Academic Freedom , Recognition , and Pluralism – Philosophical Remarks on Impact

1. AcademicFreedom, Recognition, and Pluralism – PhilosophicalRemarks on Impact Sami Pihlström University of Helsinki & ResearchCouncil for Culture and Society, Academy of Finland sami.pihlstrom@helsinki.fi

2. Introduction • I want to addressthesignificance of academicfreedom– in relation to recognitionandpluralism– regardingthequestion of impact. • Thesethoughtsarebased on my experience as theformerDirector of the HCAS (2009-2015) and my currentrole as, amongotherthings, a member and vice-chair of theResearchCouncil for Culture and Society at the Academy of Finland (2016-2018). • However, I’mapproachingthis as a philosophicalissueratherthan an administrativeor (merely) politicalone. • Cf. Ilkka Niiniluoto: science policy as ”appliedphilosophy of science”.

3. Impact and the Academy of Finland AF strategy: “The Academy of Finland promotes high quality, high impact and responsible research as well as the practical application of this research and the knowledge and skills it generates.” (http://www.aka.fi/en/research-and-science-policy/strategy/) Criteria for funding decisions: “In selecting projects to fund, we apply seven main criteria: • scientific quality, innovativeness and novelty of the research plan • scientific impact of the research • competence of the applicant/the research team • feasibility of the research plan • quality and strengthening of the research environment • international and national research collaborations, researcher mobility • project’s significance for the promotion of professional research careers.” (http://www.aka.fi/en/review-and-funding-decisions/funding-decisions/decision-criteria/)

4. Impact and AF (cont’d) • Theapplicantsareexpected to include in theirresearchplans: “Effects and impact beyond academia • The reach and potential utilization value of the research beyond the scientific community • The applicant’s own estimate of the potential for societal impact in the long or short term” (http://www.aka.fi/en/funding/how-to-apply/appendices-required/research-plan-guidelines/) See also: AF report, The State of Scientific Research in Finland 2016, special theme: “Broader impact of research in society”, http://www.aka.fi/globalassets/30tiedepoliittinen-toiminta/tieteentila/aka_tieteen_tila_2016_eng_150317.pdf.

5. Impact and AF (cont’d) AF Q&A: • “Does the Academy want to steer research towards having more impact beyond academia? • No. Our goal is to encourage researchers to take note of the potential that exists for impact beyond academia and in that way to help them position their research in relation to the surrounding scientific community and society at large. Impact can take many different forms. In the long term, research may generate significant, unexpected impact in an unpredictable and unforeseeable direction. Consequently, there are no reasonable grounds to steer scientific research towards a single, recognisable impact. It is not our ambition, nor is it our objective.” • For more details, see: http://www.aka.fi/en/research-and-science-policy/effects-and-impact-of-research/impact-beyond-academia-in-academy-of-finland-research-funding/.

6. Themanyfaces of impact • Academic (scientific, scholarly) impactrequires a (very) long timescale: • Expectations of immediateimpactcreateproblems in science policy. • What is the ”impact” of, say, • Enlightenmentphilosophy? (universalhumanrights, US Constitution, …) • Medievaltheology? (theemergence of modernlogic, enablinglogico-mathematicaladvancements in the 19th and 20th centuries…) • Aristotle? (theemergence of a number of scientificfieldsexistingtoday…) • Finnishscholars’ and humanists’ ideas in the 19th century? (theemergence of Finland as a nation, 100 yearsindependence 2017) • Theimpossibility of simplymeasuringtheimpact of creativescientificdiscoveries and scholarlyinsights– againsttheobsessionwithmeasurement! • Measuring is particularlydifficult in thehumanities and socialsciences. • Notethatimpactcanalsobemorallyproblematic (orcatastrophic): • Modernphysics -> atombomb. • Marx’s and Engels’sphilosophicalideas -> communism, Soviet Union.

7. Themanyfaces of impact (cont’d) • Impact • withinone’sownacademicfield, amongone’scolleagues and peers • withintheacademicworldmorewidely • withinsociety at large • … • Whendiscussingimpact, weshouldnotmerelydiscussdirectorstraightforwardimpact– eitherwithintheacademiaormoregenerally in society– butappreciatethemanyindirectways in whichresearchcanhaveimpact. • Weshouldalsoexaminetheratherconcretephysical and social/administrativeenvironments as well as thesemantic and linguisticcontextswithinwhichwedoacademicwork. • A continuouscreation and maintenance of intellectualenvironments(concrete and abstract) is part of impact.

8. Academicfreedom: corevalue in research • Academicfreedom is (shouldbe) a corevalue of anyacademicresearchinstitutes. • For example, institutes for advancedstudy: ”Nowthatyou’re a fellowhereyoucandowhateveryouwant. Seriously.” • Bottom-upemergence of researchideas, ratherthantop-downgovernance of strategicresearchprograms. • For a researchfundingorganization (such as the Academy of Finland), this is thebestway to ensure long-term (albeitoftenindirect) impact: not to expecttheacademiccommunity to react to pre-organizedresearchprograms and pre-definedthemesbut to posetheirresearchquestionsthemselves. • Academicfreedom is positivefreedomto dothingsthatareexperienced as academicallyvaluablefromwithintheacademic/scholarlyperspectiveitself, instead of negativefreedom to avoiddoingwhatone is told to do. • Academicfreedomshouldberegarded as thekeyconstituent and enablingfactor of impact: trulynovelimpactneeds to acknowledgetheunexpected, and academicfreedom is a space for unexpectedness.

9. Recognition and pluralism • Weshouldnotmerelytoleratebutactivelyrecognizeothers’ academicfreedom: • Multiplicity of voices (polyphony; cf. Bakhtin on Dostoevsky) • Pluralism (cf. William James) • Recognizingthemarginalized voices (in contrast to trends), analogous to politicalrecognition. • Monism is theproton pseudosof processesleading to thedeterioration of intellectualenvironments and of thepotentiality of impact: reducingeverything into thesame, other voices notheardorlistened to. • Recognition is notmerelyadministrativeormethodologicalbutalsoontological: weshouldtakeseriouslyothers’ different (scholarly, scientific) ways of categorizingreality, i.e., differentrealities. (An activeform of pluralism.) • Recognition as a middlepathbetweenfullendorsement and meretolerance: positiveattitude to otherness and diversitywhileallowingevenheavilycriticalscholarlydebate and disagreement.

10. Language and metaphors • Thefundamentalimportance of (academicbutalsoadministrative) languagein creatingconditions for thepossibility of genuineimpactand for cherishingacademicfreedom (cf. Orwell on thedeterioration of language and Newspeak): thewayswespeakaboutknowledge and researchfundamentallyshapeouractivities of knowledge-seekingbyshapingourself-understanding as scholarsorinquirers. • Especially in our ”post-factual” era, weshouldreaffirmourcommitment to thevalue of truth as a fundamentalgoal of scientific/scholarlyinquiry. • This is compatiblewithhavingphilosophicaldisagreementsaboutwhatexactlytruth is. • Richard Rorty (”TheLastIntellectual in Europe: Orwell on Cruelty”, 1989): takecare of freedom, and truthcantakecare of itself. • ”Conversation of humankind” – cf. polyphony.

11. Language and metaphors (cont’d) • Metaphors for knowledge (orknowledge-seeking) arecrucial in shapingourunderstanding of whatacademicwork is allabout. • Traditionalfoundationalistmetaphors (e.g., architecture). • Examples of pluralist and antifoundationalistmetaphors: • Paradigm (Kuhn) • Cable (Peirce) • Web of belief (Quine) • Corridor (James) • Boat afloat on thesea (Neurath) • … • Whenemployingthese and relatedmetaphors, weshouldnotoverlooktheidea thatscientific/scholarlyinquiryseeksdepth, notmerelyhorizontalconnections/networking. • Impact is understoodtoonarrowlyif it merely, orevenprimarily, denotestheways in which a researchprojecthorizontallyconnectswithotherfieldsorsociety at large, etc. • Verticality is a crucialpart of impact.

12. Conclusion • Thepolyphony of (academic) voices defines an area of knowledge- and truth-seekingwithinwhichindividualscholars and groups of scholarscanpursuethetruth. • By allowingsuch a polyphony to exist – i.e., bycreating and maintaining a state of academicfreedom– wenotonlysupport (horizontal) networkingbutalsoenablesomeindividual voices to (vertically) penetrateverydeeply into thestructure of reality, possiblyyieldingtrueimpact. • Recognitionitself is a metaphor (and so is, of course, impact): welearnmoreaboutthe (natural and social) worldbyactivelyrecognizingothers’ perspectives on theworld, includingtheirdifferentways of categorizingtheworld, whilemaintaining a (potentially) criticalattitude to thosedifferences. • Recognition of othernessmayitselfbe a crucialfactorin theenhancementof (possibilities of) impact: in defense of diversity, antireductionism; againstmeasuringeverything on thesamescale.