Professor Helen Kelly-Holmes:

I agree with the minimalist definition. Perhaps the problem may be that some of the text the Bill contains partial specifications. This is probably the problem for us in the sense that, for example, enterprise was mentioned as a stakeholder and no other stakeholders are mentioned. Applied research is defined. That is a slight problem. I am a discourse analyst so I have to study text forensically. From that point of view, one looks at what is in and at what is not in. I would say that the minimalist approach in the drafting is better rather than mentioning things and specifying things.

With regard to parity of esteem, we are not looking for any kind of special treatment. We do not need it actually. In ranking, in funding, and in Ireland's reputation, AHSS is really up there. Schemes like the European Research Council or the Laureate Award show that funding programmes can be designed from the outset to support excellent research, with minimal specification, and that schemes can have proper councils that evaluate equally. I agree with my colleague that if we have a council for one area we need a council for every area, whereas in the Laureate Award scheme, for example, there are four councils that deal with different subject areas. From the outset one has minimally specified programmes and one brings in the expertise for the different councils. It is about the design of the programmes and about having flexible schemes.

My colleague is correct that we do not always need the big budgets at all. Sometimes we need time. Time is a huge resource for humanities researchers and institutions are not able to afford to fund that any more. Small-scale time fellowships, for instance, are hugely valuable for us for archival and for field research. They are almost invisible now with no application principally investigator led. Flexibility in budgets, scale, and the types of funding available are the kinds of things that will help to build parity of esteem, definitely.