Conference debates to what extent social science agenda should be set by policy-makers
Participants at the final day of the EU conference 'Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe' were unanimous in their support for increased international cooperation, but divided over how such collaboration should be encouraged. Several international speakers outlined current initiatives and projects involving international cooperation, while others suggested setting up new networks. Maria Joao Rodrigues from the Higher Institute of Business and Labour Sciences (ISCTE) in Portugal spoke in favour of decision-makers setting an agenda, saying: 'We should make sure that decision-makers come together on a regular basis to decide on the key issues and strategy.' This argument was however rejected by David Lightfoot, Assistant Director for Social Behavioural and Economic Sciences at the US' National Science Foundation (NSF). Embarking on a process that would see the setting of an agenda by policy-makers would be a 'perilous course', he said. 'I don't see the need for collaboration for identifying needs. It seems to me that collaboration should be a bottom-up process. We need mechanisms to allow this to happen in a natural way,' he said. As highlighted by Dius Lennon, Director of Social Sciences, Humanities and Foresight in the European Commission's Research DG, policy-makers were in fact absent from the conference. Seeking to find a solution to the disagreement over who should be setting priorities, Mr Lennon underlined the importance of 'de-dramatising' the debate. He emphasised that policy-makers also have priorities and needs, and that the gap between these and the priorities of scientists may not be as large as some expect. 'The distinction is more apparent than real,' he said. Mr Lennon therefore proposed a series of workshops bringing together policy-makers with social science and humanities researchers. As not everyone will be able to participate int eh workshops if they are to be efficient, there is also a need for a web-based consultation, he said. One participant insisting on the need for international cooperation at the level of researchers was the President of the Brazilian Institute for Applied Economics Research, Professor Glauco Arbix. He called for the creation of a joint Brazil-EU network, saying that Brazilian scientists cannot understand Latin America's and Brazil's historical problems if they look exclusively at Brazil. He emphasised that he was not asking for financial support from the EU. Explaining that he has an annual budget of 10 million dollars (8.3 million euro), he said: 'Our problem is not money - although of course money is welcome - we don't need money from the EU or the US. What we need is knowledge, and to learn from your methodology.' The concept of networks was also raised in the context of the European Commission's framework programmes for research. Professor Reimund Seidelmann from the Institute of Political Science at the Justus-Liebig University in Germany praised the management approach adopted for Networks of Excellence - a funding instrument introduced in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) - but said that having 40 or 50 universities in one network does not work well. Another aspect of the framework programmes, and more specifically the forthcoming FP7, to which many speakers referred, was the European Research Council (ERC). Concluding the event, Mr Lennon said that he had the impression that those present would rather collaborate within the ERC than within one of FP7's more traditional cooperation programmes. He accepted that the humanities in particular had not been embraced by previous framework programmes, and said that this must change in FP7. A number of questions remain with regard to the ERC however, and some of these were raised by Gordon Marshall, Vice-Chancellor at the University of Reading in the UK. How will we prevent the ERC from duplicating research already done in the national context? If the ERC will fund the best of the best, does that mean that we should be channelling all of our investment into excellent and not capacity-building? Will the ERC mean that cross-border projects and programmes that presently exist will be redundant? he asked. Mr Lennon replied by advising the social science and humanities communities to enter into a dialogue with their five representatvies on the ERC's scientific council in the formative phase of the initiative. The conference was judged a great success by all. Indeed it was already popular from the moment it was announced, with the Commission having to turn away many who wished to attend due to a lack of space. The extent to which the conference and future EU plans for the social sciences and humanities have been welcomed was summed up by Poul Holm, Professor Maritime History at the University of Southern Denmark. The proposals for FP7 were described by him as a 'major breakthrough'. 'Not long ago we felt completely ignored by the European Union. This conference and the draft proposal for FP7 go a long way towards dispersing that feeling,' he said.