Promoting collaboration between university researchers and practitioners from the business and public sectors has emerged as an important tool of science policy. This article examines the discourses that policy makers employ in promoting this strategy by analyzing the narratives about the social relevance of science and its role vis-à-vis the industrial sector in the context of strategic research funding in Sweden. Four dominant discourses on science are identified and discussed. It is argued that these policy frames construct a boundary between (...) research and practice, which is in turn used as rhetorical justification for research funding policies that seek to increase business influence and input to university research at the expense of academic autonomy in this sphere. (shrink)

This paper addresses the subject of textual creativity by drawing on work done in classical literary theory and criticism, specifically new criticism, structuralism and early poststructuralism. The question of how readers and writers engage creatively with the text is closely related to educational concerns, though they are often thought of as separate disciplines. Modern literary theory in many ways collapses this distinction in its concern for how literariness is achieved and, specifically, how ‘literary quality’ is accomplished in the textual and (...) the social dimension. Taking literary and aesthetic creativity as a point of departure in the reading of five central authors in classical literary criticism, the paper identifies the processes of narrative imagination and emotional identification as central to the role that the textual dimension plays in the creative process of the author/reader—particularly in the way it provides a space for experimentation and self-reflexion through ‘storying’. (shrink)

This article has two objectives: (1) to map some of the structural limitations to scientific or rational public planning; and (2) to explore the implications of this for a reconceptualization of the legitimacy of public planning. It is argued that some of the limitations to planning are inherent to the planning process in the sense that they cannot be fully mitigated through the refinement of procedures. They come to represent sources of “basic boundedness” that have to be addressed through a (...) radical reinterpretation of the policy process itself. (shrink)

Project funding rarely demands much change on behalf of the recipient. In contrast, cross-sectoral mobility funding requires recipients to change their environment and often some aspects of their research. There is a need to understand the impact on the researchers’ experiences as knowledge producers within such programs, as part of the broader potential and significance of cross-sectoral mobility funding. This study draws on interviews with participants of the Swedish ‘Flexit’ program in order to develop a framework for assessing the dynamics (...) and efficacy of such funding instruments. To do this, we develop a framework for understanding their cognitive effects; especially their ‘immersive’ potential, i.e., their ability to naturally involve the participant in their new setting. It proposes two dimensions along which such an assessment can take place: how the instrument challenges participants’ knowledge production practices, and the level of immersion that participants are subject to as part of the program. (shrink)

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Volume 21, Issue 4, Page 339-357, October 2022. This paper focuses on how contributions are argued in research proposals in the humanities. Due to standardizing tendencies in research funding towards formats characteristic of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, there has been concern that the humanities are marginalized. In this study, ‘contribution statements’ were identified in proposals funded by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation across the humanistic disciplines. These statements were systematically analyzed in (...) terms of type and structure of contributions advanced. The results suggest that the humanities differ from the sciences in terms of specificity of focus, a high level of ‘acceptable serendipity’ in proposed outcomes, but that these disciplines structurally tend to adhere to the same types of research contribution arguments as STEM. A better understanding of the way in which humanities scholars frame contributions offers insight into how these fields change and how they relate to developments in the science policy and funding landscape. (shrink)

Alvin Weinberg’s classic and much debated two articles in Minerva, “Criteria for Scientific Choice” (1963) and “Criteria for Scientific Choice II – The Two Cultures” (1964), represent two of the first and most important attempts to create a meta-discourse about priority setting in science policy, and many of the points advanced remain relevant. The goal of this paper is to elaborate on the relevance of some of Weinberg’s original arguments to priority setting today. We have singled out four issues for (...) attention: The tension between scientific and institutional choice, the assumptions behind the triad of scientific, technological and social merit, the elusive ‘externality from size’ argument for funding promoted by Weinberg, and finally the problems involved in the idea of basic science as an ‘overhead cost’ for applied science, and applied science as an ‘overhead’ on a sectoral mission. These four issues will be elaborated from a policy perspective and connected to present day challenges for science and technology policy. (shrink)