You are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003). The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.

Table of contents Introduction to Management of Social Transformations (MOST) The Nordic MOST Meeting Annex : Recommendation Preamble The meeting recommends that : ... Introduction to Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Because of the somewhat confusing state of the social sciences both in the world at large and within UNESCO and the ongoing debate about the role of social sciences, some initiatives have been taken to clarify their position and to build a firmer bedrock for social sciences research in the future. UNESCO played an effective pioneering role in interntional social science, particularly from the late 1940s to the late 1960s. The achievements during these two decades covered institution-building, international and regional networking, documentation services, teaching, training and a series of research projects designed to demonstrate social scientific capacities in such fields as countering prejudices and stereotypes and identifying major problem areas (urbanization, industralization, development, migration, etc.). In the 1970s and 1980s, however, UNESCO's social science programmes became less incisive. The attention of UNESCO's governing bodies was drawn to this decline and it led to a series of Executive Board decisions calling for the strengthening of the role of the social sciences. A result of this continuing concern resulted in an in-depth study on the role of the social and human sciences in UNESCO (131 EX/SP/RAP.1), which recommended that « Large scale international programmes, parallel to those in the natural sciences, could be conceived ». It finally lead to the most serious effort to do something about the present state of inertia in social sciences: the creation of a new scientific UNESCO Programme, MOST, with the specific aim of establishing an efficient worldwide network of social scientists. Although the name of the programme suggests that global challenges can be managed, it is increasingly recognized that 'transformations' have substituted the former terms 'development' and 'evolution', and that these transformations can be coped with for better or worse, not managed. The main aims of MOST are to promote international comparative social sciences through networking, and to make relevant information available to policy-makers in order to facilitate their work, which arguably is becoming more and more difficult. Besides these aims, an effort is being made to establish a comprehensive system for collecting and exchanging relevant data (a Clearing House function). The fact that social sciences should be made more policy-relevant does not conflict with the fight against the increasing instrumentalization of social sciences, because social sciences should be policy-relevant and receptive to stimuli arising from contemporary needs, i.e. geared to serving the public. On the other hand, they should have an independent role, whereby it is recognized that social sciences are important for their own sake and not only for the immediate applicability of their results. MOST operates in three high priority research areas: - multicultural and multi-ethnic societies, - cities as arenas of accelerated social transformations, and - coping locally and regionally with economic, technological and environmental transformations (i.e. global challenges). The focus of MOST is on suppporting large-scale, long-term autonomous research in these main research areas and making findings and data available to decision-makers. There are two central bodies, which steer the MOST programme: the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) composed of 35 UNESCO Member States and the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) consisting of 9 social scientists of international standing. The programme is managed by a small Secretariat at UNESCO headed by Dr Ali Kazancigil. In order to ensure a bottom-up flow of information within the programme, Member States establish MOST Liaison Groups. These include social scientists, representatives from science policy bodies and various categories of users. Furthermore, major international and regional social science organizations and professional bodies are partners to the MOST programme. The core institutional budget for MOST is provided through the regular budget of UNESCO. However, the bulk of the MOST budget is made up of sources outside UNESCO, such as contributions from UNESCO Member States and from international and national funding agencies. Another measure to clarify the role of the social sciences was the establishment of the so-called Gulbenkian Commission under Dr Immanuel Wallerstein and its report. The Nordic MOST meeting In order to map out the priorities of and the existing scientific work in different geographical regions of the world, a series of regional and sub-regional meetings have been held since the inception of MOST in 1994. One of these meetings was the Nordic MOST meeting, which convened in Helsinki on 11-12 January 1995, with the aim of discussing a Nordic MOST initiative. The participants were primarily researchers in the field of social science, but included several representatives of science policy administration, the Nordic National Commissions for UNESCO and other interest groups. Dr Ali Kazancigil, Director of the Division for Social Sciences, Research and Policy of UNESC0 and Executive Secretary of the MOST Programme, also took part in the meeting. Dr Immanuel Wallerstein gave a lecture on the Gulbenkian Commission Report on the development of the social sciences. At the time of the meeting some 85 proposals for MOST projects had already been made and about a dozen projects have been accepted. One of the accepted projects is a Nordic initiative (the so-called Tromso initiative), which developed out of a thematic meeting held in Tromso, Norway. It was clear from the beginning of the meeting, that prospective projects should work on the bottom-up principle, with initial funding (national or other sources) secured, before being accepted as MOST projects. MOST in itself will not and cannot become a funding machinery for research, because its resources are too limited. Therefore, for the sake of maximum efficiency, the number of MOST projects must be restricted. At the initial stage, only about fifteen or sixteen projects will be included in the list, so that a certain amount of homogeneity can be maintained, at the same time ensuring a fair geographical representation of all major regions of the world. The role of MOST should be something of a catalyst or promoter of scientific work, not a research fund. MOST should have enough expertise for it to be attractive to researchers and to ensure that it is able to fulfil its function in training young scholars, which has been envisaged for it. The evaluation of MOST projects will be multi-layered, taking place both on a national/regional level and centrally within the SSC. Apart from its own projects, MOST should also be present at the follow-up on United Nations social initiatives (Rio etc.). MOST is open in principle to initiatives from a variety of sources (Member States, United Nations, World Bank, etc.), in other words there are no ideological limitations to co-operation and participation in MOST programmes, but there is a need for focus and for establishing priorities. At the two-day meeting in Helsinki, there was a great deal of debate about the problems which the MOST programme faces. Not every problem was solved, but the meeting yielded some fruitful suggestions as to what could be done to address them. The overshadowing problem was lack of money. Because MOST in itself has severely restricted means at its disposal, funds have to be sought on a very broad, somewhat undiscriminating basis. Dr Kazancigil made an essential point, noting that the natural scientists have been and are better organized at both the national and the international level, which means that they continuously receive the bulk of available funding, while the social sciences have to content themselves with what is left over. Mr Audun Sandberg continued by saying that the social sciences have to assume a more assertive role and be more specific, if the present state of affairs is to be changed. Apart from being a problem in itself, lack of money also leads to some additional obstacles, which have to be overcome. A not insignificant problem is that many scholars might lose interest if they hear that money is not forthcoming. The only sensible solution is probably for MOST to build a clear and respected profile which does not depend upon financial resources. In other words, being a MOST project should bring certain prestige and added value, which makes it worthwhile for scholars to apply for the label. This added value could be to provide an international framework for scientific co-operation. It was stated that MOST at present faces a credibility problem due to lack of finance, transparency and a clear profile. Hopes were raised at the meeting that such a profile would be created. The importance of clarifying the role of the National Liaison Committees was also stressed. According to Dr Kazancigil, these should be small flexible groups of people establishing linkages and advising where to seek funds at the local level. In conclusion, the debate turned to the central topic of the day, the discussion on a Nordic MOST initiative. The ground was laid by Mr Bo Öhngren, who gave an introductory speech. Mr Öhngren first dealt briefly with the more general problems of MOST and then turned to an analysis of more specific Nordic concerns. He mentioned the difficulty of engaging people even on the Nordic level and stressed the importance of building up specifically Nordic projects, which could then be linked up with other European projects (especially Baltic). This point had already been touched upon by Mr Millo Salo, Chairperson of the Finnish Liaison Committee, when he opened the meeting. Mr Öhngren noted, however, that the first step was to establish smoothly running Nordic co-operation. Nordic projects could also be linked to existing projects, an idea supported by Dr Kazancigil. Finally, Mr Öhngren urged the participants not to forget a truly global perspective and vocabulary or the problems of readjustment in the countryside due to transformations in agrarian production. National reports and comments were then presented. Since Denmark and Iceland were not represented at the meeting, only the Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian viewpoints were presented. The only Nordic countries with established Liaison Committees are Finland and Norway and these countries expressed their hope that the other countries would establish their own Committees as soon as possible. Proposals for intensifying co-operation in the circumpolar region beween the Nordic countries, Russia and Canada were presented. A central problem is the inadequate scientific infrastructure in the northwestern corner of Russia. The importance of arctic co-operation lies in the common problems (e.g. resource depletion) which these regions face. It was noted that the mapping of research in the Nordic region was almost completed and that the time had come to move on to concrete proposals and action. The problem in the Nordic countries was seen to be not so much initiating new research, but how to communicate existing research findings both between researchers and to policy-makers. The meeting ended in the submission of a recommendation (see Annex) to be distributed to research councils, development co-operation agencies and other relevant institutions. Annex RECOMMENDATION Preamble A Nordic MOST meeting was held in Helsinki from 11 to 12 January 1996 with some 40 participants. The participants were primarily researchers in the fild of social sciences, but also several representatives of science policy administration, the Nordic National Commissions for UNESCO and other interest groups. Dr Ali Kazancigil, Director of the MOST Programme honoured the meeting with his presence. Dr Immanuel Wallerstein also attended the meeting and gave a lecture on the Gulbenkian Commission Report on the Development of the Social Sciences. The aim of the meeting was to discuss a Nordic MOST initiative. The participants stressed the added value of MOST for social sciences and agreed that MOST should constitute a global framework for international, interdisciplinary, comparative and policy-relevant social research. The Nordic countries recognize the relevance of the three main areas of the MOST programme. Nordic MOST projects should not restrict themselves to the Nordic region, but rather be open to all interested partners who apply a global perspective. The meeting made a distinction between three different ways of funding and structuring of MOST programmes, these being: a) projects supported by UNESCO through budgetary and extra-budgetary resources, including funds in trust, b) multiple funding through national research funding agencies, public and private, and c) national MOST programmes/projects. There has been an extensive survey of UNESCO's role in the social sciences, many MOST meetings have been held at the national, regional and subregional levels. Selection procedures for project approval have been established and approved programmes have been set up with initial funding and support. The meeting recommends that: 1. The MOST programme be consolidated during the two-year period 1996-1997. 2. Liaison committees be established to support the development of MOST projects; it is, however, up to each country to decide upon the actual structure and status of the committee. All Nordic countries should establish liaison committees before the liaison committees of the UNESCO scientific programmes (IGCP, IHP, IOC, MAB, MOST) convene at a joint meeting in Stockholm in May 1996. 3. Surveys of MOST relevant research be conducted in each Nordic country. 4. National research councils and financing agencies - including NOS-S - support the project on « Coping in the Circumpolar Regional with Global Economic, Technological and Environmental Phenomena » and other initiatives prompted by the national liaison committees. 5. Joint MOST research projects be generated in the context of inter-university co-operation. 6. Nordic academic communities participate in and support the Bratislava Conference on Social Sciences due to be held in 1997. 7. A flexible approach be found to funding of projects whereby all three financing models listed in the preamble might be used. 8. National liaison committees may initiate MOST projects independently and grant the MOST label to these projects at the national level and communicate such initiatives to the MOST Secretariat.

To MOST Clearing House Homepage