Consultation Report

Katja Mayer, Office of the ERC president, WWTF
Thomas König, Office of the ERC president, WWTF

December 2013

We are grateful for the comments of the members of the Conference Steering Committee, especially to Rūta Petrauskaitė and Helga Nowotny. 

Conference Steering Committee

  • Helga Nowotny, President, European Research Council (2010-2013) 
  • Jutta Allmendinger, President, Social Science Research Center, Berlin (WZB), Germany
  • Paul Boyle, President, Science Europe
  • Craig Calhoun, Director, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), United Kingdom
  • Gustavo Cardoso, Professor, Lisbon University Institute, Portugal
  • Rivka Feldhay, Professor, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
  • Poul Holm, Professor, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland; President, European Consortium of Humanities Institutes and Centres
  • Pavel Kabat, Director, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria
  • Rūta Petrauskaitė, Professor, School of Political Science and Diplomacy, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania; Research Council of Lithuania, Committee of Social Sciences and Humanities
  • Alain Peyraube, Emeritus Director of Research, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Paris; Professor, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), France
  • Aura Reggiani, Professor, University of Bologna, Italy; President, Network for European Communications and Transport Activities Research (NECTAR) 
  • Peter Tindemans, Secretary General, Euroscience
  • Wim van den Doel, Dean, Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University, The Netherlands
  • Giedrius Viliūnas, Vice Rector for Studies, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
  • Michel Wieviorka, Chair, Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris; and Professor, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), France
  • Björn Wittrock, Professor, Uppsala University; Principal, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (SCAS), Uppsala, Sweden

Executive Summary

The objective of this consultation was to learn more about the current situation and the ambitions of the research community, as well as to identify the needs and structural problems of specific fields, with an emphasis on their potential to contribute to the success of the new research framework programme, Horizon 2020.

From 22 April to 8 July 2013 researchers previously involved with or planning to carry out EU-funded research in the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) were contacted via email. They were asked for their views on a set of five questions, which were designed to take the pulse of the SSH research community and prepare a declaration of the conference: Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities, Sept 23-24th, Vilnius, Lithuania, Mykolas Romeris University.

The results of the analysis of the 306 consultation responses received from all over Europe were used for the thematic design of the conference. Three major themes were identified: interdisciplinarity, methodology, and obstacles/challenges in SSH research funding. They resulted in the following session topics: diversity and common ground, training and education, impact and evaluation, structural funding, newly emerging topics, and widening participation. The next step was to discuss how best to proceed with the integration of the SSH into the seven societal challenges of Horizon 2020: health and demographic change, food security and the bioeconomy, secure energy, smart transport, climate change and environment, inclusive and reflexive societies, and secure societies.

Results of the consultation have provided valuable input for the drafting of the Vilnius declaration on “Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities” handed to the EU Council of Minsters by the Lithuanian Minister of Science and Education.

Open consultation process

Between 22 April and 8 July 2013 we contacted researchers who had been involved in or were planning to carry out EU-funded research in the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities. We asked for their views on a set of five questions, which were designed to take the pulse of the SSH research community and prepare a declaration that was handed over to the Lithuanian Minister of Science and Education at the conference: Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities, Sept 23-24th, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania. The declaration was also disseminated to the representatives of the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers, the conference participants, and relevant communities via internet and social media, such as Twitter.

The aim of the consultation was to learn more about the current status and the ambitions of the research community, as well as to identify the needs and structural problems of specific fields with special emphasis on their potential to contribute to the success of the new research framework programme: Horizon 2020.

The consultation has circulated in the wider SSH research community, irrespective of whether individuals or institutions are already active in EU-funded research. Indeed, we believe it is of great importance to reach out also to those SSH communities that have not yet been involved in EU-funding. This includes researchers who are based outside Europe, but cooperate with colleagues in Europe.

Request for consultation

The following questions were sent out via our partner organisations (see list below) to the European SSH communities:

  1. SSH research is often conducted in disciplinarily defined contexts. This may be an obstacle in a problem-driven research environment (“societal challenges”). Can you give examples of how your own research area has been involved in (a) opening up to other research fields, (b) translating findings and/or methods to or from other academic fields, (c) contributing to the emergence of new, cross-disciplinary fields, and/or (d) transcending, with its results and insights, the fields of academic research?
  2. The research agendas of the different subfields of SSH are very heterogeneous. What are the broad research questions, new methodological or theoretical developments, or generally new approaches that are high on your own research agenda? Which ones are high on the research agenda of your field? Where do you see potential contributions to societal relevance?
  3. “Horizon 2020”will provide new opportunities for SSH to contribute to new research on “societal challenges”. What are the potential contributions from your field? Please specify the “societal challenge/s” to which contributions from your research community are most likely, and suggest successful steps in this direction, if possible.
  4. Do you foresee (or have you experienced) obstacles that may prevent you and your research community from making contributions to the “societal grand challenges” approach? Please provide specific indications.
  5. In order to foster a more integrative approach that would also benefit the SSH research communities, what would you consider the most important incentives that “Horizon 2020” could provide?

Should you have any additional comments, please feel free to share them with us.

Since it was an open consultation process distributed via snowballing and not a survey, we do not know the total number of respondents. Hence, we cannot provide a quantitative analysis of response rates.

The consultation process was scientifically supervised by the Conference Steering Committee:

Helga Nowotny (chair), Rūta Petrauskaitė (Vice Chair), Giedrius Viliūnas (Vice Chair), Jutta Allmendinger, Paul Boyle, Craig Calhoun, Gustavo Cardoso, Rivka Feldhay, Poul Holm, Pavel Kabat, Alain Peyraube, Aura Reggiani, Peter Tindemans, Wim van den Doel, Michel Wieviorka, Björn Wittrock

Responses – Overview

306 responses that reached the Steering Committee were used for analysis. Many contain highly elaborated statements. Responses were collected at Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius and entered into a database. The responses were analysed by the team in Vienna with regard to the conference topics in order to integrate this expertise into the discussions in each session. After the conference, a second deeper discourse analytic phase generated this consultation report, which will hopefully provide further input to the discussion of “Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities”.

 respondents_country

 

A detailed list of respondents by institution and stakeholder organisation can be found in the Annex of this report.

Fields and disciplines

Many respondents also mentioned their fields of expertise. We compiled their answers in a Wordle Graphic for an overview: the size of words represents frequency, however their position has no meaning.

wordle_responses_fields

Most of the respondents repeatedly declared themselves as coming from an interdisciplinary background, stating that many SSH are already working in a cross-disciplinary way or have many possibilities for working together with other SSH, sciences and engineering. Especially those working at the interfaces of health, law, economics, linguistics, history and psychology put the emphasis on the importance of truly interdisciplinary review and evaluation frameworks, and stressed the fact that – although their knowledge and expertise is highly in demand in policy or business contexts – their academic careers are not reflecting this societal need. Furthermore, it was noted that disciplinary specialisation per se is rooted in traditionally discipline-specific university training. Especially in Europe this is causing the formation of closed disciplinary communities that would need more incentives to step outside and ask interdisciplinary questions and form interdisciplinary teams. More about the issue of interdisciplinarity will follow in the Results section of this report.

Methodology: Identifying themes for discussion from an open consultation process

We received 306 responses that fulfilled the basic criteria for the analytic process. The open questions were not aimed at obtaining statistical data; instead we were looking for useful in-depth narratives and recommendations from the valuable experiences of the targeted communities.

The aim of the analysis was to produce detailed and nuanced insights into the status and future of SSH communities in Europe. The results of the analysis were used for the on-going conceptualization of the conference programme, and had a direct impact on the drafting of the Vilnius Declaration.

Following a content analytic approach[1], we annotated the text corpus and extracted the statements embedded in the wider (con)textual setting for each annotated category. The categories were defined not ex-ante, but during the close reading of the responses. Such a coding process is recognised as production of data, both by subdividing the data as well as assigning categories. Codes or categories are tags (labels) for allocating units of meaning to the excerpts of the corpus of consultation answers. Creating categories triggers the construction of a conceptual scheme that fits the data: thematic clusters were formed from the annotated categories. Furthermore this approach helps us to make comparisons across data, change and drop categories, and even look for blind spots and empty spaces. This form of data condensation or data distillation in establishing categories is to be regarded both as an organising tool and the outcome of the analysis process.

Results – Identifying the main questions and themes for the conference and further discussion

General results

Besides a very comprehensive list of recommendations, we could identify three main thematic strands in the corpus of responses: interdisciplinarity, new digital methods and digitisation, and SSH and European funding policy. Before introducing them in detail according to the scheme we developed for the conference programme, here is a summary:

  1. The issue of interdisciplinarity (often used synonymously with transdisciplinarity and crossdisciplinarity) was brought up by two thirds of the consultation respondents. There is consensus in most responses that SSH is not just conducted in disciplinary contexts, and that contemporary SSH are inherently interdisciplinary, e.g. in fields like cultural studies, urban studies, and STS. However, some respondents mentioned that interdisciplinary SSH are still perceived as more discipline-bound because the research process leads to a transformation of established fields into new fields with new names or labels. In contrast actual disciplinary oriented fields and also a lot of STEM research seem to work more in multi-disciplinary settings, where different disciplines provide distinct input, and new fields and disciplines emerge through combination rather than through merging of existing practices, as is the case in interdisciplinary SSH. The main anticipated problem concerns the wide gap between horizontal themes in research funding and the often strict and conservative vertical hierarchies of disciplines, university settings and monodisciplinary publication and outreach contexts. Thus, a priority will be to rethink academic hierarchies (and ‘containers’) and how to overcome them, how to provide spaces for the development of new skills, methods and group collaboration, and for experimentation with new configurations of research fields. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research should include the deep analysis and reflection on the nature of different problems, to avoid superficiality for the sake of application of research results. Last, but not least, the question remains how to create robust evaluation and assessment procedures for interdisciplinary research, and how to find experts with experience in interdisciplinarity to evaluate such proposals or project reports. However, the objective of interdisciplinarity should not remain an end in itself. Instead researchers have to learn to put it into practice, build it into proposals or implement it into concrete work packages from the very start, organise diverging communication practices and different time horizons, and finally collate multi-disciplinary approaches and outcomes into interdisciplinary results. The role of funding agencies in establishing an interdisciplinary research landscape should not be underestimated. However this needs a clear understanding of the complexities of SSH related research and a sense of flexibility to allow for constant development and organisational learning.
  2. New digital methods and digitisation efforts (sometimes hyped as “big data”) bring about the necessity to deal with the lack of education and training in these fields, and the lack of reflexivity when it comes to either adapting methods or developing SSH specific approaches in the digital realms. How can local knowledge, cultures, and regional solutions be compared and brought together with global models, European platforms, and diverse expectations of (cultural) heritage services? Will such new digital developments include new forms of public participation, and new forms of expertise?
  3. Nearly all respondents identified the need for SSH to be involved in research policy making and in all steps of defining work programmes, advisory groups, and specifically in the assessment and evaluation of inter/transdisciplinarity. It is demanded that horizontal issues require more than stable long-term funding schemes to keep teams intact and deepen the approaches. Not the funding scheme but the problem focus of an issue should determine which countries, disciplines and stakeholders are required to be involved. For interdisciplinary approaches it would be good to organise networks and platforms, and finance project pre-phases, including proposal writing. More details on recommendations regarding organisation and administration of research funding can also be found in the next section where answers by funding bodies are collected.

Detailed results

1.     Diversity and Common Ground

The social sciences and humanities are a diverse field of theoretical approaches and research practices; this diversity is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Many examples show that the institutional, linguistic, disciplinary and even national richness of SSH is the bedrock of creativity and cross-disciplinary thinking. But its downside is fragmentation, which often leads to lack of visibility and lonesome scholarship. For the further integration and fostering of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe as well as in European Framework programmes it will therefore be necessary to take the lead, define new spaces for collaboration in the SSH and with the sciences and engineering, and to focus on SSHs capacities to engage with interdisciplinary approaches. Consultation respondents also highlighted the importance of SSH-specific trans-national and translational infrastructures in order to strengthen collaboration on common ground but with different perspectives. Furthermore, it will be important that the European SSH establish a firm and stable representational agent – a polyphonic voice – for negotiations with policy and administration.

2.     Training and Education

Universities continue to be the key site for training and educating the next generation of SSH scholars and researchers. Therefore, the structure, governance and modes of funding of universities are of prime importance. So is the rapid advancement of new technologies. New kinds of data and new ways of data collection and analysis are now available and open new opportunities for research, but also for education. We need innovations both in the relation of teaching and learning, but also in the close relation of teaching, training and research, especially when it comes to issues of inter- or trans-disciplinarity. Many respondents also addressed the important role of SSH in the education of future decision makers and the importance of an ideal of humanistic education to counteract global market-driven logics.

3.     Impact and Evaluation

One criticism of the fields of Social Sciences and Humanities concerns the transfer of evaluation standards between fields, without due consideration of their specificities when it comes to “measure” research productivity. Such complaints have their valid points as the main publication output can be journal articles or monographs; team sizes can be smaller or bigger and scholars can work and publish alone or with others. Another concern is the social impact of SSH research and how to evaluate SSH as societal stakeholders.

Many SSH communities have started to develop or apply their own methods for evaluating various kinds of output and results of SSH research, which go beyond traditional bibliometrics. While there are no standard references and databases for publications in the SSH domain that account for the vast diversity of fields and especially for their multilingualism, social indicators and other assessment tools are either in their infancy or very unevenly distributed. Finally, SSH fields and disciplines behave rather conservatively when it comes to applying Open Access. Concrete measures to be taken:  first and foremost SSH need to develop their own perspective on questions of evaluation. They have to establish their own standards and norms, at the same time should involve themselves more in the scientometric and political activities to define research assessment procedures. Social Impact of SSH includes certainly demonstrable contributions of research to society at large.

Societal Challenges in Horizon2020

1.     HEALTH, DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND WELL-BEING

Challenges to global health and wellbeing (including mental health) present significant economic, societal and ethical burdens in the early part of the 21st century, and are associated with dramatic demographic shifts occurring as a result of political conflict, migration, technological innovation, population ageing, and other factors. Consultation respondents repeatedly state that Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines must harness, develop and innovate key theoretical and methodological approaches to develop solutions to these challenges that can be translated efficiently into applications for the benefit of society. But as the final negotiations on Horizon 2020 continue, the question is how to integrate Social Sciences and Humanities into the new European Research Framework programme. Respondents remarked specific problems of disciplinarity in health and wellbeing research; and described SSH approaches, models and paradigms that can address concrete problems in the Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing pillar. Some questions raised are: How can efficient and productive cross-fertilisation of disciplinary expertise be accomplished in concrete work programmes? How will an emphasis on personalisation in health and healthcare interact with public health principles of equity, justice and the public good, and the new economic focus on ‘big data’? What kinds of research and research collaborations are necessary to capture the global dimensions of demographic change in a way that appropriately respects and describes the experiences of individuals and families in their local contexts?

2.     Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research, and the bio-economy

According to the current wording of “Horizon 2020” the specific objective of this research challenge is to secure sufficient supplies of safe, healthy and high quality food and other bio-based products, by developing productive, sustainable and resource-efficient primary production systems, fostering related ecosystem services and the recovery of biological diversity, alongside competitive and low carbon supply, processing and marketing chains. This will accelerate the transition to a sustainable European bio-economy, bridging the gap between new technologies and their implementation. More and more biological resources are needed to satisfy demand for a secure and healthy food supply, bio-materials, biofuels and bio-based products, ranging from consumer products to bulk chemicals. However the capacities of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems required for their production are limited, while there are competing claims for their utilisation, and they are often not managed optimally, as shown for example by a severe decline in soil carbon content and fertility and fish stock depletion. Consultation respondents remind us that there is underutilised scope for fostering ecosystem services from farmland, forests, marine and fresh waters by integrating sustainable agronomic, environmental, and social goals. In the past, the EU research in food, sustainability and the bio-economy has paid too little attention to human behavioural change, social acceptability, and acceptance of changes in the food system. We need to discuss methodologies that complement each other in providing understanding of the different aspects and impacts of the changes that are proposed, and to a greater extent try to integrate the perspectives from different fields of science. Thus, it will be of particular importance to focus on the challenges and opportunities of research and trans-disciplinary collaboration: How to integrate SSH perspectives in the definition and specification of topics and tasks? How to implement innovative research in the development and adaptation of improved food policies, technologies, processes and services? How can we ensure that impact assessment strategies at programme and project level include appropriate criteria and indicators? Social innovation regarding participatory approaches involving citizens as well as public acceptability of bio-economic solutions will provide further topics for discussion.

3.     Secure, clean and efficient energy

According to the Commission proposal for “Horizon 2020” the energy challenge will encompass the following broad lines of activities: Reducing energy consumption and carbon footprint by smart and sustainable use; Low-cost, low-carbon electricity supply; Alternative fuels and mobile energy sources; A single, smart European electricity grid; New knowledge and technologies; Robust decision making and public engagement; Market uptake of energy innovation. We need to identify existing obstacles and ways of overcoming them in order to make optimal use of the knowledge, capabilities and skills available in the needed broad spectrum of perspectives. It will be of particular importance for the energy field to discuss the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary or, rather, trans-disciplinary collaboration: Embedding SSH perspectives in the definition and specification of topics and tasks as well as in the implementation of the research activities related to the development, implementation and adoption of new or improved energy policies, technologies, processes and services. Also ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment at programme and project level and appropriate criteria and indicators as well as the assessment of alternative pathways as the basis for taking decisions in research and development processes are issues that will have to be addressed. Participatory approaches will have to be developed and adapted in order to fit the contemporary settings of stakeholders. Therefore, the perspectives from the Social Sciences and the Humanities are essential; missing them would mean missing decisive understanding of what will be required to reach the ambitious goals for Europe’s energy system.

4.     Smart, green and integrated transport

A great deal of attention has recently been paid to the interdisciplinary role of SSH, with special reference to the relevance of transport evolution and its network externalities. Consequently, embedding SSH in the “Horizon 2020” Transport Challenge plays an extremely important role, from both the research and policy viewpoints. European trends show different speed of mobility dynamics (slow and fast), for different geographical contexts (at different scale-levels) and for different socio-cultural contexts: SSH efforts seem necessary here in understanding and forecasting these different trends.

These different patterns clearly reflect different people’s and society’s needs at different spatial scale levels (urban/regional/national/European/worldwide): it then becomes essential, in the light “Horizon 2020” actions, to understand why there are these needs and what exactly are these needs: how can SSH widen and foster its essential role here?

How can technical solutions and policies (e.g. to influence or regulate mobility behaviour) be sustainably brought together to address societal issues such as urban congestion, mobility needs of an ageing population or the need for low-traffic zones? How can this core expertise of SSH be further developed? Do the transport research and innovation activities planned in “Horizon 2020” include the ‘real’ practical applications of SSH approaches that enhance the effectiveness of technical solutions.

5.     Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials

Many consultation respondents were taking up the topic of the “societal challenge” as formulated under “Horizon 2020”, with the objective “to achieve a resource and water efficient and climate change resilient economy and society, the protection and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems, and a sustainable supply and use of raw materials”. Maybe more than any other, this topic requires international collaboration at least at European level. At the same time, it is probably the most disputed one. It is tempting to define seemingly clear-cut policy targets; however, recent history proves how difficult it is for national governments to comply. Consequently, some of the key issues discussed in the responses and in the conference session are: What is currently the role of SSH in relating political targets to scientific research findings; and should this role be improved or altered altogether? How can SSH research contribute to the global efforts of climate research and environment studies? How do human behaviour and societal relations towards environment and resources evolve, and what lessons can be drawn from it?

6.     Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

Demographic challenges, protest movements, increasing social inequality within and between EU member states, the digital turn, cultural and religious diversity, the continuing change of values, the absence of a great narrative for Europe, the EU’s position in a global context: the expectations vis-à-vis Social Sciences and Humanities are not only huge; they are immense. In all areas, we lack research that is problem-driven and focusing on basic research. Moreover, it has to contribute to answering today’s and tomorrow’s big questions. Our panel, thus, will focus first and foremost on issues of content. Do the three catchwords ‘innovative’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘reflective’ frame the content of H2020 societal challenge 6 satisfactorily? Are they precise enough to inspire and provide guidance? What exactly, for instance, do we understand with the term ‘reflective’? At the same time, we have to talk about the different ways and formats of research funding. All of them have to be open to the participation of all researchers, have to be able to connect to other disciplines and have to be the least bureaucratic possible. We need formats that are conceived for the long term and that benefit from important funding amounts. We also need innovative antenna programmes that can also be set up at short notice. Transfer programmes are central. Nothing would be worse than the SSH distancing themselves from the social phenomena and the societal actors that carry them. How do we reach these goals? How to we attract the best researchers? How do we motivate the best evaluators? How shall quality assurance for research look like? And, in particular: how do we assure the legitimacy of SSH within H2020 that research needs?

7.     SECURE SOCIETIES – PROTECTING FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF EUROPE AND ITS CITIZENS

With the current seven-year Security Research and Innovation programme coming to a close by end of 2013, this session is dedicated to the discussion of the successor programme in Horizon 2020. The societal challenge as defined as “secure societies – protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens” emphasises to foster security in a context of unprecedented global transformations, while “strengthening the European culture of freedom and justice”. Therefore, dimensions such as human rights, environmental risks, political stability, cultural identity, privacy, or migration need to be taken into account when trying to understand causes, develop and apply innovative and socially and ecologically compatible solutions, and integrating objectives of European security industry, market demands, citizens rights, as well as research. These dimensions represent core themes and expertise of the Social Sciences and Humanities. Answers to the societal challenge of security will emerge only if equal collaboration between all stakeholders is put into practice. So we have to ask: What have we learned from the previous Framework Programmes? Which are the challenging questions for SSH and how may they respond to them? How can we put multilateral collaboration into practice? The session brings together researchers, who are experienced and genuinely interested in finding novel forms of integrative collaboration. They aim at identifying existing obstacles and ways of overcoming them and suggest concrete ways of how to move forward within the next work programmes of Horizon 2020.

8.     EMERGING TRENDS AND ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS

Social Sciences and Humanities are currently facing new organisational needs, such as international and cross-disciplinary research infrastructures, issues related to digitization, and multi-lingual access to scientific knowledge. Furthermore, they have to deal with changing publishing cultures and the growing demand for open access to knowledge and to data. At the same time, exciting trends of new theoretical and methodological approaches are currently surfacing. This session is dedicated to explore some of the most promising emerging trends in order to discuss opportunities for SSH.

9.     SMART SPECIALIZATION AND STRUCTURAL FUNDING

With a fresh emphasis on harmonising structural funding for research under the motto of “Smart Specialisation”, the European Union would like to streamline regional educational and research capacities. This session is dedicated to a discussion of the diversity of regional practices in Social Sciences and Humanities. Five speakers were invited to give a brief statement on the situation in their countries based on their own experiences with including SSH in Smart Specialization Strategies and recent programmes of structural funding. The focus is on success stories as well as challenges to be met in the process of future funding allocation for SSH infrastructures, education and research. The session highlights the potential of SSH for the achievement of common European goals.

10.  European Research Council: widening participation

No other part of European research funding has a higher share dedicated to the Social Sciences and Humanities than the European Research Council (ERC). Solely based on excellence, the ERC has gained great reputation and offers a unique opportunity also for SSH to advance frontier research and to attract visibility. However, the discrepancies in the geographical spread of the ERC grants concern scientists and policy makers alike. Based on individual experiences from three ERC Grantees in the Social Sciences and Humanities, and on statistical evidence provided by ERC Scientific Council members, this session aims at discussing what can be done in order to widening participation in ERC funding calls from all parts of Europe.

Collected recommendations by European Funding Institutions

The definition and construction of “societal challenges” as problem/issue spaces per se stem from human action, reflection and coordination, asking the adequate questions and finding solutions in line with desired societal impact but without losing the capacity of critical reflection puts the humanities and social sciences indeed at the heart of pillar three in Horizon 2020. The problem with the inclusion of SSH in all Societal Challenges however, seems that it is not recognised well enough that e.g. historical and socio-philosophical approaches can significantly improve problem identification and that SSH’s integrative potential is often underestimated in general.

The set of recommendations to follow is collected from the corpus of consultation responses of European Science and Research Funding Institutions and is overlapping with the recommendations drawn from the rest of the response corpus, as they are summarised in form of the Vilnius Declaration.

SSH themes in Horizon 2020 (and on national and regional levels)

  • The formulation of Societal Challenges holds the power to define what research is relevant for society, but also paves the way for its use in society. There should be made room for curiosity driven research that is not too out-put oriented and rather risky in pillars 2 and 3 of Horizon 2020. This would require open calls in each SC. It further means that the calls for the SC in H2020 need to be carefully adapted rhetorically (linguistically) not to exclude the SSH (as it is the situation now, or just mention them as add-ons) and to constructively help to define the roles. This means top-down, thematic, proactive calls/inputs are needed alongside the bottom-up principle.
  • Additionally SSH related research in the Societal Challenges pillar could be formulated in cross-cutting themes: human behaviour: (e.g. climate-energy-transport), human reflection, change and societal governance (e.g. participatory approaches)
  • Questions and themes for the European Research agenda should be negotiated transparently and include the relevant research communities, hence the SSH, and other societal stakeholders at ALL stages of topic development
  • SSH contributions (current and potential ones) need to be clearly signposted, as the identification of opportunities is difficult when call texts are not adapted to include SSH. To make sure potential SSH researchers contribute across all societal challenges and the impact of the calls is maximised, opportunities across the seven Societal Challenges should be presented online, in thematic workshops, at kick-off events. The committees writing the calls need to be made attentive to the best practice models of SSH contributions. The Commission has to make sure that there are SSH-coordinated projects in all challenges and work-programmes.
  • The SSH and Europe need a continued open discussion on the relevance and roles of SSH in Europe. This could be established by recurring events, such as the Vilnius Conference in 2013, but should be planned timely/in time for the next steps, the next biannual calls etc. e.g. a conference to review H2020 progress on SSH perspectives with reports about success and failures in application and project preparation and handling.
  • A new strongly staffed and properly resourced unit should be established within DG Research & Innovation to provide robust institutional support and leadership for SSH involvement in H2020.
  • European funding strategies are often regarded as models for national and regional funding efforts, or they are treated as surrogate for the lack of national and regional funding. Therefore it is important to have a continuously strong commitment to SSH on the agenda.
  • Coordinate national and European funding principles: National funding instruments like ERA nets have a big disadvantage in terms of the integral research model: sciences and SSH receive their funding from different sources, no synchronised coordinated funding available for joint projects.

Organisation of SSH themes within the interdisciplinary context of H2020

  • Counteracting the lack of translational infrastructure and structures requires dedicated platforms for the formation of inter- and transdiscplinary project teams. This could be achieved with the installation of dedicated Coordination and Support actions (CSA) on European level.
  • Funding of preparatory stages or pilot projects is essential for interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, SSH also need test phases: testing specific concepts and approaches in respective environments and assessing the results.
  • Continued funding of collaborative frameworks, such as HERA, Norface, Nos_HS is needed to establish cross-border structures, especially important for widening countries and interdisciplinary research within the SSH and with the sciences and engineering.
  • Enable long-term, stable research funding for training of skilled professionals, tackle challenges in-depth (incl. the socio-economic ones), to capitalise on past investments.
  • Dedicated brokerage events for the creation of new interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral partnerships: There is evidence (Swiss National Fund) that researchers from the humanities and social sciences seek collaboration with other domains more frequently than vice versa. SSH is regarded as being external to core scientific interest by many scientists, but core scientific interest is not the core idea of H2020 societal challenges.
  • Internationalisation: SSH need to develop better methods for international visibility of their tools and approaches, furthermore embed their results – if possible – in comparative framings, strive for more open access to data and data infrastructure
  • Mobility funding: for networking and exploratory workshops, dedicated mobility funding for new member states, but also to attract international researchers to work in Europe
  • International collaboration with funding bodies such as the NSF (US), NEH (US), SSHRC (Can),  FAPESP (Brazil), CONACYT (Mex), HSRC South Africa, ICfSSR (India), WHO, Unesco, International Social Science Council, Steering Platform for West Balkan Countries, … should be intensified, as the collaboration and coordination with private funding organisations like Andrew W Mellon Foundation. “Asymmetrical cooperation” with funding bodies in rich parts of the world covering most of the costs should be encouraged.
  • Create appropriate incentives at individual and collaborative level, e.g. by opening up university careers to interdisciplinary themes and fields, making them more permeable also to non-scientific careers and atypical academic lives. But also mechanism making SSH participation in certain topics of all SC obligatory, e.g. by a requirement to demonstrate policy and public impact across all challenges. This includes a criterion for funding decisions: a realistic and adequate budget for SSH research.
  • Within the collaborative research model, small to medium-scale researcher projects seem to be more accessible and appropriate for the SSH community. In order to be involved in large-scale research projects, be it as member of the consortium or as leading unit, the SSH would need adequate training in leadership of large research projects with an interdisciplinary agenda (this is also true for all sciences, should they work inter- or transdisciplinary).
  • Focus on crosscutting methodological innovations, such as e.g. digital humanities or participatory approaches, or new forms of working with historical data, “mixed methods” approaches, long term participatory observation, narrative analysis, new methods to handle big data.
  • Another focus on trans-nationally relevant research infrastructures. By providing a common ground for asking different questions SSH collaboration can be fostered.  See successful European Research Infrastructure Consortia, such as Dariah, Share-project, Clarin, ERIC, …
  • Strengthen open access models for SSH publications and data

Evaluation of interdisciplinary research

  • Calls for proposal, peer reviews, intermediary and final evaluation procedures need to adapt to the integrative vision prescribed in H2020. This integrative and interdisciplinary approach must also guide the funding and programme management in order to sustain and provoke a new research culture.
  • Success rate dropping under 10% (as in FP7, where the average success rate in other themes was around 22%) is not adequately reflecting the size, excellence and importance of SSH research in Europe. The average total evaluation score of funded projects in the theme 8 of FP7 reached 13,75 out of 15 and is the highest of all thematic areas in the programme “Cooperation”.
  • Identify measures for the evaluation of H2020, how to measure the new collaborative research model of H2020, should e.g. identifier numbers of research fields and disciplines be used in the proposals, …how to measure the different input of all sciences and SSH… this should be developed also with the participation of the relevant SSH communities.
  • Excellence: in SSH best researchers will produce the best research, research depends on individual excellence rather than on the work of large teams, but excellent infrastructures help. But currently STEM research provides the paradigm for scientific excellence, project structure, modes of scientific collaboration, and more. Excellence needs to be re-framed also in terms of SSH. (Same goes for other evaluation criteria)
  • Not to forget the ethical dimension of SSH research: in FP7 conceptual instruments and ethics review was better suited to medical/bio/life-science research, not to SSH research. There is a lack of official EU guidelines on ethics in social research resulting in a lack of awareness of the ethics implications of SSH research[2].

The development of categories for the analysis of the consultation responses provided conceptual ideas for the design of the conference programme and greatly helped formulating the Vilnius Declaration.

Vilnius Declaration – Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities

(September 2013)

Europe will benefit from wise investment in research and innovation and Social Sciences and Humanities, SSH, are ready to contribute. European societies expect research and innovation to be the foundation for growth. Horizon 2020 aims to implement inter-disciplinarity and an integrated scientific approach. If research is to serve society, a resilient partnership with all relevant actors is required. A wide variety of perspectives will provide critical insights to help achieve the benefits of innovation. The effective integration of SSH requires that they are valued, researched and taught in their own right as well as in partnership with other disciplinary approaches.

The value and benefits of integrating Social Sciences and Humanities

European Social Sciences and Humanities are world class, especially considering their diversity. They are indispensible in generating knowledge about the dynamic changes in human values, identities and citizenship that transform our societies. They are engaged in research, design and transfer of practical solutions for a better and sustainable functioning of democracy. Their integration into Horizon 2020 offers a unique opportunity to broaden our understanding of innovation, realigning science with on-going changes in the ways in which society operates.

  1. Innovation is a matter of change in organisations and institutions as well as technologies. It is driven not only by technological advances, but also by societal expectations, values and demands. Making use of the wide range of knowledge, capabilities, skills and experiences readily available in SSH will enable innovation to become embedded in society and is necessary to realise the policy aims predefined in the “Societal Challenges”.
  2. Fostering the reflective capacity of society is crucial for sustaining a vital democracy. This can be achieved through innovative participatory approaches, empowering European citizens in diverse arenas, be it through participation as consumers in the marketplace, as producers of culture, as agents in endangered environments, and/or as voters in European democracies.
  3. Policy-making and research policy have much to gain from SSH knowledge and methodologies. The latter lead to new perspectives on identifying and tackling societal problems. SSH can be instrumental in bringing societal values and scientific evaluation into closer convergence.
  4. Drawing on Europe’s most precious cultural assets, SSH play a vital role in redefining Europe in a globalising world and enhancing its attractiveness.
  5. Pluralistic SSH thinking is a precious resource for all of Europe’s future research and innovation trajectories, if it can be genuinely integrated. H2020 offers this opportunity for the first time.

Conditions for the successful integration of SSH into H2020 

  1. Recognising knowledge diversity: Solving the most pressing societal challenges requires the appropriate inclusion of SSH. This can only succeed on a basis of mutual intellectual and professional respect and in genuine partnership. Efficient integration will require novel ways of defining research problems, aligned with an appropriate array of interdisciplinary methods and theoretical approaches. SSH approaches continue to foster practical applications that enhance the effectiveness of technical solutions.
  1. Collaborating effectively: The working conditions of all research partners must be carefully considered from the beginning and appropriately aligned to set up efficient collaboration across different disciplines and research fields.  This includes adequate organisational and infrastructural arrangements, as well as ties to other stakeholders in civil society and business. Budgetary provisions must be appropriate to achieve this goal.
  1. Fostering interdisciplinary training and research: Integrating SSH with the natural and technical sciences must begin with fitting approaches in post-graduate education and training. Innovative curricula foster a deepened understanding of the value of different disciplinary approaches, and how they relate to real world problems.
  1. Connecting social values and research evaluation: Policy-makers rightly insist that the impact of publicly funded research and its benefits for society and the economy should be assessed.  Accurate research evaluation that values the breadth of disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches is required to tackle the most pressing societal challenges.

Agreement with the principles of the Vilnius Declaration should be made the basis for the integration of the SSH into H2020.

(Vilnius Declaration as PDF)

Annex

List of host institutions of respondents

 

Institution/Organisation Country
AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SCIENCE Finland
AARHUS UNIVERSITY Denmark
AIX-MARSEILLE UNIVERSITÉ France
ALICE RAP PROJECT Spain
ALLEA – ALL EUROPEAN ACADEMIES UK
ALPEN-ADRIA-UNIVERSITY KLAGENFURT Austria
AMSTERDAM CENTER FOR LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION Netherlands
AMSTERDAM CENTER ON AGING Netherlands
ARTS AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL UK
AUSTRIAN FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Austria
BERN UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCE Switzerland
CAMBRIDGE CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN ARTS, SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES UK
CENTERDATA, TILBURG UNIVERSITY Netherlands
CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RESEARCH (ZEW) Germany
CENTRE FOR HEALTH ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF YORK UK
CENTRE FOR THE HUMANITIES AT UTRECHT UNIVERSITY Netherlands
CENTRE OF MIGRATION RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW Poland
CENTRE VIRTUEL DE LA CONNAISSANCE SUR L’EUROPE Luxembourg
CESO KU LEUVEN Belgium
CEU Hungary
CNR Italy
CNR SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Italy
CNRS France
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Denmark
COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL – FAIRSPEAK GROUP Denmark
COVENTRY UNIVERSITY UK
CREPP – HEC UNIVERSITÉ DE LIÈGE Belgium
CULTURAL-HISTORICAL HERITAGE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY AND MAN AND SOCIETY – BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Bulgaria
DANISH NATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP HORIZON 2020 Denmark
DEPARTMENT FOR INTERVENTION RESEARCH AND CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY, ALPEN-ADRIA UNIVERSITY KLAGENFURT Austria
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL RESEARCH – UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI Finland
DOWLING COLLEGE USA
DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY Ireland
EASA Belgium
ECHIC UK
ECONOMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT THE BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Bulgaria
ENVIRONMENTAL HUMANITIES LAB ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Sweden
ESTONIAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASOCIATION Estonia
ETHIC SCHOOL Netherlands
EURAC RESEARCH Italy
EUROHEALTHNET Belgium
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Belgium
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (EASP) UK
EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF TRANSPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTES Belgium
EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE AGENCY Belgium
EUROPEAN RESEARCH NETWORK ON PHILANTHROPY (ERNOP) Netherlands
EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY UK
EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY Italy
EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF TRAUMATIC STRESS STUDIES Austria
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Germany
EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY OF BRITANNY France
EVALHUM France
FACHHOCHSCHULE ST. PÖLTEN GMBH Austria
FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES, KU LEUVEN Belgium
FFG Austria
FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI Italy
FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN/BOLZANO Italy
FREIE UNVIERSITÄT BERLIN Germany
FWF Austria
GERMAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE Germany
GHENT UNIVERSITY Belgium
GIGA INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS Germany
GOETHE-UNIVERSITÄT FRANKFURT Germany
GRESHAM COLLEGE LONDON UK
HAMK UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES Finland
HEINRICH-HEINE UNIVERSITÄT DÜESSELDORF Germany
HENRI TUDOR Luxembourg
INDIANA UNIVERSITY AT BLOOMINGTON USA
INDUSTRIEWISSENSCHAFTLICHES INSTITUT Austria
INITIATIVE FOR SCIENCE IN EUROPE Germany
INNOVATION IN LEARNING INSTITUTE Germany
INSEEC – GRANDE ÉCOLE DE COMMERCE France
INSTITUE OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY, LMU-MUNICH Germany
INSTITUT FÜR PRAXISORIENTIERTE GENDERFORSCHUNG Austria
INSTITUT JEAN-NICOD France
INSTITUTE FOR CONTEMPORARY HISTORY Germany
INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS – IRMO Croatia
INSTITUTE FOR PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES – UNIVERSITY OF PRIMORSKA Slovenia
INSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN CONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL SOCIETIES Belgium
INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIETIES AND KNOWLEDGE – BAS Bulgaria
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ZRC SAZU Slovenia
INSTITUTE OF ART STUDIES OF BAS Bulgaria
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY OF THE ITALIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Italy
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY OF THE ITALIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (ITD‐CNR) Italy
INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY, AT THE  RESEARCH CENTRE OF THE SLOVENIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS Slovenia
INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY, VIENNA (SEC), ALPEN-ADRIA UNIVERSITAET Austria
INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY, VIENNA (SEC), ALPEN-ADRIA UNIVERSITAET Austria
INSTITUTE OF STUDIES ON MEDITERRANEAN SOCIETIES (ISSM) OF THE ITALIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (CNR) Italy
INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CIÊNCIAS DA SAÚDE – NORTE, CESPU Portugal
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS Austria
IRPPS‐CNR Italy
ISTITUTO PER GLI STUDI DI POLITICA INTERNAZIONALE Italy
ITALIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Italy
KINGS COLLEGE LONDON UK
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Sweden
KU LEUVEN Belgium
LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITAET HANNOVER Germany
LEIDEN UNIVERSITY Netherlands
LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY Sweden
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE UK
LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY UK
LUDWIG BOLTZMANN CLUSTER HISTORY Austria
LUDWIG BOLTZMANN GESELLSCHAFT Austria
LUND UNIVERSITY Sweden
MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY Netherlands
MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY UK
MAX-WEBER-KOLLEG FÜR KULTUR- UND SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTLICHE STUDIEN UNIVERSITÄT ERFURT Germany
MEDIÄVISTENVERBAND Germany
MUNICH CENTER FOR THE ECONOMICS OF AGING Germany
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL ‐ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPTICS Italy
NET4SOCIETY PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Germany
NETHERLANDS INTERDISCIPLINARY DEMOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE NIDI Netherlands
NETHERLANDS ORGANISATION FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Netherlands
OPEN UNIVERSITY UK
OPEN UNIVERSITY OF CATALONIA Spain
OPENEDITION France
OSLO AND AKERSHUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES Norway
ÖSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTSFORSCHUNG WIFO Austria
PANTEION UNIVERSITY Greece
POLIBIENESTAR RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA Spain
POLITECNICO DI TORINO Italy
POLITICAL STUDIES ASSOCIATION UK
QUEENS UNIVERSITY UK
RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN Netherlands
RESEARCH COUNCIL OF LITHUANIA Lithuania
RIKSBANKENS JUBILEUMSFOND Sweden
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN Ireland
ROTTERDAM SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT – ERASMUS UNIVERSITY Netherlands
ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE Netherlands
SALFORD BUSINESS SCHOOL UK
SCIENCE, GENDER, AND  TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP CSIC-INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY Spain
SCUOLA SUPERIORE SANT’ANNA Italy
SLOVENIAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND SPORT Slovenia
SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE PSICOLOGÍA EXPERIMENTAL Spain
SUOR ORSOLA BENINCASA UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES Italy
SWANSEA UNIVERSITY UK
SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL Sweden
SWISS NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Switzerland
THE BRITISH ACADEMY UK
THE DANISH COUNCIL FOR INDEPENDENT RESEARCH Denmark
THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY Israel
THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR READING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH – UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER Norway
THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA Slovakia
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK
THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK UK
TRENT UNIVERSITY Canada
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN Ireland
UCD GEARY INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN Ireland
UMEÅ UNIVERSITY Sweden
UNION OF SCIENTISTS IN BULGARIA DEPARTMENT “ECONOMIC SCIENCES’ Bulgaria
UNIVERSIDAD DE MÁLAGA Spain
UNIVERSIDAD DE SALAMANCA Spain
UNIVERSIDADE DA BEIRA INTERIOR Portugal
UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA Portugal
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MODENA E REGGIO EMILIA DIREZIONE RICERCA E RELAZIONI INTERNAZIONALI Italy
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI PERUGIA Italy
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TORINO Italy
UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLOGNA Italy
UNIVERSITÀ DI CASSINO E DEL LAZIO MERIDIONALE Italy
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI PARMA Italy
UNIVERSITÄT GÖTTINGEN Germany
UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA Spain
UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA Spain
UNIVERSITÄT SALZBURG Austria
UNIVERSITÄT ZU BERLIN Germany
UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN Belgium
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK Ireland
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN Ireland
UNIVERSITY OF  KONSTANZ Germany
UNIVERSITY OF ALMERÍA Spain
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM Netherlands
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM BUSINESS SCHOOL Netherlands
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY Netherlands
UNIVERSITY OF BASEL Switzerland
UNIVERSITY OF BERGAMO Italy
UNIVERSITY OF BERN Switzerland
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM UK
UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA Italy
UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON UK
UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON BUSINESS SCHOOL UK
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL UK
UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA Portugal
UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Denmark
UNIVERSITY OF CRETE Greece
UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE UK
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA UK
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Finland
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BUSINESS SCHOOL UK
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL UK
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW UK
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG Sweden
UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ Austria
UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN Netherlands
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH Canada
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ Finland
UNIVERSITY OF LA LAGUNA Spain
UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS UK
UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER UK
UNIVERSITY OF MACERATA Italy
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER UK
UNIVERSITY OF MILAN Italy
UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA Italy
UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Norway
UNIVERSITY OF RIJEKA Croatia
UNIVERSITY OF ROEHAMPTON LONDON UK
UNIVERSITY OF SALERNO Italy
UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG Austria
UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE Spain
UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD UK
UNIVERSITY OF SURREY UK
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX SCHOOL OF LAW UK
UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE Finland
UNIVERSITY OF TARTU Estonia
UNIVERSITY OF THE AEGEAN Greece
UNIVERSITY OF TORINO Italy
UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO Italy
UNIVERSITY OF TRIESTE Italy
UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE Netherlands
UNIVERSITY OF VERONA Italy
UNIVERSITY OF VERONA DIPARTIMENTO SCIENZE UMANE E SOCIALI, PATRIMONIO CULTURALE‐CNR Italy
UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA Austria
UNIVERSITY OF VIGO Spain
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK UK
UNIVERSITY OR ROME “SAPIENZA” Italy
UNIVERSITY PARIS I AND CNRS France
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY Lithuania
VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM Netherlands
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY Lithuania
WZB BERLIN SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTER Germany
ZENTRUM FÜR LITERATUR- UND KULTURFORSCHUNG Germany
ZSI – ZENTRUM FÜR SOZIALE INNOVATION (CENTRE FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION) Austria

 

 

List of Responses by Stakeholder Organisations

 

The following 88 institutions responded by sending statements:

Aarhus University
ALICE RAP project
ALLEA – All European Academies
Amsterdam Center on AgingArts and Humanities Research Council UKBritish Academy for the humanities and social sciences
Centerdata, Tilburg University
Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)
Centre of Migration Research University of Warsaw
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe
Copenhagen Business School – FairSpeak Group
Coventry University
Danish Council for Independent Research
Danish national reference group Horizon 2020
Department for Intervention Research and Cultural Sustainability, Alpen-Adria university KlagenfurtDSU-CNR, Italy
EASA-European Association of Social Anthropologists
ECHIC-European Consortium for Humanities Institutes and Centres
Environmental Humanities Lab Royal Institute of Technology
EURAC Research
EuroHealthNet
EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
European Association of Social Psychology (EASP)
European Conference of Transport Research InstitutesEuropean Consortium of Humanities Institutes and Centres (ECHIC)
European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP)European Research Council
European Social Survey
European Society of Cognitive Psychology
European Sociological Association
EvalHum, France
Fachhochschule St. Pölten GmbHFFG Austria
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
Freie Unviersität Berlin
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Public Research Center Henri Tudor, Luxemburg
Institut für praxisorientierte Genderforschung, Austria
Institute for Contemporary History, Munich, Germany
Institute for the Analysis of Change in Contemporary and Historical Societies
Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna (SEC), Alpen-Adria Universitaet
IRPPS‐CNR – Institute for Research of Population and Social Policies, Italy
Italian Psychological Association
Leiden University
London School of Economics and Political Science
Ludwig Boltzmann Cluster History, Austria
Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, Austria
Lund University
Maastricht University
Manchester Metropolitan University
Mediävistenverband, GermanyMediterranean Consortium of Humanities Institutes and Centres (HUMED)Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Slovenia
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute NIDINet4SocietyNWO Humanities, The Netherlands
Open University, UK
OpenEdition, France
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
Panteion University
Politecnico di Torino
Political Studies Association
Radboud University NijmegenRiksbankens Jubileumsfond Sweden
Sociedad Española de Psicología Experimental
Suor Orsola Benincasa University of Naples
Swansea UniversitySwedish Research Council, Scientific Council for Humanities and Social SciencesSwiss National Science Foundation
The Danish Council for Independent Research
Umeå University
UNION OF SCIENTISTS IN BULGARIA DEPARTMENT “ECONOMIC SCIENCES’
Universidade de Lisboa
Universität Göttingen
University of Almería
University of Amsterdam
University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology
University of Bern
University of Copenhagen
University of Groningen
University of Macerata
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
University of Salerno
University of Salzburg
University of Trieste
University or Rome “Sapienza”
Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung
ZSI – Zentrum für Soziale Innovation (Centre for Social innovation)

 


[1] This approach is very similar to “Grounded Theory” as developed by Strauss and Glaser (Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press, 1967) combining data collection and analysis with pragmatic theory of action. It is based on “abductive reasoning”, pulling together sampling, analysis and theory development as steps of an integrative process, repeated and continued until the research question can be sufficiently answered and application of new data does not change the answers. Furthermore it is based on the concept of “Qualitative Content Analysis” as set out in Mayring (see FQS 1,2: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089 2000)

[2] See: Guidance Note for Researchers and Evaluators of Social Sciences and Humanities Research 2010: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89867/social-sciences-humanities_en.pdf