Leading from the periphery? A Bourdieusian perspective on European SSH research

Participation in European Union research programmes does not necessarily translate into leadership. This article examines how Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) academics in Southern and Central and Eastern Europe perceive the resources and recognition needed to convert participation into coordination and agenda-setting authority. Drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory, it conceptualises funding, institutional support, networks and recognition as economic, cultural, social and symbolic research capitals. The exploratory analysis combines descriptive and thematic analysis of 137 survey responses with two follow-up workshops involving 59 participants, focusing on climate, energy and mobility research. The findings indicate distinct regional configurations of perceived disadvantage. Southern European accounts emphasise insufficient funding, employment precarity and thematic marginalisation, whereas Central and Eastern European accounts highlight difficulties entering international consortia, peripheral network positions and limited perceived benefits from widening measures. Across both regions, the under-recognition of SSH compounds barriers to converting formal inclusion into meaningful participation and recognised leadership. Based on non-representative, self-reported evidence, the study offers an interpretive account of capital conversion rather than a structural measurement of research inequalities. It argues for differentiated policies addressing stable research capacity, access to networks, coordination support and recognition of regional expertise, alongside monitoring leadership opportunities rather than participation rates alone.