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

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