The integration of SSH in EU R&I policy has been a longstanding demand of the research community, which has been gaining traction in European Framework Programmes. The power of the metaphor is such that it is often wrongly assumed that there is agreement on what it is and what needs to be done.
The problem-focussed knowledge industry of the 1990’s
Towards the end of the 20th century interdisciplinary, so called “mode 2” research emerged as a “problem focussed” knowledge industry, distinct from traditional disciplinary science. “Mode 2” research was a great success with politicians and science funding agencies, who fuelled its growth as an answer to grand societal challenges.
The integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH) was seen as an important element of this answer. Problem oriented project-funding programmes, including the SSH, have continued to grow, sometimes surpassing discipline-based institutional research funding.
Grand challenges and misplaced expectations
More than a quarter of a century later the grand challenges are growing and it is clear that some of the expectations around “mode 2” research were misplaced. That a problem cannot be solved without interdisciplinary cooperation, does not mean that interdisciplinary cooperation will necessarily solve it. Programmatic ambitions for grand designs to solve societal challenges would seem to be subject to Anderson’s (2014, p 379) warning:
“The history of politics is littered with attempts to realize imagined utopias that turned out badly, not just because of unforeseen consequences, but because anticipated consequences that people imagined would be wonderful were experienced as horrible in real life” .
And while interdisciplinary research projects offer a space to deliberate the nature of the problems associated with grand societal challenges, participants were often frustrated by how the deliberation and cooperation was conducted and how the rewards were distributed (Viseu 2015).
Towards appropriate integration of SSH
There have now been more than 30 years of experience with “mode 2” recipes at the European level, starting from the Key Actions of FP5. Yet, “a blueprint for SSH integration” is still looked for, to help with producing effective R&I programmes. There is more agreement that appropriate integration of SSH is an important aspect of this, than on what appropriate integration is and how to go about it.
Integration and discrimination
In the social sciences integration is often discussed in relation to discrimination. It is sometimes seen as a cure for discrimination problems and sometimes as a smoke-screen concealing such problems. This unresolved discussion, often involving important ethical questions about identity and individuality, is found across the social sciences, and has had considerable influence on the development of their institutions (see Manicas 2003).
Integration as puzzle-solving
Underestimating such ethical issues, integration of SSH in “problem-focussed research” is often portrayed as contributing to a puzzle, in which components fit neatly together in a coherent whole. Such is the conception of much of the project-based integration, including programmes on ethical, legal and social aspects of technology.
For example, through carbon dating, chemistry becomes a tool in archaeology helping in debates about timing. Yet, SSH integration rarely offers closure in debates within STEM disciplines. SSH researchers often object to playing such service roles in the pursuits of engineers and demand important roles in the definition of the basic parameters of the solutions to be developed (Bruce et al 2004, Vienni Baptista et al 2020)
Biological integration metaphors
A wide array of fruitful processes of integration can be found in biology. Procreation – planting the seeds of new thinking – is a good metaphor for processes of interaction amongst SSH disciplines. Infection - a virus integrating into a cell, turning it into a virus producing factory – also has value. I am thinking about social innovation and social movements associated with Commons Based Peer production where engineers adopt new, different ways of working towards important social and cultural purposes. Such ideas are at the heart of the post-growth movement’s view of how to pursue appropriate science and technology, exactly because it is focussed on the reproduction of social norms and values and not on the production of economic growth (Kerschner, et al (2018), Hickel et al (2022)).
Making soup: chemical integrationmetaphors
In chemistry, elements integrate in new substances with different structures and functions. Integration involves energy. Think of making soup by placing different ingredients in boiling water. Some original components may be more discernible than others. Pieces of meat or vegetables could be visible while the presence of salt and spices may be discernible only through taste.
The soup is an influential metaphor in social integration policies. Migrants are placed in communities, where they are expected to integrate with the help of external energy provided by social services. The success of such policies is analogous to the energy put into them. Canada, where governments put a lot of effort in migrant integration, is considered a success case: a relatively harmonious multicultural society with low incidence of racial and social discrimination (Ali et al 2021).
SSH integration: from the tent to the kitchen
The quality of integration of SSH is often assessed through ingredients: the proportion of SSH partners, the level of the budget allocated to them and their work, and the number of SSH disciplines involved in projects (EC 2023). The process to which the ingredients are subjected is invisible. It is as if the ingredients are left in a tent for the duration of the project. At the end, integration is whatever took place in the tent.
Unlike boiling water, tents are passive. And unlike soup, what happens in them is ephemeral. Learnings are project-specific and dissipate when the project is over. Documenting experiences in projects can make important contributions to good research programme management practice, and there has been a lot of that over the years.
However, SSH integration is about more than numbers in projects. Policy needs to seek to influence the institutions of research funding and performance that Pedersen (2016) calls integrative environments. It needs to deal with the process of integration with the attentiveness and dedication of a chef, who knows what they are making and how to make it. When they do not know, they experiment, they learn and change practices. As their learning evolves, the soup gets better. Tasting sessions (open deliberation on ex ante expectations and ex post achievements) and mechanisms for sharing learning on the integration process as part of research programme management, are critical. Because, the proof of the soup is in the eating.
Further links
https://eassh.eu/Position-Papers/Monitoring-SSH-integration-still-matters~p1376
https://horizoneuropencpportal.eu/news/net4society-what-ssh-integration-horizon-europe-0
References
Ali, M. A., S Zendo & S Somers (2021) Structures and Strategies for Social Integration: Privately Sponsored and Government Assisted Refugees. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 20(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2021.1938332
Anderson, E (2014) Reply to critics of the imperative of integration. Political Studies Review, 12(3), pp 376-382 https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12065
Bruce, A, C Lyall, J Tait, R Williams (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme,, Futures, 36 (4) pp 457-470 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003
Pedersen, D. (2016) Integrating social sciences and humanities in interdisciplinary research. Palgrave Commun 2, 16036. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.36
EC (2023) Integration of Social Sciences and Humanities in Horizon 2020: Participants, Budgets and Disciplines 2014 – 2020, OPOCE Luxembourg, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/da853350-d9ab-492e-9320-35c04ebbe31b_en
Hickel, J, G Kallis, T Jackson, D W O’neill, J B Schor, J K Steinberger, P A Victor, and D Ürge- Vorsatz. (2022) "Degrowth can work—here’s how science can help." Nature 612, no. 7940 pp 400-403 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x
Kerschner, C, P Wächter, L Nierling, M- Ehlers, (2018) Degrowth and Technology: Towards feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 (2) pp 1619-1636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.147.
Manicas, P T (2003) The social sciences: who needs ‘em?, Futures 35 (6) pp 609-619, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00102-7.
Vienni Baptista, B, I Fletcher, M Maryl, Pi Wciślik, A Buchner, C Lyall, J Spaapen and C Pohl (2020) Final Report on Understandings of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research and Factors of Success and Failure, SHAPE-ID project
Viseu, A (2015) Integration of social science into research is crucial, Nature 525, 17 September 2015 p 291 https://www.nature.com/articles/525291a
About the author
Nikos Kastrinos is the editor of the EASSH Lens, a senior fellow with the Global Governance Institute and the Millennium Project and serves on the board of the EU Staff Fund for a Fair and Sustainable Future. A former official of the European Commission he served as special advisor to the EU Presidencies of Cyprus and Ireland and to the Greek Minister of Education. He holds doctorate in Science and Technology Policy from the University of Manchester.