SPECIAL STATEMENTS
Seminar “The Author in the Humanities
and Social Science”
A d a m G r z e l i ń s k i , A r k a d i u s z K a r w a c k i
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
THE AUTHOR IN THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCE – AN INTRODUCTION TO A DISCUSSION
It is an undoubted fact that the academic circles in Poland are becoming aware of notable eff ects of the changes which were announced and implemented with re-gard to the appraisal of their own work. What we mean here is the visible publish-ing initiatives of particular researchers and institutions and various strategies of generating scientifi c achievements, as well as their implications for scholars, for current editorial work of scientifi c periodicals and, most importantly, for the po-tential and development of knowledge within the framework of specifi c disciplines. Th e revolution in the area of the appraisal of individual and institutional achieve-ments has been announced for years. It is more and more widely believed that Polish researchers should more actively participate in the European and global scientifi c debate, express their opinions on the issues of the theoretical explana-tions of problems of various disciplines, share the eff ects of empirical studies rel-evant for the development of knowledge of diff erent sciences. Th us, the offi cial message is quite clear: at the level of scientifi c units money in science should be spent on research that is recognizable at diff erent forums (not only national, but also international ones), on intense publishing activity (which might be proved by the number of awarded points), as well as on grants for scientifi cally signifi cant research. Th ese regulations also refer to particular scholars: it is worth fi nancing those researchers whose work may be assessed to deserve tens or hundreds of
points for diff erent forms of scientifi c activity and whose interests go beyond the scope of the national background of a given discipline.
However, the implementation of these otherwise clear and rational assumptions gives rise to a number of questions. Announcing particular solutions, discussing problems in the privacy of ministerial offi ces or unoffi cial talks are one thing. Another issue, however, concerns the intricacies of the implementation of these goals, searching for specifi c formulas which would stimulate the signifi cance of Polish research at the international arena and would help to develop the potential of people and institutions. Th ey should facilitate the reduction of ineff ective alloca-tion of resources, but they cannot be too tight and infl exible which would lead to eliminating the research that is not so easily adaptable to the qualitative pattern of appraisal. We are certain that in order to achieve the goal of the appraisal of re-search – which will be reliable and eff ective, but also taking their diversity into account – a broad academic discussion is required.
Staff members should leave their offi ces in academic units, should go beyond the “corridor” exchanges of opinions and beyond the disputes between offi cials and scientifi c lobbyists. We need scientifi c debate, in which the representatives of diff erent disciplines – who have proven knowledge and experience, and who are willing to achieve the objectives they set themselves and to face the risk of poten-tial mistakes – will share their thoughts on the condition of Polish science and will identify its determinants, needs and the instruments used to meet them.
Th at is why the editors of the quarterly “Kultura i Edukacja” decided to initiate a discussion at a wide forum. Th is discussion has been obviously under way for years, but it seems that it is held mainly in the institutions established for the sake of determining the way of supervising and assessing scientifi c activity and, en-tirely informally, in the privacy of offi ces and corridors of scientifi c units. On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of “Kultura i Edukacja” we invited twenty acknowledged specialists to participate in a panel discussion. Th ey are scholars with a lot of experience in the fi elds they represent – philosophy, history, peda-gogy, political science, social policy, law, psychology, or sociology. Among them are Professors: Jerzy Brzeziński, Krzysztof Mikulski, Krzysztof Pałecki, Andrzej Szahaj, Ryszard Szarfenberg and Bogusław Śliwerski. Th e participants of the debate also included people who played a key role in establishing the principles of evalu-ating research units and academic staff , such as Dominik Antonowicz, Ewa Dahl-ig-Turek and Radosław Sojak. Th e texts published in this issue were the basis of the panel which was held in Toruń in June 2011 under the working title “Th e Au-thor in the Humanities and Social Science”. Th e speeches were followed by a long and heated discussion, which was largely focused on the ways of evaluating
scien-tifi c activity of the representatives of the humanities and social science, which are the fi elds which are more diffi cult to assess in qualitative terms than natural sci-ence, and which play a signifi cant part in shaping Polish spiritual culture.
Th e collection of texts included in this issue is an attempt at presenting a joint, interdisciplinary view of contemporary problems of researchers and of the disci-plines they represent. Th is view takes into consideration both various approaches, concepts of conducting scientifi c activity and the evaluation of the quality and signifi cance of this activity. Reading the texts written by authors with a lot of re-search and organizational experience indicates that they share the same concerns and recognize the same challenges posed by diff erent disciplines of the humanities and social science. It also shows that the problems we are already grappling with and the ones that we are facing can be solved in a number of diff erent ways.
When we invited our authors to join the debate we did not want to formulate questions too precisely nor did we wish to indicate the specifi c topics for discus-sion. What is worth noting, though, is the fact that the discussion was focused around the issue of the parametrization of science. It became obvious how urgent this issue was for everyone interested – people institutionally connected with the functioning of the academic life, editors of periodicals, and researchers themselves. One of the most hotly debated problems concerned the methodology of paramet-ric evaluation in the humanities. We are facing a dilemma whether the point eval-uation of achievements justly refl ects individual and team accomplishments. Th erefore, how should this work be appraised? What results of scientifi c activity should be subject to quantifi cation? What achievements should be considered as a signifi cant contribution to science? Th ese questions also naturally refer to the issue of the application of models taken from so-called hard science in the broad-ly defi ned humanities and social science. Th is gives rise to more fundamental problems: Do we really need a system of parametric evaluation which would be standardized for all sciences? Is it possible to establish it? Finally, in the pursuit of points awarded for published articles, researchers may no longer think in terms of the impartiality of scientifi c work and culture-making eff orts.
It should also be emphasized here (which was pointed out by Bogusław Śliwerski in his speech) that the humanities have a culture-making and community status. It does not refer to concealing unreliable scientifi c activity, whose authors would justify themselves with the inability to verify their achievements quantitatively. It is about the fact that the humanities have an enormous eff ect on the formation of Polish culture, our way of thinking and the language we use every day. Th is infl u-ence does not easily translate into quantitative criteria. What perfectly exemplifi es this problem is the dispute on the status of translated scientifi c texts, which is held
among philologists and the scholars representing the humanities and social science. It is obvious that in the fi elds in which the latest research achievements of interna-tional teams really count, publications in conference languages are simply the best and fastest way of exchanging information. However, scholars indicate that a good translation of scientifi c work not only requires professional background, knowledge of the recent global achievements in a given fi eld, but also additional, oft en unique competences of a translator. Th at is why it should be viewed the same as author’s publications. Only then will the humanities avoid being alienated from the whole culture and become a fi eld in which discussions are held in a scientifi c slang, which is incomprehensible even for an educated reader.
When presenting their detailed digressions, the authors started a discussion on the ways of publishing the eff ects of scientifi c activity with regard to their point as-sessment (a diff erence in the status of a monograph or publishing in domestic and foreign periodicals), to the language of a publication (Polish, English, another foreign language), or to indexed and non-indexed journals as more or less important means of making knowledge available to academic circles and wider masses of readers. It is also very important to exchange views on the issue of relations between the Ameri-can and European indexes of scientifi c journals – Ameri-can we recognize that the former are the answer to the weaknesses resulting from basing the evaluation of achieve-ments on the latter? Th ere is no doubt that arguments for and against specifi c solu-tions and proposals form the basis of a discussion which will accompany on-going changes. We are touching upon fundamental problems here. For example, the above-mentioned dilemmas serve as a basis for deliberating on who we should address the eff ects of our studies to so that their status in scientifi c circles will be enhanced. Does a journal which meets high standards, but is addressed exclusively to the Polish reader, have any chances of being highly evaluated, thus becoming an attractive target forum for the exchange of ideas? Does the academic world (i.e. universities) off er a place for brilliant teachers who get involved in research work only to a small extent and can one be a good teacher (for example in the fi eld of the social change theory, the history of middle ages, the methodology of psychological research, edu-cation in the conditions of multiculturalism, or philosophical anthropology) without conducting scientifi c research and publishing activity? Th e policy of diff erent uni-versities partly answers this question: they reduce or eliminate the employment of older lecturers. However, is it a fully satisfactory answer?
Antoni Sułek concludes in his text:
what we […] really miss is not publications in the Polish language, but the ones in foreign journals”, but he also notes that “one should simply publish in good places
and these places are well-known. Th e criteria of parametric evaluation should take this into account”. Ewa Dahlig-Turek, in turn, writes that “scholars have long been aware of the fact that it is a monograph - which is usually the result of many years of research and oft en remains relevant for decades – that is still the main form of a publication in their fi eld of science. Another issue is the fact that while the lack of indexation in Poland is considered to be a weakness of our publishing houses, the world views this phenomenon as a consequence of the specifi c nature of the hu-manities.
Th us, it is evident that our authors oft en present confl icting opinions on many issues, such as the need for establishing criteria of reliable parametric evaluation or the diff erence between the status of natural science and the one of the humani-ties and social science.
Th e statements of scholars presented in this issue are all the more valuable because they show the perspectives of the representatives of diff erent disciplines: pedagogy, history, psychology, political science or sociology, which clearly indi-cates that each of sciences is unique, which should be taken into consideration when evaluating the relevance of diff erent forms of scientifi c activity. Th e fact that some disciplines (such as Polish studies or bibliology, which are naturally focused on national culture, thus foreign cooperation does not play such an important part here) have been given a special approach in the new regulations proves that al-though the authors of those regulations recognize the problem of the humanities, the whole issue needs further discussion. Only then will we be able to grasp the diverse nature of the humanities and social science and make them subject to evaluation.
We hope that the panel, which resulted in the articles presented in this issue, is a good starting point for such discussion – which will be open, content-related and conducted by the representatives of various scientifi c disciplines. Th is discussion should go beyond ministerial offi ces and university corridors. Th e arguments used and the scholars’ experience will help to develop solutions which will take into account the specifi c nature of the humanities and evaluate Polish science in a reli-able way. We believe that this is a good place and time for such exchange of views – at the meeting point of diff erent disciplines and in the face of changes in Polish science. Th is is the time when we can gather the fi rst experiences and we cans still modify the existing solutions. We invite you to read a few texts which refl ect the essence of the on-going discussion.
