• _{In many areas of science, particularly in the STEM fields, research is tangible and observable and therefore visible and understandable even to those not in a particular field. However, it is much more difficult to envision what research in the humanities “looks” like. Most everyone can envision an archaeologist at work, but how does one detect and measure the impact of a philosopher? These are just some of the hurdles researchers in the humanities face in their daily work, and why funding in the humanities often does not seem to be on pace with funding in other areas of science.
  The international panel recognized that one of the reasons might be epistemological: unlike the German word “Wissenschaft”, the English term “science” does not necessarily encapsulate research in the humanities and social sciences. While all available data clearly shows the importance and value of a work force educated in the humanities and social sciences, this might explain why programs in the humanities are being challenged at a higher extent than STEM programs.
  However, the panelists pointed to how such discussions and the act of defending research in the humanities are a double-edged sword. Have we, by advocating for research funding in the humanities, diminished its intrinsic value? Jon Peede, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, in defense of advocating for research funding in the humanities, pointed to the economic return on investment specifically of funding in the humanities and said further that he had yet to see a modern thriving city without a strong and distinct culture.
  It is therefore incumbent upon us to utilize what leverage the science and research funding organizations have, specifically those represented on the panel, to fund competitive structures that reward people. Because even though science does not have borders, funding often does.
  The panel also confronted another great dilemma: the lack of continuity in research funding. The German Research Foundation (DFG) is tackling continuity in its excellence strategy, the aim of which is to strengthen German universities’ research capacities and the country’s position as an outstanding place for research, thereby further improving its international competitiveness. According to voices from the audience, however, the humanities require more than just that; they require better science communication, because research, specifically in the humanities, is a “formalized curiosity” and too often the formalized funding that supports it does not permit for anything new or the unknown. In the end, discussants agreed that creativity is what drives research forward, and not more, but better science communication, along with competitive structures that reward creativity, will breach the politics of research.}

_{Emily Formica}