At the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences this year, scholars took the opportunity to take the government to task for perceived inequities in research funding between the sciences and the social sciences. For instance, the new Canada Excellence Research Chairs program does not include a single finalist from disciplines in the humanities or social sciences. And the January budget that directed new granting-council money to business research provoked a huge backlash, especially among young scholars, including a Facebook protest page with more than 4,500 members.
Nathalie Des Rosiers is president of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Photo Courtesy CFHSS
Nathalie Des Rosiers is president of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Photo Courtesy CFHSS
Nathalie Des Rosiers, president of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, said her group has asked the federal government to increase funding to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council by $100-million, or more than 20 per cent over the next three to five years. At current funding levels, scholars in these disciplines are far less likely to get federal research dollars than their lab-coat wearing colleagues across campus. Just one researcher in five who applies to SSHRC receives funding, compared with success rates that range from 75 to 100 per cent at the other two federal granting agencies.
Prof. Des Rosiers joins us to discuss this topic and answer questions. Ms. Des Rosiers is Dean of the Civil Law Section of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa and the former president of the Law Commission of Canada. She obtained an LL.B. from the Université de Montréal in 1981 and an LL.M. from Harvard University in 1984; and an honorary doctorate from the Law society of Upper Canada in 2004.
Also joining us is Chad Gaffield, the president of the Social Sciences And Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr. Gaffield, an expert on 19th- and 20th-century Canada, spent 20 years at the University of Ottawa. He is a former president of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Dr. Gaffield received his BA and MA from McGill University, and his PhD from the University of Toronto.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions or Globe journalists, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym. Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of The Globe and Mail, but only of the comment-writer.
GlobeCampus editor Christina Varga: Thank you for joining us today. And thanks to our guests for taking the time to answer questions.
Mme Des Rosiers writes: Thanks for having us on this forum. It is interesting to reflect on the tangible benefits from social science research for Canadians. We know that most difficult problems of our world require a multi-disciplinary approach : the integration of new scientific knowledge into practices, or the betterment of public policy - we will not solve the serious problems confronting us, such as climate change or the prevention of Aids in Africa, if we do not have strong social sciences and humanities knowledge.
Mr. Gaffield writes: I am so pleased to have the chance to exchange online with you about research and research training in the social sciences and humanities - to engage in Dialogue as we like to say at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Varga writes: Let's get to readers' questions and comments.
Trevor Lynn writes: It seems to me as if graduates from the social sciences do well in the workplace. They are analytical, understand human behaviour and communicate clearly. However, there is still a portion of the population that thinks that the only way to succeed in the workplace is by getting an MBA, studying engineering or becoming a doctor. What can be done to get the message across that social sciences prepare people well for the workplace?
Des Rosiers writes: Recent employment surveys show that creativity, analytical skills and leadership are key characteristics that are sought by employers. Indeed, employers hire graduate from humanities for that very reason. I think we may need to have business leaders, as Jim Basillie has done, say publicly what their human resources do: they hire graduates from social sciences just as much as graduates from other disciplines.
Gaffield writes: We are increasingly focused on tracking the experience of grads in the social sciences and humanities. What we find is that they are sought (and increasingly so) across businesses, the public sector, and indeed, across society. The reason is that our grads recognize the increasing complexity of societies, see diversity as a strength, and are creative and innovative. This mindset helps them be culturally informed and globally engaged in ways that both the private and public sectors and NGOs require to meet their objectives.
Paul from Toronto writes: I agree that many humanities topics are worthy of research funding. But if I may play devil's advocate somewhat, would you agree that there is an awful lot of liberal arts research that seems to many taxpayers to be a waste of public money, and of little use to anyone apart from a professor sitting in an ivory tower? To cite one presentation at your Congress this week: "Redefining identities in contemporary canada." What does that even mean? Isn't this the kind of academic nonsense that gives humanities research a bad name?
Des Rosiers writes: I am glad that I attended that lecture: the study presented the ways in which Canadians express in different ways their belonging to Canada and to different values. Possible uses of that research: it is interesting to know what messages Canadians carry with them around the world, what messages resonate for them ( I am sure that politicians are interested in this), but also in public policy designs, it may be important to know what types of public messages will transform behaviour. For example, if we are trying to stop bullying in schools, is it better to have role models from the ethnic group or do the kids identify with Wayne Gretsky? ... After this research, we could decide that hiring Wayne Gretsky, despite his wonderful appeal, is less powerful than another figure in certain contexts.
Gaffield writes: Let me pick up on the question about the importance of "redefining identities". I would say that this topic is at the heart of the 21st century. How individuals view their identity and that of other individuals is being transformed in the context of geo-political forces, new technologies, etc., etc. The headlines every day emphasize how much research is needed to help all societies move forward in this rapidly changing world. And that session was so significant in advancing that discussion.
David Holton writes: What are some of the ways in which we can measure the impact on Canadian society of SSHRC funding specifically, and of social sciences and humanities research more generally?
Gaffield writes: The best way, I think, to evaluate the impact of SSHRC funding is to follow where the money goes: about 70% goes to support students, research assistants and other research staff who help professors undertake research projects - in other words, a key impact is the development of highly qualified, talented individuals who use their experience and skills to go on to contribute across Canadian society in the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors. Then, the value of the new knowledge, ideas, and interpretations that emerge from research informs all of us (including policymakers) about significant economic, social, cultural, environmental and other issues both in the headlines today, tomorrow and into the future. Along the way, our school curricula are improved, companies learn better how to prosper, etc. etc.
KMorin from Ottawa writes: What efforts have social scientists and scholars in the humanities made in the past decade to demonstrate the value of their work, not to their peers who grant them tenure, research funds and awards on the basis of articles in obscure journals and expensive academic books, but to those that researchers themselves claim should benefit from the new knolwedge they create, i.e. the citizenry that pays the taxes from which research funds are drawn?
Gaffield writes: We are getting better and better at assessing the benefits of research for the larger society but we still have work to do. For example, I have been recently learning about how much Supreme Court Justices rely on research in the social sciences and humanities to inform their decisions; but we have not been tracking this kind of impact. Similarly, all retail businesses rely directly on our scholars from questions of design to marketing but we have not adequately connected the dots between our scholars and such impact. But we have been improving on such reporting and measuring of impact and will continue to focus on this important issue.
Des Rosiers writes: There are additional efforts that are needed to "translate" research results into policy ready instruments, or usable concepts for business and the consumers. Nevertheless, not all researchers can do this and not all research is ready to be "used" - it often needs to be tested, debated and challenged. This Congress is part of the research process: to test, challenge and refine research questions and results.
Kyle Peterson, Director, Regulatory & Corporate Affairs of Calgary Scientific Inc., writes: Thanks for raising awareness of this issue and opening up the discussion of the merits of your position. Two comments. First, I know many researchers who would dispute that apps to NSERC are 75% to 100% successful. If the other agency implied in Dr. Des Rosiers comments is CIHR, I would say this is even less likely an accurate statement. Further, there are big gaps in what these two organizations fund, such that some projects that ought to fit both NSERC and CIHR are funded by neither one.
My question is: Given some absolute constraints on the amount of government funding for research, how do make the case for a larger portion of funding for social sciences research vs. science and medical research? To qualify it further, what are the tangible benefits to Canadian society you would see from increased funding? Thanks for your answer.
Des Rosiers writes:The comment was meant to indicate global support for research, not success in individual competitions. We know that only 20% of social science researchers receive public funding whereas the proportion is at least 75% in science and health sciences - Not that in individual competitions, the overall success rate is 75% - this would be inaccurate. The point is that overall, it is not enough to support only 20% of researchers in one sector. It prevents the sector from fulfilling its potential and indeed to become competitive on the international scene. All researchers from all disciplines will benefit from strength in social sciences.
As for your questions, let me try and answer: the first one is always knowledge of our society - this is this immaterial way in which we need to know who we are, but I understand that you may want a more direct return.
Second, I would say that the numerous problems of our society cannot be answered by science alone. Indeed, it may be dangerous not to measure the impact of some scientific discovery on our society. We have to measure all risks, and the risks to our society as well as to the natural environment.
Third, we are making this demand for increased funding in a context of wanting to ensure that our social scientists and humanities scholars are able to contribute to the full extent of their talents to the big questions of our time, and to join multidisciplinary teams.
Fourth, we want Canadians universities to be competitive on an international level and the health of social humanities and humanities is important in this context.
Dermot in Quebec City writes: A comment and a question. Although I've now seen it thrown around a few times in the last week or so, the notion of a 75-100% success rate for science applications is just patently wrong. Although it varies based on the committee to which it is submitted, the successful funding rate for NSERC applications is in the same neighbourhood as that quoted for SSHRC (about 25%). I can't comment on what it might be for NIHR researchers.
My question: scientists often require funding for expensive analytical equipment, for qualified personnel to run this equipment, and for the day to day costs of operating laboratories, perhaps including chemicals or other consumables. What are the analogous costs for social scientists, and if there are none, do they not therefore simply require less money than natural scientists to do their research? Thank you.
Gaffield writes:The good news is that, in many cases, these costs are lower than in some other fields such as quantum computing. But scholars in many fields depend upon research infrastructure and operating expenses just like their colleagues in fields like chemistry or biology. Indeed, one of Canada's top fields in is digital humanities and the computing costs are significant. Similarly, the creation of databases is central in many fields along with trips to archives, field survey research, and on and on. The similarities across all research fields is greater than any differences especially now.
Des Rosiers writes: The purpose is not to underfund scientists, "au contraire"... We know that success rates in individual competition will vary and certainly amounts of funding will differ widely. Humanists may need less money to complete research programs. Nevertheless, they require a minimum of funding. And this is the question. Our proposition is that increased funding for social sciences and humanities will increase the ability to compete of Canadians scholars on the international science where big research projects are multidisciplinary. We are attempting to equip better the social sciences and humanities researchers to be part of interdisciplinary teams that can compete for international competitions.
Dr. Morgan Holmes, Assoc. Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University, writes: Thank you for speaking to us today. As a mid-career academic in the social sciences I see an increasing imperative to devise research projects with a market value. For those of us who do critical, analytic work on 'health' the funding seems ever narrower. There is nothing to be patented in doing the research on biomedical biases, and yet that research is crucial for delivering to our undergraduates (and to the larger population) an ability to speak intelligently to the promise and limits of medicine (in all its guises).
CHIR is not the place for us. SSHRC wants less and less to do with 'health' research, and yet increasingly our population turns to medicine to regulate our feelings, our psyches, our reproductive lives, etc. and most people have these encounters arriving with severe information deficits into social settings in which they have limited power. Surely there is value in the kind of work that the social study (anthropology and sociology, communications and so forth) of medicine does, and surely that work is worth funding more, not less - even if we can't stick a patent on it and sell it in a bottle. No?
Des Rosiers writes: I agree. Indeed, the point of increasing the support for our researchers is to permit all disciplines to truly offer something to the discovery voyage that our society is undertaking. If health is the worry of many Canadians, we need the benefit of all disciplines and the best possible answers from all.
Gaffield writes: On the question of health research, let me emphasize how central the social sciences and humanities have become in terms of improving the lives of indviduals and the health of societies. For example, medical humanities is a rapidly growing field involving, among other things, the use of literature in therapy (which in some cases is far more success than drugs). The good news is that the Medical Research Council was transformed into CIHR with an expanded mandate to include the social sciences and humanities, and is now able to fully embrace this expanded mandate. Please check the CIHR website to see their warm invitation to scholars from the social sciences and humanities.
Marvin from Toronto writes: As a doctoral student in the social sciences, I am too very concerned with the current state of social science funding and university funding in general. I have seen the numbers and they do not look good, University education in Canada is rapidly changing, in terms of affordability and value. Undergraduates are simply taking the brunt of all such changes primarily in the form of reduced quality in terms of teaching through immense class sizes. To combat such measures universities are looking at any way possible to increase revenues and one way to do this is to increase the corporate presence on campus, and most often such a corporate presence will come from the pure and applied sciences and/or business sectors. Which in turn send a distinct message that science is what is most relevant to the broader public and public officials, which then put more money into the hard sciences. At this rate, this may lead to another very real/specific brain drain of social science academics in Canada.
Justin Ma (Hometown = Scarborough, ON; current location = Urbana, IL), MS Student writes: I had a history professor who advocated for more numerous small grants in the social sciences, with smaller numbers of large grants going to the sciences. His primary reason was the nature of the fields; the sciences tend to require much capital, while the social sciences were mostly an issue of supporting people. (Of course, he noted there are exceptions.) Besides increasing the amount of money going in to the social sciences, do you think it's a good idea to break down grants into smaller awards, thus funding more researchers and students albeit at a lower rate? Thank you.
Des Rosiers writes: I think that you are right to point out the multiplicity of needs of the research community . I agree that doctoral students need to be funded and often a smaller amount can go a long way to at least begin the process of either finding additional funding or at least do preliminary work. In some fields, needs are less expensive. One of our objectives is to increase the number of researchers that are funded so that they can pursue their quest and really contribute to our society. We also think that even small funding may allow them to compete for additional moneys at the international level or in the private sector.
Gaffield writes: Yes, indeed, the key is match the character of the research to the funding requirements. Big grants and small grants can have the same impact be equally valuable etc.
Alex Usher, Vice-President and Director (Canada), Educational Policy Institute, writes: I've been trying recently to compare government funding for social sciences and humanities research in Canada to those of other countries. Here, as I understand it, SSHRC gets about 20% of all granting council funding. Are there any countries you could name where the social sciences and humanities get a larger percentage of council funding? Which countries should we be emulating?
Des Rosiers writes: We are attempting to look at international comparators but we should not compare only public funding. It is important to calculate the total amount that researchers get, so we try to calculate how much, on average, a social scientist gets from public sources (granting councils and university) and from private sources (donations, philanthropy or contracts). We know that in the United States, the level of private funding for humanities is high.
Presently we are trying to unravel the way in which Australians, British and Europeans count and distribute the research funds. The way in which the money is allocated is different so it requires attention.
I think that it is important to also think about the threshold questions: below a certain level of funding, it is unrealistic to think that a filed, discipline will be able to attract students, support graduate work and sustain the interest and enthusiasm of professors. We are also concerned about this question.
Gaffield writes: International comparisons of funding are very tricky since the systems are so different. But there is no doubt that, internationally speaking, the quality of research in the social sciences and humanities in Canada is near the top of intl rankings (usuallly about third). More importantly, the fact that Canada is seen as one of the world's most successful societies is clearly linked to our emphasis on the human dimension ranging from how we deal with diversity to citizenship to community life to financial regulation to legal structures to all aspects of quality of life. All of which is informed by our research.
One more thought about intl comparisons... SSHRC has been a leader in a new initiative called the Intl Forum of Funding Agencies. We held the first event in Sept 2007 and the third was just held in Norway. Our mission is both to share and to better support intl research collaboration. For example, we recently launched Digging into Data, a new call for proposals to be funded by us as well as NEH, NSF and the ESRC. My sense is that scholars in Canada will play a key role in helping advance this initiative to better support digitally enabled research including data and text mining, etc.
Dr. Lewis Miller writes: Nothing new here. I refer you to George Grant's Technology and Empire (1969)......glad someone has taken up this cause......good luck!!!! Big Oil, RIM, Cisco, Microsoft, etc don't support university programs that produce English teachers and philosophy professors.....technique (as Grant called it) will continue to drive science and tech in universities because it pays the bills and builds the new wings and labs. Not saying this is correct...it's just the way it is....
Des Rosiers writes: I'd like to just comment here that, in her remarks this morning in one of our Research in Society Lecture, Justice Abella referred to the impoverishment that we suffer when we do not know. The difficulty for young researchers to continue to search and to know is what this debate is all about. We need to know more to get out of the financial crisis, to respond to our environmental problems, to a health crisis...
J. D. M. Stewart, Toronto, writes: Are you concerned at all about the emphasis on sciences at the high school level at the expense of the humanities which are clearly taking a back seat these days?
Des Rosiers writes: I am not sure that we should frame this as a competition : we need to stimulate vocations in sciences and in humanities. We, as a society, need both. Humanities and social sciences are essential to knowing how humans will use, or abuse science... Scientific knowledge is obviously important to know our surroundings...
Gaffield writes: Actually, students are enrolling in our fields in significant numbers. For example, enrollments in History classes has been robust at least partly because students intuitively realize that understandings of the past are key in terms of coming to grips with the present. Similarly, students are so globally engaged these days that they seek to learn about other societies and cultures. The key is to foster talented contributors for all sectors of society and my sense is that students often make the best choices for how they can best take a step forward in a rapidly changing world.
Don from Calgary writes: I had hoped that the experience of 9-11 and the Iraq War had shown the world the essential value of understanding other religions, languages, cultures, and political systems as well as our own. There was a momentary surge in interest after 9-11 as people suddenly wanted to understand why some people seemed so angry. The solution to so many of our world's problems may come through understanding each other. This comes through the research efforts of academics, even when the questions don't seem immediately relevant. Ten years ago who would have thought a research study on (the lack of) women's rights in Afghanistan would be relevant to Canadians? But today that question is pivotal to our involvement in the Afghan war. There a dozens of other examples. The funding of social science research is a small investment towards saving lives and making a more peaceful world.
Varga writes: I was thinking that, it's difficult to tell what the result of a certain direction in research will be (this is true for the hard sciences, as well) - as a funny example, a couple of Scientists have explained mathematically why the 'silly walks' of Monty Python's John Cleese are inefficient. The article continues to explain that this seemingly ridiculous research is potentially useful in biomechanics and robotics - how can we as a society make any judgement calls about what deserves funding (obviously the people on funding bodies make the actual decisions, likely based on some sense of what benefits society)?
Des Rosiers writes: Should we fund what may appear to be silly research? This reminds me of the story of my cousin studying the half eye of one type of the dragonfly that lives in the marshes of St-Jerome - the marshes were closed and the research could not be conducted. No one questioned whether this was serious - we knew that knowledge develops in curious ways, that what is seen in the half eye of a dragonfly may lead to new discovery ... eventually for human eyes, or cancer ... In the humanities and social sciences, it is the same thing - some esoteric research may lead to future discoveries in the world of thought - Some research will face a dead end - others may be breakthrough - the process is the same in social sciences as in the hard sciences: new concepts such as social cohesion may prove helpful, others may not. Studies of some patterns of consumptions may lead to breakthroughs about how to prevent smoking... we do not know in advance.
Varga writes: And why do we need to see hard and social sciences as separate? For instance, studying the biological mechanism of flu viruses is one third the story - the other third is epidemiological studies, and the final third is the social, historical and cultural effects of disease or a particular epidemic.
Gaffield writes: The importance of interdisciplinarity is increasing rapidly since so many topics are inherently social, technological, cultural, scientific, economic, health-related, etc. etc. For this reason, I and my colleagues, Suzanne Fortier (NSERC) and Alain Beaudet (CIHR) are working shoulder-to-shoulder, as we like to say, to enable this changing world of research. We are seeking to combine the strengths of research specialities (from History to Chemistry, etc.) with the strengths of research contextualization or interdisciplinarity. We know that we have to continue facilitating such cross-disciplinary work and still have some unnecessary barriers to tear down but progress is rapid.
Varga writes: It is interesting that our own (admittedly small and non-scientific) poll shows support for the social sciences by our readers.
But now, unfortunately, we've run out of time. Thank you to readers for your questions and comments, and thanks very much to our guests for your time today. Any last thoughts for our readers?
Gaffield writes: It has been such a privilege to take part in this dialogue and please continue sending us your thoughts, ideas, questions, etc. Please visit our website and we look forward to continuing to help Canada and the world through research and research training about who we are, where we have been and where we can go in the 21st century!
Des Rosiers writes: Thank you very much for this forum and for all your questions! I invite you to send your other questions to the Federation about this story, or visit our website. Merci!
