Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research
Units included in the evaluation of social anthropology
- Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research
Listed researchers 6
Listed research groups 0
No. of researchers in listed research
groups 0
Other units of the faculty (institution)
Training, recruitment and academic positions
2014 2015 2016
No. of PhD graduated at the institution per year
Male/Female -/- -/1 1/-
R&D expenditures and sources of funding (1000 NOK)
Total per year - 1 1
No. of positions announced / No. of qualified applicants per year
2014 2015 2016
Funding of the institution PhD positions 2/5 -/- -/-
Total expenditures
121 538 115 014 103 662 Post.doc positions -/- -/- -/- Permanent
positions -/- -/- 3/27
Types of funding
Education Core funding from
the RCN 15 758 17 278 18 301
Study programmes BA level External funding, -
RCN 23 618 20 319 27 564
External funding
EU 650 2 230 1 974 Study programmes MA level
- External funding,
other sources 82 055 77 081 57 118 Other
Source: The Research Council of Norway, Self-assessment report for the institution, 16/12960
34
4.1 Social Anthropology at the institutional level
4.1.1 Organisation, leadership and strategy
Fafo is an institute that carries out applied labour and social science research in both Norway and the rest of the world. Research is organised in four clusters: 1. Labour relations and labour markets, 2.
Rights and security, 3. Migration, integration and skills, 4. Welfare and living conditions.
Fafo recruits experienced researchers, PhD candidates and younger scholars with MA degrees. The institute allocates resources to support PhD degrees. In 2014 it recruited two PhDs, in 2015 no new researchers, and in 2016 three permanent researchers. The three research clusters in this evaluation all show good results and have solid national and international funding and networks.
Although anthropological research can potentially be carried out in all clusters, in reality the institute mainly employs sociologists, political scientists and legal scholars. In the self-evaluation, it is highlighted that Fafo is cross-disciplinary and that it does not make sense to separate the disciplines (they use the same evaluation for Sociology, Political Science and Anthropology). The self-evaluation does not emphasise Social Anthropology, and the publications submitted include a number written by scholars who are not anthropologists, and that are not very anthropological in focus. During the interview element of the evaluation, Fafo anthropologists referred to it being ‘difficult to be a traditional anthropologist’ at Fafo and that research is ‘more about anthropological techniques (than themes or topics)’.
4.1.2 Institutional follow-up of previous evaluations
Fafo was evaluated during the 2010 evaluation of Sociology, but was not allocated any RCN resources of its own. Fafo was not evaluated in the previous Social Anthropology evaluation. Fafo was evaluated in the 2017 review of independent research institutes, and was praised for the high quality of its research output. There were no specific recommendations from that review, but it did recognise that Fafo had itself expressed an ambition to improve the scientific quality and quantity of its output.
4.1.3 Resources and infrastructure
Fafo appears to have a well-functioning structure that promotes high-quality research. Despite relatively low core funding from the Research Council of Norway, it has an impressive production of knowledge on Norway and beyond. Researchers at the institute find their own external funding and frequently produce reports and grey papers instead of presenting research in leading journals and academic presses.
For an institute with low core funding, Fafo’s performance is excellent. The amount of funding raised by the institute is impressive, with the total for 2016 amounting to NOK 103,662,000, including funding from both public and private Norwegian sources, with 30% from business-sector organisations, in addition to the EU and other international sources. Also, due to the lack of core funding, Fafo researchers tend to spend a large proportion of their time on funding applications. The infrastructural set-up with archives and resources is good overall.
4.1.4 Research environment
The organisation organises a series of conferences, including a large biannual conference, and seminars that are well attended by the public and prominent civil servants, politicians, NGOs, journalists and public actors, as well as academics. The results are widely disseminated to the media, and in reports.
35
Fafo provides extra financial support for writing articles and also for participation in international conferences, and it encourages co-authorship between junior and senior researchers. By paying bonuses, Fafo also encourages researchers to publish in peer-reviewed journals and high-ranked academic presses.
Fafo is an excellent environment as regards encouragement and capacity for applying and being awarded external (both national and international) grants. However, since there are few anthropologists and since a social anthropological focus on research questions appears to be rare, it seems to be a less fruitful environment for anthropologists.
4.1.5 Research personnel
Researchers at Fafo range from very senior, experienced researchers to junior researchers at the beginning of their careers. Most are recruited from national institutions because of the requirement for Norwegian language fluency. There has been some difficulty, however, in recruiting PhDs in core areas such as labour relations. The institute has a gender imbalance in favour of women, with a majority of female employees, a female director, a management team consisting of five women and four men, and a board with six women and four men. A clear majority of the researchers are female (total 42 vs. 25 – and, according to Tableau data for Social Anthropologists, 7 vs. 1). A plan is in place for gender equity, including recruitment, training and resource distribution strategies.
Young doctoral students are supported financially and given supervision, and the institute supports international exchange programmes. In 2014 it recruited two PhDs, in 2015 no new researchers, and in 2016 three permanent researchers. In the SWOT analysis, the institute highlights the need for more academically oriented researchers, and a relative lack of senior professorial staff. Finally, Fafo does not have a policy for research or sabbatical leave.
4.1.6 Research production and scientific quality
Fafo is explicitly policy-driven and its stated goal is to produce high-quality, policy-oriented research, based on rigorous ethical and scientific standards, for core decision-making parties. Much of the research is commissioned. Three research clusters are submitted for evaluation in the areas of work, labour, refugees, welfare and the ‘Nordic Model’ (NordMod). They are listed as: (1) Labour Relations and the labour market; (2) Migration and Integration; and (3) Rights and security.
The institute has made significant contributions in these areas, responding to current events such as the EU enlargement, the rise in the number of refugees, human trafficking, changes in pension regimes, and in laws regarding rights and securitisation. Although Fafo is engaged in applied research and much of its production therefore takes the form of ‘grey’ literature, albeit of rigorous, high quality, its researchers do also publish in scientific journals or with academic publishers. The publications that came with the submission are rather impressive and of a high standard overall. Many of the journal articles are comparative, written collaboratively across different European or Nordic countries. Many use different quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
Altogether, the listed Fafo researchers in the Social Anthropology data have published 16 chapters and articles, 44% of which appeared in Level 2 journals and publishers and 56% in Level 1. Their scientific impact in relation to the OECD is 1.14455. Taking into consideration that Fafo researchers mainly focus on commissioned policy work, this is very good.
Assessment of scientific quality: 4 – very good
36
4.1.7 Interplay between research and education
Fafo is not an institution that awards degrees, although some researchers lecture at Oslo universities and/or supervise students. There is currently no arrangement for Fafo researchers to teach students at Norwegian universities. The fact that Fafo allocates some resources for master’s level researchers to further themselves in the university system narrows the gap between the institute and the teaching environment.
4.1.8 Societal relevance and impact
Fafo is clearly outstanding in the area of societal impact. Dissemination takes place through a wide range of media, conferences and publications.
In its self-evaluation, Fafo lists its relevance in relation to three of the six thematic priorities the Norwegian Government has set out in its Long-term plan (LTP): 1) public sector renewal, 2) enabling technologies, and 3) innovative and adaptable industry. Fafo also has a good number of publications within these three thematic priorities.
Fafo has a clear vision for research dissemination to a broader audience, including writing in newspapers, appearing in media and giving speeches and presentations to users of their research. It also has members of national expert commissions in policy areas. As it is funded by users, the knowledge it produces is presented to its users. Fafo’s research is thus socially relevant to a very high degree. Research from Fafo has influenced decision-making in a range of institutions at different levels.
The impact studies highlight the importance of the contribution Fafo researchers have made. In the first case, the contribution concerned corporate liability for international crimes, human rights in business and the role of regulation in ensuring that businesses respect human rights. A second case concerned the provision of rapid feedback after the Wenchuan earthquake in China and during subsequent relief processes. It also developed a toolbox for carrying out rapid assessments. The third case highlights Fafo’s role in developing assistance programmes for victims of trafficking. It also challenged the false dichotomy between forced and voluntary prostitution. The fourth case study involved industrial relations and, among other issues, the protection of whistleblowers, as well as guidelines on the surveillance of workers. In this area, it was involved in legislation and high-level decision-making. The final case concerned collective bargaining and the private-public pension mix.
4.1.9 Overall assessment
Fafo is an outstanding policy-oriented research institute that has carried out a wide range of research on many projects of both national and comparative relevance. The institute is very well structured and carries out an impressive amount of policy-relevant research. Grey literature is widely disseminated, which is praiseworthy for an institute that aims to produce policy-relevant research.
The institute has low core funding and is thus very dependent on its clients. One consequence of this is that it does not have sufficient resources to carry out long-term research or to spend more time writing for top academic publishers. Because all researchers must relentlessly hunt and account for financial resources, this is an environment that works best for the young and hungry. In the long run, those who are academically successful will find other institutes that will offer them better conditions.
That researchers must, so to say, put their own food on the table also has the effect that few, if any established senior scholars would consider employment at the institute (a problem that is partly acknowledged in the SWOT analysis).
37
The panel did not find Fafo to be a fruitful environment for anthropological research. Research themes are indeed relevant, but human and infrastructural resources are scarce for social anthropologists. This could be developed, but the institute would need to adopt a funded strategy for this.
4.1.10 Feedback
Fafo is currently not an Institute with much anthropological research and resources. On the other hand, with its current research focus, the institute would benefit from employing social anthropologists. Our recommendations for an otherwise excellent institute would thus include:
• Strengthening its anthropological research staff and output
• Developing a needs analysis with a funded strategy for how to include anthropological research and anthropological knowledge
• Increasing the number of senior/tenured researchers in general, but anthropologists in particular
• Investigating structures that encourage researchers to develop (or regain) their identities as anthropologists
• In the next RCN evaluation, we highly encourage Fafo to submit a specific evaluation for Social Anthropology and not a joint one with Sociology and Political Science.
38