One such programme has, in recent years, become one of the leading reference points in the field of Religious Studies in Italy.
It is a project supported by substantial public funding, presented as a national centre of excellence and placed at the heart of an elaborate academic system built around the Bologna-based Foundation for Religious Studies (FSCIRE) and the figure of Alberto Melloni, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, who has served as the Foundation's Secretary General since 2007.
This is DREST, the Italian Doctoral School in Religious Studies (Dottorato di Interesse Nazionale in Studi Religiosi), whose administrative headquarters are located at Melloni’s own university and whose national coordinator is Melloni himself; FSCIRE plays a leading scientific and organisational role within it.The publication of the call for applications for the 42nd cycle now offers an opportunity to raise a question that has so far remained largely in the background.
After years of public funding, institutional centrality and considerable academic visibility, has DREST produced results proportionate to the resources from which it has benefited?
This is a question concerning DREST, but one that inevitably extends to the entire “Alberto Melloni system”. DREST is not just another project: it is one of the fullest expressions of that system, the testing ground for a model of governance in religious studies that, for almost twenty years, has concentrated resources, academic networks and institutional responsibilities around the same individuals and institutions. If that model works, DREST should be the project best placed to demonstrate it. If, on the other hand, structural weaknesses emerge, it becomes inevitable to question not only the doctorate itself, but also the system that conceived, promoted and governed it.
A Project Born with Great Ambitions...
When DREST was launched in 2022, as part of Italy's 38th annual national doctoral cycle, a call for applications was issued for 56 fully funded doctoral scholarships, thanks in part to funding provided under Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR).The ambition was clear: to establish the national benchmark for Religious Studies.
Yet, from the very first cycle, a feature emerged that would continue to characterise the project in the years that followed: a significant number of scholarships remained unfilled. Indeed, two separate calls for applications were issued for the 38th cycle within a short period of time. The first advertised 43 scholarships, while the second added a further 13. Yet the number of doctoral candidates currently enrolled in the 38th cycle is only 35. This means that 21 scholarships, amounting to 37.5% of those advertised, did not result in an active doctoral candidate, either because they remained vacant or because the successful applicants subsequently withdrew.
Particularly striking was the case of the ITSERR call, financed entirely through PNRR funds: of the 13 scholarships offered, almost all remained unassigned.
For the 39th cycle (2023), 41 scholarships were advertised, yet only 30 doctoral candidates are currently enrolled. In other words, 11 scholarships, corresponding to 26.8% of those advertised, failed to result in an active doctoral researcher.
From the 40th cycle (2024) onwards, the number of scholarships was reduced to 30, the minimum required to retain the status of a National Doctoral Program. Even so, the most significant figure remains the relationship between scholarships advertised and doctoral candidates actually enrolled. The 40th cycle currently has only 19 active doctoral candidates. This means that 11 scholarships, representing 36.7% of the total, did not lead to an active doctoral researcher.
The 41st cycle (2025) again advertised 30 scholarships, yet the number of active doctoral candidates currently stands at only 13—less than half of the scholarships originally offered. In this case, 17 scholarships, amounting to 56.7% of the total, failed to produce an active doctoral researcher.
Should the 42nd cycle confirm this trend, it would no longer be possible to dismiss it as an occasional difficulty. Rather, it would be necessary to acknowledge the existence of a structural problem.
A National PhD... Increasingly Less National?
In the 42nd cycle, of the 30 doctoral scholarships advertised, 18 are funded by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, the administrative home of DREST.
To these must be added three scholarships funded by FSCIRE/Alta Scuola Europea di Scienze Religiose "G. Alberigo".
In other words, 21 out of 30 scholarships, accounting for 70% of the total, are financed by the administrative institution and the programme's principal scientific partner.
Only nine scholarships are distributed among the remaining partners: three are funded by the University of Palermo, two by the University of Naples "L'Orientale", and one each by four other participating universities.
Such a configuration is difficult to find in any other Italian National Program.
For comparison, the National PhD in Peace Studies, coordinated by Sapienza University of Rome, offers 34 scholarships in its 42nd cycle, yet the coordinating university funds only four of them.
Likewise, the National PhD in European Studies, coordinated by the University of Genoa, offers 34 scholarships, of which the administrative institution finances only six.
In both cases, financial responsibility is genuinely shared among the participating universities.
In DREST, by contrast, the role of the administrative institution and its principal scientific partner has become progressively more dominant. This is all the more significant given that numerous doctoral candidates whose scholarships are funded by other institutions—and even some whose scholarships are not funded by FSCIRE—carry out the compulsory internships required under PNRR-funded scholarships at FSCIRE.
This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate organisational choice.
Nevertheless, it is a choice that deserves discussion, since a National Doctoral School, at least in principle, should reflect a broadly shared commitment among all the institutions that participate in it.
Scholarships Advertised and Scholarships Actually Awarded
In order to retain the status of a National PhD, a programme must advertise at least 30 doctoral scholarships.
The requirement concerns the number of scholarships advertised.
Not the number actually awarded.
Yet in the case of DREST, for several years now and as a structural feature of the programme, the number of scholarships actually awarded has been substantially lower than the number financed and advertised. Indeed, the trend has steadily worsened, making it difficult to expect a different outcome in the future.
Moreover, the vast majority of scholarships are tied to highly specific research projects, often defined in considerable detail by the funding institution itself. In many other Italian National Doctoral Programmes, by contrast, scholarships are either not linked to predetermined research projects or are awarded within broader thematic areas, thereby attracting a wider pool of applicants and allowing greater scope for candidates' own research proposals. Such an extensive fragmentation of scholarships into highly specialised research profiles narrows the pool of potential applicants and increases the likelihood that a significant proportion of scholarships will remain unfilled.
This raises a number of unavoidable questions.
Why continue to advertise 30 scholarships when, in practice, such a substantial proportion consistently remains unfilled?
What happens to the resources allocated to the scholarships that are never awarded?
Are those funds reallocated?
Do they remain at the disposal of the funding institutions?
Are they used to finance subsequent doctoral cycles?
These are questions that deserve clear, publicly accessible answers.
Moreover, this is not the first time that the Melloni/FSCIRE system has raised questions regarding the management and allocation of public funds.
One may recall the controversy surrounding approximately €400,000 in government funding for an exhibition, initially presented as the outcome of a competitive funding procedure but later reported, according to journalistic investigations, to have been awarded directly by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
Whatever one's assessment of that specific episode, it illustrates a broader point: whenever public money is involved, calls for full transparency should not be dismissed as personal attacks, but recognised as a fundamental principle of good public administration.
When public resources are at stake, transparency is not a favour.
It is a duty.
This raises a number of unavoidable questions.
Why continue to advertise 30 scholarships when, in practice, such a substantial proportion consistently remains unfilled?
What happens to the resources allocated to the scholarships that are never awarded?
Are those funds reallocated?
Do they remain at the disposal of the funding institutions?
Are they used to finance subsequent doctoral cycles?
These are questions that deserve clear, publicly accessible answers.
Moreover, this is not the first time that the Melloni/FSCIRE system has raised questions regarding the management and allocation of public funds.
One may recall the controversy surrounding approximately €400,000 in government funding for an exhibition, initially presented as the outcome of a competitive funding procedure but later reported, according to journalistic investigations, to have been awarded directly by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
Whatever one's assessment of that specific episode, it illustrates a broader point: whenever public money is involved, calls for full transparency should not be dismissed as personal attacks, but recognised as a fundamental principle of good public administration.
When public resources are at stake, transparency is not a favour.
It is a duty.
A Project Remembered More for Controversies than for Its Achievements
Over the past few years, the programme has repeatedly found itself at the centre of public debate.
First came the controversies surrounding its governance, the alleged conflicts of interest involving Alberto Melloni and FSCIRE, and the relationship between DREST, FSCIRE and PNRR funding.
Then came the steadily growing number of scholarships that remained unfilled.
Finally, there was the case of an applicant previously convicted of child sexual abuse offences who was admitted to the doctoral selection procedure and appeared likely to secure a funded position, only for the selection committee to reverse course dramatically and unexpectedly between the evaluation of qualifications and the oral examination. The episode caused evident reputational damage to the programme.
No one attributes responsibility for another person's criminal conduct to Alberto Melloni.
Nevertheless, one fact is difficult to dispute.
One of the principal reasons why DREST has become known beyond the relatively small circle of specialists has not been a major scholarly breakthrough, an innovative research project, or an international academic success.
Rather, it has been a succession of controversies that have progressively overshadowed the image of excellence with which the programme had originally been presented.
The Question That Remains
No one seriously disputes that.
Precisely for that reason, however, the model he has helped to build deserves careful evaluation.
For years, attention has focused on the ability to secure funding—overwhelmingly public funding, including through specific political and legislative initiatives benefiting FSCIRE—to build academic networks, coordinate major research projects, and occupy influential institutional positions.
It is now time to shift the focus to a different criterion.
Results.
Because the success of a publicly funded research project cannot be measured by the number of conferences organised, positions held, or networks created.
It must be measured by the quality of the research it produces.
By its ability to attract the strongest doctoral candidates.
By the credibility of the institutions involved.
By the scholarly impact it generates.
The final question, therefore, is unavoidable.
After years of extraordinary funding, institutional prominence, and massive public investment, has the DREST—along with the other initiatives that embody the Melloni/FSCIRE system—actually delivered results worthy of the expectations it helped to generate?
If that question still cannot be answered convincingly, then the problem is not the existence of criticism.
Perhaps the real problem is that such a serious evaluation has never actually been undertaken.
Perhaps the real problem is that such a serious evaluation has never actually been undertaken.
Behind DREST: The FSCIRE System
Today, the latter's blend of scholarly, ecclesiological, and political positions—an inseparable mixture, judging from the countless newspaper articles, interviews, pamphlets, and television appearances in which they are expressed—is disseminated through virtually every available medium. Increasingly, these positions are identified with the so-called Bologna School; indeed, they have come largely to personalize it, to the point that the public hears far more about its leading figure than about the school itself.
Regarding the evolution of this institution—once relatively secluded, or rather one whose methods were viewed with suspicion and found little acceptance within Italian universities, including the University of Bologna—we have already referred readers to Paolo Prodi's concise but illuminating volume Giuseppe Dossetti e le officine bolognesi (Il Mulino, 2016).
Prodi, who was arguably the institute's most authoritative scholar, distanced himself from it at a very early stage. He lamented what he regarded as the premature abandonment of the historiographical foundations laid by Hubert Jedin and Delio Cantimori in favour of an increasingly self-referential—if not autobiographical—focus on the Second Vatican Council and its legacy, together with a form of ecclesiastical and political activism pursued through scholarly work.
This is not simply a matter of recurring research topics—although those topics inevitably shape both the quality and the very nature of the research itself. Dossetti, Lercaro, Don Milani, John XXIII, the liturgical reform of Vatican II, and ecumenism (understood largely through the interpretative framework associated with Enzo Bianchi) occupy a central place, in close dialogue with various strands of the militant and critical theological legacy of the Council.
The point is that much of the remaining research—by no means insignificant—appears to derive from this same matrix. Historiography itself, together with the editing of sources, lexicons, and research tools, risks becoming an applied and instrumental discipline. Research effectively comes to an end once what was intended to be demonstrated is deemed to have been demonstrated. Thus, editions of medieval and early modern conciliar decrees tend to serve primarily as evidence for the enduring significance of the conciliar institution within the Church, rather than as comprehensive critical editions in the tradition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The result, as in the Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta (with the notable exception of the Basel volume), is often an anthology rather than a complete scholarly edition.
If, as we have argued elsewhere, one of FSCIRE's objectives is to promote a specific programme of "reforming the Church through the force of scholarship alone"—an expression that has become something of an internal motto—then it is only natural that priority will be given to research perceived as serving the cause, the institution, or, more specifically, the management of the legacy of Vatican II. The danger, however, is that the initial assumptions of the research may end up coinciding with its conclusions. Since the public and polemical departure of the institute's greatest historian, Paolo Prodi—and subsequently of many others, culminating in the death of Giuseppe Alberigo in 2007 and Alberto Melloni's succession—the scholarly reservations expressed by significant sections of the academic community have resurfaced with remarkable regularity.
This point is central to understanding DREST.
Its limited attractiveness—an objective fact reflected in the numbers, both from the perspective of university departments and of the strongest graduates considering an academic career (the same observation applies to the disappointing experience of the Master's programme launched and subsequently discontinued in Bologna)—may well have something to do, beyond a number of rather picturesque episodes, with broader perceptions of its overall scholarly quality. More precisely, it raises questions about the programme's ability to manage genuine intellectual plurality: a plurality of voices which, if allowed to develop freely, ought to produce a genuinely outstanding scientific environment.
For years, the Melloni-era FSCIRE has undoubtedly been efficient, highly organised, institutionally hegemonic, financially powerful, and increasingly successful in cultivating direct and productive political relationships. It also benefits from the extraordinary public and academic visibility enjoyed by its Director.
Yet one fundamental question remains unanswered.
What, precisely, has changed in terms of scholarly quality and research governance in response to the reservations outlined above?
Has the institution merely experienced growth for its own sake?
Has expansion become an end in itself?
Directing a National Doctoral Program should mean offering something genuinely new to already existing centres of excellence. It should encourage the emergence of new research communities and foster the work of others. It should not seek to control them—for, in this academic environment, control easily becomes a form of suffocation: discouraging initiative, undermining motivation, and ultimately driving scholars away.
This requirement for openness, intellectual freedom, and genuine pluralism becomes all the more pressing when the entire structure is, in practice, concentrated—disproportionately—in the hands of a single institutional giant that has received more than €30 million in public funding over the past eight years. Such a level of funding represents an extraordinary opportunity, virtually unparalleled in the humanities. It also entails an equally extraordinary responsibility.
Money and institutional power inevitably carry weight.
Unless they are accompanied by a willingness to decentralise authority and encourage genuine scholarly diversity, they risk becoming a dead weight upon the discipline itself. In a field as financially fragile as historical and religious studies, the concentration of such resources can easily turn into a form of structural dominance whose consequences are increasingly visible today.
Prodest?
What is new, however, is the scale of their impact on the broader field of historical and religious studies in Italy. That development is closely connected with an extraordinary phenomenon about which the academic world, at least publicly, remains remarkably reluctant to speak. Following our own investigations, private discussions multiplied—even late into the night—yet public silence largely prevailed.
FSCIRE's extraordinary level of public funding can be traced back to an idea conceived in 2014 which achieved a success few could have anticipated. Through a procedure whose documentary basis remains unknown, FSCIRE obtained—uniquely among humanities institutions—the status of a Research Infrastructure, still today the principal financial instrument through which the Italian Ministry of University and Research supports major research organisations. As a consequence, FSCIRE entered the FOE (Ordinary Fund for Research Institutions) allocation table of the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research.
Ipso facto.
Was it included in the FOE because it had already been recognised as a Research Infrastructure, or was it recognised as a Research Infrastructure because it had entered the FOE?
At the time, Melloni did little to dispel the uncertainty. As he explained:
"FSCIRE's infrastructural function lies in its activities and is recognised [by whom?] within the Ministry's funding framework for scientific institutes and external bodies."
He further stated:
"FSCIRE's infrastructural role derives from what it has accomplished and from what ministerial decrees recognise: its doctoral school, its library and research services, and its international scientific relations, such as the European Blue Label."
Ipsis factis.
Or was the explanation ultimately simpler: ego sum qui sum—or, more prosaically, "because I am who I am"? Here, "I" refers both to FSCIRE, as perceived within a particular ecclesiastical and political tradition, and to Alberto Melloni himself. The identification between institution and director had already become so close that it generated internal tensions even at that stage.
No formal act recognising FSCIRE as a Research Infrastructure has ever been made public. What is publicly documented is its inclusion in the 2014 FOE allocation, together with an initial grant of €426,245.
The episode prompted an exposé by the Italian news website Dagospia, which, however, focused almost exclusively on the political dimension of FSCIRE's success. It pointed out that the initial allocation had been proposed in the Senate by Linda Lanzillotta, wife of FSCIRE board member Franco Bassanini, while also linking the measure to Senator Luigi Zanda, then leader of the Democratic Party group in the Senate and himself a member of FSCIRE's governing bodies. The discussion soon descended into political controversy over the wording of the measure's official justification.
Shortly thereafter, the same institutional strategy that had produced the Research Infrastructure designation gave rise to another initiative: a sub-amendment to the 2016 Budget Law establishing a competitive programme worth €1 million annually for five years, reserved specifically for Research Infrastructures in the field of Religious Studies. FSCIRE won that competition.
That victory proved to be a veritable cornucopia. Not only was the funding renewed after 2020, but it also became the basis for substantially larger streams of public support.
From the 2014 FOE allocation and the 2016 programme ultimately flowed tens of millions of euros.
FSCIRE's annual transparency reports, published pursuant to Law No. 124/2017, list only direct public funding. They therefore exclude contributions channelled through publicly controlled companies, banks and private foundations, as well as the provision, renovation and maintenance of buildings supplied by public universities and local authorities. They also exclude the salaries paid by universities to Melloni and many of his collaborators, who, while fully authorised to do so, devote part of their academic activity to FSCIRE.
Even on this conservative basis, the figures are remarkable.
Direct public funding amounted to €2,378,087.56 in 2018 and remained below €3 million annually until 2021.
It then increased dramatically:
€5,250,759.11 in 2022;
€5,338,185.46 in 2023;
€5,365,935.89 in 2024 (more than €4.1 million from the Ministry of University and Research alone);
€4,481,777.64 in 2025.
Over the eight-year period 2018–2025, direct public funding alone totalled €30,678,183.91, excluding all indirect support and in-kind contributions.
Every institution is naturally entitled to pursue its own interests.
Yet some details are striking.
Among the 2025 accounts, one finds modest payments from public universities to the already well-funded private FSCIRE: €3,000 from the University of Insubria and €9,600 from the University of Udine for the Quaderni di storia religiosa medievale.
The history of the Quaderni is, in many respects, emblematic.
They were one of the finest scholarly achievements of two generations of historians who transformed the study of the medieval Church in Italy. Today they belong to FSCIRE, despite having little connection with the institution's own history, research traditions or methodological orientation. The journal required relatively modest resources and flourished long before becoming part of FSCIRE—and continues to do so today.
This apparently minor example illustrates the broader issue.
The quantitative data presented here provide a concrete basis for a much-needed discussion about the relationship between costs and scholarly outcomes within a system of which DREST is, whether one likes it or not, not merely an organisational component but also a project deeply marked by its operational practices and intellectual style.
Once again, the question presents itself.
Prodest?
€5,250,759.11 in 2022;
€5,338,185.46 in 2023;
€5,365,935.89 in 2024 (more than €4.1 million from the Ministry of University and Research alone);
€4,481,777.64 in 2025.
Over the eight-year period 2018–2025, direct public funding alone totalled €30,678,183.91, excluding all indirect support and in-kind contributions.
Every institution is naturally entitled to pursue its own interests.
Yet some details are striking.
Among the 2025 accounts, one finds modest payments from public universities to the already well-funded private FSCIRE: €3,000 from the University of Insubria and €9,600 from the University of Udine for the Quaderni di storia religiosa medievale.
The history of the Quaderni is, in many respects, emblematic.
They were one of the finest scholarly achievements of two generations of historians who transformed the study of the medieval Church in Italy. Today they belong to FSCIRE, despite having little connection with the institution's own history, research traditions or methodological orientation. The journal required relatively modest resources and flourished long before becoming part of FSCIRE—and continues to do so today.
This apparently minor example illustrates the broader issue.
The quantitative data presented here provide a concrete basis for a much-needed discussion about the relationship between costs and scholarly outcomes within a system of which DREST is, whether one likes it or not, not merely an organisational component but also a project deeply marked by its operational practices and intellectual style.
Once again, the question presents itself.
Prodest?
FURTHER READING:
Inside FSCIRE
- (IT) I. Le finanze e la produzione scientifica: Decine di milioni di finanziamenti pubblici
- (IT) I-bis. Aggiornamento e approfondimento (qualcuno non gradisce)
- (IT) I-bis. Post Scriptum
- (IT) II. «Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes». Quando il pubblico finanzia il privato che finanzia il pubblico
- (IT) Il dottorato e il condannato
- The Convict, the Doctorate and the Theology of Bad Decisions
- (IT) Il dottorato e il candidato condannato per pedofilia, ovvero quando l'eccellenza accademica diventa farsa
For the original Italian version of this article, see: https://www.cantierestoricofilologico.it/2026/07/il-sistema-melloni-molto-potere-molti.html
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento