Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, is a research institute located in Oslo. It was founded by the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) in 1982 to conduct research on changes in living and working conditions, industrial relations, societal participation, democracy and development in a range of social and economic settings – in Norway, Europe and beyond. It combines publicly funded scientific research with commissioned research for a wide range of actors. Fafo was reorganised as an independent research foundation in 1993.
Social Research Listed researchers 15
Listed research groups 0 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
Source: The Research Council of Norway, Self-assessment report for the institution, 16/12960
51
5.1 Political Science at the institutional level
Fafo is an independent research institute that employs 68 researchers from various disciplines. Fifteen researchers are listed for the Political Science assessment. Fafo conducts much of its work on the basis of contracted research projects. The focus is on high-quality, publicly available reports as well as academic output. The work is both multidisciplinary and policy-oriented. The institute is organised around four themes:
1. Labour relations and labour markets 2. Rights and security
3. Migration, integration and skills 4. Welfare and living conditions
Its clients include governments, the EU, research councils and private funders.
Fafo intentionally works in an interdisciplinary way, by combining disciplines and competences in all projects throughout the institute. Although all researchers belong to a specific group, they often collaborate with researchers in other groups. The cross-cutting nature of the research Fafo carries out is reflected by the fact that the three research teams (disciplines) submitted for evaluation do not map neatly onto the existing four research groups, but instead are thematically driven core teams that include researchers from across the four groups. In this sense, Fafo is a matrix organisation, organising research both within and across research groups according to the expertise and capacities needed.
Each of the groups is headed by a research director. Research directors spend 50 per cent of their working time on managing the group, while the remaining 50 per cent is dedicated to their own research. Fafo has the management structure of a research institute that is used to, and very adept at, raising funds, completing projects and achieving impact. For several reasons, the institute decided not to consider a merger with Oslo and Akershus University College. The need to reinforce its academic profile is recognised, but Fafo’s aim is to combine academic publications with high-quality research that is relevant to clients. In future (the next 4-5 years), the aim is to address the following research questions:
- The conditions for ensuring high employment and decent working conditions - The conditions for ensuring participation and belonging in a multicultural society - How to safeguard human rights and good governance in uncertain times
- The conditions for maintaining welfare states
All these themes relate to past work and will be supported by the tradition of collaboration built up within the institute.
The key previous evaluation in 2010 focused on sociology, which led to a strengthening of PhD training and academic publication. Fafo was also part of the review of internationally oriented research institutes in 2006, but this review did not have any specific recommendations for the institutions.
As an empirically driven and fund-raising organisation, Fafo has all the relevant infrastructure in place, with strong access to databases and regular contact with clients. The institute receives 17% in basic
52
funding from the Research Council of Norway (RCN). Compared to universities, the institute is to a large extent dependent on support from the RCN, which also provides 26% of project funding, with additional funding coming from Norwegian ministries and the public sector (20%), and as much as 30%
from businesses and other organisations. Only 1% of the funding comes from EU sources. Fafo is quite unique in mobilising funding from the business sector for social science research. It is typically commissioned research.
The strengths of the research environment include the skills of a well-established and effective team of researchers with particular expertise in carrying out commissioned research, and access to multiple data sources. Fafo’s ambition is to combine academic publishing and applied science, but, in practice, applied commissioned work has high priority. The pressure to complete many commissioned projects and to raise external funds may to some extent be contrary to academic publishing practices and norms. However, according to the SAMEVAL interviews, Fafo offers seed money to support the writing up of journal articles for a relatively short period (typically for 2–3 weeks), and participation in conferences and networking is also financed by Fafo. The expectation is that every researcher should attend one conference per year, and this is promoted by the leadership. However, it is often easier to accommodate such academic networking within RCN projects than in connection with commissioned research. Affiliated professors and internal seminars are also used to boost the academic work, according to the self-assessment.
Moreover, as the SWOT analysis notes, there is also a sense in which a strong interdisciplinary focus be an obstacle to scholars who wish to pursue an academic career within a specific discipline.
As of 2016, Fafo’s staff consists of 42 women and 25 men. The institute is led by a female director. The management team consists of five women and four men, while the board consists of four men and six women. In 2011, the board adopted a plan for gender equality and equal treatment. The gender equality plan included areas such as recruitment and promotion, training, distribution of resources, tasks and duties, and more. All measures were considered to be on schedule by the end of 2016, according to the self-assessment. We find that Fafo has implemented measures to promote gender equality, particularly at the management level.
Fafo is not a degree-granting institution and a modest number of PhD students are based in Fafo, only one or two of them in Political Science. Fafo employs both PhD students and master’s graduates in permanent positions as researchers. According to the SAMEVAL interview, the institute claims that it cannot get enough qualified researchers with a PhD to do commissioned work properly because many with a recent PhD from universities lack the skills to relate to a market, write applications and reports, and give talks, which are necessary skills for such work. So, the institute prefers to train new researchers with a master’s degree. However, some of them later enter a PhD programme in collaboration with a university. PhD students receive support to attend international conferences and spend time abroad.
The staff are somewhat divided, however, according to the interviews, in that some mostly focus on commissioned research. Almost all researchers do publish scientific articles, but some do so far more often than others. The self-assessment mentions that researchers are recruited from both national and international institutions, but, due to the language requirements, most of them are recruited from national institutions. Given our assessment of the quality of political science research below, it should be considered how it can be enhanced, including whether it is possible to change the existing recruitment patterns, which often rely on master’s graduates because of a lack of qualified PhD
53
graduates among applicants. The research quality could be increased by recruiting more PhD students and researchers with a PhD degree. It may take too long for Fafo’s researchers without a PhD to obtain one because of the slow pace of PhD training. Because the self-assessment claims that too few candidates with the necessary expertise in labour issues are trained at Norwegian universities, it might be relevant to consider developing Nordic PhD training in collaboration with partners in other Scandinavian countries.
The research output is largely the product of commissioned research and some RCN grants. It shows the strengths of the foundation in that the work is relevant, topical and up-to-date applied research, while relatively few researchers publish good academic research. In the self-assessment, Fafo has listed and provided links to or attached 10 publications from political science researchers. These publications are good work published in current (or former) Level 2 journals according to the Norwegian Register of Publication Channels, or as books or book chapters published by Level 2 publishers (two university presses and Elgar). The topics covered are comparative analyses of trade union responses to immigration and labour market outcomes for immigrant workers; the role of national labour market institutions in responding to economic crises; relationships between economic development, equality and social models following economic crises; user involvement in activation programmes; comparative studies of legal values; effects of educational investments by families in China; the construction of wrongdoing in relation to whistleblowing; and socialisation into professional norms in vocational training. Most of these political science publications are written by sociologists, according to the self-assessment, which states that the dividing line between different disciplines at Fafo is fluid.
When focusing on political science research at Fafo in the bibliometric analyses, research productivity seems to be higher than in Norway as whole. However, we also note that, from an academic point of view, most of Fafo’s work is not published in the best journals. From 2014 to 2016, only 10% – or three – of its political science articles were published in Level 2 journals (compared to the national mean of 22%). Even when books and book chapters are also included, no more than 14% of all publications appear in Level 2 outlets (compared to the national mean of 38%). International research collaboration seems to be weak, with only 6% of the publications being co-authored internationally (compared to 26% in all of Norway).
Nor is Fafo’s research as explicitly or as strongly linked to key themes in the wider academic debate.
Work of direct relevance to political science or with a starting point within that discipline is relatively scarce. Both existing research themes and the list of topics that will be in focus in the next five years could have spoken to political science concerns, but that does not appear to be the case to any great extent.
While a number of, mainly sociological, researchers have been able to publish in high-level outlets, Fafo’s research quality seems to be very uneven and on average considerably below the overall Norwegian standard. For that reason, it could be argued that the scientific quality rating can only be fair, i.e. the work is acceptable but makes generally little contribution to the field internationally. As some of the researchers publish in very good outlets, these researchers could be very helpful in spreading good research practices to other researchers at the institute who are aiming for more ambitious publications.
Assessment of scientific quality: 2 - fair
54
Fafo researchers have no teaching responsibilities, but some do take on regular or guest teaching in addition to their normal duties, including PhD student supervision in RCN projects.
According to the self-assessment, Fafo’s research is relevant to three of the areas in the Norwegian Government’s Long-term Plan for research and higher education, i.e. 3. Public sector renewal, better and more effective welfare, health and care services; 4. Enabling technologies; and 5. Innovative and adaptable industry.
Fafo has disseminated its research and expertise through many different channels, which reflect its focus on both academically oriented and commissioned research. According to the self-assessment, Fafo’s research often provides scientific input to both green and white papers for national policymaking. In addition, Fafo researchers write newspaper articles, give interviews and give many talks and presentations to different categories of users of Fafo’s research. Fafo researchers have also been members of national expert commissions on several highly relevant policy areas, and researchers have close contact with a number of users, such as welfare service providers, the social partners, local municipalities, ministries and other government institutions.
Fafo has submitted a case on the impact of political science research on occupational pension competence and analyses. The case shows policy impact on collective bargaining and on national regulation. The research of some Fafo researchers has contributed to changing both policy and practice, nationally as well as in collective bargaining and single company arrangements.
Fafo researchers’ knowledge about the complicated private-public pension mix has been offered in analyses, as well as in the form of advice to policymakers. This is based on a combination of commissioned research and Research Council-funded research. The members of the research group have also chaired – or taken part in – several national commissions, for instance on pensions. This work includes, for example, the development of a concrete model for a new broad multi-employer pension plan for LO and Sparebank1. The plan has been implemented. In addition, this implementation process identified a need for regulatory change that has been presented by the National Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) to the Minister of Finance. For a number of years, one of the senior researchers has been a member of the standing Bank Law Commission’s expert group that has been responsible for all legislation concerning pensions and life insurance.
Fafo’s head of research has participated in both the government-appointed expert commissions on migration and the welfare state. The first commission delivered its report in 2011, the second in 2017.
There can be little doubt of the strength of the research in terms of both research dissemination and impact.
1.1.9 Overall assessment
Fafo acts and behaves in a manner compatible with its self-image: a successful applied research centre.
There is work to be done if better connections to the academic cutting edge are to be made. It would be good if Fafo were to include more PhD students in project proposals for the RCN and in research projects. However, this is an institution that, on the whole, seems to be very comfortable with what it is doing.
55
1.1.10 Feedback
The four research questions that provide the focus for the next five years all contain significant issues that could be addressed through a political science lens. Some examples of political science concerns that might be raised are presented in brackets below.
- The conditions for ensuring high employment and decent working conditions (stable government; strong policy capacity?)
- The conditions for ensuring participation and belonging in a multicultural society (rich tradition of work on political engagement would be very relevant)
- How to safeguard human rights and good governance in uncertain times (work on institutional stability and maintenance)
- The conditions for maintaining welfare states (exploring the changing relationship between state, business and civil society)
It would be good to see greater focus on to the political dimensions of the issues raised above, since the general impression is that they are poorly represented in recent work.
Fafo may need to increase collaboration between researchers on presenting research ideas, funding proposals and work-in-progress papers to each other, as well as giving feedback that can raise the research quality and options for funding. Another option is to use good senior researchers as a small group and/or individually to give feedback on funding proposals. This could even include external, highly qualified researchers as consultants.
It might also be possible to better utilise data from commissioned work for academic research if more academic research effort were to be put into the design of commissioned research studies, including both the overall research design and the design of questionnaires and interview guides. That could enhance the quality of both commissioned and academic research.
More external Norwegian and international research cooperation could also stimulate research quality.
56