The future of social science in the UK is a timely concern in the light of the assault on US social science funding and similar omens in Australia. But social science in the UK is thriving.
Universities and Science Minister David Willetts has been consistently supportive of UK social science. Last week, he gave the first Annual Lecture for the Campaign for Social Science: “Where Next for Social Science? The Agenda Beyond 2015.”
We should be proud of it; we should celebrate it and we should encourage its further growth.
The minister is right that we should be proud. Second only to the US in its quality and quantity, social science is a national asset in terms of its vital contributions to issues our society faces (such as climate change, crime and the ageing population) and its economic impact is estimated at £19.4bn.
The 2012 National Birth Cohort Study was funded; £64m of the £189m big data research budget is allocated to social sciences; and £19.5m is being invested in quantitative skills training through the Q-Step initiative.
The UK is also one of the biggest social science exporters. But as Ziyad Marar from Sage noted at the Annual Lecture:
The reason to make the case continues, and one shouldn’t be complacent.
The abolition of the Government Chief Social Scientist post in 2010 was a step backwards, hindering capacity to ensure maximal social and economic returns on social science investment. It means there is no longer a senior level voice to ensure integration across government and communicate research at the highest levels.
Last year the Campaign gladly welcomed the announcement by Julian Huppert MP that the Lib Dems QUOTE: Would appoint a Chief Social Science Advisor, based in the Cabinet Office, and working with Social Scientists across all departments. In a piece for the Lib Dem Voice in September 2012, he added this would “ensure that Ministers and civil servants can have access to the best evidence when making decisions.”
We too have called repeatedly for the post to be reinstated. After hearing our evidence, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology made the same recommendation in July 2011 and May 2012. And in March this year the outgoing Chief Scientific Advisor told the corresponding House of Commons committee he regretted there was still no chief social scientist.
Not only government but organisations across the private, public and voluntary sectors benefit from social scientists’ unique contributions, including the ability to understand people, institutions, and processes of change at micro and macro levels, and from behavioural, psychological and economic perspectives.
Our latest report, ‘What Do Social Science Graduates Do?‘, further suggests this demand, revealing that greater proportions of social science graduates are in work, 3.5 years after graduating, than STEM or arts-humanities graduates. Social scientists are also more likely to be in ‘senior level or managerial’ roles and ‘professional, scientific and technical’ or ‘financial’ activities. The future for social science looks promising.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* Roses Leech-Wilkinson is from the Campaign for Social Science
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
Former sheriff candidate to face trial for allegedly registering cats to vote
Our West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
Peter Martin
Craig Levene
David Evans
Simon R
Jenny Barnes
8 Comments
Hi Ross. Thanks for this. With my day-job hat on – Director of public policy at Sense about Science – could I ask what the campaign considers to be the consequences of the cancellation of the census in its current form? It seems to me that the future for social science may well be bright, but its place at the heart of evidence-informed social policy is less secure.
Thanks
Prateek
apologies for the typo, of course I meant thanks Roses 🙂
Well these are all sound arguments in favour of social science, but they are all utilitarian arguments.
Is it so unfashionable to champion learning for its own sake?
Hi Prateek. Thanks for this. The census is of course vital for much social science research and we must ensure it continues in an appropriate form. We’ll be responding to the ONS census consultation soon and we’ll publish our submission on our website.
Hi Simon. Thanks for your comment. I absolutely agree with you about the value of learning for its own sake. Many of us feel strongly about this. But regrettably, yes, I think it is an unfashionable line in policy spheres. Those who hold the purse strings want to know they’ll get returns on their investment. Both aspects are important, but I think unless we continue to demonstrate social science’s usefulness, it won’t be funded.
This reminds me of the government policy in 1979 that denigrated the teaching of Russian etc. at universities, resulting in problems in the late 80’s when our relationship with Russian started to change and Russian language skills were in demand…
Given the massive rise of enterprises based on ‘social’ interaction; both on the Internet and in the third-sector, I would of thought it would be natural to want to invest in the production of relevantly skilled graduates …
Hi Roses,
I would like to add my own comment to the ‘learning for learning’s sake’ and your reply regarding ‘ Those who hold the purse strings want to know they’ll get returns on their investment.’
Firstly, rather than simply learning for learning’s sake – with which in principal I have no problem – there is also a crucial role for a critical social science that, far from helping those who hold the purse strings to get a return on their investment, holds a critical light to the very policies and programs to which funders seek proof of their effectiveness, Funders seem to often be seeking research that fulfills the criteria of policy-led evidence, rather than the supposed goal of evidence-led policy. By controlling what gets funded, they necessarily control what type of social science is subsequently produced.
The far bigger issue to my mind is therefore the increasing marketisation of research in general, and not necessarily just that of social science research. The language of ‘returns on their investment’ is therefore somewhat troubling!
Hi Richard. Yes, critiquing policies and programmes using social science research is crucial too. Highlighting some functions of research needn’t preclude others. The marketisation of research is of course a much bigger issue – bigger than 500 words on our recent Annual Lecture can accommodate – and, as you rightly point out, one that affects not just social science but all disciplines.