The eternal search for accountability & steering in Dutch humanities valorisation debates

1. The eternal search for accountability & steering in Dutch humanities valorisation debates Paper presentedtoWhat is the arts & humanities research mission? in “Towards transformative governance? Responses to mission-oriented paradigms”, EU-SPRI 2012 Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany. Paul Benneworth, CHEPS, University of Twente, the Netherlands

2. The context: 3 related changes • Nature of society • Increasingimportance of knowledgeto welfare (Romer, Castells, Temple et al. ) • Nature of public administration • Shift towardsgovernance in networks (Rhodes, Kickert, Ferlie et al.) • Nature of research • Massification: fromboutiqueto ‘engine-room’ (Gibbons et al., Etzkowitz & Leyesdorff)

3. The new university research environment • Massively increased research budgets • Shift in anatomy of research (scholarship  teams, researchers, infrastructure) • New expectations on research value • Making clear contributions to public goals • New accountability mechanisms • Shift from peer review  summary metrics and performance indicators

5. . Linear research valorisation model

6. From a real processtoanappealing macro-heuristic Outputs?

7. Mobilising supporters to ‘idea’ • Politically popular – AUTM Better world report: ‘licensing will save us” • But a heuristic/ policy concept, not a theoretical concept • Theory selectively woven into politically desirable ambitions.

8. Valorisation in Humanities • Research: nexus of research, scholarship and engagement much less clear cut in humanities research as to what precisely creates the change. • Outputs: absence of codified outputs transferred through market transactions that make a difference. • Uptake: question of measuring small uptakes not always recorded as economic transaction. • Progress: economic growth is ‘objective’ measure of progress, social progress much more subjective.  MeasuringHumsvalorizationfairly is attemptingtoachieve the impossible!

9. Idea of a public value failure • Market failure – when market forcesproducesuboptimalsituation. • ‘Narrow’/ private interests win – overall public benefits cut. • Idea of public value failure (Bozeman)… • Clearlyheuristic of valorisation is verynarrow.  Does it lead to private intereststrumping public benefits?

10. Table 1 Public failure and public policy, a diagnostic model for valorisation Source: after Bozeman & Sarewitz (2011), p. 17 modified by authors.

11. Public value failure in AHR? • Prima facie case that model is inapplicable, and causing problems for humanities. • ‘Private benefits, STEM, policy makers • Is the idea of valorisation in AHR more a policy than theoretical concept? • Is the heuristic/ policy concept of valorisation in AHR a public value failure? • Does it correspond to particular private interests to the exclusion of wider public goods?

12. Humanities in Dutch Universities

13. Other research organisations • KNAW research institute • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) • FryskeAkademy (FA) • Huygens ING • International Institute of Social History (IISH) • Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV) • Meertens Institute • NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide studies • Netherlands Interdisciplinairy Demographic Institute (NIDI) • Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS) • Universities of AppliedSciencemainlyapplied research in creative arts field.

14. The ‘perpetual crisis’ in Dutch Humanities 1987-date • ‘Kleine Letteren’: small subjects, small classes • Something uniquely Dutch – e.g Chair E Javanese • Unsustainable but desirable at start of 1980s • Focal point for debate about humanities • Series of reports on future of Kleine Letteren • 1990s, special funding but ‘neglect’ of other hums • ‘Windows on the world’: the modern view of hums • 2008 – Cohen Commission – righting the balance • Sustainability for all Humanities

15. The linear model 2.0

16. Research in Humanities landscape

17. Where are ‘publics ’ in Dutch accountability debates? • There is strong public interest/ value in consuming humanities research • Publics do not necessarily fully understand the nature of the scientific endeavour, • Humanities research that is relevant may be both unpopular but a positive contribution • The system is extremely fragmented with little accountability or interdependence • There are many points of transformation from research projects to publics • Much accountability/ public steering falls to the Science Council, which is tiny

18. A public value failure? • Fragmentation of public interest mediation • Public voices not clearly saying “we value this” • Govt wants to hear those voices • But defaults to the comfortable messages • Not chosing 1 model constructive ambiguity? • Postponing/ deferring decisions to avoid need to take the wrong choice. • Not taking choice prevents public value failure • BUT also stops sensible resolution

19. Lengthy AHR chainstopublics • Biotech valorisation model requires strongly regulated exchange systems – IP, VC, NASDAQ • Public interest represented by FDA approval process – ethical governance framework • Lack of AHR valorisation governance framework • No signalling from society/ publics to AHR scholars on what matters • Question of a governance crisis, and public ethical frameworks for AHR? • Alternative accountability models?

20. The problemwithmetrics • Janus-faced administrators want good (i.e. comparable) and applicable metrics • Valorisation systems (Pharma/ AHR) different: formality, governance, transactions, directness • Conflict allows reductio ad absurdum: • “the 2nd historian becomes fearful for his future… ghost-writes the King Alfred Book of Bread and Cake baking and then becomes the university’s Director of Research Strategy (Humanities)” Collini, 2012, p.12) • Where is the ‘public assent’ to particular scores? • Where can the public show they (don’t) care?

21. Bringingpublics back into research valorisation • No clearly defined high level idea of social devt • Or low-level public signalling via output use • No public involvement in research governance • An ethical framework for AHR? • Nano/ GM/ HSR much further advanced • Key to effective value understanding: • understanding governance system • Identifying public ethical frameworks • Linking public ethics to decision-taking