External interaction and the humanities Magnus Gulbrandsen Professor, TIK Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo Introduction at the workshop in the Research Council of Norway on Societal Contributions and Humanities, Oslo, 12 January 2016

My background Many projects on the role of research and universities in societal development – and academics interaction with external parties – including perspectives from all stakeholders Project on the value of arts and humanities research a few years ago

Agenda today 1.Why is academics’ external interaction seen as important? 2.What does this interaction look like in Norway and in the humanities in particular? 3.How can we characterise the debate about this issue within the humanities?

Why the interest? Interaction between universities and society tied to economic growth and (desired) societal development The best universities in the world seem to be highly involved in external interaction Relevant to the individual: external interaction tied to increased levels of publications and the joy of one’s discipline/field/speciality Two-way interaction, not “knowledge transfer”

Perspectives Empirical Normative

Interaction data Ask the researchers Ask the (potential) societal partners Look at the support structure established by universities or other actors Try to trace the development and impact of research (and other activities) over time

What we know Large variation between disciplines, types of institutions, research groups and also between individuals Interaction is related to many different actors, not just industry Many “channels” or forms of interaction, not just research collaboration or commercialisation

Our survey Individual-level survey with 4400 responses among tenured academics in Norwegian universities and colleges Participation in various forms of external collaboration and knowledge transfer Differences between types of institutions, fields of science and academic positions Comparable in time and with similar foreign studies

Knowledge transfer In the past three years I have:

Five main activities 10

“Everyone” does almost “everything”, but some clear differences Technology Male researchers, professors Weak and non-significant institutional differences Commercialisation In most disciplines but the most in technology Professors New universities, university colleges and small town state colleges Research collaboration Male, experienced researchers Social science and medicine/health No clear institutional differences Consultancy Female employees, all positions Social science and medicine/health State colleges Training Humanities and social science Professors Colleges Dissemination 11 Common to all Problem oriented or applied research profile Non-academic work experience

External partners 12 Humanities Less common to have external partnerships Industry also relevant here

External collaboration Technology and natural science University colleges and new universities Male professors Firms Social science Universities Professors and leaders Natl./-intnatl. public sector Medicine/health and social science Colleges and new universities Research leaders Local public incl. health Common traits: Applied or problem oriented research profile Non-academic work experience Leading/senior positions 13

Motivations 14 Humanities: Similar trends but divergent profile Less interested in practical problems and opportunities for students More interested in personal income

External partners Agreement (mostly) on the importance of the different mechanisms of interaction Positive view on (interaction with) humanities Do not distinguish clearly between humanities research and humanities-based knowledge Do not distinguish between humanities and other fields (or want cross-disciplinarity) Want humanities representatives to come up with clearer ideas of their fields’ relevance

The debate Often defensive arguments from the humanities representatives The story of decline: new concepts (innovation, interaction, commercialisation) do not fit and lead to reduced funding compared to an earlier “golden age” The story of exclusivity: the humanities are different (from the rest), the differences are not respected/taken seriously enough Some have more offensive arguments

Two cultures in the humanities? The defensive ones The university as an “idea” Excellence as the (only) criterion of quality Legitimacy through “bildung”, disciplines’ own value Interaction must be built on special characteristics of the humanities May feel alienated due to the “modern science policy language” The offensive ones The university as “practice” Relevance may be sigh of quality Legitimacy through scientific publication and cross-disciplinarity Same challenges in interaction as those seen in other disciplines Accept “innovation” and have a more pragmatic view on policy initiatives

Tensions? Certain internal tensions and disagreement within the humanities (a broad category!) Both the “defensive” and “offensive” represent stable researcher identities, and no one wants only relevance/utility value or short-term and externally determined research Highest degree of pressure/alienation for those who can neither relate to the traditional basic researcher “excellence” role nor the more problem-oriented cross-disciplinary role?

Other points for discussion Unlike all other disciplines, humanities research is concentrated in the higher education sector – implications of this? What is behind the stronger emphasis on “basic research” in the humanities? From a policy perspective, how do you deal with the “we’re so special” argument (coming from everywhere) To what extent should we focus on the interplay between humanities and other disciplines? Can we find better indicators of interaction?

Thank you for your attention Contact: Some publications: Thune, Aamodt, Gulbrandsen, 2014, Produktivt samspill, NIFU-rapport Gulbrandsen & Aanstad, 2015, Is innovation a useful concept for arts and humanities research? Arts and humanities in higher education