Search

This paper highlights the crucial role that research in the humanities and social sciences can and should play in policy making, business, innovation, etc. The paper also identifies the challenges faced by researchers in the humanities and social sciences and these include the continued marginalization of such research compared with research in the natural sciences disciplines; the relegation of humanities and social sciences theory and methodology; the lack of funding of research; the lack of time for researchers due to increased teaching loads and administration. Opportunities have been identified that can be seized to make research visible by ensuring that it answers the needs of society and policy makers, and that there is more collaboration, partnership and interdisciplinary research. The paper also draws upon the experience at the University of Botswana. Keyword: Humanities; Social Sciences; Research; Research funding; Research Issues; Africa, Botswana

International audience; This article presents the challenges of developing Humanities research in a digital environment in relation to a New Testament test-case: the MARK16 project. The first section argues that virtual research environments (VREs) have become an excellent milieu in which to develop a digitized research project based on collaborative work. The second section presents an overview of VREs and digital projects on the New Testament. The third section demonstrates the ways in which the MARK16 project participates in the development of VREs and fosters new modes of engaging material in digitized NT research. Preamble The research question of this paper is simultaneously simple and boundless: does it matter if we practice Humanities research in a digital culture rather than in traditional print cultures? And what does the answer to this question mean for New Testament research in particular? Such abyssal questions are fundamental and should at least be considered when a scholar is planning a research project in biblical studies, theology, or religious studies. Indeed, the number of digital research projects are increasing at the international, European, and national levels.1 Such questions closely accompanied the preparatory phase of the SNSF PRIMA grant MARK16, a five-year project supported by the Swiss National Foundation.2 These interrogations are deeply embedded within the opening phase of the project and will remain so throughout, as MARK16 aims to build a new Digital Humanities research model. This will be based on a test case that is well known in New Testament textual criticism (NTTC): the ending of the Gospel according to Mark. Consequently, this article explores the epistemological digital turn in the Humanities and relates it to the MARK16 project, hoping to inspire further research and engagement in NTTC and New Testament studies. The first section outlines some challenges for digital research, pointing to the fact that virtual research environments (VREs) seem to be the main emergent digital milieu in which this work occurs. The second section presents an overview of VREs in New Testament and Early Christian research, and the third discusses the challenges presented by MARK16 in building a new Humanities research model around a NTTC test case.

Along with the rise of a research field called digital humanities, online specific research ethics plays an especially significant role. Research on the same (Internet related) topic is usually multidisciplinary, and understanding research ethics even inside the same research community may vary essentially. It is important to recognise and pay attention to online specific contexts as well as the researcher’s own disciplinary background. In this empirical research paper, we will first sum up our previous work. Currently, we are working on a model which will help in positioning multidisciplinary researchers as ethical actors based on their research topics and backgrounds. In this article, we will present this model with a demonstration of the empirical data collected as part of a Finnish research project called Citizen Mindscapes, which concerns the cultures and history of Finnish discussion forums. We argue that in Finland, and probably also worldwide, online research ethics is in a phase where the focus should be moving from defining the ethical guidelines to studying research ethics as such. We will also discuss how the model will be further developed in an in-depth empirical process.

[EN] Recent policy discourse suggests that arts and humanities research is seen as being less useful to society than other disciplines, notably in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The paper explores how this assumption s construction has been built and whether it is based upon an unfair prejudice: we argue for a prima facie case to answer in assuming that arts and humanities research s lower societal value. We identify a set of claims circulating in policy circles regarding science, technology, engineering and math- ematics research and arts and humanities research s differences. We find two groups: arts and humanities research is less useful than science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and arts and humanities research is merely differently useful. We argue that empirical analysis is necessary to disentangle which ones are true to assess whether policy-making is being based on rational and evidence-based claims. We argue that debates about public research value should recognise that humanities have different (but equally valid) kinds of societal value., This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, which funded the PhD research fellowship of Julia Olmos Peñuela through the F.P.U program [AP2007- 01850]. The research fellowship took place in the framework of the HERAVALUE project, Measuring the public value of arts and humanities research, financially supported by the HERA Joint Research Programme, cofunded by AHRC, AKA, DASTI, ETF, FNR, FWF, HAZU, IRCHSS, MHEST, NWO, RANNIS, RCN, VR and The European Community FP7 2007-2013, under the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme. The authors would like to thank the editors and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments. Any errors or omissions remain the authors’ responsibilitie