ASO project
The humanities and social sciences on the periphery: sciences or technocratic instruments?
SLOVENIA
AGENCY OF RESEARCH COMPETITION 2005
THE HUMANITIES
First impressions
Rastko Močnik
A. RESULTS
1.
Out of the 49 applications admitted to the selection process:
2 belong to natural sciences (7, 29)
( classification of sciences – of the applying inst.
)
2 to physical geography (6, 20) ( classif. of sci.
)
1 to zoo-achaeology (2) ( classification )
1 to physical anthropology – archaeol. (14) ( class.
)
1 to social geography (13) ( class.
)
1 to law (5) ( against classification !)
6 to social sciences (8, 21, 47, 35, 37, 45) ( against
class. – classif. of the applying institution?
)
Sum-total non-humanities : 14 evaluated applications, or: 28,57%
2.
Among the 20 selected projects: 8 do not belong to the humanities, or: 40%
(2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 20)
The part of the non-humanities projects accepted is almost the double of the part of those submitted. Non-humanities projects have a better chance to be accepted at the humanities competition than the properly humanities projects.
Of the 8:
5 are included due to the classification of sciences:
1 zoo-archaeology (2)
1 physical anthropology – archaeology (14)
1 social geography (13)
2 physical geography (6, 20)
1 is included due to the classification of the applying institution:
1 natural sciences (7)
2 go against the classification of sciences – the reason of the inclusion
should be investigated:
1 law (5)
1 social sciences (8)
3.
Among the first 10 best evaluated projects (nos. 1 – 9 and 13):
1 belongs to natural sciences (7)
1 to zoo-archaeology (2)
1 to physical geography
1 to social geography (13)
1 to law (5)
1 to social sciences (8)
Sum-total non-humanities among the 10 best-evaluated : 6 projects, or: 60%
1

This confirms the tendency detected above that non-humanities projects have a better chance to win the humanities competition than the properly humanities projects.
4.
Among the 12 selected projects that belong to the humanities in the strict theoretical (and not classificatory) sense:
5 seem to consist of the regular activities of public institutions, not being a project in a strict sense: inventory of a collection-storage (1, 2), digitalisation of an archive (4,
18), publication of canonical works (16) or of representative works of cultural heritage (1);
1 (+1?) seems a commercial project (terminological vocabulary of tourism,
11; perhaps 1) – ( Note.
Tourism is not explicitly classified in the classification-table);
4 treat exotic or marginal subjects or topics that would make sense within a larger research activity if there were one (9, 10, 12, 15);
2 projects in philosophy are noteworthy for their indeterminacy (17, postulates of contemporary law and the contemporary understanding of religion) or naïve transitology (19, to fill-in the void left by the demise of dialectical materialism).
11 of the 12 selected properly humanities projects ( 91,67% ) seem prima vista problematic; some for more than one reason (1, 11).
The remaining one is a rather plain project of political historiography – "relations among
Serbia and Slovenia, 1918-1941". (Should be checked for retroactive illusion: Serbia and
Slovenia did not exist as political, neither as administrative units during the investigated period; the nature of the cultural autonomy of "Slovenia" is to be determined, "Serbia" did not have even this.)
5.
Evaluation results vs . final selection.
This discrepancy is allowed and regulated by the § 4-a of "The orientations of the Ministry … for 2005". However, the provision rules that, under certain conditions (which discriminate against newly constituted research teams and favour academic mandarins), projects eliminated in the first phase, can be included in the second phase – but does not envisage that previously included (=accepted) projects might be excluded within this process. This is what seems to have happened in the 2005 humanities competition. Note : the text of the
Ministry uses an a-personal mode and does not specify who is mandated to select which of the previously rejected applications are to be re-introduced into the competition. Literal translation of the text: "Are added some projects that were excluded in the previous phase, if the proposed project leaders come from the best evaluated programme teams for the year
2004 [an evaluation done by the Agency of research and yielding paradoxical results – cummulation of administrative, hierarchical, status etc. merits] and if the references of the proponent confirm his [sic!] high above-average exceptionality." ("Orientations of the Ministry for high education, science and technology … 2005", § 4-a, second alinea, p. 2.)
The following is the situation at the demarcation line between the accepted and the rejected applications:
rank evaluation project
ACCEPTED:
19 44 political philosophy, fill-in the void after
dialectical materialism
20 43 Carstic phenomena, description and
classification
REJECTED:
2

21 47 environmental communities, activities
of the civil soc. in environmental matters
22 44 contemporary Slovene tragedy
23 43 dual in Slovene
The rejected project now ranked 21 and evaluated with 47 points is situated on the position
14
– 15 according to the evaluation. It is the only project submitted that claims co-financing by an industrial company.
B. PROPOSITIONS
"Orientations of the Ministry of higher education, science and technology for the attribution of budget funds for research priorities in the year 2005" opened a new financing opportunity for
"thematic, applied and post-doctoral research projects". Thematic projects were further defined as "oriented basic and applied research projects on a determined thema. The priority of thematic and post-doctoral projects are appli ed projects" ("Orientations…", 1). It should be noted that basic research was only admitted under the condition of being "thematic", i.e., only if fitting the themata determined by the Ministry (see below). The basic research was further marginalised by the provision that within the only category including basic research, applied projects were a priority.
Note . The logic of the "Orientations …" (and the competition that was enacting them) is remarkable.
It first distributes the field of research into two categories: production of knowledge and production-reproduction of scientific personnel; at a second stage, it divides production of knowledge into thematic and applied research: production of knowledge vs. reproduction of scientific personnel
thematic vs. applied
At a third stage, thematic research is defined as oriented basic and applied research. And its
"orientation" means that it fits into one (or several) "themata" determined by the Ministry. production of knowledge vs. reproduction of scientific personnel
thematic vs. applied
basic vs. applied
Finally, within the "thematic" and post-doctoral research , priority is given to applied research.
This means that the above schematisation should be abandoned and replaced by a different one. This new scheme starts from the opposition between " autonomous " and
" heteronomous " research. However, this opposition is posited only to exclude the autonomous research from the further development of the scheme. The only autonomous research admitted is post-doctoral research, with the important supplementary provision that even there, applied research is a priority (specifically on post-doctoral research, see below).
3

All other research is heteronomous: either responding to the needs of various social and economic agents (corporations etc.) or fitting into the "themata" fixed by the Ministry. Within the "themata" determined by the government, applied research again is a priority. The distinction that really organises the scheme is the distinction between two types of heteronomy – the one fed by the interests of private or "civil society" agents (corporations, companies, enterprises etc.) and the other commanded by raison d'Etat . The underlying logic of the funding scheme of the Ministry is determined by two types of diversion of public funds: into the domain of private capital and into the interest-sphere of the actual government-ruling coalition . autonomous research vs. heteronomous research
heteronomy by heteronomy by
private agents State applied research "thematic" research
post-doctoral; priority : applied applied basic
The red triangle marks the central area of "applied research"; basic research only figures marginally. It can only be autonomous as post-doctoral research. As research sans phrase , it cannot be autonomous; specifically, it should be commanded by the raison d'Etat type of heteronomy.
Further, the raison d'Etat type of heteronomy was indirectly determined by specialists coming from the economic sphere, i.e., from the domain of (private) capital. The "themata […] were determined by the ministry on the basis of the premises [ izhodišča : orientations] proposed by the group for priorities, composed of the chiefs of development of successful Slovene enterprises" ( "Orientations …", § 3, p. 1). There are not two types of heteronomy, one proceeding from the "civil society" and the other from the State. There is only one source of heteronomy : although it certainly is situated within the "civil society", it only embraces a limited area within it, the economic sphere – more precisely, "successful Slovene enterprises". The exclusive source of heteronomous determination of research is the capital: this mediation either acts directly, and yields "!applied" research; or it operates indirectly, through the filter of the State, specifically, re-articulated by the Ministry of higher education, science and technology.
The scheme of the logic of the competition should accordingly be re-drawn as follows:
4

autonomous research vs . heteronomous research
heteronomy by
private agents
direct State mediated applied research "thematic" research
post-doctoral; priority : applied applied basic
The best niche for basic research seems the post-doctoral research. However, it is meant as reproduction of personnel, with a strong institutional determination. Each applicant should have a mentor , and the regular way to apply is through a research institution (higher education included) – the mentor's institution . The applicant "should be employed by the
"applying organisation [sic!] or he [sic!] should be employed before the signing of the contract of the execution of the project" (text of the "Public competition … 2005", 4.4.3., in fine ).
Researches without strong connections in research institutions seem to be severely handicapped by the conditions of the competition.
The institutional determination is the same for other types of applications (thematic and applied research). There, "contracts of employment for a determined period (the period of the execution of the project) should be contracted before the signing of the contract of the execution of the project" (text of the competition, 4.3.). Unemployed researchers or researches posing as "private researchers" (i.e., those who have a recognised status similar to that of private entrepreneurs) are severely handicapped.
--- The humanities could find their niche in the two/three themata presented under the second priority-complex. In the literal translation of the relevant passage below, the three themata where the humanities could eventually situate themselves are in italics :
§ 3 – b: "For the second priority-complex that comprises research of technologies of the informational society and of [?] investigations in the domain of citizenship and of the management of knowledge-based society, including the development of human resources and of social cohesion and of [?] preservation of the natural and cultural heritage, which [?] have to be connected with informational technologies:
- Productive management
- E-life-style
- Industrial design
- Informational systems connected with the national and [sic!] cultural heritage
- Security
- Democracy and the management of Slovene state "
Note.
Informational science and library science ( bibliotekarstvo ) are classified as social sciences. The last thema falls under politology, the second under sociology – both social sciences. Under a stricter interpretation, there is no "thema" for the humanities in the
5

priorities of the ministry . – However, the break-down of the available funds (118 FTE) done by the Ministry of higher education, science and technology ("Orientations …", 1), favoured the humanities to the detriment of social sciences:
- social sciences: 11 FTE
- the humanities: 17 FTE
There is an obvious contradiction between the break-down, favouring the humanities, and the themata, where the humanities stricto sensu do not appear.
--- Digitalisation of archives and inventory of collections/storages (1, 2, 4, 14, 18), constitution of a data-basis (13) propose to carry out the 4. "thema" "Informational systems connected with the heritage". The attempt of the ministry to direct research towards "useful" activities resulted in the institutions presenting as "projects" what should be their regular infrastructural activities. - Among the 20 selected projects, 6 (30%) seem to belong to this group.
--- Publication of canonical works (16) or of representative works of cultural heritage (1) may laterally involve research, but more likely completes it as "application". One possible explanation is that the projects conceal basic research under the "useful" façade to satisfy the "thema"-condition. The other explanation is that they present as a research project what actually is not one.
Among the 20 selected projects, 8 (40%) should be further investigated as to their proper nature of "research projects".
Note . The thematic constraints imposed by the ministry:
- block the basic research lead by the immanent and autonomous scientific logic;
- seem to produce effets pervers .
Note . Classification of "research knowledges, areas and sub-areas [ Raziskovalne vede, področja in podpodročja ]" is done by the Agency of Research and is highly debatable. To a large extent, it seems to reflect the existing institutional arrangements that are complex, uneven and heterogeneous historical outcomes of secular processes of institutionalisation, transformation of paradigms, political decisions, financial compromises etc. etc.
Questions :
- How can competent selection be secured under these conditions: the first stage of evaluation is performed by 3 evaluators from within the area (i.e., the humanities), the next stages by the area-coordinator and other organs of the Agency that are structured according to the classification.
- The "19 th century paradigm" here works against the model proposed by the
Gulbenkian commission: it includes physical anthropology and physical geography into the humanities – but simultaneously exacerbates the separation between the nomothetic exact sciences and the idiographic ones.
- In general, the humanities are the practices that in one way or another derive from philology: however, informational science and library science are excluded from the humanities and annexed to social sciences. Prestige of technology and applied mathematics?
– On the other hand, social geography figures among the humanities and not among social sciences.
- The humanities can also be presented as deriving from the trivium of the artes liberales ( grammatica, rhetorica, dialectica ). The liberal arts were taught at the
"philosophical faculty" at the mediaeval universities, they were the universal "first
6

stage" to be mastered before specialisation in one of the three "upper" faculties: why is then theology classified within the humanities? – There are other inconsequent solutions: 5.11: National question. 5.11.01 National question – social sciences aspect. 5.11.02 National question – the humanities aspect. – All under "social sciences".
7