A number of questions were asked more broadly about collaboration with external organisations, i.e.
not just formal research collaboration but any kind of contact including teaching, consultancy,
dissemination and more. The questionnaire distinguished between collaboration (in the last three years) with firms from different types of industries, (public) health and care organisations,
municipalities and regional authorities, non-government organisations (NGOs), ministries and national agencies, and international organisations. 79 per cent of the respondents had collaborated with the public sector, 45 per cent with industry (a much higher share than if we had only looked at research funding, cf. Chapter 2) and 27 per cent with NGOs.
Public sector collaboration is the most common in the humanities involving a little more than half of the researchers. One in four has collaborated with industry and one in five with NGOs. In total the
humanities researchers are slightly less collaborative than the average – a higher share of researchers in the other fields reported collaboration with various external organisations. On this aspect the pattern of the humanities is again closest to that of the natural scientists. It is still interesting that 25 per cent of the humanities researchers had collaborated with private firms in the last three years, which means that the topic of university-industry partnerships is not alien to humanities in general.
A factor analysis shows that there are three main categories of this wider measure of collaboration:
with private firms, with local/regional public sector including health and care and NGOs with
national/international public sector including organisations such as OECD, EU and the World Bank.
The collaboration patterns per field of science are shown in Figure 24.
Figure 24. External collaboration patterns per field of science. Share of respondents.
Figure 24 shows that the fields have distinct partnership profiles and collaborate mainly with different societal sectors. Humanities appears as a field with a less distinct profile apart from less frequent collaboration, somewhat similar to natural science.
A number of questions were asked also for the motives behind collaboration. The results are shown in Figure 25. The most important motives are related to finding opportunities for students, getting insight into practical problems and testing the relevance of the research. These are also the most important reasons in the humanities, although fewer respondents supported the claims than in many other fields.
Getting an extra income was the least important motive, but the only one in which the humanities have 0%
Figure 25. Motives for collaboration with external organisations, per field.
3.4 Summary
This chapter has presented a broad perspective on academic engagement and related this to various activities or “channels” of interaction between researchers and society. The main pattern is similar to what is found also in other countries (e.g. Abreu & Grinevich 2013) – dissemination and training are the most important types of interaction, followed by formal research collaboration and with
commercialisation only involving a few researchers in most fields.
Central explanations for engagement are seniority, external research funding, an applied research profile and non-academic work experience. Almost half of the tenured academic personnel in the humanities have at least one full year of such experience after their master’s degree; it is lowest but still a quite high share. The pattern of engagement is similar across fields, with humanities researchers slightly above the average on dissemination and below on formal research collaboration and
commercialisation. Still, some humanities researchers are active here as well: seven per cent of them have applied for a patent, licensed a research result and/or started a new firm.
When we look at more general partnerships with non-academic organisations, humanities researchers predominantly collaborate with the public sector – although one-fourth of them cooperate with firms (which is higher than in medicine and health). A smaller proportion of humanities researchers report collaboration compared to other fields, however. Their motives for collaboration are similar, but fewer humanities researchers express that they want to create opportunities for their students and need insight into practical problems, compared to respondents from most other fields.
0
I wanted to test the relevance of own
research
I needed to stay updated on external research It gave me an extra
income It gave me funding for
research
It was necessary to ensure the quality of the
research
Overall the data indicate that the humanities have a strong engagement profile and that almost all researchers in the field are at least involved in some activities that involve interaction with non-academic organisations or networks. It may be argued that also their engagement profiles are a bit more individualistic with less formal collaboration and a stronger weight on dissemination and more personal motives.
4 Conclusions
The main intention of this report has been to create an empirically based foundation for understanding humanities research, as seen from the individual “bottom level” perspective. A large survey among tenured scientific staff (i.e. no postdocs or PhD students) in Norwegian universities and colleges has been the data source throughout. The survey is representative and close to a census with more than 700 respondents from the humanities alone. The primary context for the analysis is the ongoing evaluation of the humanities in Norway, but the findings may be relevant to the broader discussion of the humanities as well. The report is not part of the evaluation itself and has sought to present a nuanced and detailed picture of research profiles, organisation, collaboration and engagement.
In Norway as in other countries, the debate about the humanities has been active and often quite defensive or negative, stating that the field is threatened by a utilitarian trend in science policy and by the accompanying language, indicators and funding instruments that are not well suited to the unique characteristics of the humanities. An underlying premise is that the field represents something different in its research, topics and relevance to society.
This report has shown that, at least when we look at research profiles, organisational and collaborative aspects, that the humanities are indeed fairly similar to other fields along several dimensions.
Researchers in the humanities are similar to the natural scientists in emphasising basic over applied research and in their collaboration patterns. They are similar to social scientists in some aspects of how research is organised, for example the low tendency to involve master and PhD students in research projects. Many such similarities have been discussed in the empirical chapters.
The humanities represent research-intensive disciplines and no field has a higher average publication point score in the Norwegian system. Most of the field’s researchers have a fair amount of time to do research, although the share of respondents with more than 50 per cent of their time for research is comparatively low. There seem to be clear differences in framework conditions between universities and colleges seen from the individual perspective. Studies of researchers in general are biased towards the successful elites, and the science policy debate is at least to some extent dominated by the ones who are very unhappy about directions and priorities. In practice there are probably a lot of researchers in all departments who do not fall into these two categories Large-scale field evaluations and other similar investigations may be an opportunity to look more closely at the detailed variation.
A major message in the report is that the variation within each field is often greater than the variation between fields. This applies to the humanities as well. Although there may be tendencies for the humanities to have certain ways of organising work, receiving funding and collaborating with external organisations, there are many exceptions for almost all the aspects discussed in the report. To name two examples: While the majority express trust in the management of their academic units and the
way they themselves can influence its direction, a considerable minority disagrees. And while most humanities researchers interact with society through traditional dissemination, some of them apply for patents, license research results or start new firms. We have few reasons to assume that this
represents a systematic variation between sub-fields or disciplines within the humanities. If we look at the profiles of the ones who represent a minority way of working with research, collaborating with society etc. they are not concentrated in one institution or have other aspects in common. The field-internal variation probably indicates that there are different ways of shaping an academic career that at least to some extent are also influenced by individual preferences and characteristics.
Research profiles may be a good example of this. 40 per cent of the humanities respondents can be classified as having a “pure basic research” profile, while 15 per cent have a “pure applied” profile.
One in ten has a high score on both applied and basic research, while the rest (35 per cent) have a low score on both aspects. Although there are systematic differences between institutional settings (more basic research in universities and applied research in colleges, simply put), this clearly
represents a great variety which probably is found also within (at least some) subfields and settings in the humanities. Of particular interest is, perhaps, the group with a low score on both basic and applied research preferences. What type of work are such researchers engaged in? How do you assess its quality? No field has more researchers in this category than the humanities.
There are other aspects in which the humanities stand out from the rest. First, more than the other fields the humanities disciplines are found in the universities rather than the colleges, and in the oldest and most research-intensive universities as well. Again this probably means that their framework conditions for research are good, which we see when we look at time for research, but also that they may be vulnerable to the way the universities are managed and how they handle their internal resources.
Second, a very high proportion of humanities researchers stated that they to a great extent do their research work on their own. Few other issues presented in the report had such large absolute differences between the humanities and the rest. It indicates a more individualistic way of doing research, which poses certain challenges for evaluations (appropriate level of analysis, data collection etc.). It is still interesting that the humanities respondents were generally very positive about how formal research groups could improve research quality and scientific collaboration. The field seems individualistic also for younger researchers who to a lesser extent are active parts of the tenured personnel’s projects. It is unclear whether this poses particular challenges for younger researchers;
they were not part of this report’s survey but should be followed up. Fewer of the humanities
respondents are tied to formal research groups, centres and networks (the ones with group affiliation have a positive view of this). They are also to a little extent engaged in formal cross-disciplinary initiatives, but this applies to all fields. Cross-disciplinarity is a complex issue which is also central in the humanities debate (should the field be valued for itself or for how it contributes together with other fields), but little is known about it. Much humanities research is in the R&D statistics classified as
“other”, which makes it difficult to make comparisons between subfields. On the other hand it could be an indication that many humanities researchers work in (partly) cross-disciplinary units since they often will be classified as “other” if they do not have a dominating discipline.
Third, more than half of the tenured academics in the humanities have not received any kind of external research funding over the past five years. The reasons are not clear and may be related to the demand side (fewer external opportunities) and also the needs of the researchers (more time rather than more funding/equipment, for example). External funding is an important explanation for societal engagement probably because it comes with certain demands and represents a meeting place partly outside of the academic setting. The relationship between funding and societal engagement deserves further investigation.
studies of this, based on Norwegian data). It is unclear whether this is the case in the humanities;
many do not have external funding but are active in research and have impressive publication outputs.
The relationship between research quality and external engagement also deserves follow-up. A clear finding in this report is that societal engagement, regardless of which type of engagement, is strongly related to a preference for applied research. Publication scores on the other hand are strongly related to a preference for basic research. There seems to be a trade-off here, mediated by other factors such as non-academic work experience. But are there settings in which a strong research academic output can be combined with a strong engagement profile? What does this look like in the humanities? These are questions for which we so far have little information.
In sum, the humanities in Norway seem to be research-intensive with fairly good framework conditions (time for research, situated in the most well-funded institutions) and a high publication output. It is more individualistic and slightly less collaborative than other fields, but the internal heterogeneity in the humanities is perhaps more striking than how the humanities stand out from other fields.
References
Abreu, M. & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy 42(2), 408-422.
Aksnes, D. & Gunnes, H. (2016). Evaluation of research in the humanities in Norway: Publication and research personnel. Statistics and analyses. Oslo: NIFU, Report 2016:14.
Benneworth, P. et al. (2016). The impact and future of arts and humanities research. London:
Palgrave, forthcoming November.
Bentley, P., Gulbrandsen, M. & Kyvik, S. (2015). “The relationship between basic and applied research in universities”, Higher Education, 70(4), 689-709.
Gibbons, M. et al. (2004). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.
Gulbrandsen, M. & Aanstad, S. (2015). “Is innovation a useful concept for arts and humanities research?” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 9-24.
Gulbrandsen, M. & Kyvik, S. (2010). “Are the concepts basic research, applied research and
experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics”, Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 343-353.
Gulbrandsen, M. & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). “Industry funding and university professors’ research performance”, Research Policy, 34, 932-950.
Hughes, A., Kitson, M. & Probert, J. (2011). Hidden Connections: Knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors. Cambridge: CEBR/Bristol: Arts &
Humanities Research Council.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.
Thune et al. (2014). Noder i kunnskapsnettverket: forskning, kunnskapsoverføring og eksternt samarbeid blant vitenskapelig ansatte i UH-sektoren. Oslo: NIFU, Report 23/2014.
Thune et al. (2016). “Universities and external engagement activities: particular roles for particular universities?” Science and Public Policy, online first.
Waagene, E. (2014). Metodenotat: Dokumentasjon av data fra spørreskjemaundersøkelsen til fast vitenskapelig ansatte i U&H-sektoren våren 2013. Oslo: NIFU, Arbeidsnotat 3/2014.
Appendix
Strong weight on both
(Pasteur’s quad) -.005 -.106 -.160 .141 -.129 -.375 .151 -.159 .031
Constant .576 -1.487*** -3.065*** -2.098*** .612 -1.465 -1.207* -2.398*** -1.496***
List of tables
Table 1. Respondents per field of science, share of women. ... 10 Table 2. Average share of time for research per field of science. Only respondents with time>0
are included. N=3484. ... 12 Table 3. Share of respondents who are part of a formal research group at their department. ... 21 Table 4. Total publication points 2011-2013 and share of publication points in the most prestigious outlets, per field of science. ... 29 Table 5. External work experience per field and sector of experience. N=4440. ... 32
List of figures
Figure 1. Share of researchers in universities and colleges per field of science. Percent ... 11
Figure 2. Communication between management and scientific employees. N=4378. ... 13
Figure 3. Opportunities for worker influence. N=4362. ... 14
Figure 4. Scientific priority-setting. N=4327... 15
Figure 5. Views on external board members. N=3151. ... 16
Figure 6. Individual research. N=3751. ... 17
Figure 7. Informal local collaborative research. N=3624. ... 17
Figure 8. Formal local collaborative research. N=3529. ... 18
Figure 9. Affiliated with national centre of excellence. N=3257. ... 18
Figure 10. Cross-disciplinary research. N=3313. ... 19
Figure 11. Nationally networked research. N=3378. ... 19
Figure 12. Internationally networked research. N=3495. ... 20
Figure 13. Research group and quality of research. N=2463. ... 21
Figure 14. Research groups and improved local collaboration. N=2462. ... 22
Figure 15. Involvement of master students in research. N=3761. ... 23
Figure 16. Involvement of PhD students in research. N=3616. ... 23
Figure 17. Use of research in teaching at master level. N=3764. ... 24
Figure 18. Use of research in teaching at the PhD level. N=3537. ... 25
Figure 19. Have you received research funding from one or more of these national sources the last five years? Share of respondents per discipline. N=4440. ... 26
Figure 20. Have you received research funding from one or more of these international sources the last five years? Share of respondents per discipline. N=4440. ... 26
Figure 21. Research orientation per field. N=4400. ... 27
Figure 22. Percentage of respondents who in the last 3 years have carried out different external engagement activities. N=4400. ... 33
Figure 23. External engagement (share of researchers), differences between academic fields. N=4400. ... 34
Figure 24. External collaboration patterns per field of science. Share of respondents. ... 36
Figure 25. Motives for collaboration with external organisations, per field. ... 37