2

german research 2/2003

If the academic debates in the re-view and readers’ letters sectionsof newspapers in recent years are

to be believed, the humanities are inan awkward position. It is not justthat they feel marginalised in publicdiscussion. Mutual decision-mak-ing between politics and universi-ties is also putting them under pres-sure: the abolition of entire coursesof study and reduction in their re-sources, together with an increasingnumber of students and overload-quotas in other areas, leave hardlyany time for research; the newFramework Act for Higher Educa-tion, which includes the abolition ofthe “Habilitation”, the introductionof junior professorships and newtenure regulations, none of whichsufficiently accommodates the spe-cific careers in the humanities; theintra-university distribution of bud-getary funds according to parame-ters which, due to their dispropor-tionate provision for third-partyfunds in cooperative associationsand areas of distinction, also put thehumanities at a disadvantage. Andfinally the Deutsche Forschungsge-meinschaft (DFG, German ResearchFoundation): with its funding instru-ments and its programmes foryoung researchers it seems to be ac-celerating the decline of the human-ities, or at least not be slowing itdown.

This nightmare scenario, howev-er, represents only one side of thecoin. There is an entirely differentone. Due to the not unproblematicassumption of the cultural-theoreti-cal “renewal” that has been takingplace on a broad basis and in almostall disciplines ever since the 1980s,the humanities in particular havebeen involved in an intensive, attimes bitter, but all the more fruitfuldiscussion about their practical aswell as methodological bases. Inmany areas, this discussion has ledto a thrust, embracing hitherto over-looked areas, leading to new ques-tions and to disciplinary expansion.At the same time, however, it hascaused each individual discipline toposition itself historically within thespectrum of disciplines, by extend-ing into the other great academicareas, and thus achieved, especiallyin Germany, a high standard of his-

Commentary

torical reconstruction, theoreticalself-reflection and a practical redef-inition of the disciplines.

The results of this interdiscipli-nary, public discussion concerningthe humanities and their cultural-theoretical basis are obvious: a highdegree of internationalisation of theindividual disciplines and at thesame time an increasing internation-al dissemination through its recon-structive return to the diversity ofcultural-theoretical theory-building,which characterised discussions in

The humanities are thus an ex-tremely lively community conduct-ing discussions on the fundamentalissues of individual disciplines dur-ing teaching as well as in research,internally as well as in public, andthus shaping to a considerable ex-tent the current discussion aboutmodern culture.

There are nonetheless problemsthat the Deutsche Forschungsge-meinschaft should pay particularattention to. This is not abouthedge clauses which the humani-

Germany during the early 20th cen-tury; attractive university teaching,since students are confronted fromthe outset with fundamental ques-tions about their disciplines; richprogrammatic research activitiesthat take place not so much in estab-lished specialist journals but ratherin interdisciplinary joint works, an-thologies and conference proceed-ings and are mainly carried forwardby young researchers; and finally,radical changes concerning theintra-disciplinary structure by intro-ducing new courses of study.

ties certainly do not need. Formany years, they have retainedtheir percentage of the DFG fund-ing volume (with a slight increasecompared with the natural sci-ences), and in some areas, such asthe interdisciplinary promotion ofyoung researchers in the ResearchTraining Groups, they have evenbeen particularly successful. Theproblem is on a completely differ-ent plane to the percentages, how-ever. Far more, as has been demon-strated by an internal survey con-ducted by the DFG, it is the age

Prospects for a Living Community

The humanities demand flexible funding instruments – special

requirements must be accommodated

Prof. Ursula Peters

3

german research 2/2003

may not be significantly older thantheir colleagues when they are ap-pointed. It is clear, however, that inthe majority of humanist disciplinesthe long qualification phase and thecorrespondingly high age of youngresearchers in individual cases isnot regarded as a drawback. On thecontrary: in many cultural and his-torical disciplines, in-depth famil-iarisation with foreign cultures andlanguages determines the youngacademics’ standard and thereforealso their qualification planningprocess. This should perhaps be

searchers, by Individual Grants Pro-grammes, Research Fellowships,the second stage of the Emmy Noe-ther Programme, and Printing Sub-sidy. For established university lec-turers, funding for individual re-search includes Sabbaticals. So farthis type of funding has tended to beseen as an exception and therefore,despite the demand for it, has notbeen utilised enough. An expansionof this funding instrument by in-cluding Sabbaticals in the normalproposal for a Research Grant wouldthus be of great benefit for individ-

factor for qualification of young re-searchers, individual research inprojects aiming at publishing amonograph, as well as the magni-tude of cooperative processes.

The bitter reaction, mainly by re-searchers in the humanities, to thetenure regulations of the newFramework Act for Higher Educa-tion shows that in this communityage plays a different role during thequalification phase and at the timeof appointment than in the otherareas of academic life. Humanists

taken into account more than beforewhen discussing the funding ofyoung researchers on all levels, in-cluding the programmes of excel-lence.

The monograph, the result of in-dividual research, is and in manybranches of the humanities will, forgood reason, remain the most respected way of doing research.For this reason, the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft promotesindividual research in all stages, es-pecially in the case of young re-

ual research, which is so prestigiouswithin the humanities. In return,young researchers would be able togain the necessary qualifications foran appointment by carrying out re-placement teaching.

Alarge part of research in thehumanities, too, consists ofcooperative associations. The

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaftaccommodates this with a specialbudgetary sector for long-term pro-jects in the humanities for the jointreconstruction and safeguarding ofhuge stocks of knowledge. The in-creasingly successful establishmentof the Collaborative Research Cen-tres also demonstrates an interest incooperation. In the context of“structural formation”, it has beentried to increase the critical massthrough large Collaborative Re-search Centres and above allthrough the DFG Research Centrewhich is so successful in other aca-demic areas. However, due to theheterogeneity of the range of disci-plines, the humanities find theirown natural limits and can there-fore not easily join together in largeassociations. For the humanities,the (distributed) Research Unit, dueto its flexibility, appears to be a par-ticularly suitable instrument of co-operative research funding. TheDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaftmust explain to its member organi-sations (the universities) that notonly DFG Research Centres andlarge Collaborative Research Cen-tres contribute to their image, butalso small formations that are inter-linked with research groups ofother universities. The humanitieswould benefit a great deal.

Prof. Ursula Peters

Ursula Peters, Professor for Older GermanLanguage and Literature at the University ofCologne is Vice-President of the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft. The DFG’s Execu-tive Committee consists of the President andeight Vice-Presidents as well as the Chair-man of the Stifterverband für die DeutscheWissenschaft (Donor´s Association for thePromotion of Science and Humanities in Ger-many).