This paper discusses the issue of academic freedom, in the particular case of Social Sciences and Humanities. It reflects upon the rise of new standards that apply to academic and public research, and the ways they influence scientific trends and choice`s. Funding schemes in Europe, UNESCO’s programs, United Nation’s SDGs and the recent SRL – “Society Readiness Level” are the four main standards under consideration here.Yet, against the commonly accepted critical stance of an increasing standardisation of research and by way of consequence, a restriction of academic freedom, this paper also points at the paradoxes of these standardisation processes in research that can be either cause of constraint and source of liberty. This is why such standards must be considered as having ambivalent rather than clear-cut impact on SSH research.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Ardanuy, Jordi , Lorenç Arguimbau , and Ángel Borrego . 2022. “Social Sciences and Humanities Research Funded Under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): A Long-Term Assessment of Projects, Acknowledgements and Publications.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9: 397. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01412-0.
Bernstein, Michael J. , Mathias Wullum Nielsen , Emil Alnor , André Brasil , Astrid Lykke Birkving , Tung Tung Chan et al et al.. 2022. “The Societal Readiness Thinking Tool: A Practical Resource for Maturing the Societal Readiness of Research Projects”. Science and Engineering Ethics 28 (6): 5–36.
Cohen, Antonin , and Ron Levi . 2024. “Academic Fields, Funding, and Turbulent Times.” Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines 45 (1): 7–18. https://doi.org/10.4000/13aux.
Gerli, Matteo . 2020. “Where are the Social Sciences Going To? The Case of the EU-Funded SSH Research Projects.” In Text Analytics. Advances and Challenges, edited by Domenica Iezzi , Damon. Mayaffre , and Michelangelo Misuraca , 225–40, Cham: Springer.
Golhasany, Hamid , and Blane Harvey . 2022. “Academic Freedom, the Impact Agenda, and Pressures to Publish: Understanding the Driving Forces in Higher Education.” SN Social Sciences 2: 163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00468-8.
Heilbron, Johan , Thibaud Boncourt , Rafael Schögler , and Gisèle Sapiro . 2017. European Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in a Global Context Preliminary Findings from the INTERCO-SSH Project. HAL publication. halshs-01659607.
Hubert, Matthieu. , and Séverine Louvel . 2012. “Le financement sur projet : quelles conséquences sur le travail des chercheurs.” Mouvements 71 (3): 13–24.
Kashnitsky, Yury , G. Roberge , J. Mu , K. Kang , W. Wang , M. Vanderfeesten , et al. 2024. “Evaluating Approaches to Identifying Research Supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” Quantitative Science Studies 5 (2): 408–25. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00304.
King, Desmond . 2011. The Politics of Publicly-Funded Social Research. A Manifesto for the Public University. New York: Bloomsbury.
Kovács, Krizsta , and Janika Spannagel . 2025. “Academic Freedom: Global Variations in Norm Conceptualization, Diffusion and Contestation – an Introduction.” Global Constitutionalism 14 (1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381724000133.
Kropp, Kristoffer . 2021. “The EU and the Social Sciences: A Fragile Relationship.” Sociological Review 69 (6): 1325–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261211034706.
Liberté pour les sciences sociales . 2014. Communications 2024/1 n° 114
Muhonen, Reeta , Paul Benneworth , and Julia Olmos-Peñuela . 2020. “From Productive Interactions to Impact Pathways: Understanding the Key Dimensions in Developing SSH Research Societal Impact.” Research Evaluation 29 (1): 34–47.
Obadia, Lionel . 2024. “Programmation, pilotage, politique, prospective… Les contraintes normatives de la « recherche sur projet » en SHS (France-Europe).” Communications 114 (1): 161–72. https://doi.org/10.3917/commu.114.0161.
Perret, Bernard . 2008. “V. L'évaluation, clé d'une nouvelle gouvernance.” In L’évaluation des politiques publiques, edited by Bernard Perret , 89–102. Paris: La Découverte.
Petersen, Ole . 2021. “Inequality of Research Funding Between Different Countries and Regions is a Serious Problem for Global Science.” Function (Oxf). 2 (6). Nov 9:zqab060. https://doi.org/10.1093/function/zqab060.
Schoenegger, Philipp , and Raimund Pils . 2023. “Social Sciences in Crisis: On the Proposed Elimination of the Discussion Section.” Synthese 202: 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04267-3.
Sorooshian, Shahryar . 2024. “The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations: A Comparative Midterm Research Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 453: 142272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142272.
Spaapen, Jack , and Gunnar Sivertsen . 2020. “Assessing Societal Impact of SSH in an Engaging World: Focus on Productive Interaction, Creative Pathways and Enhanced Visibility of SSH Research.” Research Evaluation 29 (1): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz035.
Spannagel, Janika , and Katrin Kinzelbach . 2022. “The Academic Freedom Index and Its Indicators: Introduction to New Global Time-Series V-Dem Data.” Qual Quant 57: 3969–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01544-0.
Thelwall, Mike , Kayvan. Abdoli Kousha , Mahsid. Stuart , Eemma. Makita Meiko , Font-Julián Cristina , Wilson Paul , et al. 2023. “Is Research Funding Always Beneficial? A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of U.K. Research 2014–20.” Quantitative Science Studies 4 (2): 501–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00254.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 239 | 239 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 25 | 25 | 0 |
This paper discusses the issue of academic freedom, in the particular case of Social Sciences and Humanities. It reflects upon the rise of new standards that apply to academic and public research, and the ways they influence scientific trends and choice`s. Funding schemes in Europe, UNESCO’s programs, United Nation’s SDGs and the recent SRL – “Society Readiness Level” are the four main standards under consideration here.Yet, against the commonly accepted critical stance of an increasing standardisation of research and by way of consequence, a restriction of academic freedom, this paper also points at the paradoxes of these standardisation processes in research that can be either cause of constraint and source of liberty. This is why such standards must be considered as having ambivalent rather than clear-cut impact on SSH research.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 239 | 239 | 8 |
| Full Text Views | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 25 | 25 | 0 |