The Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation of Korea announced on the 26th that they have selected 94 new projects for 2026 under the humanities and social sciences group research category of academic support.
Academic support in the humanities and social sciences is divided into three areas: individual and joint research, group research, and academic infrastructure. The area announced this time is the group research category, which supports research institutes and consortium units. Four programs — Humanities Korea 3.0, Humanities and Social Sciences Research Institutes, Global Humanities and Social Sciences Convergence Research, and Social Sciences Research — form the framework, and the selected projects will begin research on September 1. Principal investigators can check the results on the integrated research project support system.
The total support amount for new projects is 19.5 billion won. The funds will be used to develop university-affiliated research institutes into basic research hubs and to steadily nurture outstanding research talent.
The number of projects increased from 84 last year to 94 this year.
Group research is a method in which multiple researchers jointly pursue a topic centered on a research institute. While individual research accumulates small achievements one by one, group research breaks down the boundaries between disciplines and takes on problems that no single field can solve alone.
The background for the expansion lies in the crisis facing the humanities. Amid declining school-age populations, shrinking departments, and a dispersal of research personnel, university-affiliated research institutes have long been regarded as the last stronghold for preserving research infrastructure. Supporting projects at the research institute level is seen as a strategy to concentrate people and resources around a hub.
Humanities Korea 3.0 is the third phase of the Humanities Korea (HK) program, which began in 2007. This year, eight research hub-type projects and two consortium-type projects were selected, keeping the total at a similar level to last year. In effect, nearly two decades of state support for the humanities have consistently pointed toward strengthening research institutes.
Changes in this year’s design are also notable. The Humanities and Social Sciences Research Institutes program has added a new education-linked type aimed at liberal arts education and elementary, middle, and high school curriculum research, as well as an arts and physical education specialized type for research institutes in those fields. The goal is to connect research outcomes to classrooms and everyday life.
Program size has also grown. New projects under the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Institutes program increased to 44 from 38 last year. Global Humanities and Social Sciences Convergence Research has also joined the expansion trend by reflecting demand for interdisciplinary cooperation.
There has also been a change in the practice of assigning predetermined topics. Starting this year, the consortium-type projects under Global Humanities and Social Sciences Convergence Research have switched to open calls, allowing research institutes to set their own topics according to their areas of specialization. As a result, two projects were selected to address social isolation across the life cycle and the fair state in the era of AI transformation. They are led respectively by Korea University’s KU Institute for Mind Health and Sogang University’s Social Sciences Research Institute, with domestic and overseas university research institutes participating as partner organizations.
The selected projects reflect the policy direction. Representative examples include the establishment of Korean-style Middle Eastern humanities led by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies’ Middle East Research Institute, and a project to reconstruct liberal arts education in the age of AI led by Yonsei University’s Institute for General Education. Among the arts and physical education specialized projects, one by Inje University’s Design Institute, which seeks to address care issues in an ultra-aged society through design, stands out. This suggests that academic support is shifting toward answering the questions facing society.
The social sciences research support program chose to disclose its agenda in advance. The domestic type set digitalization of public governance, while the overseas type set coexistence and mutual growth in the era of climate crisis, giving researchers ample time to prepare their plans.
The academic community is not united in its response. While many welcome the increase in long-term support centered on research institutes, questions remain about whether those institutes can stand on their own after the funding ends. There have been repeated cases in which institutes reduced staff or saw their activities contract after state support ended.
There are also voices saying the scale of support is still insufficient. The long-standing criticism in academia is that the share of the humanities and social sciences budget remains small compared with the natural sciences and engineering. Even if the number of projects increases, there is concern that the goal of fostering hubs could be diluted if the amount allocated to each research institute becomes too thin.
Concerns have also been raised about evaluation methods. Projects that aim to solve social problems are more likely to face pressure for short-term results, but the outcomes of humanities and social sciences research cannot be measured solely by the number of papers published.
On the other hand, some argue that problem-centered agenda setting enhances the visibility of the humanities and social sciences. They say that on issues such as isolation and the climate crisis, which cannot be solved by technology alone, humanities and social-science-based interpretation helps guide policy direction.
This selection shows that the axis of academic policy is shifting from protection to role. It sends a signal that the humanities and social sciences will not remain merely recipients of support, but will be positioned as actors in solving social problems.
The increase in overseas-type projects and cooperation with foreign research institutes can be read as a move to expand the reach of K-academia. In a context where talk of a crisis in the humanities has continued for years, the policy’s move from saving research institutes to putting them to work is a clear change.
The advance disclosure of agendas and the spread of open calls can be interpreted as mechanisms to broaden research autonomy. The balance is shifting from a government-led model that defines the problem to a researcher-led model that sets the question.
The creation of the education-linked type is closely tied to the trend of reconnecting research and education. It has created a systemic channel through which the results of research can flow into liberal arts courses and curriculum development.
Minister of Education Choi Kyo-jin said, “I hope that convergent research based on the humanities and social sciences will present medium- to long-term alternatives and practical solutions to complex issues such as the major transformation brought by artificial intelligence, social isolation, and the climate crisis,” adding that the government would strengthen a stable support system.
For that promise to turn into results, several tasks remain. These include designing a path to independence after support ends, universities’ own investment, and an evaluation system that captures contributions to society beyond the number of papers published. The purpose of group research comes alive when research institutes establish themselves not as mere grant-seeking organizations, but as hubs of knowledge production.
A channel is also needed to connect research results to policy. For cross-ministerial issues such as isolation, fair transition, and climate, administrative coordination must be in place to absorb the outcomes. Financing designed to sustain long-term research beyond short project cycles is also a condition of equal importance.