| 1. |
- Alvinzi, André, 1984-
(författare)
-
Working for a Wage - What´s the Point? Lived Experiences of Meaningfulness and Meaninglessness in Professional and Manual Occupations
- 2022
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis explores experiences of meaningfulness and meaninglessness in wage labor, and how these work experiences relate to social and organizational factors in work situations (situational meaning). It also explores the centrality and value of wage labor in life in a broader sense (existential meaning). In the research field ‘meaning of work’, previous research is primarily leadership-oriented, psychological and quantitative. Sociological studies have remained scarce, and the concept of meaning tends to be used in confused ways. An explicit philosophically informed sociological perspective of lived experience, action and meaning is lacking. The thesis argues that this can be initiated through theorizing and interviews with a social phenomenological focus. Theoretically and empirically, the thesis contributes with a sociological perspective that integrates social phenomenological and structure-oriented perspectives. Based on 20 interviews with presently employed and recently retired individuals from professional and more manually oriented occupations, the findings suggest that (a) the wage is fundamental for employees’ initial conceptions and experiences of the purposive meanings of working. (b) People are not really themselves at work. Such inauthenticity has consequences for work experiences of meaning. (c) Employees perceive that managers do not understand their work situations and what is realistic to achieve in them. This can become a source of meaninglessness at work. (d) Some experience working life as a whole meaningful for its broader life structuring temporal and practical functions in terms of socializing, routines and habits in everyday life. (e) Working life biographies matter. Previous work experiences from past and current occupations are central for understanding employees’ expectations of- and ways of framing their experiences of meaning in the current job. (f) At work, non-work activities may be experienced as more meaningful than work tasks. (g) Habits and routines from work may generate an embodied form of work centrality. They may become internalized and embodied and spill over to life outside of work; (h) Employees across occupations value disconnecting from work, either at or in life outside work. This may be difficult to achieve because of (g).
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lidskog, Rolf, professor, 1961-, et al.
(författare)
-
Expertise, lay/local knowledge and the environment
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics. - Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 9781839100666 ; , s. 257-269
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As an epistemic authority providing valid knowledge and measures for handling current environmental problems or preventing new ones from occurring, environmental expertise is a crucial factor in regulation and in the development of environmental discourses. At the same time, scientific expertise is also questioned; its capacity to deliver both trustworthy and relevant knowledge is contested. This situation constitutes the point of departure for this chapter, which critically discusses the meaning and implications of environmental expertise. Starting with an exploration of current trends within, and challenges to, expertise, it discusses why expertise needs to comprise other forms of knowledge than only scientific ones. It presents several theoretical proposals for tackling the situation of contested expertise, all of which stress the need to re-draw the boundaries between experts and non-experts. The chapter investigates how these proposals differ in terms of who, what, why and how to include non-scientific knowledge. By way of conclusion, it raises questions about the role of expertise in the current quest for social transformation.
|
|
