2020.cultura Journal 17.2. LopezVarela StemToSteam. Paper

Cultura.
International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 17(2)/2020: 11-27
The Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities

in Europe and Beyond
Asunción LÓPEZ-VARELA AZCÁRATE
Department of English Studies. Faculty of Philology
Complutense University, Spain
alopezva@ucm.es
Abstract: What is the role of the Social Sciences and Humanities (known collectively
as SSH) in the journey to the Fourth Industrial Revolution? What is the impact of
these disciplines for the challenges the world faces, supposedly defined by a highly
dynamic phase of industrial and social restructuring, where the adaptive capacity of
societies needs to be enhanced by specific skills and techno-social dependencies?
What is the role of SSH in building cognitive competences, and new professional
paths? This paper, part of the special focus of the Annual Review of New Directions
in the Humanities, seeks to unveil the importance of SSH disciplines to the major
STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Although
disciplines and research in Social Sciences and Humanities play a fundamental role
in the production of knowledge relevant to society, the last decade of the 20th
century has seen a continuous trend towards their devaluation. After a relatively
glorious period during the first half of the century, when SSH disciplines still held a
relative social influence, the arrival of digital technologies in 1990s, accelerated their
decline. This article traces a brief overview of this decline and explores some of the
causes as well as the challenges in valuing SSH. Focusing mainly on Europe, the
paper presents the attempts, on behalf of the European Commission, to correct this
decline. It also outlines some new ideas that could help a true integration and
transfer of knowledge across STEM AND STEAM disciplines, such as the creation
of specific 'missions'. Precisely, one of the diagnoses of the Horizon 2020
experience in Europe has been that investment in research is not effectively linked
to the solution of specific problems. Thus, it is necessary to put in motion co-creation
mechanisms among research disciplines and advance in the establishment of
intersectoral bridges, bringing SSH research closer to the industry and other social
sectors in order to solve the pressing challenges we face (climate change, mass
migration, economic crisis, etc.)
Keywords: Social Sciences and Humanities, Research and Innovation, Social Impact,
Social Value
11
Asunción LÓPEZ-VARELA AZCÁRATE / The Impact of the Social Sciences…
INTRODUCTION: THE DECLINE OF THE HUMANITIES

AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH
LANDSCAPE
The first obvious issue to address is the influence of research and

financing infrastructures linked to scientific development, decisive factors
both in the development of studies and in the opportunities to
communicate their results. In this sense, and at the level of European
regulations, the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, meant
that the Humanities and Social Sciences had their own specific program
for financing scientific research. In those years, and until the early 2000s,
the main approach to assess the quality of scientific research was its
academic relevance (often under the term "excellence").
The global economic crisis, exacerbated in the last years of the first
decade of the 21st century, saw how all areas of research suffered a drift
towards the tangible demonstration of any public funds dedicated to
science and innovation. One of the fundamental keywords was the term
‘Challenge’, which indicates how research priorities were oriented
towards a dissemination model, instead of a mission model (Kastrinos
2010: 300-1). In his analysis of SSH in Europe as of 2010, Nikos Kastrinos
shows how, although the role of the Social Sciences and Humanities had
been recognized as fundamental (specifically as a connecting thread for
European identity) ever since the “Treaty of the European Union,” signed
in Lisbon in 2009, officially placed science and research as fundamental
pillars in 2009 in the European scenario (Article 3.3 of the TEU, and
TFEU Art. 179-190), subsequent policies in scientific research revealed
the need to define the so-called ‘Challenges’ more broadly, orienting them
towards the dissemination of results. This came to diminish the influencial
capacity of the Social Sciences and Humanities.
The impact model placed, for example, the emphasis on how to
measure the quality of articles published in scientific journals based on the
number of citations recorded in bibliometric indexes. These procedures
were an easy way to demonstrate the good public management of
taxpayers' money in the midst of the economic crisis. It meant also an
attempt to evaluate the contributions, results and impact of scientific
research through this metric tide (Hicks et al. 2015). Bibliometric models
12
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 17(2)/2020: 11-27
have been particularly damaging to the Social Sciences and Humanities,

where the task of measuring impact is more complex.
Studies and statistics carried out since then, such as those published in
EUROSTAT show that such metrics may be a necessary condition for
measuring academic impact, but not sufficient for social impact This also
means that one cannot rely solely on the evaluation metrics of scientific
research, and that complementary impact evaluation methodologies are
needed since different scientific fields have an impact in different ways.1
This is especially true in the case of the Social Sciences and Humanities,
which, in addition, are not sufficiently covered in the main citation
indexes. Numerous studies show that SSH disciplines cannot be treated in
the same way as STEM (science, technology, engineering and
mathematics). Their effectiveness cannot be measured in the same way
because they often make a self-reflexive and complex relationship with
reality, in many cases seeking to reveal ambiguities and contradictions
instead of choosing to show the most marked evidences from the
probabilistic and empirical point of view. In the following lines, I will
outline some attempts carried out by the European Commission in order
to integrate SSH in the STEM panorama. One of the evidences gathered
by the so-called Lamy Report 017 is the fact that “cooperation and
knowledge-sharing between STEM and SSH is sort of a 'one-way street',
in which the SSH researchers bring a lot of knowledge and value without
receiving much in response.” (Lamy et al. 2017: 54).
ATTEMPTS TO BETTER INTEGRATE SSH FIELDS WITHIN

THE WIDER EUROPEAN RESEARCH LANDSCAPE
In 2009, some changes were introduced in the Executive Agencies of the

European Commission.2 For example, in June that year the Research
Executive Agency REA acquired administrative and operational
autonomy, reducing SSH competences. Many researchers mobilized
around the new European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities
EASH (Börzel et al. 2010) and in 2011 they sent an open letter, signed by
almost 26,000 people, to the European Commission. This transnational
infrastructure has continued to grow and now groups numerous
associations and interest groups in the so-called European Alliance for
Social Sciences and Humanities EASSH3, providing an environment for
13
reflection and analysis, in addition to political intervention, in the

integration of SSH in European research.
The arguments presented in 2011 were relatively successful and the
Commission launched a campaign to try to alleviate the concerns expressed.
On the one hand, SSH participation in Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
was reinforced. It was also agreed to integrate the SSH in the largest
possible number of Challenges within the framework of Horizon 2020.
The following years, after reports and declarations of different interest
groups (Geoghegan-Quinn 2011), a subsequent achievement is achieved
beyond integration into Six specific challenges: the creation of an
additional specific challenge dedicated to SSH, SC6 H2020-EU.3.6 -
Societal Challenges - Europe In A Changing World - Inclusive, Innovative And
Reflective Societies4. After the creation of this autonomous strategic cluster,
the discussion focused on its resources and characteristics, for which the
notion of innovation had to be expanded to include social innovation in
order to find ways to instrumentalise the Social Sciences and Humanities
and make more visible their specific applications.5 This was also the
context of the conference held in Vilnius in the second half of 2013 under
the Lithuanian Presidency (Mayer et al. 2013).
In 2013, once the Horizon 2020 legal system was formally created in
the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, the
Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, began to integrate
SSH through the creation of cross-cutting issues in the six Challenges
identified.6 These areas were ‘marked’ (flagged) to have the participation
of at least one SSH partner in the projects, something that the
commissions of expert evaluators would take into account and reward
when evaluating the projects. The Commission published annual analysis
in order to monitor integration (Hetel et al. 2015).
In these years, and within the framework of the new definition of
'innovation', many studies focused on showing that SSH flagged
disciplines included in successfully funded consortia were not so easily
identified in the research studies. They also indicated that tracking and
demonstrating the influence and impact of research in SSH areas required
the collection of multiple instances of low-level influence, rather than a
few moments of high impact, along with the recognition of different types
of impact (expected and unexpected, intentional and so on; see Reale et al.
2017). Thus, it became evident that impact could not be measured in the
14
same way for STEM and SSH fields, and that social aspects of knowledge
transfer required further visibility.
Aware of these problems in 2014, the European Commission began to
specify much more the differences between the academic dissemination
of research (i.e. publications), science communication activities, transfer
(i.e. patents, products or programs to be implemented) and social impact.
A growing emphasis was put forth in creating conditions for the
improvement of the living conditions of citizens by means of scientific
research. One of the most important conclusions was that the evaluation
of innovation and social impact required citizen participation as an
interested party in scientific development itself. All Horizon 2020
programs began to point out the importance of measuring 'social
innovation' and impact in different ways, including the generation of new
knowledge, techniques, ways of doing and artefacts, addressing specific
problems and challenges relevant to European society, as well as the
scalability of funded projects. It became essential that researchers could
identify the appropriate impact models according to the projects presented
for funding. The evaluators of the different panels should also become
familiar with the various impact models, tangible and intangible. Funding
applications began to have to include impact indicators, both quantitative
and qualitative, helping measure the value that the research could generate
in consumption habits, social behaviour, etc., and recognizing the
temporal variation according to the research area (Lamy et al. 2017).
In 2015, the list of "Sustainable Development Goals" (SDGs), adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations7, identified a series of
global problems that posed direct challenges in the field of Social Sciences
and Humanities. Scientific knowledge appeared as a fundamental aspect
in understanding and addressing these problems. But even more
important were the co-creation mechanisms to be established among
different scientific fields. This cooperation was seen as a guarantee for
economic growth, social stability, and governance in democracy. But just
as important were the integrative narratives that would move beyond
giving visibility to these advances and contribute to integrate new
strengths into the fabric of society.
Another of the most important challenges in the Horizon 2020
framework of the European Commission was the pursuit of the best form
of interdisciplinary integration. As indicated, the Commission established
15
several indicators to measure the integration of Social Sciences and

Humanities within other scientific fields. The main ones were: the
proportion of members in the projects to be funded, with at least two
different SSH partner participants. Part of the total budget of the project
was directed specifically to these SSH partners. The number of projects
flagged for SSH participation in Horizon 2020 began to grow, increasing
from 40% in 014 to 56% in 2017.
In February 2019, the Commission published the latest report on 2017
funded projects, when 37.5% of the total was marked as susceptible to
SSH integration. Although the report shows a 71% to 86% increase in
SSH participation. This means that almost a quarter of them did not have
SSH participation.8 Additionally, only a few SSH fields (economics,
political science, public administration and law, as well as education and
communication) were represented as partners in 2017 (Swinnen, Lemaire
and Kania 2019: 25).
STEAM: TOWARDS THE TRUE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL

SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES IN STEM DISCIPLINES
One of the conclusions that can be drawn from the previous experiences
of the European Commission in its attempts to mark the ‘Challenges’ in
order to identify potential SSH participation in other scientific areas is that
this process did not help to address their integration. The latest report
highlights that, on average, 20% of SSH participants played management
and communication roles, and were not really involved research. On the
other hand, the report also shows that the expert evaluators who evaluate
the projects represent a very small group of SSH professionals, mostly
coming from areas such as economics and management.
Even more devastating is a statement taken from the 2017 report that
“cooperation and knowledge-sharing between STEM and SSH is sort of a
'one-way street', in which the SSH researchers bring a lot of knowledge
and value without receiving much in response (Lamy et al. 2017: 54). This
means that one of the fundamental problems for those of us working in
SSH fields is the recognition of our scientific contributions. It is indeed
devastating if we take into account that the occupational statistics of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD show
that the majority of potential jobs are clearly located in SSH areas.
16
Furthermore, the growth of research excellence in these areas is supported

by the large number of publications on social innovation and by all the
current debate on co-creation and intersectoral integration, with
methodologies that come precisely from SSH areas.
One of the latest events related to the SSH impact was the conference
Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities for a European Research Agenda –
Valuation of SSH in mission-oriented research, held in Vienna on the occasion
of the Austrian Presidency of the EU Council on November 28 and 29,
20189, with over 350 participants and activities aimed at fostering SSH
presence in European research programs. The conference sought to
broaden the arguments of the so-called Lamy report, the recommendations
of the Mazzucato report10, in addition to the conclusions of the 2017
Estonian Presidency, and maximize diverse ways of measuring impact in
scientific research.
The three pillars of the conference were oriented towards 1) the search
for ways of valuation that include specific narratives for SSH and
demonstrate the added value and social impact that these disciplines
provide in projects marked as transversal; 2) the promotion of specific
policies and support structures to assess the results and impact of
knowledge generation by SSH areas; 3) the search for greater integration
of these disciplines in the new Horizon Europe framework program, and
4) the inclusion of mechanisms to measure and scale the dimensions of
SSH impact and research results.
From the so-called 'position papers' of the University of Ghent11,
fundamental aspects were identified, such as the need to establish
relationships of mutual credibility, the alignment of conductive institutional
contexts with academic recognition systems, financing and support
structures, as well as vehicles for the translation and dissemination in less
technical language the different forms of knowledge provided by the
diversity of participants in interdisciplinary consortia, thus contributing to
bridge SSH to STEM.
Another of the conclusions of the Vienna Conference 2018 was the
recognition that the so-called ‘impact’, based mainly on metrics, is the
wrong way to measure the ‘value’ and the public interest of the research.
Prof. John D. Brewer from Queens University Belfast was categorical
when he stated that the debate on the impact, as a way of measuring the
supposedly beneficial effects of research results should give rise to other
17
methods that allow the measurement of the public value of that research,
also demonstrating that the SSH are a 'public good'. Prof, Brewer stated
that it is necessary to deconstruct the concept of 'value' and its three
meanings in terms of utility / functionality (use value), quantity (worth /
price value), and value judgment (normative value). Impact has only been
used as been equivalent to 'value of use or utility', which leads to
erroneously defining any 'public good' (such as university education) in
terms of economic benefits, without considering its social relevance or the
multidimensionality of the term 'value'. In the case of the Social Sciences
and Humanities, the normative value is an important dimension since it
supports the very concept of the ‘social’, its characteristics and its evolution,
being deeply aligned with the development of communities, societies and
nations.
This debate on value and social values directly connects with the issues
that are being addressed within the Responsible Research and Innovation
RRI program12, launched within Horizon 2020 (2018-20) in the so-called
H2020.ER.5. Science with and for Society SwafS13 which has sought to align
scientific research with its impact on society and social responsibility in a
clearer way. The introduction of the concept of responsibility in research
and innovation seeks to address wider social impact challenges marked by
the MoRRI indicators14 and the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals15.
OTHER FORMS OF MEASURING SOCIAL IMPACT
Possibly the most important conclusion of the Vienna Conference, was

the fact that Europe seems to fail in transforming leadership in science
into leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship. In economic terms,
this means that investment in scientific research does not help job creation
Thus, in the last year, the main concern of all the research programs of the
European Union has been to try to identify the causes of this failure and
put forth immediate solutions. One of the diagnoses made by EURODOC,
the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers16 at
the end of September 2018 established that young European researchers
do not get jobs after receiving extensive and prestigious research training in
programs such as Marie Skłodowska-Curie mobility actions. Apparently,
18
this is due to the lack of training in certain basic and transversal

competences, many of which correspond to SSH training.17
Similarly, within the framework of the program on Responsible
Research and Innovation RRI, it has become clear that key aspects in
approaching the labour market are training in Soft Skills such as critical
thinking, dialogic discussion, negotiation and consensus, all of which seem
to be essential when channelling research training towards future job
perspectives. In the rapprochement between productive sectors -
academia, industry and non-governmental organizations, it seems evident
that SSH disciplines continue to play an important role in intersector
relationships and in the co-creation innovation chain, beyond the
establishment of theoretical modes of scientific dissemination.
Because of their human-centred approaches, SSH disciplines have an
inherent tendency to contemplate moments of questioning, revising and
rewriting. Unlike STEM, SSH research and innovation is not so much
about functional analysis and the discovery of universal laws but, rather,
about learning to handle arguments, intentional explanation, negotiation
and consensus (Kagan 2009). Often, such an exercise of reflection and
self-reflection is inseparable from the judgments of ‘value’ and, therefore,
of what is established as normative from the decision levels and
instruments of social control.
A concrete example of the problems that are emerging due to the lack
of training in certain transversal competences and soft skills is the role that
the so-called ‘fake news’ are playing in public opinion and their subsequent
socio-political impact (Ringer 1997). The concept of public information is
being measured, like everything else, in terms of quantitative impact.
Sharing and multiplying news can result in their added economic value,
bypassing judgments about their functional and regulatory value and,
therefore, their socio-political impact.
Another example is the recent call to measure the impact of the Nobel
Prize.18 The call for research on this topic argues that although the impact
of the prize seems to ultimately emphasize the importance of authors and
their works, the prize effects take various forms that do not concern the
authors alone, involving publishers, printers and suppliers, literary agents
and translators, shippers and booksellers (wholesalers, retailers),
journalists and literary critics, and, finally, the book buyers and library
cardholders that make up the reading public. These forms determine not
19
only the ‘reach’ of the prize but also other impact dimensions such as
breadth (how many end users), depth (how their lives change) and focus
(which is the specific target population), in terms not only of intellectual
and cultural influence but also in the light of economic and social
conjunctures, combining qualitative and quantitative forms of critical
reflection, archival information, as well as best practice studies that focus
on publishers, agents, global markets, public awareness, academia, press,
etc.
Much has been learnt in the past twenty years from practices for
measuring impact that do not rely exclusively on outputs but on data
collection coming from end-users and outcomes. Most of these forms of
measuring impact come from innovative interventions linked to social
change and human-centered approaches. Indeed, independent research
and innovation agents, and non-governmental organizations, such as the
Rockefeller Foundation, are putting forth alternative methodologies to
implement and measure forms of non-profit impact. Some of these
methodologies, such as Design Thinking (see Stanford Social Innovation
Review19), Process Thinking or the U Theory put forth by MIT lecturer
Claus Otto Scharmer, have been revolutionizing social entrepreneurship
programs for years, in the hands of organizations such as Ideo.org,
Acumen (a non-profit impact investment fund for social enterprises),
Ashoka or Changemakers initiatives. In addition, these ‘Maker’ approaches
are within the framework of a broader movement that seeks to integrate
the Social Sciences and Humanities into the STEM Sciences in a more
radical way, and that has been termed STEAM.
Within these approaches, the definition of impact as an action or a series
of actions that produce significant and lasting changes in people’s lives
encompasses challenges on how to use the current forms of metrics (see
for instance IRIS20) to establish what should be measured in SSH sectors.
Progress in solving the huge problems that we face today, such as the
environmental or migratory crises, or tackling poverty and injustice,
demands that we are able to determine more clearly the actions and
interventions that work. Metrics help in holding people and organizations
accountable for results, but it is also important to gather feedback and
analyse the processes that ultimately produced those results. A theory of
change is a useful approach for mapping out not just how interventions
work but also why they do. This approach to impact can help in
20
establishing the solutions and outcomes that are really effective in

improving people’s lives, both in for-profit businesses and non-profit
organizations.
Ebrahim Alnoor produced a catalogue of complementary (not mutually
exclusive) approaches to measure impact which can be summarized as
follows: 1) expected returns outweigh anticipated investment benefits (i.e.
Social Return On Investment SROI; see Millar 2012); 2) a ‘theory of
change’ that maps the linkages between input, activities, output, outcomes
and, ultimately, a more complete form of social impact measurement21; 3)
Lean Data designed for social enterprises, providing information on social
performance, customer feedback and behaviour (see Acumen’s models);
4) methods that measure the execution of strategies and organization
principles against mission and goals using key performance metrics; 5)
evaluations that use randomized control trials to determine the impact of
actions compared to the situations if the interventions had not taken place;
6) participatory methods (i.e. story-based evaluations, ethnographic
collection, etc.) which gather users’ perceptions about actions and
benchmark them against related interventions in order to demonstrate
their impact; 7) models of collective impact that bring together several
organizations across sectors in order to share ideas, strategies and
indicators to assess the success of interventions; 8) finally, an excellent
indicator is the capacity to expand, grow and replicate processes beyond
mere numerical figures.22 Many actions have the capacity to reach not just
one user but also their potential surroundings (household, friends,
community, etc.), improving these lives too. Thus, according to Acumen
experts, a multiplier assumption should be applied to initial beneficiary
numbers, which can be measured by Lean Data Surveys, focusing also
another fundamental impact dimension which is the target population.
Although some of these impact dimensions begin to be present in
research and innovation proposals submitted for funding in Europe and
in the United States, specific forms of measuring impact and participation
for SSH disciplines should be reinforced, taking into considerations long
term forms of impact and the indirect effects of outcomes. For instance,
European proposals are generally evaluated under the criteria: Excellence,
Impact and Implementation. The impact section usually covers academic
dissemination as well as forms of social impact such as the targeting of
specific groups of stakeholders and outreach activities directed to society
21
in general. In the coming framework ‘Horizon Europe’, the emphasis on

‘Open Science’ (beyond Open Access) aims at having research and
innovation programs achieve even greater social impact. However,
frequently individuals and consortiums applying for EU funding do not
contemplate specific forms for measuring social impact in their proposals.
The inclusion of SSH partners, particularly trained in social impact and
human centered-approaches could help bridge this gap, bringing together
STEM and STEAM sectors.
Following the Sibiu Declaration23 after the meeting celebrated in May
9th 201924 in Sibiu (Romania), the new “Allocation of portfolios and
supporting services” of the European Commission was published in
September 9th 2019.25 One of the main changes is that Research and
Innovation are no longer a separate portfolio. The new Commissioner for
Innovation and Youth will coordinate the work of DG Research and
Innovation and DG Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. This may
suggest a renewed focus on innovation, particularly social innovation, with
theoretical research having a less prominent part of the agenda. Although
in the agreed proposal for Horizon Europe there are specific clusters for
SSH such as “Culture, creativity and inclusive society” and another for
“Civil Security for Society”26, the SSH research community needs to
continue to identify opportunities for contributing to clusters and
missions in STEM fields. And one way to claim a place in such projects is
to focus on the different approaches to impact underlined in this paper.
I would like to end in a positive note, suggesting that perhaps the
ubiquity of the Social Sciences and Humanities can be seen as a sign of
their social value; value that can appear invisible, precisely because it is
everywhere.
Notes
1 See Narrative Medicine tools https://www.personalized-medicine.at
2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments_en
3 http://www.eassh.eu/
4 https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/664435/en
5 Science Europe. 2013. “Embedding Social Sciences and Humanities in the
Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges.” Science Europe Position Statement. Brussels:

Science Europe.
6 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-
cutting-issues/ssh_en.htm
22
7 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
8 https://www.eu2017.ee/
See also reports by Net4Society https://www.net4society.eu/en/4th-SSH-
Integration-Monitoring-Report-1901.html
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f094a641-
30dd-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1
9 https://www.ssh-impact.eu/about/
10 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5b2811d1-
16be-11e8-9253-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
11 https://www.ugent.be/en/research/position-papers
12 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/responsible-
research-innovation
13 https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/664505/en
https://www.sfi.ie/funding/european-research-area/horizon-2020/science-with-
and-for-soci/call-deadlines.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/
h2020-wp1415-swfs_en.pdf#14
h2020-wp1617-swfs_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-
2020/main/h2020-wp1820-swfs_en.pdf
Funded projects can be seen at
https://cordis.europa.eu/search/en?q=contenttype%3D%27project%27%20AND
%20(relatedProgramme%2Fprogramme%2Fcode%3D%27H2020-
EU.5.%27%20OR%20relatedSubProgramme%2Fprogramme%2Fcode%3D%27H2
020-EU.5.%27)&p=1&num=10&srt=Relevance:decreasing
14 https://www.rri-tools.eu/documents/10184/47609/MORRI-D3.2/aa871252-
6b2c-42ae-a8d8-a8c442d1d557
15 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
16 http://www.eurodoc.net/
17 http://www.eurodoc.net/news/2018/press-release-eurodoc-report-on-
transferable-skills-and-competences
18 https://bookhistorynetwork.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/cfp-literature-in-the-
nobel-era-theoretical-archival-and-critical-approaches-to-the-nobel-prize-in-
literature-marbach-26-29-aug-2020/
19 https://ssir.org/articles
20 https://iris.thegiin.org/metrics/
21 https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/guide/theory_of_change
https://usaidlearninglab.org/lab-notes/what-thing-called-theory-change
22 https://www.thebalancesmb.com/inputs-outputs-outcomes-impact-what-s-the-
difference-2502227
23 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/05/09/the-sibiu-
declaration/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_campaign=0300d8c2e1f0&utm_medium
=page
23
24 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2019/05/09/
25 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/allocation-portfolios-
supporting-services_en.pdf
26 See aso https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/index.cfm
References
Birnbaum, Bogdan Iustin, Philippe Keraudren, Tobias Strom, and Theodoros
Vavikis. (2017). “Integration of Social Sciences and Humanities in Horizon
2020: Participants, Budget and Disciplines. 2nd Monitoring Report on SSH-
Flagged Projects Funded in 2015 under the Societal Challenges and Industrial
Leadership Priorities.” Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/
research/ social-sciences/index.cfm?pg=library&lib=other_pub
Börzel, Tanja A., Thomas Risse, and Carina Sprungk. (2010). “Against the
Downsizing of Social Sciences in the EU.” December 9, 2010.
http://www.polsoz.fuberlin.de/en/v/transformeurope/news/allgemeines/2
010_Against_Downsizing_Social_Sciences.html
Book History and Print Culture Network. CFPs. Literature in the Nobel era
theoretical, archival, and critical approaches to the Nobel Prize in literature.
https://bookhistorynetwork.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/cfp-literature-in-
the-nobel-era-theoretical-archival-and-critical-approaches-to-the-nobel-prize-
in-literature-marbach-26-29-aug-2020/
Directory of Open Access Books. https://www.doabooks.org/
Ebrahim, Alnoor. (2010) “The Many Faces of Nonprofit Accountability.” Harvard
Business School.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-069.pdf
Ebrahim, Alnoor. (2013) “Let’s Be Realistic About Measuring Impact.” Harvard
Business Review, March 13, 2013. https://hbr.org/2013/03/lets-be-realistic-
about-measur.html
Estonian Presidency of the Council of the European Union https://www.eu2017.ee/
EURODOC. http://www.eurodoc.net/news/2018/press-release-eurodoc-report-
on-transferable-skills-and-competences
European Commission 2019 – 2024. Allocation of portfolios and supporting services
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/allocation-
portfolios-supporting-services_en.pdf
European Commission. Research and innovation in the fields of social sciences and
humanities http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/index.cfm
European Commission. Responsible Research and Innovation.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/
responsible-research-innovation
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/node/766
24
European Commission. Horizon 2020 Program
https://www.sfi.ie/funding/european-research-area/horizon-2020/science-
with-and-for-soci/call-deadlines.pdf
European Commission. Science for Society. SwafS http://ec.europa.eu/research/
participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-
swfs_en.pdf#14
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/
European Council. (2019). Informal meeting of heads of state or government, Sibiu,
09/05/2019
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2019/05/09/
European Commission. Departments and executive agencies https://ec.europa.eu/
info/departments_en
European Commission. H2020-EU.3.6. - SOCIETAL CHALLENGES - Europe In
A Changing World - Inclusive, Innovative and Reflective Societies
https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/664435/en
Felt, Ulrike. (2014). “Within, Across and Beyond: Reconsidering the Role of Social
Sciences and Humanities in Europe.” Science as Culture 23 (3): 384–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2014.926146.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire. (2011) “The Future of Social Sciences and Humanities in
Horizon 2020.” Speech SPEECH/11/741. London. EU Press releases
database. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-741_en.htm
Hetel, Laura, Tom-Espen Møller, and Julia Stamm. (2015). “Integration of Social
Sciences and Humanities in Horizon 2020: Participants, Budget and
Disciplines. Monitoring Report on SSH-Flagged Projects Funded in 2014
under the Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership.” Brussels: European
Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/index.cfm?pg=library&lib=other_pub
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/integrationsocial-
sciences-and-humanities-horizon-2020-participants-budget-and-disciplines
Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, and Ismael Rafols.
(2015). “Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature
News 520 (7548): 429. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Impact EV. Evaluating the impact and outcomes of EU SSH research
https://impact-ev.eu/
Impact of Social Sciences and Humanities for a European Research Agenda –
Valuation of SSH in mission-oriented research (2018) https://www.ssh-
impact.eu/about/
IRIS Catalog of Metricshttps://iris.thegiin.org/metrics/
Journals Open Edition. https://journals.openedition.org/
25
Kagan, Jerome. (2009). The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and
the Humanities in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press.
Lamy, Pascal, Martin Brudermüller, Mark Ferguson, Lykke Friis, Cristina Garmendia,
Iain Gray, Jan Gulliksen, et al. (2017). “LAB–FAB–APP. Investing in the
European Future We Want.” Report of the independent High Level Group
on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes.
Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2777/477357
Mayer, Katja, Thomas König, and Helga Nowotny. (2013). “Horizons for Social
Sciences and Humanities.” Conference Report. Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris
University. http://horizons.mruni.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/
ssh_mru_conference_report_final.pdf
Millar; Hall (2012). "Social Return on Investment (SROI) and Performance
Measurement" (PDF). Public Management Review. 15 (6): 923–941.
doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.698857.
MoRRI Report. Metrics and indicators of Responsible Research and Innovation
Progress report D3.2 Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible
Research and Innovation (MoRRI)
https://www.rri-tools.eu/documents/10184/47609/MORRI-D3.2/aa871252-6b2c-
42ae-a8d8-a8c442d1d557
Net4Society https://www.net4society.eu/en/4th-SSH-Integration-Monitoring-
Report-1901.html
Personalized Medicine. https://www.personalized-medicine.at
Prores- http://prores-project.eu/
Reale, Emanuela, Dragana Avramov, Kubra Canhial, Claire Donovan, Ramon Flecha,
Poul Holm, Charles Larkin, et al. (2017). “A Review of Literature on
Evaluating the Scientific, Social and Political Impact of Social Sciences and
Humanities Research.” Research Evaluation, no. Special Issue: 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025.
Ringer, Fritz K. (1997). Max Weber’s Methodology: The Unification of the Cultural
and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Science Europe. (2013). “Embedding Social Sciences and Humanities in the Horizon
2020 Societal Challenges.” Science Europe Position Statement. Brussels:
Science Europe. https://www.ugent.be/en/research/position-papers
Scharmer, Claus Otto (2016) [2007]. Theory U: leading from the emerging future. A BK
business book (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles
Strom, Tobias, Catherine Lemaire, Jolanta Zacna, Jimena Arango Montanez, and
Bogdan Iustin Birnbaum. (2018). “Integration of Social Sciences and
Humanities in Horizon 2020: Participants, Budget and Disciplines. 3rd
Monitoring Report on SSH Flagged Projects Funded in 2016 under the
Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership Priorities.” Brussels: European
Commission.
26
Swinnen, Lenna, Catherine Lemaire, and Krzysztof Kania. (2019). “Integration of

Social Sciences and Humanities in Horizon 2020. Participants, Budget and
Disciplines : 4th Monitoring Report on SSH Flagged Projects Funded in 2017
under the Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership Priorities.” Brussels:
European Commission.
The Sibiu Declaration (2019). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
releases/2019/05/09/the-sibiu-declaration/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_
campaign=0300d8c2e1f0&utm_medium=page
The European Alliance for the Social Sciences and the Humanities
http://www.eassh.eu/
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations Member States
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs
United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
Bioprofile
Asunción López-Varela is Associate Professor at Faculty of Philology,
Complutense University Madrid. Her research interest encompass intermedial
semiotics, comparative literature and cultural studies. Since 2013, she collaborates as
external evaluator in several research and innovation programs of the European
Commission. For more information on her academic profile and publications please
visit https://www.ucm.es/siim/asun-lopez-varela
27

2020.cultura Journal 17.2. LopezVarela StemToSteam. Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020.cultura Journal 17.2. LopezVarela StemToSteam. Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultura.

International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 17(2)/2020: 11-27

The Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities

INTRODUCTION: THE DECLINE OF THE HUMANITIES

The first obvious issue to address is the influence of research and

have been particularly damaging to the Social Sciences and Humanities,

ATTEMPTS TO BETTER INTEGRATE SSH FIELDS WITHIN

In 2009, some changes were introduced in the Executive Agencies of the

reflection and analysis, in addition to political intervention, in the

several indicators to measure the integration of Social Sciences and

STEAM: TOWARDS THE TRUE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL

Furthermore, the growth of research excellence in these areas is supported

OTHER FORMS OF MEASURING SOCIAL IMPACT

Possibly the most important conclusion of the Vienna Conference, was

this is due to the lack of training in certain basic and transversal

establishing the solutions and outcomes that are really effective in

in general. In the coming framework ‘Horizon Europe’, the emphasis on

Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges.” Science Europe Position Statement. Brussels:

Swinnen, Lenna, Catherine Lemaire, and Krzysztof Kania. (2019). “Integration of

You might also like