Humanities Research Is Underfunded But Its Impact Is Everywhere, Scholars Argue

At a time when STEM disciplines dominate funding conversations, a growing coalition of scholars is mounting a vigorous defence of humanities and social science research. Paula Krebs, executive director of the Modern Language Association, has been particularly vocal in pushing back on the notion that 'anyone can step in' to do humanities work.

'The skills that humanities researchers develop—critical analysis, ethical reasoning, cross-cultural understanding—are not optional extras in a functioning democracy. They are essential infrastructure,' Krebs argued in a widely shared address.

This sentiment was echoed at the 9th Annual AESIS Conference on the International Societal Impact of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, where researchers presented case studies demonstrating how SSH research directly influences public policy, healthcare delivery, urban planning, and conflict resolution.

The Social Science Research Council (SSRC) has also published new research in its Frontiers in Social Science series, featuring studies that bridge disciplinary boundaries to address contemporary challenges including migration, digital governance, and climate justice.

Despite this evidence, funding disparities persist. In most countries, SSH disciplines receive less than 15% of total research funding while producing over 40% of doctoral graduates. Advocates are calling for funding models that recognise the distinct contributions and timelines of humanistic research, rather than applying metrics designed for laboratory-based science.

For PhD candidates in SSH fields, these debates have practical implications: the ability to articulate the real-world impact of one's research is increasingly essential for securing funding and career advancement.