[t. 1.] 1750-1830 -- [t. 2.] 1831-1864 -- [t. 3.] 1865-1895 -- [t. 4., zesz. 1.-2.] 1896-1918.

The progressive introduction of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, has created a true testing ground for public engagement initiatives. Widespread experimentation has taken place with public and stakeholder dialogue and inclusive approaches to research and innovation more generally. Against this backdrop, Social Science and Humanities scholars have started to manifest themselves differently. They have taken on new roles in the public engagement field, including more practical and policy-oriented ones that seek to actively open the R&I system to wider public scrutiny. (...) With public engagement gaining prominence, there has been a call for increased reflexivity among SSH scholars about their role in this field. In this paper, we study our own roles and stakes as SSH scholars in a European-funded public engagement project on responsible nanotechnology. We introduce a general role landscape and outline five distinct roles that we—as SSH scholars—inhabited throughout the project. We discuss the synergistic potential of combining these five roles and elaborate on several tensions within the roles that we needed to navigate. We argue that balancing many roles requires explicit role awareness, reflexivity, and new competencies that have not been examined much in the public engagement literature so far. Our role landscape and exemplification of how it can be used to reflexively study one’s own practices may be a useful starting point for scholars who are seeking to better understand, assess, or communicate about their position in the public engagement field. (shrink)

Project funding rarely demands much change on behalf of the recipient. In contrast, cross-sectoral mobility funding requires recipients to change their environment and often some aspects of their research. There is a need to understand the impact on the researchers’ experiences as knowledge producers within such programs, as part of the broader potential and significance of cross-sectoral mobility funding. This study draws on interviews with participants of the Swedish ‘Flexit’ program in order to develop a framework for assessing the dynamics (...) and efficacy of such funding instruments. To do this, we develop a framework for understanding their cognitive effects; especially their ‘immersive’ potential, i.e., their ability to naturally involve the participant in their new setting. It proposes two dimensions along which such an assessment can take place: how the instrument challenges participants’ knowledge production practices, and the level of immersion that participants are subject to as part of the program. (shrink)

This paper explores the management of societal impact in the context of Horizon 2020 (H2020) Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) collaborative projects. Given the increasing demand for societal relevance in European-funded research, this study aims to (a) understand how societal impact is managed and (b1) identify the driving forces and (b2) barriers that influence impact management. By conducting semi-structured interviews with ten project coordinators from different European SSH projects, selected through purposive sampling procedures, the collected qualitative data were analysed using (...) Atlas.ti. The thematic analysis revealed six themes: effective framework, stakeholder involvement; appropriate dissemination, competence, diversity and experienced members, limited post-project impact resources; and ineffective planning. This paper contributes to the discourse on project management by proposing a refined evaluation framework for societal impact that recognises different management strategies and considers the need for strategic planning and resource allocation to achieve sustainable societal impact. Our findings advocate for policies that promote greater transparency and inclusiveness in project evaluation, ultimately aiming to better align research outcomes with European policy priorities and societal challenges. (shrink)

BackgroundOpen peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process.MethodsWe conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 (...) min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families.ResultsSSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible.ConclusionsEditors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage. (shrink)

This article aims to open a discussion on better ethical assurance for non-university research actors drawing on democratic norms. It derives from the author’s experience of a gap in ethical assurance for social science and humanities (SSH) research that takes place outside academia, for example within international organisations, public bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and by private entities. Many of these actors commission, conduct or sub-contract research activities involving human participants on a regular basis, an activity that often increases during times (...) of crisis where researchers in both the public and private sphere scramble to generate the new knowledge necessary to respond and prevent further harms. The ethical assurance frameworks for such research, while growing, remain limited. Discussion of research conducted by actors outside of university settings and their ethical assurance frameworks are both subjects under-interrogated within the literature. This paper seeks to open that discussion by presenting this broad non-university research context through the frame of research in crisis settings, where the ethical requirements of ‘do no harm’ and the ‘dual imperative’ possess an even heavier significance in research ethics. Furthermore, the global and diverse nature of crisis settings often gives rise to conversations concerning the positioning of the research actor and the need to empower the research participant. This paper presents an early vision of the non-university research actor and ethical assurance process based on the democratic norms of equality and inclusivity. (shrink)

This field review discusses several recently published books that are concerned with historical, cultural, philosophical, or sociological aspects of the social sciences and humanities, past and present. It investigates similarities and differences between the various perspectives and approaches, and analyzes how these are informed by different visions of the field of SSH studies. In concluding, the review discusses three recurrent themes that will presumably move in the focus of debate in the near future: the debate on positivism in SSH and (...) its “epistemological others;” the impact of the Cold War on the gestalt of the SSH; and, finally, the adequacy of science, technology, and society approaches to describe techniques and practices in the SSH. (shrink)