| 1. |
- Cocos, Marta, 1988-
(författare)
-
Hybrid Research Policy : How to Organize Research Funding
- 2022
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Science and innovation are crucial parts of societal prosperity. Yet managing scientific activities is challenging because, even before the implementation of any give n policy starts, policy makers have to overcome the fact that there areprofoundly different views on what the role of science in society should be and hence how the state could intervene to shape or increase the research outputs. There are those who believe that the key role of science is to bring unforeseen discoveries through curiosity-driven research endeavors, while others believe that research should addresses societal challenges, like economic growth. Given these multitude of sometimes conflicting demands, and the multitude of policy actors embracing different demands, the research funding system tends to become fragmented. This phenomenon has been defined in scientific literature as institutional hybridization. However, as much as hybridization might be a pragmatic solution to addressing rising policy demands, it carries numbers of difficulties in designing the funding system and securing efficient implementation. Deeper understanding of institutional hybridity in research policy could help us avoid some of the existing problems and contribute to better informed design of research funding policy.This dissertation taps into the core of tensions that shape the way we fund science in Europe. It aims to provide a better understanding of how different expectations and requirements on research outputs are handled through the organization and implementation of public research funding. The first contribution of this dissertation is the elaboration of institutional logics shaping research funding policy: academic excellence, research utility, and funding efficiency logic. Another contribution of the thesis is better understanding of how the three logics are expressed in practice via different types of research funding efforts, as well as how they are then combined into a multi-level hybridity of research funding systems in Europe. The third contribution is the examination of the process of handling of tensions created by clash of institutional logics, providing an in-depth empirical insight into case of Swedish research policy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Adenskog, Magnus, 1985-
(författare)
-
Democratic innovations in political systems : towards a systemic approach
- 2018
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- There are many indicators that the representative democratic system is currently facing serious legitimacy challenges. Two central indicators of these challenges are changing patterns of political participation and a decline in system support. Against this backdrop, a growing number of governments claim that democratic innovations (DIs) could reconnect institutions with citizens. This thesis focuses on online DIs implemented in real political contexts, and the overarching aim of the thesis is to contribute to the emergent empirical scholarship on how DIs can influence political systems. In the last two decades, most empirical studies in the field have analysed DIs at the micro level.This thesis takes a different stance by posing system-related research questions to the implementation of DIs and, by doing so, showing how DIs are interrelated with, rather than isolated from, the political system and that DIs can influence political systems. The thesis consists of one literature review and three empirical case studies, applying a multiple methodological approach. Its novelty lies in three main empirical findings that contribute to the development of the field. First, it shows that participation in DIs can influence citizens’ perceived trust towards local political institutions. In addition, the results suggest that predispositions and prior engagement mediate the direction of change in trust amongst citizens. Secondly, the results show that DIs can perform different political functions, such as facilitating spaces for citizens to provide original ideas and deliberation, while also having an agenda-setting function. Thirdly, the result suggest that long-term institutional change is complex and that the implementation of DIs can create a situation in which civil servants and politicians perceive their organisation to be in some ‘state of flux’, as they are torn between two competing institutional logics. In conclusion, this thesis should be understood as a piece in a broader movement that works towards a systemic approach to the study of DIs, and that by showing these empirical findings, the thesis contributes to deepening our understanding of what influences and functions DIs can have in political systems.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lindberg, Helen, 1970-
(författare)
-
Only women bleed? : a critical reassessment of comprehensive feminist social theory
- 2009
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Is there a viable specifically feminist social theory that can serve as heuristic devise in our social research? This thesis is a critical reassessment of the ontological and normative assumptions of four social theories with specific and clear claims of being feminist. These are Catharine M MackInnon’s Radical Feminism, Anna G Jonasdottir’s Theory of Love Power, Luce Irigaray’s Feminism of Sexual Difference and Judith Butler’s Queer Feminism. The feminist social theories are examined and critically discussed according to their internal coherence and their external relevance; which includes the normative political implications that can be inferred. The thesis claims that implicit in every comprehensive feminist approach, there is also a specific view of science. Then follows a meta-inquiry of comprehensive feminisms as social science and as social theories, including a discussion of the effects of comprehensive ideology on social science research in general, and of the relationship between ideology, theory and a scientific approach in particular. The thesis concludes that it is highly problematic to do science feministly, but that we do need the critical questions feminists raise in order to reevaluate concepts, theories and research priorities. It is argued that feminist social theories are perhaps most helpful as ideological guidance for political action.
|
|
