This paper proposes a number of pragmatic steps and options that the government could take to progress a relationship with the Council for the Humanities, in a way that fosters development of humanities knowledge and research and contributes to New Zealand government policy.
This report argues that a serious attempt to lift the game of connecting effective contributions from humanities research to policy development requires attention on the demand side. Clear lessons have been learnt from the experience of strengthening the links between research and policy in the social sector. These lessons can be adapted to address the challenge for the humanities research - policy interface.
This report takes as a given that humanities researchers agree that their grouping together under the umbrella of the Council of the Humanities is a useful basis for the government to interact with the sector. This is stated as an explicit assumption not to call it into question but because it follows from this assumption that it would be constructive for government to engage with a representative body, the Council for the Humanities, as a basis for strengthening its interaction with this area of research.
A number of stepped options are proposed to enable a productive relationship between the Council for the Humanities and government. An essential element is the need for a lead agency on the government side. A key role for the lead agency would be to lead a research prioritisation exercise that would provide a strategic framework for the contribution of humanities research to desired government outcomes, whether through government agencies’ research budgets, the Cross-Departmental Research Fund (CDRF) or Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) funding. It is proposed that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) should take this whole-of-government lead role, with funding to support this role.
Hand in hand with this proposed prioritisation exercise the report also highlights the need for focus and funding to pursue policy relevant research in important areas of policy that are currently ‘underdone’ in terms of access to and use of research. These include culture and heritage policy, archives and museum, policy, broadcasting, media and digitisation policy, citizenship, national identity and language policy
For the humanities sector the Council for the Humanities has the potential to provide a leadership mechanism, bringing together and communicating sector perspectives. It also has the potential to develop as an effective portal through which government could interact with a diverse set of humanities interests and perspectives.
A successful relationship can only be worked on, not guaranteed. Goodwill on both sides is needed to move forward constructively. Both parties will also need effective liaison people who are skilled at coordination and communication. The Council for the Humanities will rightly want to maintain its independent non-government organisation status. For this reason the report emphasises that any government funding to the Council should be on the basis of clear expectations and purchase arrangements.
It should be noted that the main focus of this report is on how the Council for the Humanities and government can work together to better connect humanities thinking and research with government policy development. The broad aim of promoting and fostering the study of humanities through the education system is traversed only lightly in this report. .