• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Minerva >Mode 2 and the Tension Between Excellence and Utility: The Case of a Policy-Relevant Research Field in Sweden
【24h】

Mode 2 and the Tension Between Excellence and Utility: The Case of a Policy-Relevant Research Field in Sweden

机译：模式2与卓越与实用之间的张力：瑞典某政策相关研究领域的案例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This paper investigates the impact of changing science policy doctrines on the development of an academic field, working life research. Working life research is an interdisciplinary field of study in which researchers and stakeholders collaborated to produce relevant knowledge. The development of the field, we argue, was both facilitated and justified by the, at the time dominant, science policy orthodoxy in Sweden, sector research. Sector research science policy doctrine favoured stakeholder-driven research agendas in the fields relevant to the sector. This approach to agenda setting was highly contested by Swedish universities and left scientists vulnerable to the fallout from any conflicts arising among the stakeholder groupings that were part of the governance arrangement. Our case shows that working life research was in part a victim of the struggle between science and policy over who sets the agenda for science in Sweden. In this struggle, each side chose to use 'scientific quality' as a proxy for furth ing its respective interests and visions for how science should be governed. The paper argues that this case is of interest to the continued elaboration of the Mode 2 thesis and the debate about 'relevant science'. We find that the close association with stakeholders and the concomitant dependence it created left working life research unable to defend itself against its critics and that this state of affairs was particularly problematic for social science research on working life.
机译：本文研究了不断变化的科学政策学说对学术领域，工作生涯研究的发展的影响。工作生活研究是一个跨学科的研究领域，研究人员和利益相关者共同协作以产生相关知识。我们认为，该领域的发展既受瑞典当时科学政策正统的部门研究的推动，又为其辩护。部门研究科学政策学说偏重于与部门相关领域的利益相关者驱动的研究议程。瑞典大学极力反对这种议程制定方法，这使得科学家们很容易受到利益相关者团体之间发生的任何冲突的影响，而这是治理安排的一部分。我们的案例表明，工作生活研究在一定程度上是科学与政策之间的争斗的受害者，这些争端是谁制定了瑞典的科学议程。在这场斗争中，双方都选择使用“科学品质”作为代理，以进一步表达各自对科学应如何管理的兴趣和远见。该论文认为，这种情况对于模式2论文的继续阐述和有关“相关科学”的辩论很有意义。我们发现，与利益相关者的紧密联系以及随之而来的依赖性使工作生活研究无法抗拒批评家，而且这种状况对于社会工作生活研究尤其成问题。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Minerva》 |2016年第1期|1-20|共20页
  • 作者

    Carin Hakansta; Merle Jacob;

  • 作者单位

    Division of Human Work Science, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Lulea University of Technology, 971 87 Lulea, Sweden;

    Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Mode 2; Working life; Science policy; Sector research; Stakeholders;

    机译：模式2;工作生涯;科学政策;部门研究;利益相关者;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号