1 / 13

Are arts and humanities researchers liminal in the current policy environment?

Are arts and humanities researchers liminal in the current policy environment?. Magnus Gulbrandsen and Siri Aanstad, NIFU Presentation at the EU-SPRI Forum Karlsruhe 12-13 June 2012 Mam. Starting point, policy background.

tiara
Download Presentation

Are arts and humanities researchers liminal in the current policy environment?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Are arts and humanities researchers liminal in the current policy environment? • Magnus Gulbrandsen and Siri Aanstad, NIFU • Presentation at the EU-SPRI Forum Karlsruhe 12-13 June 2012 • Mam

  2. Starting point, policy background • From an innovation perspective, arts and humanities research (AHR) at universities remains an understudied area • Policies have increasingly started to include AHR when promoting university-industry relations, societal contributions and innovation more broadly • This paper fills a gap and accounts for an investigation of innovation/academic entrepreneurship among arts and humanities researchers • We ask whether there are nuances and differences in how they cope with the new challenges of innovation

  3. Theoretical perspective • Liminality: a feeling of "in-betweenness", usually a complicated and not very well defined transition phase between more stable identities (Zabuskey & Barley 1997) • The phase of liminality is often associated with marginalization and stress and may denote changing norms in a community • Earlier investigations have found that entrepreneurial scientists have differing norms and values concerning for instance research quality and interaction with society (Etzkowitz 1998) • The concept of liminality has earlier been used to shed light on the behaviour, values and self-image of industrial scientists and entrepreneurial academics (Zabuskey & Barkey 1997, Gulbrandsen 2005) • Although AHR has a strong track record of societal linkages, we expect that the current innovation-oriented climate had induced such a sense of liminality

  4. Expectations • Arts and humanities research within a traditional academic approach is not liminal • Practice of arts and humanities (as performer, user, policy maker etc.) should not be liminal either • The ones who try to combine the two, however, are expected to be liminal and experience e.g. stress and marginalization

  5. Data • Interviews with c. 20 Norwegian researchers, users and policy representatives of arts and humanities • Two larger focus group interviews with the same groups (10 more interviewees) • Analysis of the public debate about AHR, policy documents, statistical data and more • This is part of a larger European project where we also aim to compare results across different countries (Norway, Ireland, The Netherlands, to some extent also the UK)

  6. Main result • Our expectation was not met • Traditional academic research and innovation-oriented research (i.e. more “entrepreneurial science”) both constitute stable and unproblematic choices for arts and humanities researchers • Many central differences in values and practices between these groups • It may still be relevant to talk about two liminal groups • The researchers with a traditional orientation who feel pressured to become innovation-oriented • The ones who work as users in policy, industry, non-profit organisations and so on, but with strong research networks – they often used to be researchers (and maybe in some cases ideally would have liked to continue)

  7. Four categories • The Plato crowd: basic researchers highlighting the long prehistory of AHR, classic quality criteria, ideal types • The Aristotle bunch: innovation-oriented researchers with an emphasis on interdisciplinarity, practice and many different types of outputs from AHR • The Victims: researchers who feel that only innovation-oriented activities and indicators are given weight, reducing their professional opportunities and with consequences also for the disciplines • The Partly Enthusiastic Outsiders: non-researchers with a heart for AHR but with values and perspectives fairly close to the innovation-oriented researchers

  8. Two stable identities The Plato Crowd • General and idealised scientific quality criteria • Research quality not related to relevance or impact • AHR receives legitimacy from the “bildung” concept related to teaching and enlightenment • Perspectives on innovation and impact must build on a unique humanities approach • Innovation is “not a concept humanities researchers feel at home with”; users are often defined as “the general public” • Adapting to policy demands means to “sell out” The Aristotle Bunch • Expansion of quality criteria and emphasis on interdisciplinarity • Societal relevance may be related to quality • AHR receives legitimacy similar to other disciplines, i.e. through international scientific publishing • All scientific disciplines have similar challenges in defining and elaborating societal impact • Innovation is relevant for many activities of AHR, and new ones such as “digital humanities” with specific users • Policy demands need to “be handled pragmatically”

  9. Two liminal identities The Victims • Related to the Plato crowd • Highlight the AHR-internal agreement on quality criteria • A feeling of “strong external pressure” for impact, and naming of examples of “good research” not receiving funding • Too much emphasis on relevance destroys scientific quality • The current policy language is “alienating” • Policymakers need to adapt new goals that respect AHR • Typical linear model arguments and much talk about “dissemination” The Partly Enthusiastic Outsiders • Related to the Aristotle bunch • Promote a clearer stakeholder perspective • Critique that arts and humanities researchers are “passive” when it comes to defining impact and societal role • Relevance can enhance quality in many cases • AHR are experts on language and need to create their own concepts • All disciplines should make themselves relevant to policy goals • Systemic arguments about “knowledge exchange” and similar

  10. What does it mean to have a stable/liminal identity? • The stable ones (Plato and Aristotle crowds): • Have a well-defined language for describing their research activities and how they link up to societal goals • Are positive about the current situation for AHR and offensive about the future, despite different takes on the innovation challenges • Often have roles outside of academia (e.g. in the research council) • The liminal ones (the victims and outsiders): • Either criticise the prevalent policy language or criticise the researchers for not doing enough for developing such a language • Are more negative concerning the AHR situation and worry about the future, particularly related to the innovation challenges • Have personal networks but fewer formal hybrid roles (this deserves more work)

  11. Common to all groups • An observation that research funders place ever more emphasis on relevance, impact, innovation and so on • Fairly strong resistance towards instrumentalist policies • No one wants evaluation of AHR to be based solely on contribution to solving global challenges (although some state that it does not hurt to relate one’s research to it) • Traditional arguments of critical perspectives and public debate were used by all types of informants • Strong belief that the humanities are relevant to major societal challenges (e.g. in the aftermath of the 2011 terrorist attacks in Oslo)

  12. Conclusions and policy implications • There are long traditions in arts and humanities both for a “basic research” orientation and an orientation more tied to “applied research” with user collaboration, strong forms of interdisciplinarity and more • This seems partly to be a matter of “personal choice”, partly related to disciplinary differences (within the humanities, between arts and humanities) and partly to institutional differences (large universities versus other institutions) • Individuals who cannot “find a home” within the two stable AHR platforms may be seen as “liminal” as discussed above • Policy oriented questions: • Which language do we use for discussing the societal relevance of AHR? • How can we maintain a heterogeneous set of funding mechanisms? • Representatives of both the “Plato” and “Aristotle” groups may need to be included in policy discussions

  13. Thank you for your attention! • Comments are appreciated • siri.aanstad@nifu.no • magnus.gulbrandsen@tik.uio.no

More Related