Sotsiaal- ja loodusteaduste tähtsustamine-alatähtsustamine ning neid valdkondi esindavate teadlaste omavaheline kemplemine on eraldi huvitav küsimus, kuigi sageli sugugi mitte lõbus. Sedalaadi mõttearendusi võib leida ka eesti meediast (vt nt siit). Kui kunagi arvasin, et doktoriõpingud on hea idee kasvõi põhjusel, et sügavuti-teadmistest võiks üldisem kasu tõusta – ja seda vaidlustada on keeruline – ja et sedalaadi teadmiste vastu võiks väikeses keeleruumis huvi olla ükskõik, mis valdkonda need puudutavad, siis praegu ma nii enam ei arva. Huvi paljude erinevate valdkondade vastu on pigem latentne. Aga ma ei ole ka kindel, kas selle huvi või kellegi arvates alatähtsustamise pärast oleks vaja võidelda või öelda “kuidas asjad olema peaksid”. Õppimine toimub negatiivse tagasiside kaudu. Kui valitsejad peavad vajalikuks õppida katse-eksituse meetodil, mis siis ikka. Jõudu neile. Tõsi, paljude inimeste heaolu on siin mängus.

Kontekstiks:

Still, in EU research funding, the social sciences play only a minor role.

Artikli ambitsioon:

This article analyses the marginalized position of the social sciences as well as how social-science knowledge production risks being subjugated by the logics and principles of vision and division from other sciences and from the European bureaucratic field, with possible effects on social-science knowledge production throughout Europe.

Sotsiaalteaduste arengut toetavast kontekstist:

Institutionally, the social sciences developed within state-sponsored institutions, such as universities and statistical bureaus, educating civil servants to operate within the growing state bureaucracy and private enterprise. Simultaneously, the problems of the state and the societies in which the social sciences were embedded became the problems that the latter tackled. Thus, the social sciences contributed empirical and theoretical knowledge about problems ranging from growth and inflation to relations with other countries and their colonies, as well as problems of social cohesion, poverty and education.

Vihje uurimismeetoditest:

The analysis builds on Bourdieu’s field analytical concepts – field, habitus and capital, but also illusio, doxa, and the principles of vision and division – as they have been used in exploring the sociology of the EU. […] Empirically, the article focuses on social science in consecrated disciplines, including sociology, political science and economics, but also education, business studies and the humanities. As with scientific fields, by European bureaucratic field I mean the relatively autonomous social space of institutions and agents struggling over forms of European capital and, specifically, the right to control and define European – especially EU – politics and policies

Empiirilise uuringu kese:

Central to the article’s empirical analysis, the field theoretical approach suggests that the field of European social science serves as a linkage for actors seeking to participate in wider struggles over symbolic capital in the European political and bureaucratic fields (Bourdieu, 1996b, 2005).

Vihje järeldustest:

Since the early 1990s, the social sciences have fought for a position in EU research policy with limited success and, as this article shows, during the preparation of H2020, the social sciences were almost excluded from the EU’s strategic research programme. These findings bring to light important structural historical conditions for social-science knowledge production in Europe.

Kropp, K. (2021). The EU and the social sciences: A fragile relationship. The Sociological Review. 10.1177/00380261211034706