- NESSIE and European Infrastructure Discourse
There seems to be a large degree of agreement on both the necessity and infrastructure needs for the social sciences, and the NESSIE recommendations and findings seem to fall in line with discussion both within the European Commission and the European Science Foundation Standing Committee for the Social Sciences. From the discussion, it is clear that the work of NESSIE was considered helpful in the structuring and the development of the social science infrastructure discourse in Europe
It was agreed that the NESSIE stocktaking of comparative research should be expanded including both data stocks, and codes of best practice. The NESSIE stocktaking has resulted in an impressive list of comparative surveys in at least 2 or 3 EU countries. Political (Electoral) Research seems to be the most well organised. Other fields need to be expanded (e.g. Economics). Everyone was invited to provide further information, as stocktaking was always difficult even on a national basis for all disciplines.
- Harmonisations and Standards.
It was questioned whether, in spite of the existing respectable proposals (e.g. CASMIN, and Goldthorpe), there has been any real progress. The issue of standard classifications should therefore be pursued. The need to maintain national classifications was emphasized, but for comparative research we need common yardsticks over time and over populations.
- Meta Data
Harmonisation activities should always include meta data to improve the inter-operability of data bases, also with data from other disciplines. Metadata will also be required to locate available evidence and to support interpretation of data in context or, as summarized in the joint statement of Academia Europea and European Science Foundation, “Metadata of a complexity barely considered to date will be required to enable the researcher to navigate not only the „knowledge“, but the contexts of the construction of that knowledge.”
- The Future Evidence Base for Comparative Research
There was broad agreement that the future evidence base for comparative research is much wider than merely micro data from academic research and public research, even though survey research will remain an important source. Increasingly texts, images, registers and process- produced data are being used, sometimes combined. In addition to individual respondents, attention is paid to other units of observation, e.g. families, household, firms and regions.
- Technical Access
Discussion touched on several important developments for Internet access such as NESSTAR, Madiera, MetaDater. In addition, the implications of developments in E-Science and GRID technology raised queries on the particular needs of the social sciences which can or could be met by these developments. It was agreed that social scientists are already undertaking activities which are based on the same principles as these developments in several respects.
- Data Protection
The new Data Directive provides a useful framework, but social scientists need to carefully monitor the different ways it is being implemented in different states. Necessary restrictions on data access in the interest of data protection should always be balanced with policies assuring access to data.
- The European Agenda
Infrastructure is currently high on the European agenda. The European Commission and the European Science Foundation as well as OECD have emphasized the importance of a strong infrastructure for the Sciences as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities. The OECD data policy declaration, for example, is also endorsed by the European Union and the European Science Foundation.
- Future Developments and EROHS
Future infrastructure development must be based on the needs voiced by researchers themselves. EROHS is an idea which must be filled by developments well informed by the needs of the Social Sciences and the Humanities.
In concluding NESSIE Round Table IV, it became obvious that we already know a great deal about these needs. The NESSIE Round Table Reports and the NESSIE web site have brought together lots of information on the current state of European Comparative Social Research. This knowledge should be used to assist in putting infrastructure in the European Research Area in place.
