The Publication of the Evaluation Report of the Research Programme ...

Floora Ruokonen, SoCa Coordinator 16 September 2008 Publication Seminar of the Evaluation Report of the Research Programme on Social Capital and Networks of Trust 9 September 2008 REPORT SUMMARY The publication seminar of the evaluation report on the Research Programme on Social Capital and Networks of Trust (SoCa) was opened and chaired by Prof. Marja Järvelä, Chair of the SoCa Programme Steering Committee. The programme of the seminar consisted of comments and discussions on both the evaluation report and the success of the SoCa research programme from a more general point of view. The Evaluation Panel‟s recommendations for the Academy of Finland were commented by Riitta Mustonen, Vice President (Research) of the Academy of Finland. On the recommendation on the funding of Principal Investigators of the projects, on directing more funding to individual projects and on the question of disseminating the results, Mustonen answered that Academy research programmes should be seen as providing only part of the funding and support the research projects need. Other funding agencies as well as institutions where the research is carried out should also take part in funding, organising and supporting projects. At the Academy of Finland, international cooperation in the form of bi- or multilateral research projects is seen as one opportunity of increasing funding to Principle Investigators. It is also the Academy‟s goal to ensure sufficient funding to research programmes. The Steering Committee of a research programme has a key role in planning the coverage of the programme themes. Reino Hjerppe, Standing Expert of the SoCa research programme commented on the general success of the programme. In his view, the programme was successful, although it is too early to draw exact conclusions at this point, due to, for example, lags in international publication processes. He noted that the most lasting impacts of the programme are new researchers and established research networks of social capital. As for the future of the SoCa programme, he suggested that a summary report on the key findings should still be written; that there should be an evaluation of the publication record about two years after the programme completion; that a more structured approach towards the measurement of social capital should be implemented in future research; that the difference between the French and the American traditions in the research of social capital should be made more explicit; and that the relevance of the concept of social capital in different organisational contexts should be further studied. In addition to the comments by Mustonen and Hjerppe, there were also presentations of good research practices created in individual SoCa projects. There was also a lot of active public discussion. The most commented theme in these discussions was international research collaboration. It was noted that SoCa projects seemed to have had less international cooperation than desirable and expected. The main reason for this was believed to be the scarce project funding granted. However, it was also noted that all international cooperation is not shown in SoCa reports. 1 - Programme: see Appendix 1 - Note: Prof. Nolan‟s presentation was cancelled. Presentation of the evaluation results was conveyed to Reino Hjerppe, Standing Expert of the Steering Committee. - Note: the seminar language was Finnish. REPORT Opening words by Prof. Marja Järvelä, Chair of the Steering Committee - Prof. Järvelä opened the seminar and announced a change in its programme due to the cancellation of Prof. Nolan‟s attendance. - She summarised the initiatives that first led to the different stages of planning and, thereafter, to the launch of the research programme. - She also commented on some reservations, expressed unofficially by Evaluation Panel members, concerning the ambitions and multifaceted setting of the programme objectives. She pointed out that in a small country like Finland research programmes have to be framed rather loosely, as focusing on very specialised areas of research restricts the number of potential applicants too much. Riitta Mustonen, Vice President (Research), Academy of Finland: What Should the Academy of Finland Learn from the Evaluation Report? Mustonen noted that the SoCa programme has been an average-size programme for the Academy. In accordance with the strategy of the Academy of Finland, new programmes tend to be somewhat bigger. She praised the Evaluation Report on the programme as very interesting and clearly written. She also noted that the updating of the research programme strategy is underway at the Academy of Finland, and all recommendations for improvements of the strategy are welcome. A proof of this was that Jaana Roos and Sirpa Nuotio, both members of the strategy team, were present in the seminar. Mustonen presented the definition, objectives and planning process of Academy of Finland research programmes. She continued to commenting on the following recommendations of the Evaluation Panel: 1 Funding of Principal Investigators of research projects - Mustonen noted that the research communities and institutions where the research is carried out should aim at keeping the structure of the projects strong and varied and at developing project management to the effect that work distribution within the project is clear. - On the part of the Academy of Finland, increased international cooperation in the form of joint funding of bi- or multilateral research projects might present some solutions to the question of the funding of Principal Investigators. The Academy is also heading towards a „total cost model‟ that takes into account all direct and indirect costs of research projects. There will also be more focus on postdoctoral funding. 2 Funding of research projects - Mustonen noted that research programme funding for the projects is „network funding‟, which means that the institution at which the research is carried out should also participate in efforts to fund the projects adequately. - - 2 - It is also the goal of the Academy to make sure that the volume of research programmes is sufficient. The Programme Steering Committee sees to that the funding is reasonable for each project with respect to the coverage of the programme themes. 3 Dissemination of results - Mustonen stressed that the dissemination of the results of research programmes is a joint effort of researchers, universities, funding agencies and end-users of results. - As for the Academy, the Steering Committee and the Programme Manager have key roles in stimulating interaction and dialogue between researchers and other stakeholders. Moreover, the Academy‟s new Research Programme Strategy shall emphasise the importance of long-term effectiveness of research in the Academy‟s research programmes. 4 Duration of research programmes - The duration of research programmes has been extended to normally four years instead of three years. Also, previous programmes rarely had two four-year terms. - Currently, the duration of research programmes is increasing through several international calls for proposals. „After-care‟ efforts (Pirjo Hiidenmaa talked about these later in the seminar) of Research Councils and other funding agencies are also welcome. 5 Reporting and accountability of research projects 6 Evaluation of research programme - Mustonen admitted that the concept of research programme evaluation needs to be further developed. In future, research programmes will be evaluated 1–3 years after project completion. More attention will be paid to identifying long-term impacts and effectiveness of research. - At the end of her presentation, Mustonen posed a number of questions to all seminar participants. These concerned the timing and identification of topical research programme themes, definition of programme-level objectives as well as stakeholder participation and user engagement. After Mustonen‟s presentation, Prof. Marja Järvelä posed the question of whether there should be different instruments for the evaluation of the scientific results of a research programme, on the one hand, and for the evaluation of the programme‟s societal impact, on the other hand. Mustonen answered that the Academy has typically focused on scientific results but the questions of impact are increasingly emphasised. There is a joint venture (called SIGHT) of the Academy and Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation that is expected to produce indicators of impact. This project is, however, at an initial stage. In any case, it is clear that it is very difficult to measure a programme‟s impact on society. - Reino Hjerppe, Standing Expert of the Steering Committee: Did We Get What We Asked for? The Steering Committee’s Comment on the Report - Reino Hjerppe took over Prof. Nolan‟s task of summarising the added value of the research programme. According to the Evaluation Report, these are: 1 Dissemination - Useful dissemination and discussion of research methods was achieved through researcher meetings and seminars. 2 Interdisciplinarity 3 - The concept of social capital has been instrumental in enhanced awareness of the need for interdisciplinary approaches to the themes and problems that have been the object of study. 3 Research capacity - Extremely positive effects for young researchers participating in a wider programme around central theoretical and methodological debate. 4 Long-term effects - Some members of the group of young researchers are expected to become future leaders in academic and policy fields. - They will be cognizant of issues pertaining to social capital and trust. 5 Promotion of research networks - The programme facilitated the establishment of networks of senior scholars and created new networks for junior researchers. 6 New conceptual tools for research - For many Principal Investigators the programme increased their awareness of a significant set of conceptual tools that could be fruitfully put into use in the analysis of the problems that constituted their established and emerging research agendas. - After summarising the view on added value of the research programme, as presented in the Evaluation Report, Hjerppe presented his own opinion of the programme in the capacity of a standing expert of the Steering Committee. Hjerppe noted that one of the aims of the programme was to promote research on social capital with a view to, for example, better understanding the concept and its applications. Other aims were to advance international cooperation and receive results based on international comparisons. The aims were set because of the importance of the concept of social capital. It integrates different fields of the social sciences and it is also relevant to economics, as the importance of institutions in economics is increasingly accepted. Thus, it also has relevance to the efforts to create a unified theory of economics. The concept has been criticised, for example, by economists, for „putting too many things in one box‟. Some economists have not accepted it because of measurement problems. However, the same criticism applies to the concepts of „institutions‟ and „culture‟. In the final analysis, the importance of the concept is widely recognised, but we still have problems with its definition and measurement. Hjerppe thinks that the projects were usually able to apply the concept successfully. It can be asked, however, whether they used the same conceptual framework: he believes that in the French tradition (Bourdieu), the concept is used differently than in the American (Putnam) concept. This has led to some conceptual mix-ups within the programme. Another critical observation about the programme is its lack of economists. On possible applications of the programme‟s results, Hjerppe noted that informal discussions have revealed that some projects were able to advance ideas on how to do that. One example is the discussion on how to arrange social programmes for the youth. It would still be a good idea to have a report by the Principal Investigators on the application of results. As for the international cooperation of the programme, there was, according to Hjerppe, less cooperation than expected. This, he suspects, is due to insufficient funding. Nevertheless, based on the information gained from the SoCa seminars, there was also some very successful international cooperation. Some bases for future cooperation might also be strengthened, which may be fruitful in future. - - - - - 4 - - The question on what in the end was gained from the programme Hjerppe answered that in general the programme appears as successful. It is, however, difficult to say anything definitive yet, as the publication process is not yet completed due to lags in the publication process. Moreover, there is no compact report on or summary of the key findings of the programme. The most long-term and lasting consequences of the programme are new researchers in the field of social capital and new research networks. Hjerppe suggested that the following should still be done: - A summary report of key findings - An evaluation of the publication record about two years after the completion of the programme - In future research, a more structured approach should be implemented towards the measurement of social capital. - The difference between the French and the American approach to social capital should be made more explicit. - The relevance and specificity of the concept in different organisational structures should be explored. Discussion at end of part I of the seminar - The discussion at this point was active and mainly concerned the international cooperation dimension of the evaluation of the programme. - For instance, the following comments were expressed on this topic: Prof. Jari Ojala (University of Jyväskylä): It is clear that if funding is cut, the first the projects cut down are travel expenses. In programmes such as SoCa, FiDiPro-type funding might work very well. It would enable a few international top researchers on the topic to come to Finland to carry out their research and share their expertise. Päivi Messo-Lindén (Academy of Finland): A total of 137 months were spent abroad by SoCa researchers in the course of the programme. More emphasis has placed on international cooperation in Academy programme planning after the launch of the SoCa programme. Prof. Marja Järvelä (University of Jyväskylä, Chair of the Steering Committee): There seems to be agreement that there was too little international cooperation within the programme, and especially too few international experts coming to Finland. Reino Hjerppe (Standing Expert of the Steering Committee): There was not much emphasis on international cooperation at the time of programme planning. In Sweden, the strategy of inviting international top researchers to Sweden is much used. But how should we motivate researchers to come to Finland? Prof. Riitta Hjerppe (University of Helsinki): International cooperation is not necessarily shown in project reporting. If travel costs are cut down in projects, funding for them comes from other sources and is not reported in the final reports to the Academy. Pertti Jokivuori (Programme Coordinator): Based on his visits to SoCa projects, the projects had a considerable amount of international cooperation. The quality of research in the programme was very high, and all high-quality research is today international. Prof. Marja Järvelä (University of Jyväskylä, Chair of the Steering Committee): Yet, cooperation should have taken one step further: in addition to taking part in and organising international conferences, projects should have cooperation that leads to joint articles and researcher mobility. - - - - - 5 - Riitta Mustonen (Academy of Finland, Vice President, Research): A prerequisite for attracting international experts to Finland is active participation in international research networks. The fact that the international dimension is emphasised by the Academy does not mean that internationality is of intrinsic value in itself and should therefore be „glued on‟ to all research. Rather, it should be built in all research at a structural level. That is why the Academy still reminds of its importance. - Comments not pertaining to the internationality aspect of research: - Jyrki Suomala (Laurea University of Applied Sciences): One suggested way of measuring the innovativeness of a company is to see how many of its products are such that they were unknown three years earlier. Perhaps this could also be a way of measuring the effectiveness of research. What is more, a key result of research on innovativeness is that innovations are born in the heads of individuals. The importance of institutions is that they provide opportunities for realising these innovations. Kari Lilja (Helsinki School of Economics). In Lilja‟s view, a research programme is more an instrument of funding than a research community, since there are several sources of funding of research and it is difficult to say which part of the research work is funded specifically through SoCa. However, the Academy of Finland‟s research programmes do have a great impact on activating the Finnish research community. How about the risk that moving to interdisciplinary research areas such as SoCa poses to researchers? The more radically interdisciplinary the research, the more carefully planned should the programme be. - Part II: Successful Research Practices and Future Research Based on SoCa - Pertti Jokivuori (Programme Coordinator, University of Jyväskylä): Key Events and Results of the SoCa programme - Jokivuori first summarised the aims, structure, size and funding of the SoCa programme. - He then listed the most important events of the programme: - 1 Mar 2004: Opening seminar - 28 Oct. 2004: A joint conference of SoCa, LIIKE and LEARN research programmes on the topic of Sosiaaliset innovaatiot työelämän muutoksissa [Social Innovations in the Changing Work Life] - 22 Nov 2004: A joint seminar with Kela on the topic Hyvinvointivaltio, terveys ja sosiaalinen pääoma [Welfare State, Health, and Social Capital] - 14–15 Jan 2005: A Finnish-French seminar on Social Capital - 21–22 Mar 2005: A congress on Alueellinen hyvinvointi ja sosiaalinen pääoma [Regional Welfare and Social Capital] - 12 Jun 2007: A joint seminar of SoCA, Liike2 and VALTA (Academy of Finland research programmes) Yritysten yhteiskuntavastuu [The Social Responsiblity of Business Enterprises] - 18–20 Sep 2007: International Congress on Social Capital and Networks of Trust (ISOCA 2007) - A total of ten method training events were organised during the SoCa programme. - According to Jokivuori, from the point of view of the SoCa coordinator, four years seemed an adequate duration for the programme. The lag in international publications is partly due to the fact that the data are often first gathered and reported on in Finnish. International publications are 6 written at a later stage. In the end, it will be the „international science market‟ that will choose the lasting results of the programme. - As an example of the key results of the SoCa programme, Jokivuori took up the article by Lehtonen, H. & Kääriäinen, J., (2005) “Hyvinvointivaltiot ja sosiaalisen pääoman ulottuvuudet – vertaileva tutkimus 21 maasta” [Welfare State and the Dimensions of Social Capital], in Jokivuori P. (ed.) Sosiaalisen pääoman kentät [The Fields of Social Capital], Minerva kustannus, Jyväskylä. - The study reported in the article investigated the existence of social capital in 21 countries, which were grouped into five welfare regimes. Social capital was studied along four dimensions that were bonding and bridging social capital, generalised trust and informal social support. The hypothesis was that if there is a connection between social capital and the welfare state, it should become apparent if social capital is studied in different welfare states that have different kind of social security. The result of the study was that the welfare state can have a negative effect on some forms of social capital, no effect on some forms of it, and apparently it has a positive effect on some forms of it. The countries studied were divided into three groups with respect to the main dimensions of social capital, that is, bonding and bridging social capital. These were those that have only little of both, those that have much bonding but little bridging social capital and those that have much bridging but little bonding social capital. The most developed welfare states were mostly in the latter group. In addition, high levels of trust and informal social support were typical to them. - Jokivuori noted that the results of this study were so clear and conclusive that, in fact, it should end many of the debates concerning the nature and conditions of social capital. Prof. Helene Helve (University of Helsinki/University of Kuopio): Can There Be a Career without a Network? Research Programmes and Principal Investigators as Supports to Young Researchers - Prof. Helve discussed the question of how to support young researchers in research programmes by using as an example the BeSS project (Behind the Scenes of Society), in which she was the Principal Investigator. With the funding from the Academy of Finland, four doctoral students – one male and three females (a total of 69 months) were funded. During the project, four children were born to doctoral students, so there were a number of maternity and paternity leaves. The project also applied for – and received – additional funding. - According to Helve, key questions in supporting researchers are: 1 How to advance a researcher‟s career at an early stage? 2 How different forms of funding can affect the career of a researcher? 3 How could a career in research be made more attractive? 4 How to combine a career and a family? 5 How to establish international contacts and networks? - Helve stressed the importance of advance planning: 1 An international scientific steering group to projects. In the case of BeSS, the steering group had a major influence, since the steering group members, who were top researchers in their fields, brought both methodological approaches and their own networks with them. 2 Seminars and reading groups of projects 3 Seminars with other research groups 4 Other scientific contacts, universities and research institutes 5 Exchange between senior and junior researchers. For instance, methodological and ethical questions, scientific writing and publishing, and the writing and presenting of conference papers. - Problems pertaining to the position of Principal Investigators: 7 -PIs‟ own temporary post might end during the project, and leave them without funding. Supervising junior researchers and carrying out a project is rewarding but strenuous voluntary work, if one has to find one‟s own funding from other sources outside the research project. - The profits of the project for junior researchers were: 1 There has been additional funding 2 Studies abroad have increased the chances for an international career 3 International seminars have led to research collaboration and joint publications 4 Dissemination of results has been easier within a project 5 National and international cooperation continues 6 Friendships within the research group – social capital - Challenges: 1 Interdiciplinarity – different conceptual and methodological frameworks 2 A project that constitutes one body instead, for example, four separate dissertations 3 Young researchers: to establish a family and to achieve project objectives within the projected time frame. - Problems faced by researchers of the project: due to gender or scientific field? 1 Scattered and scarce funding 2 Temporary work positions 3 Competition: the quality of research 4 Additional resources are needed for the establishment of networks and international cooperation 5 Inflexibility in cooperation between universities 6 The difficult position of researchers at university departments – facilities, inflexible policies. Prof. Mika Kivimäki (University of Helsinki): Visible Research: Why, for example, BBC, Reuters, and The New York Times Reported on Our Results? - Prof. Kivimäki answered the question with four points. The media‟s interest in his project was due to: 1 A large collection of data - Prof. Kivimäki‟s project had the largest collection of data in the field of health research 2 Networking with top authorities in the field - The project had close cooperation with top authorities, both in sharing data and developing instruments for measuring social capital. 3 Topics that have a maximum societal impact - The project chose to study the impact of social capital on unipolar depressive disorders and ischaemic heart diseases, which are estimated to be the two leading causes of DALY, that is, disability adjusted life years, namely, years of life lost by death, disease or disability in the year 2030. 4 Publishing in maximum impact journals - The project aimed at publishing in as high-impact journals as possible. Even if an article is not accepted for publication in such a journal, the feedback tends to be of a very high quality. Also, when an article is published in a high-impact journal, it is also more likely to be noticed by the media, since the media follows these journals and reports on results published in them. 8 - Jokivuori added to Kivimäki‟s list a fifth key condition of visible research, that is, validated indicators. - After Kivimäki‟s comments, for example, the following questions and comments were discussed: - Prof. Marja Korvajärvi: How important are international comparisons? Can one afford to develop one‟s own indicators? High-impact journals have very strict limitations concerning the methods and data used. - Prof. Päivi Korvajärvi (University of Tampere) asked how the process of several writers of an article works in practice? - Prof. Kivimäki answered that in the case of his project, the author first on the author list is the one who writes the first draft of a paper. After that, all other writers comment on it. The aim is to maximise the amount of writers because of synergy benefits. Later, Kivimäki noted that they usually also have a few researchers dealing with qualitative methods involved in the process. Their impact is often on formulating research hypothesis. - Tuomas Parkkari (Academy of Finland): What has been the societal impact of the study? Has Kivimäki, for example, served as an advisor in policy planning? o Prof. Kivimäki answered that part of the impact has been direct so that the community sector from which the data (concerning the health of community workers) have been gathered has had direct access to the data. Prof. Päivi Korvajärvi (University of Tampere): Gender in Research: Case SoCa - Prof. Korvajärvi‟s comment concerned the question of gender as part of research on social capital and as part of the planning of research programmes. - She noted that although the Programme Memorandum regarding the content of SoCa is at surface rather gender-neutral, there are several points where gender is potentially involved. For example, questions of equality and justice, as well as the close connection of the concept of social capital to political, societal and cultural structures of power are such points. - The gender aspect has been rather neglected in research on social capital. When gender is acknowledged, it is usually treated either as an empirical variable or a theoretical entity. In the first case, gender is understood as a division of human beings into men and women. The interest is in how men and women do, act, engage in, commit to etc. differently, and how their evaluations and representations of things differ. In the second case, the relationship between gender, social capital and trust is studied from the perspective of what kinds of assumptions relating to knowledge the theories of social capital involve. It has been suggested that these assumptions do not leave much space for the study of gender. Theories of social capital have also been criticised as presenting a romanticised conception of women, even to the extent that it is useless to engage in discussion on social capital from a gender perspective. Korvajärvi noted that especially at the beginning of the programme the two perspectives on gender and social capital did not much coincide. - Korvajärvi‟s own project Gendered Work Communities, Conflicts and Social Capital focused on studying how gender producing practices at work enhance or prevent trust relationships, what kind of social capital enhances or prevents gendered conflicts and decisions, and which aspects of social capital and trust support the commitment to work in the case of men and women. Korvajärvi sees the relationships between gender, social capital and trust as processes and ongoing practices. This perspective encompasses the idea that women can act in culturally masculine ways and men in feminine ways depending on, for example, their tasks in working life. From this perspective, men, too, have a gender and masculinities are also an interesting topic of study. 9 - - According to Korvajärvi, there were possibilities of integrating the gender perspective into the SoCa programme but these were not fully realised. This is because a research programme can support projects only on a rather general level. She also noted that her own project could have worked harder in bringing forth the gender aspect and in creating a network for studying it. The issue of incorporating gender into research has to be seen in a wider context than just one research programme. It is a structural question concerning all research programmes. According to Korvajärvi, it is absolute imperative that gender is integrated into the content of research programmes, as was done when the projects to be funded within SoCa were selected. She suggested that it be considered that the Academy of Finland apply an explicit gender mainstream from the initial stages of programmes. This would make programmes more attractive to researchers interested in gender questions. Korvajärvi believes that it would also promote gender equality within the academic community. Prof. Jari Ojala (University of Jyväskylä), The Challenges and Benefits of an Interdisciplinary Research Group - Prof. Ojala discussed the roles history research can have within interdisciplinary research projects. Then he surveyed challenges and benefits pertaining to interdisciplinary projects. - In an interdisciplinary research group history can, according to Ojala, act as a „helper‟or it can be in the „middle‟ or it can „be a friend‟. In the first case, it provides the group with examples and material without much additional interaction. In the second case, it deals with the cases that are most interesting from its own point of view, and is perhaps not so interested in understanding other disciplines. In the third case, different disciplines are equal discussion partners. The specific contribution of historians in interdisciplinary projects has to do with their understanding of history and with conceptual clarifications. Lately, there has been a „historic turn‟ in, for example, organisational research. Here, the impact of history has been analysed as either „supplementarist‟, „integrationist‟, or „reorientationist‟ (Üskiden & Kieser 2004). - Challenges pertaining to a interdisciplinary research project include: - Not so much what is studied but how it is studied - Concepts, methods, theories, hypothesis… - Fear of cooperation - Academic division of labour is rational (assumption) - The structures of science - Cultural and psychological limitations - Publications and the general public - Benefits of an interdisciplinary project include: - From individual research to a group process - Multiple perspectives on a phenomenon – new perspectives on an increasingly complex world. - Pirjo Hiidenmaa (Director, Culture and Society Research Unit, Academy of Finland), How Can the Academy of Finland Support Research Based on the SoCa programme? On Research Programmes and Strategies - Hiidenmaa began by noting the three basic characteristics of Academy funding: it is temporary, insufficient and highly competed. Thus, it should be viewed as a runway for research projects, not their only plan for funding. - Projects to be funded are selected on the basis of competition and quality, and science policies also have their impact. No funding is granted without an application process. 10 - Forms of funding relevant to the continuation of research done in the SoCa programme include: - New research programmes: Launching of new research programme is a slow process that takes approximately four years. There is an abundance of initiatives for programmes, and not all of them can be realised. However, there are research programmes that have been initiated when a previous programme has been closed. - Research Councils have their own strategic funds worth 1–4 million euros. The Councils can allocate these funds to smaller projects or programmes related to existing programmes, networks or topical themes. This is a faster and „lighter‟ form of funding. - General research grants: projects can apply for general research grants -Researchers on a more advanced stage in their career can apply for Academy Professorships. Academy Professors carry out their own research plan, supervise the research of their team and provide guidance to junior researchers. - One relevant funding opportunity for some projects based on the SoCa programme is the rotating Minna Canth Academy Professorship, the scope of which is women‟s studies. - Most importantly, one cannot receive Academy funding without applying for it. Seeking for funding is a continuous process. - After Pirjo Hiidenmaa‟s presentation, Prof. Järvelä thanked the speakers and organisers of the seminar as well all participants for active discussion. Discussions were continued in a more informal manner while enjoying the buffet. 11