RAE2015 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
PEER-EVALUATION REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY (PSCH)
Faculty of Social Sciences
RAE2015 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU
PEER-EVALUATION REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY (PSCH)
Faculty of Social Sciences
•
•
The unit contains three disciplines (sub-units):
Political Science (PS), Contemporary History (CH) and East-Asian Studies (CEAS)
In addition, the unit is the home of the Centre of Parliamentary studies and two other
centres for area studies; the other focuses on North American Studies, named after
John Morton, and the other on European Studies. Moreover, the Public Choice
Research Centre (PCRC) has been a part of the unit.
Panel: Arve Egil Asbjørnsen (chair), Clotilde Calabi, Maria Lähteenmäki, Björn Wittrock
1. OVERALL RATING OF THE UNIT: Excellent
2. Description of the research activity during the evaluation period
2010–2013 – RATING: Good to Excellent
Describe the panel’s view on the scientific quality and innovativeness of the research activity
The scientific quality of the research activity is high and innovative. The personnel has
reassessed and reorganised the profiles, roles and expertise areas of the unit both in Finnish
and international context during the period in question. These efforts may be characterized as
a sustained endeavour to make the PSCH more international in terms of research subjects, and
to get more international funding for that. The previous profile (even in the 2000s) of the unit
has been more national. The internationalisation process is still going on.
During the last five years, the PSCH department has systematically strengthened its
international activity and visibility. For instance, it is today the leading coordinator of East
Asian Studies and North American Studies in Finland, and has close interaction with East Asian
universities (especially in Nankai, Fudan, and Hong Kong) and some American universities as
well. The Public Choice Research Centre (PCRC), which has had a consistently high reputation
in the field of public choice research, has close cooperation with networks of scholars at the
universities of Bonn, Canberra, Copenhagen, and Oxford. There are also some new initiatives
by the contemporary history unit in the field of diplomatic history (Britain, Germany, and the
Baltic states). More generally, the closest networks of cooperation of the unit are with the
universities in Western Europe, the Nordic countries, the Baltic States and in East Asia (Japan,
China, Korea).
2 / 12
The department as a whole can point to a respectable and extensive publication record in
terms of monographs and edited volumes as well as articles in scholarly journals. Researchers
at the department have contributed to many national and international projects. They have
also been able to get substantial external funding, especially from national institutions and
funds such as the Academy of Finland and the Kone foundation. Professors, lecturers and
university teachers all engage in both teaching and research.
The synergy effects between research in the units of contemporary history, political science
and area studies seem to be a reality. There is every chance that they will become even more
pronounced in the years to come as the activities of the area centres expand. The decision to
encompass these different fields of research within the same department in 2010 appears to
have had beneficial consequences. At the same time, these different components of the
department are still to some extent characterized by different intellectual styles and perhaps
to some extent also by different academic cultures, something which may be both natural and
desirable but also means that there are conditions that have to be observed in the pursuit of
collaboration.
Generally speaking, it is difficult to say what are the ’real results’ of research and
innovativeness related to political science and history, but especially the national role of the
department is important and very visible: The academic disciplines of the department have an
elementary role as providers of civic education and understanding. In this respect they help
the democratic system to reproduce and further develop itself. The national reputation of the
department is good. Members of the department, who have specialised in elections and
parliamentary issues, have very often been invited to contribute to Finnish television
programmes (news, topical programmes). The national societal relevance of made research is
very high: To act as a commentator and expert of topical societal questions is one of the most
important specialised roles fulfilled by the department.
In the field of historical research, so called impacts factors are not in common use, nor is it
clear how they might be usefully applied. Thus we shall abstain from assessments of these
factors in the context of the present evaluation of these fields.
How do you see the main achievements in relation to the main resources (for personnel, see 3,
for funding, see 4, and for infrastructure, see 5) invested in the research activities of the unit?
Personnel
The number of professors is relatively small given the overall size of resources and
commitments (funding, number of publications, and administrative and teaching tasks). The
number of teachers and researchers was 45–55 during the years of 2010–2013.
The number of professors has diminished during the period in question (7;7;5), as well as the
number of teaching and research personnel (40;37;36).
3 / 12
In addition, some members (professors) have worked quite a lot as administrators (heads of
the department and in faculty duties), which has diminished their possibilities to make
research.
Funding has been quite good, especially national funding. More international funding is
needed and wanted.
Infrastructure is very good, especially library services, computer networks, site of the unit, and
the equipment of offices.
Research activities are extensive and broad and do inevitably entail quite a substantial
workload given the size of the department.
Indicate strengths, weaknesses and other remarks:
Strengths: The unit is very active in terms of publications and projects, societal impact is
exceptionally high and visible from a national perspective, not least in the field of studies of
parliament and democracy; quite a number of young researchers work in the unit, and the
infrastructure is of high quality. There is also a clear ambition among the members of the
department to further develop the extent of activities and the quality of work at the
department. As older members of the unit have retired, new members are in the process of
gradually changing the profile of the PSCH department in the direction of an even stronger
international orientation.
Weaknesses: The gender balance is still weak: only one female professor worked in the unit
during the years of 2010–2013. In addition, the number of women, and their percentage have
been diminished during the last years. Also the number of the entire personnel has been
diminished during the years.
SUBRATING: Good
GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
In scholarly terms, the excellent reputation in the field of public choice research (PCRC) is
being complemented by new advances in the field of research on international relations. There
is also the prospect that these different strands will become increasingly tied to the core
political science area of the department which in this context is encompassed under the label
of political systems.
The decision to transfer philosophy to the department as well as the plans for a new joint
University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University centre with a focus on democracy will add new
opportunities for both theoretical and empirical advances. This, however, will require an active
engagement and commitment on the part of the leading researchers at the department. We
hope and believe that this will indeed be the case. If so, the department will be well placed to
engage in significant scholarly advances.
4 / 12
In scholarly terms, the different subunits complement each other nicely. However, the
potentials of exploring common concerns have not been exhausted and these potentials are
likely to grow in the years to come and will require a general atmosphere of openness and
intellectual curiosity in the department as a whole.
3. Organisation and personnel during the evaluation period 2010–2013
– RATING: Good
Describe your view on the following points:
The unit’s recruiting policy of researchers at various career stages
The panel see that the weakest link from this viewpoint is the unsatisfactory position of young
(both male and female) postdoctoral researchers. To develop a factual four-step-career-path
the unit needs to pay much more attention especially to this most vulnerable career stage.
SUBRATING: Good
Possibilities for researchers to proceed in their career
Generally speaking, partly due to the weak economic situation in Finland, younger researchers’
possibilities to proceed in their careers have weakened a bit in the beginning of the 2010s. The
competition is nowadays harder than before. However, there are still good possibilities for
talented students to get grants from private foundations and from the Finland’s Academy as
well.
Single departments or faculties have quite limited possibilities to increase the number of
young researchers. They surely could support them, for instance, by offering money for
conferences and field trips. The PSCH department has offered conference and travel grants for
researchers and post-graduate students. However, many of them have not been interested in
longer research exchange possibilities. Maybe the long-term visits (from half a year to one
year) should be obligatory and permanent parts of the doctoral training programmes.
SUBRATING: Good
Are the teachers and the researchers also actively involved in research and teaching,
respectively? How do you see the balance between teaching and research?
All members of the research community have also a duty to teach.
Students seem to be important in the unit: The scope of the research has been broad, which is
undoubtedly an asset, considering the great variation in students’ interests.
Generally speaking, the doctoral training system has been in transformation since the
beginning of the 2010s: in 2013, the national graduate schools were formally closed down, and
5 / 12
their tasks were taken by university-based graduate schools. But, still today, the system is not
stabilised.
SUBRATING: Excellent
Gender and equality issues: pay attention e.g. i) to good gender balance as well as the
proportion of foreign personnel in the personnel groups in Appendix A
A) Overall, the gender balance of this department is biased, and during the period of
evaluation the percentage of female professors has also diminished. The
percentage of women in other teaching and research positions has diminished as
well.
B) The number of foreign personnel and their percentage has also diminished.
The unit need to make a specific strategy how the unbalanced circumstances could revise.
SUBRATING: Insufficient
and ii) to the parental leave issues and gender balance in Appendix B
Although Finnish fathers have nowadays quite good possibilities to utilize family leaves, it is
still common that mothers take much longer leaves in entire university as well as in the PSCH.
Nevertheless, if we compare the situation of the PSCH with the whole university within the
years 2012–2013, we can see that the average length of family leaves are longer and also
fathers utilize the leaves more in the unit.
SUBRATING: Good
GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The management of the unit should re-evaluate the consequences of family leaves, especially
in terms of the more equal recruiting policy and four-step-career-path. It could be, for
instance, a useful and rousing subject of thesis for graduate or doctoral student.
4. Research funding during the evaluation period 2010–2013
– RATING: Good
Describe your view on the following points:
The success and strategy of the unit in the competition for funding
The unit has acquired external domestic funding very well, but there is still a way to go in
terms of competitive international funding. The domestic funding has come mainly from the
Academy of Finland, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and from private foundations. In the
6 / 12
future, when competition for funding will surely be much harder in Finland and in the EU level
as well, it is important to develop a more explicit strategy for prospective external funding.
SUBRATING: Good
Is the division of external funding into the different categories as shown in Appendix C
appropriate?
As said above, the unit has been successful in acquiring domestic funding, but not so successful
and not so active in acquiring international funding.
SUBRATING: Good
General comments and recommendations:
Generally speaking, national funding instruments are nowadays more orientated towards the
so-called hard disciplines (technology, biology, climate studies) – but also to social research
and educational studies dedicated to high societal relevance – rather than towards research in
the fields of history or political science, which cannot offer equally direct data for politicians.
The unit will have to look more seriously for other sources of funding in the future. In the
discussions, participants realised well the decreased domestic funding possibilities but have
been timid to apply funding from the EU sources.
5. Infrastructure during the evaluation period 2010–2013
– RATING: Excellent
Describe the panel’s view on the following points:
Major strengths and weaknesses in the unit’s infrastructure
The disciplines of Political science and Contemporary history united into one department in
2010, which seems to be a successful decision. According to their own words, the site of the
unit is now “almost ideal”: it houses a sufficient critical mass for research-related reflection.
SUBRATING: Excellent
Development of the infrastructure 2010–2013 in relation to research needs
The administrative personnel is relatively speaking small and the unit needs to hire at least one
more person for administrative work.
SUBRATING: Good
Possible impact of the unit in developing research infrastructures
SUBRATING: N/A
7 / 12
General comments and recommendations:
Especially among the personnel of Contemporary History, people were worried about the
possibilities that the most firm organisational part of the discipline, the Centre of
Parliamentary studies, could be moved to the planned Centre of democracy studies.
6. Scientific quality of research during 2010–2013 – RATING: Good to
Excellent
How would you evaluate the scientific quality of the unit’s research in relation to top
national/international research?
The internationally most visible strand of research of Political Science took place under the
auspices of the Centre for Public Choice Research (PCRC) as a centre of excellence supported
by the Academy of Finland in 2008–2013.
General comments and recommendations:
The PSCH department has all possibilities to generate a new corresponding excellent sub-unit
but it demands more active co-operation between the sub-units of the department, and more
factual inter-departmental research relations as well. Now, the leading research persons
seemed to be more individualists than team-workers in terms of research work and publishing
strategy. To build more productive and high level research teams, the people at PSCH need
more transparency, interaction and sharing than what there seems to be today.
Especially East Asian and North American Studies seem to offer new potential for the PSCH
department. They both have brilliant possibilities to make new openings as leading units of the
entire country.
7. Publications 2010–2013 – RATING: Good to Excellent
How would you evaluate the publication policy and quality based on the examples of
publications in the self-evaluation report and Appendixes D and E?
The academic quality of the named publications is mostly very high. However, some texts in
the more historical fields tend to be more descriptive than theoretical, and more national than
international. On the other hand, there are also investigations for which societal relevance and
utility are very high but the scientific quality not so remarkable.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
Estimate the overall quality of the publications that the unit estimates as its most important
ones.
As said above, the overall quality of the publications in the unit is high, that is, good to
excellent. Maybe the chosen strategy to publish both articles in high-class scientific journals,
8 / 12
research-based reports and more popular studies is considered? However, in the academic
rankings, only the first mentioned (JuFo category) will be taken into account and this will be
the case even more systematically in the future. From this viewpoint, the researchers of the
unit need to rethink what will be the role (and share of entire publications) of so-called
commissioned research projects. They very rarely fill the requirements of top-level rankings.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
General comments and recommendations:
The researchers and teachers of the unit have been very active in terms of publishing. To
compare PSCH with the other departments of the faculty, it has released much more academic
texts during the years 2011–2013. The number of national A-category publications has,
however, diminished during the years 2011–2013. In this occasion, we need to remember that
the number of personnel has diminished as well. In terms of international academic
publications the PSCH has a much lower figure than the other departments of the faculty.
All in all, the personnel of the unit have been more active in the national than the international
field in terms of publications. To achieve a higher payoff from the investments, they need to
focus more on the high-category journals and other publication platforms listed in the JUFO
system.
8. Doctoral training 2010–2013 as part of the scientific activity in the unit
– RATING: Excellent
How would you estimate the organisation and success of doctoral training in the unit?
General comments and recommendations:
The small size of the department’s sub-units assures doctoral seminars are relevant for the
doctoral candidates. The participation in the UTUGS assures an even quality of the doctoral
programmes.
9. Researcher mobility – RATING: Good
How would you evaluate researcher mobility in the unit?
International and national conference and workshop mobility is very high both among
researchers and doctoral students, and the unit has tried purposefully to support these kinds
of mobility. Instead of that, the unit needs to increase the share of long-term visits (student
and teacher exchange in and out). This is inevitable if the unit wants to be more visible and
influential in the future in the international academic arenas.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
Has the unit succeeded in attracting international researchers?
9 / 12
SUBRATING: Good
General comments and recommendations:
The members of the department have not been as active with international exchange as they
should have been. The majority of the visits have been ‘short out’ visits, but there have also
been in every sub-unit some visitors coming to the department in long and short term
exchange.
Nevertheless, the units have still much to do with the long-term exchange of doctoral student
and postdoctoral researchers. A special focus need to put on the mobility of postdoctoral
researchers.
10. International co-operation and partners 2010–2013 – RATING: Good
to Excellent
Describe the panel’s view on the following points:
Success and extent of international co-operation.
The PSCH department maintains very many active research networks; the Centre of East Asian
studies, for instance, has a number of such networks involving Asian universities (such as
Nankai University). The teachers and researchers have also had cooperation with many
German universities (Bonn, Berlin) as well as British (Hull, Strathclyde) and many American
universities. In addition, they have had cooperation with the University of Vienna, the
Australian National University etc. Many researchers have participated in the Erasmus
programme (e.g. Saarbrücken and Edinburgh). All in all, the personnel of the PSCH department
participated in 11 international co-operation projects during the years in question.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
Has international co-operation provided clear extra value for the research?
The cooperation has been providing both material (funding, common publications) and
scientific (memberships of international research projects and boards) value to the
department.
SUBRATING: Good
General comments and recommendations:
The international collaboration in the department is quite extensive, but there is an imbalance
between the described collaboration and the extent of exchange.
10 / 12
11. National co-operation partners 2010–2013 – RATING: Good to
Excellent
Describe the panel’s view on the following points:
The PSCH department is a nationally well-known scientific unit, and the sub-units have been
active members of many national doctoral and MA programmes. Altogether, the researchers
of the unit have been members of 11 national projects. Their most important national partners
have been researchers of the Universities of Helsinki and Tampere, as well as the Parliament of
Finland, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and leading newspapers.
Success and extent of national co-operation.
The PSCH department has had a very active and broad role in terms of the political culture of
Finland, the visibility of Parliament affairs and policy making.
SUBRATING: Good
Has the national co-operation provided clear extra value for the research?
The national co-operation has provided both material (funding) value and societal value.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
General comments and recommendations:
Due to the character of ‘social sciences’ the self-evident and unquestionable societal ‘task’ of
the PSCH has been to discuss and interact with the national power institutions, politicians and
policy makers; and to offer, sort to say, research services to entire society and support societal
democracy and wellbeing. It seemed to us, after all, that maybe it could be useful and
constructive to open self-reflective discussions dealing with research ethics, and make the
named ethical rules more visible in terms of research methods, collected databases, used
sources and research results as well.
12. Wide-range impact of research during 2010–2013 – RATING: Good
How would you estimate the impact of the unit’s research on basic and applied research?
General comments and recommendations:
The long-term impacts of research in the department may not be obviously apparent.
However, they have made valuable contributions to the literature in the areas in focus.
11 / 12
13. Innovations – RATING: N/A
How would you evaluate the innovations (e.g. social innovations, co-operation with companies
and TEKES projects, established companies, patents, innovation announcements) described in
the unit’s self-evaluation report?
Not assessed in this report.
14. Special impact on the national and international scientific
community 2010–2013 – RATING: Good
How would you evaluate the unit’s impact on scientific leadership as well as on the national
and international scientific community?
The members of the unit have acted in many academic tasks (opponents, examiners, members
of editorships, evaluation boards etc.), and rendered substantial professional and universitybased services.
General comments and recommendations:
Today especially professors are loaded with such extensive academic duties that their research
work has become disturbed. The panel suggest that the unit supports arrangements that allow
special teaching-free/administration-free periods (months, weeks) when professors and
leading researchers could alternately concentrate on their research work.
15. Research activity plan 2015–2018 – RATING: Excellent
Describe the panel’s view on the future success of the unit, paying particular attention to the
following points:
The future of the PSCH department is very promising; already in 2014–2015, the profile of the
unit has been brightened, and today the department is more international than, for instance,
in 2011. In addition, the specialisation process related to the national research status of PSCH
has been advanced.
The coming new professor of Contemporary History (2016) could open new possibilities to
develop the research frame of the entire unit. Also the strengthened roles of the East Asian
and North American studies could improve the high-level international academic visibility of
the unit and add possibilities to get international funding. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that
at least Political Science would benefit from the upcoming transfer of the philosophy unit to
PSCH.
However, due to the special societal role and tasks of the unit among the national actors, it is
important that the personnel will publish also in Finnish in the future.
12 / 12
Is the research activity plan feasible? How do you see the ratio of the planned investments and
the aimed outcomes and impacts? Does the unit describe potential weaknesses that may affect
reaching these aims? How are alternative approaches being considered?
It seems that the unit has every possibility to continue the work it has initiated during the
period in question.
SUBRATING: Good to Excellent
Estimate the potential of this research activity plan for significant new outcomes, scientific
breakthroughs, scientific progress in this field, as well as its potential outcomes and impacts.
The basic challenges seem to be a) in which way the unit succeeds to encourage its personnel
to make more creative team work and successful international funding initiatives with national
and international partners, b) in which way the personnel manage to make their national and
international expertise areas more visible, and c) in which way the status of the entire
university succeeds to make itself more attractive. If all these elements will come together,
there are great possibilities to further raise the reputation and international standing of the
unit.
SUBRATING: Excellent
Can the panel foresee any potential scientific breakthroughs not considered by the unit itself?
The modelling of the Finnish and Nordic political systems, and especially the complex political
relations between Russia, the Nordic countries and the EU in the long-term-dimension might
lead to innovative thinking and even to a kind of intellectual breakthrough.
Estimate the planned national and international co-operation and networks in light of the
aimed outcomes and impacts.
SUBRATING: Excellent
Estimate the potential of the described strategy for success in competition for funding.
The chosen strategy seems to be realistic and sufficiently ambitious. More exact specialisation
of units and universities is the demand of the Finnish government of today. Thus, the
specialisation will not concern only departments and faculties but entire universities. The
success of the planned centre for democracy studies will depend on the collaboration of
similar units both within and outside the University of Turku.
SUBRATING: Excellent