NSU at a crossroads
After recent years’ feeling of
crisis and struggle for survival, we have, this summer, an opportune moment to
breathe and to discuss new ideas for the NSU. We hereby wish to present some
ideas that are meant to re-define some of the current institutions within NSU.
It concerns the study circles, the keynotes, the visibility of NSU, and the NSU
Press.
Our starting point is the always present
question of what is special about the NSU. Why engage in NSU rather than elsewhere?
Briefly put, because NSU is a radically
democratic institution providing framework for activities that are difficult to
place anywhere within the conventional institutions as well as room for participants
that have no institution.
NSU exists outside political control
of research activities, known to be the fate of other institutions, and relies
on the participants’ interests and active involvement. Professional researchers’
freedom to define their field of research is under pressure these years, and
institutional life is suffocating due to control and bureaucracy (the latter
has also recently found its way into the NSU). It is crucial to maintain the
radically democratic model of NSU as a core element in the NSU clearly
distinguishing this organisation from other research institutions.
It is very important to emphasize this
as we can fear that the NSU is letting itself be forced too far down a line of
traditional formats of review processes, bureaucratic procedures, evaluations
and other mechanisms of control in order to conform to the expectations of the outside
world. Some of it may be necessary, but we must discuss how far we are willing
go and while retaining what is special about NSU.
The analysis of what NSU is should receive
extended focus. However, the following is a suggestion of some concrete ideas about
how we could structure the NSU in a different way.
Study circles
The study circles today function more
or less like a series of conferences. This is probably not the best format for
NSU.
For at least a decade, a dominant
criterion of success has been the ability to attract participants, legitimizing
the circle and the NSU as such. Question is if this is counter-productive for
the work in the circles. A lot of effort is put into attracting participants, especially
in the summer, in some circles followed by a concern about their survival. This
can lead to problematic compromises. Instead of maintaining a focus on the
circle’s theme, the co-ordinators may feel forced to open up the theme to
attract more participants. An unfortunate result is that some core members lose
interest and others may attend one conference or two but do not become
significantly involved in the NSU, thus also undermining the recruiting of
volunteers to work for the NSU. An outcome is a diminishing group of committed NSU’ers,
and study circles that have to struggle to become a dynamic, collective body. Obligatory
open calls may create a division between old and new participants in the
circle, and it may hinder the continuous development of previous work in the
circle. Instead of research continuity and in-depth studies of the circle’s
theme we obtain a line of largely disconnected meetings.
Perhaps we should take the title ‘study
circle’ by the letter. Instead of open seminars/conferences it should be
possible also to form a smaller group based on mutual goals. Perhaps we should
make a distinction between ‘study circle’ and ‘seminar group’ as two different
forms of activities.
Study circles
A Study circle is a group of people with
a specific research focus, setting up activities in the field of interest.
A study circle does not have to be open
for all (is not asked to make open calls), but can be a well-defined group of
invited participants.
A study circle should have more activities
over the year – virtual or through RL activities.
Preferable, a study circle works
towards applying for external funding for a continuation after its NSU
existence.
A study circle works from a proposal
describing the scientific foundation and clear defined goals and achievements
of the circle. The life span of a study circle is up to three years if it
fulfils the criteria for a study circle.
A study circle brings participants
together for scientific activities (presentations, publications, etc.) and
strategic activities (preparing applications, building up research groups in
institutions, etc.).
A study circle has one coordinator
who is the contact person for NSU and responsible for economic support from
NSU. The coordinator must participate in the Fællesmøter held within NSU twice a year.
A study circle organises itself
freely as a group of individual members or as a cluster of smaller groups with independent
activities but coordinated through the circle or taking other possible forms.
A study circle elects three
delegates to Repræsentantskapet at
the summer session.
A study circle can have max. 12
participants in the summer session unless there are vacancies.
A study circle of less than 5
participants in the summer is to be terminated unless Repræsentantskapet grants it permission to continue, based on an
application.
A study circle can, within its life
span, decide to be transformed into a seminar group. It will then have to apply
Repræsentantskapet for a change of
status for its remaining time.
Funding of study circles
A circle is granted money that may
be spent on one or more meetings. Rules should be established as to how much
money can be used on individual participants or on specific activities (such as
dinner). Exceptions will have to be approved by the board (like higher costs
for transport from particular localities).
There will be a maximum of funding
of study circles (e.g. 20,000 SEK).
Seminar groups
A seminar group is a group
organising a series of seminars based on a study program with the intention of
creating network activities across boundaries (geographic, institutional, and
professional). Seminars are organised by one or more coordinators responsible
for maintaining the activities in relation to the seminars, including web
presence and documentation.
The purpose of a specific seminar is
to invite a broad group of participants to share knowledge on the topic of the
seminar.
A seminar group works from a
proposal describing the scientific foundation of the seminars as well as the
goals of the seminars and their final outcome. A seminar group’s life span is up
to three years if it fulfils the criteria for a seminar group.
A seminar group has at least one
coordinator. The seminar group must have one who is the contact person for NSU
and one (can be the same) responsible for economic support from NSU. A
coordinator must participate in the Fællesmøter
held within NSU twice a year. A seminar group organises itself freely, thus the
coordinating team of a seminar group can be of any size and combination.
A seminar group elects three
delegates to Repræsentantskapet at
the summer session.
A seminar is held on the basis of an
open call.
A seminar should be documented in
the most appropriate form of documentation.
A seminar of less than 10
participants in the winter is considered to be terminated after the following
summer session unless Repræsentantskapet grants
it permission to continue based on an application.
A seminar must include participants
from at least three different Nordic/Baltic countries of which at least two
must be Nordic.
A seminar should reflect a broad
group of participants’ backgrounds, both within research institutions
(including students) and outside (participants in different occupations with or
without relation to research), as well as genders.
Funding of seminar groups:
A seminar group must apply for
funding of a seminar no later than four weeks before it is held, in accordance
with NSU rules for support.
There will be a maximum of funding
of a seminar group (e.g. 50,000 SEK).
Generally speaking, at least one coordinator of a
study circle/seminar group must be able to understand Scandinavian languages. A
circle/group can choose to work exclusively in Scandinavian languages and
communicate with the rest of the NSU in Scandinavian. The use of Scandinavian should
not be hampered by other institutions within the NSU that are not able to
communicate in these languages.
The overall gain is that these two
different types of organisation will offer more flexibility as well as less
insecurity. They can also facilitate a wider range of activities within the NSU.
Study circles will cost less than seminars, however exactly how much will
depend on the number of applications from the two types of groups.
For coordinators with an interest in
a specific topic to take action towards the organisation of activities, it will
become considerably more favourable to work with a circle, because they can
concentrate on content and not on the marketing of a seminar, nor will they be
marred by concern for recruiting enough participants to make it through the NSU
evaluation.
A guideline for application for both
study circles and seminar groups should be made. The current idea of title and
description for each meeting during the circle’s three-year existence is
abandoned as it works against the progress of the work within the group, which
may develop differently than outlined and, at the same time, frustrates the
continuity where certain themes should be maintained throughout the meetings.
Keynote.
The current keynote format is a
costly institution with, arguably, far too little impact on the summer session.
It is difficult to reach out to
everyone, and the result is often a keynote addressing a smaller group. The
argument that we should also listen to someone speaking from outside our own
field is an argument of idealism. Many participants choose not to attend
because the program in the summer is so compact that priorities must be made –
the keynotes take up between ¼ and ⅓ of the entire program, time that could be
used in the circles instead. The time given the circles in the summer is almost
equal to a winter seminar.
It is not good to invite keynotes
and not be able to tell them whether 40 or 100 will be present for their lectures.
The issue of keynote has been
brought up amongst coordinators, who are the ones to make the choice of whom to
invite. So far a majority has been in favour of the current institution.
However, this is actually an issue for everybody in the NSU.
Decision about keynote 2018 is made at
the Fællesmöte in September 2016.
As the procedure is now, coordinators
present a number of keynote candidates and elect the ones they find most
fitting. This means that in practice one circle is behind each elected keynote
– with the hope shared by all the coordinators that the chosen keynotes appeal to
several participants from more or less all circles.
One suggestion is to ask for only
one lecture for all and another within the circle(s) behind invitation (open
for others). This will enable the use of the time slot for second keynote
presentation for other activities (such as a cross-circle seminar) and give a
better use of the key-notes as they become more clearly invited by a circle
sharing interest and not by all of NSU with an unclear idea of who they are
addressing.
NSU’s visibility
The new web page still gives no idea
of what NSU is for a visitor not already familiar with NSU. Common questions from
outsiders are e.g. what courses NSU offers, and what theme the summer session has.
A description of NSU’s unique
organisational and political structure of democracy, self-governance and
self-organisation is nowhere to be found on the webpage.
It is crucial that NSU communicates
the possibility of applying for a study-circle or seminar group. Currently this
happens through the newsletter and on the webpage/social media which only reach
those who already are acquainted with NSU. The knowledge of NSU among Nordic
researchers is very poor and mostly found among the oldest generations. This
undermines the future of NSU.
The possibility of being granted
funding for a network or similar activities through the national research
councils is little. NSU is an alternative and should be attractive for many, but
hardly anyone is aware of it.
Invitations to apply for
circle/group funding should be distributed both autumn and spring through all
possible Nordic academic platforms and mailing lists, not least through
NMR/NordForsk. It may be necessary to contact directly the head of research at
all relevant departments and institutions within the Nordic/Baltic countries.
As an alternative to circle X and ad
hoc meetings, a potential proposal having similarities or mutual interests with
an existing circle/group can, for e.g. one year, form a sub-group within it. As
such it will be granted space for meeting in relation to existing meetings in
the circle/group – as a parallel or integrated activity – and use this platform
for establishing a foundation for application, while learning about NSU.
A sub-group should be able to apply
for support (like 5,000 SEK) to be used at one or more meetings with the
hosting circle/group.
To apply for either circle or
seminar must still require presence in the summer, as the willingness to
participate in the NSU democracy, as well as doing some voluntary work, is
crucial for NSU’s survival.
NSU Press.
Why do we make publications?
An important reason is that some participants (at institutions) can have
their participation supported by their institution if there is a publication.
Thing is, a circle has six meetings and only one publication so this argument
works only once.
Another reason is to document an outcome of the circles.
We suggest skipping the anthologies and instead make an online research journal
with one or two issues a year for all circles. One issue could be for all circles
and another a special issue related to one circle's seminar or specific events.
Such an issue will then depend on guest editors, which leaves only one annual
issue to be made by the NSU Press editorial group.
Such a journal will have a clear research profile and make it possible for
participants to produce more publication in the life time of a circle.
A NSU Press editorial group has to be established and the editor(s) must
receive support on similar terms with board members/Arrkom.
If the online platform NMR is working, it should possibly be used.
Printed books should still be published but not as research publications. They
should be publications for a broader audience to create public debate and for
general enlightenment. It can be based on one circle or be a collaboration
between two or more circles – alternatively spring from a group within NSU that
takes a special initiative.
Such smaller publications for debate could have much more impact outside
NSU and show others much better what NSU is.
NSU could become visible in the Nordic public known for such important debates.
Gro Hellesdatter Jacobsen, circle 1
Carsten Friberg, circle 2
Lars Ylander, circle 8
No comments:
Post a Comment