Meeting with Representatives of European Research Associations

Report of a meeting (on 29 October 2004) with representatives of European Research Associations in Brussels.

Directorate K (social sciences and humanities) of the European Commission had invited between 15 and 20 international research associations on the areas of political science, archaeology (the only humanities’ association present), sociology, education, economic policy, and science and technology studies (EASST). The main topic was Framework Programme 7 (FP7), which is currently being developed. Representatives of ten associations participated in the meeting (the strike of public transport in Brussels that day may have caused some problems for other participants). The idea behind the meeting was to discuss directions for EU-policy and research in the social sciences and humanities. We were told that it was the first time that these research associations met with the EU Directorate.

The discussion mainly focused on issues of language and culture. Many argued that the new Framework Directive should pay more attention to issues around language and culture when new research programmes are funded. Some expressed that, in their eyes, research programmes funded by the EU should allocate specific time for researchers to be able to ‘translate’ issues and concepts from one language and cultural context into another. Often the lack of time for these ‘translations’ leads to misunderstandings between the different participants in a research programme. In relation to this, some argued for possibilities to write the final reports in different languages than English; this would encourage for instance Southern member states to join EU projects. The current requirement to write in English would not encourage the best researchers to apply for funding, but the ones that are competent in English. The European Commission could then set money aside to translate these reports into English. Although the issue is important and perhaps especially relevant for the non-northern European countries, I was a little disappointed that this was the focus of the discussion. Although these issues had to be brought under attention of the EU (something that probably has been done many times before), they are well-known and I had hoped that this diverse group of participants could come up with more interesting and original topics for discussion. Fortunately this is exactly what happened after lunch.

In the afternoon the associations were asked to put forward those issues they regarded as important for Europe and to which the association (and members of the association) could contribute. The discussion focused on a number of questions: what can social sciences do for the world; what expectations do research associations have of the European Research Area; what do the different field regard as challenges for ‘Europe’ to which they can contribute; what are the most interesting instruments to achieve this; and what are common interests between the research associations and the framework? Firstly, a number of tasks for the European Commission (the EC) were identified. It was mentioned that the EC should try to do something about commercial publishers who make academic journals very expensive and sometimes require a whole package to be purchased rather than a single journal. Another task for the EC would be to develop European quality control standards for European academic research, in which different languages should be included to ensure that no important work is lost because it was not written in English. At the same time, these standards should not lead to a reduction in the variety of ways to do research. Someone mentioned that the research associations themselves could be a place where such quality control standards can be developed. A third task for the EC would be to make sure that also countries that do not have as many resources as countries in the Northwest of Europe can participate in research programmes and organise activities. Research associations themselves should (continue to) actively include Southern and Eastern members. The fourth and last task mentioned was to encourage young researchers to move around Europe and create opportunities for them in Europe to encourage them to stay here rather than moving to the US.

Secondly, a number of research areas in/for the social sciences were identified which were regarded as relevant for ‘Europe’. Amongst these were learning, knowledge economy, ageing, migration, human rights, European-South relations, conflict prevention and management, and social/political forecasting (and the developments of instruments to do this). Mainly on basis of the titles of the two previous EASST conferences I added issues around trust, accountability, legitimacy, and governance in relation to science and technology. I gave examples of recent breakdowns of trust (BSE, foot and mouth disease, MMR) and argued that these issues are important for areas like genomics, nanotechnology, and information technology as well. I mentioned that, in this light, democratising of science and technology is a relevant issue. Like some issues mentioned by others, this would raise questions about expertise, ‘the public’, and citizenship. I also added that (members of) EASST could contribute to questions that address knowledge transfer (from both social and natural sciences) and technology transfer which will be important in relation to the new member states. Many, including me, argued that research that is relevant for European policy should go hand in hand with methodological developments; these are not and do not have to be separate. If we want to compare case studies in several countries we have to develop a way to do this.

Thirdly, we discussed instruments for developing good research. Many agreed that there is a need for long term research programmes so that long term developments can be taken into account. Some added that more comparative studies should be done (in which time and money should be available for ‘translation’ issues as mentioned above). Shared databases, especially with the new member states, were regarded as important instruments for research that should be (further) developed. Some suggested that the EC should start thinking about ‘European teaching’ in addition to country-specific teaching. Instruments to keep good researchers interested and provide them with opportunities were also discussed. A need for institutional fellowships was expressed and a need to develop career paths for young researchers. We all agreed that Marie Curie postdoc fellowships are a good initiative, but that there have to be opportunities in Europe for these researchers after their postdoc position has ended.

Lastly, a number of problems and issues around European research projects were raised. One discussion centered around the consultation/evaluation of research proposals/projects. For instance, in the field of economics many research associations exist that focus on different fields. The question then is: who is represented as evaluator? Many argued that the process of how evaluators are chosen should be more transparent, since, in their eyes, often unrepresentative or even wrong choices had been made. It was suggested that research associations and forums like the one we attended could assist in the making of these choices. Another discussion focused on the criteria for the researchers in a project: a certain number of nationalities, disciplines, and genders (just two so far…) is required, but may not always benefit the quality of the research. The choice of researchers should be quality-based rather than based on the different criteria. The centres of excellence were criticised, since not everyone thinks they work. In some areas, as the economists present at the meeting stated, researchers prefer to stay clear from them, a sign that the EC may have to look into the concept of centres of excellence. A fourth widely shared comment was the amount of work it takes to apply for funding. Many argued that researchers are interested in science rather than in filling in forms. In relation to this, they raised the problem that the researchers who are most likely to get funding, have very little time to actually do the research. Suggested was a budget in a research project that would cover this sort of work and a facilitation of the research procedures. The fifth point raised related to young scholars. It was argued that many good researchers do not benefit from the current (for instance Marie Curie) system, if they are not supported by a (well-known) supervisor. These scholars should also be able to receive a grant without support of a supervisor. I added that, like other EC funding, the Marie Curie postdoc fellowship programme is quite slow in deciding who will be funded. This causes problems for people who are finishing their PhD and are looking for a job: they cannot sit around for six months to find out whether they have been accepted (I considered applying myself). The very last point raised was that research is too often developed top-down instead of bottom-up, but I think that this meeting was perhaps a first step in changing this a little bit.

At the end of the meeting, we were given the first issue of a newsletter on ‘EU Research in Social Sciences and Humanities’ to which contributions are invited. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/social-sciences/indexen.html for more information. The European Commission is also currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation of key stakeholders of European Research Policy. The research community is invited to provide their views on what they consider to be the key research challenges in the future for the social sciences and humanities. For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/future/ssh/indexen.html. At the end of 2005 a conference will be organised by DG Research on the future of social sciences and humanities and they would like the research associations to be present there. These are spaces where research programmes can be developed bottom-up; very important spaces in my eyes.

All participants agreed that this was a useful forum both for the EC and for research associations to exchange ideas about best practice and other issues. The EC will try to arrange a follow up meeting in which a larger number of associations will be present. The EC people who attended the meeting mentioned that, if nothing else, they can at least try to create a space for social dialogue in Europe. The meeting provided me with a large number of ideas that EASST can develop and I think it is important for EASST and for individual STS scholars to create such spaces and participate in them. EASST now has a place as an association where it can exchange ideas with other research associations and where it can participate in discussions on the future of social science (both topically and financially).