality and importance. Researchers encouraged the University Board to also invest in small and flexible groups of researchers that would be able to quickly adjust to new research agendas formulated by funding agencies like the European Commission. They warned that research priority areas cannot survive without being fed by a diverse research staff grounded in strong disciplines.
Current financial policies of the UvA were also questioned. Researchers are now forced to apply for full (all research related) costs in funding competitions, making the UvA relatively expensive and less attractive as a potential partner in international projects. It also puts pressure on the limited matching budgets of the faculty that have to compensate remaining (overhead) costs in the relatively high budgets.
Future matching rules will not make it any easier. Research projects awarded by 3e geldstroom funding bodies will no longer receive matching funds, which will be the new policy, the importance of 2e geldstroom funding bodies, like NWO, will only increase. The question remains on the basis of what kind of indicators funding bodies will be categorized. The rector magnificus welcomes suggestions regarding this issue.
Finally, it was suggested that in discussions on the position of the social sciences we should not only focus on concrete output like publications and funding grants but also on the positive impact of projects in the places where they are conducted. Even though such impact is hard to measure, it is a crucial aspect of social science research: let’s not forget the ‘social’ of science.