Advertisement

Effects of New Governance on Research in the Humanities – The Example of Medieval History

  • Barbara M. Kehm
  • Liudvika Leiðytë
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 32)

Abstract

The first section in the chapter presents the main lines of the discussion on the role of the humanities in the current research landscape and discusses the common assumptions which claim that new governance approaches put research in the humanities at a disadvantage and that they lead to their gradual reduction or cut back. The second section draws on longitudinal statistical data to verify whether the quota of external research funds in the humanities has decreased and whether the number of research posts was reduced. This analysis is conducted comparatively for four countries (D, A, NL, UK). As a case study of a specific subject within the humanities, the third section presents findings from interviews with researchers in medieval history. The interviews were conducted in the four countries mentioned above and focused on the question whether and how far new university management/governance approaches within universities affect the actual research activities of individual historians and how the researchers perceive the changes in their institutional environment. The concluding section discusses whether university management can really determine research activities in a top-down manner, which strategies of avoidance or adaptation researchers possibly develop and if perhaps supranational (EU) research policies and rationales play a role for the researchers’ strategies.

Keywords

Research Output External Funding Problem Choice Institutional Management German Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. AHRB – Arts and Humanities Research Board. (2002). Annual Report 2001/02. Bristol: AHRB.Google Scholar
  2. AHRC – Arts and Humanities Research Council. (2007). Annual Report 2006/07. Bristol: AHRC.Google Scholar
  3. DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (1998). Jahresbericht 1998. Bonn: Lemmens Medien GmbH.Google Scholar
  4. DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2002). Jahresbericht 2002. Bonn: Lemmens Medien GmbH.Google Scholar
  5. DFG – Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2006). Jahresbericht 2006. Bonn: Lemmens Medien GmbH.Google Scholar
  6. Daxner, M. (1986). Die Rettung der Geisteswissenschaften durch die Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz. In D. Daxner, B.M. Kehm (Eds.), Hochschulen auf dem rechten Weg (pp. 99–112). Bochum: Germinal.Google Scholar
  7. FWF – Fond zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung. (2000). Jahresbericht 2000. Vienna: FWF.Google Scholar
  8. FWF – Fond zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung. (2003). Jahresbericht 2003. Vienna: FWF.Google Scholar
  9. FWF – Fond zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung. (2005). FWF Statistik 2005. Vienna: FWF.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Limoges, C. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Goetz, H.-W., Jarnut, J. (2003). Mediävistik im 21. Jahrhundert. München: W. Fink.Google Scholar
  12. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (1996). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1994/95. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  13. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (1997). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1995/96. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  14. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (1998). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1996/97. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  15. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (1999). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1997/98. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  16. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2000). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1998/99. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  17. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2001). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 1999/2000. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  18. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2002). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2000/01. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  19. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2003). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2001/02. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  20. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2005). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2003/04. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  21. HESA – Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2007). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2005/06. Cheltenham: HESA.Google Scholar
  22. Harley, S., Muller-Camen, M., Collin, A. (2004). From Academic Communities to Managed Organisations: The Implications for Academic Careers in UK and German Universities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London, Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  24. Jansen, D. (Ed.). (2007). New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kehm, B.M., Lanzendorf, U. (Eds.). (2006). Reforming University Governance – Changing Conditions for Research in Four European Countries. Bonn: Lemmens.Google Scholar
  26. Kehm, B.M., Lanzendorf, U. (2007). Impacts of University Management on Academic Work: Reform Experiences in Austria and Germany. Management Revue, 18(2), 153–173.Google Scholar
  27. Keisinger, F., Seischab, S. (Eds.). (2003). Wozu Geisteswissenschaften? Kontroverse Argumente für eine überfällige Debatte. Frankfurt/M, New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  28. Lanzendorf, U. (2008). Technik über alles – Ist eine ausgewogene Forschung noch möglich? In R. Herwig, J. Uhlig, J. Küstner (Eds.), Wissen als Begleiter!? Das Individuum als lebenslanger Lerner. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Leiðytë, L. (2007). University Governance and Academic Research. Case Studies of Research Units in Dutch and English Universities. Enschede: CHEPS.Google Scholar
  30. Malinowski, B. (Ed.). (2006). Im Gespräch: Probleme und Perspektiven der Geisteswissenschaften. München: Vögel.Google Scholar
  31. Meier, F., Schimank, U. (2004). Neue Steuerungsmuster an den Universitäten: Mögliche Folgen für die geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung. In D. Kimmich, A. Thumfart (Eds.), Universität ohne Zukunft? (pp. 97–123). Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  32. NWO – Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2002). Financieel Jaarverslag 2002. The Hague: NWO.Google Scholar
  33. NWO – Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2003). Financieel Jaarverslag 2003. The Hague: NWO.Google Scholar
  34. NWO – Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2004). Financieel Jaarverslag 2004. The Hague: NWO.Google Scholar
  35. NWO – Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2005). NOW Annual Report 2005. The Hague: NWO.Google Scholar
  36. NWO – Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. (2006). NOW Annual Report 2006. The Hague: NWO.Google Scholar
  37. Statistik Austria. (1998). Erhebung über Forschung und experimentelle Entwicklung 1998. http://www.statistik.at. Accessed 13 May 2009.
  38. Statistik Austria. (2004). Erhebung über Forschung und experimentelle Entwicklung 2004. http://www.statistik.at. Accessed 13 May 2009.
  39. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (1997). Personal an Hochschulen. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.4. 1997. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland.Google Scholar
  40. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2006). Personal an Hochschulen. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.4. 2006. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland.Google Scholar
  41. VSNU. (2008). Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs PersoneelsInformatie – WOPI 1999–2006. http://www.vsnu.nl/Universiteiten/Feiten-Cijfers/Personeel.htm. Accessed 13 May 2008.
  42. Wainwright, M. (2005). Hoodies from the Past Prove that Teenage Angst is Nothing New. The Guardian, 7 June 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations