Minerva最新文献

Political interest in Research Infrastructures on a European scale has been a new phenomenon, marked in the early 2000s with the launch of the Lisbon Strategy and the European Research Area. European Research Infrastructure policy then developed through, first, the strategic incorporation of incumbents through new modes of coordination; second, the European Commission’s emphasis of joint responsibility at the supranational level, claiming its own accountability and mobilizing the subsidiarity principle to its advantage; third, the incentivization of conformity to the European Commission’s policy agenda through generous financial schemes and fourth, the implementation of tailor-made legislation. While this topic speaks to current debates in EU studies, it also amends analyses of Big Science as an empirical puzzle within European politics and integration and launches a scholarly effort to come to terms with the new phenomenon of Research Infrastructures.

This paper investigates how early career academics interpret and respond to institutional demands structured by projectification. Developing a ‘frame analytic’ approach, it explores projectification as a process constituted at the level of meaning-making. Building on 35 in-depth interviews with fixed-term scholars in political science and history, the findings show that respondents jointly referred to competition and delivery in order to make sense of their current situation. Forming what I call the project frame, these interpretive orientations were legitimized by various organizational routines within the studied departments, feeding into a dominant regime of valuation and accumulation. However, while the content of the project frame is well-defined, attempts to align with it vary, indicating the importance of disciplines and academic age when navigating project-based careers. Furthermore, this way of framing academic work and careers provokes tensions and conflicts that junior scholars try to manage. To curb their competitive relationship and enable cooperation, respondents emphasized the outcome of project funding as ‘being lucky.’ They also drew on imagined futures to envision alternative scripts of success and worth. Both empirically and conceptually, the article contributes to an understanding of academic career-making as a kind of pragmatic problem-solving, centered on navigating multiple career pressures and individual aspirations.

Drawing on the critical discourse analysis of journals and working papers from 2011-2020 referring to the at-risk of poverty or social exclusion composite indicator (AROPE), we shed light on how benchmarks technicize academic discourse, particularly in its part contributed by economists. First developed to measure progress towards the poverty target set in the EU's Europe 2020 strategy, AROPE has easily permeated academic debate. Its anchoring in statistical procedures and expertise has allowed it to function in this debate as a neutral and purely technical measurement tool, obscuring the interests and normative choices underlying its design and implementation. As a result, the discursive practices associated with the benchmark have led to the reproduction and legitimization of the anti-poverty policy objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Simultaneously, AROPE has provided a 'cognitive infrastructure' that enabled an economic view of the world geared towards raising competitiveness. It has made it possible to assess which Member State is doing well and which is doing poorly, and making recommendations on how the laggards should improve. Our analysis shows that benchmarks such as AROPE support the process of shaping Europe as a supranational entity, creating a picture of common European problems with uniform definitions, on the basis of which it is possible to divide Member States into better and worse performers and even promote common solutions through good practices. We conclude by highlighting that the academic discourse around AROPE, generated mainly by economists, reflects the growing interdependence of the academic and political spheres and the pressure for research to have social and political impact.

Over recent decades, one can identify two key narratives associated with changes in university organization and governance. The first narrative focuses on the administrative consequences of an off-loading state relinquishing direct control over some of universities’ internal operations while at the same time driving bureaucratization at the institutional level. The second narrative focuses on the emergence of an increasingly competitive and uncertain environment driving universities to transform into strategically managed organizations. In this paper, we argue that while the organizational logics associated with these two narratives imply differently accentuated forms of legitimation, they converge and combine with respect to key dimensions of universities’ internal organizing, ultimately giving rise to a hybrid form of organizational governance we label ‘strategic bureaucracy’. Such strategic bureaucracy, we illustrate, is characterized by a strong focus on strategic leadership and the associated management techniques while also intensifying organizational features traditionally associated with bureaucratic governance such as formalization and hierarchical authority.

Universities are generally understood as organizations that extend knowledge based on codified bodies of work developed from systematic research and scholarship. This article examines the emergence of an organizational form that increasingly competes in contemporary higher education: the therapeutic university. A recent phenomenon, the therapeutic university is predicated on emotion in which the goal is to make the experience as a student as comfortable as possible. The article discusses organizational morphology of the therapeutic university by identifying practices within it. The practices establish a contest between a rational-universalistic orientation of the university on the one hand and an emotion-particularistic orientation on the other. The article provides an explanation for why this organizational form arose and what it purports to accomplish. Its operations are ensnared by major paradox: as its identity implies, the therapeutic university postures to do good, but its practices, it is argued, debilitate students and higher learning. The mandate that the broader society gives to higher education is thereby susceptible to lost confidence. The article concludes by discussing a way in which universities may be inoculated from the conditions that support their present-day therapeutic proclivities.

Academic papers in the social sciences were once more essayistic in their form. The carefree launching of concepts and ideas of academic value were the order of the day, all without the security of the present standardized paper format inspired by the natural sciences. This text draws on the most cited paper by the acclaimed scholar Carol Weiss, as an outset to discussing academic writing; why we write as we do and what we may lose by doing so. This means exploring the history of academic writing as well as discussing the complex, yet exciting, relationship between writing, identity, language, and the very process of conducting research.

E-science, or networked, collaborative and multidisciplinary scientific research on a shared e-infrastructure using computational tools, methods and applications, has also brought about new networked organizational forms in the transition of higher education towards the entrepreneurial academy. While the under-representation of women in ICTs is well-recorded, it is also known that the potential of new organizational forms such as networked structures to promote gender equality remains ambiguous, as they tend to perpetuate already existing inequalities due to their embeddedness in larger and longer-term structural or institutional gender effects. Based on a year-long ethnographic study in a networked academic e-science collaboration in Sweden and 45 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with its affiliated researchers, this article analyzes the multi-level obstacles to achieving gender equality in e-science to highlight the ways in which gendered disparities persist in this new, project-based academic networked organization in Sweden, hereafter called eSec. At the organizational level eSec remains deeply embedded in the traditional disciplinary and institutional academic setting, inadvertently reproducing existing gender imbalances across sciences. Furthermore, as a project-based organization, it is also embedded in the shift towards an entrepreneurial university model driven by new managerialism, the latter having a well-documented adverse effect in gender equality. This represents a structural-level obstacle which leads to especially female junior faculty leaving academy for industry. An individual level obstacle is observed alongside these as disavowal (Verleugnung) of gender disparities, an affect identified as a key mechanism of subjectivation in neoliberalism.

In this paper I argue that the attempts by science studies to identify epistemic effects of new governance instruments have largely failed. I suggest two main reasons for this failure. The first reason is that neither quantitative nor qualitative studies of effects of governance instruments meet the respective methodological standards for establishing causality. While much of this could be repaired, the second reason is more severe: given the complex causal web between governance and knowledge production and the multi-level nature of causation, a strategy that starts from a particular governance instrument and tries to identify its effects cannot work. I propose to reverse this strategy by starting from the observation of epistemic change and applying a strategy of “causal reconstruction” (Mayntz), which identifies the causes of this epistemic change and among them the contribution by governance. This approach has the advantage of starting from well-identified change. Challenges posed by the new approach include the empirical identification of epistemic change and the need to integrate sociological methods in science policy studies.

All large-scale telescope facilities are constructed within a geographical, social, historical, and political context that includes nested layers at the global, national, and local levels. However, discussions about the geographic siting of astronomy facilities, for example, the communities in which they are embedded or the interactions between the facility and its locale, are uncommon in social science studies of astronomy, and no extant review focused on this gap in the literature. In this literature review and discourse analysis, we explore the ways in which research about astronomy facilities and their local communities has emerged, and the extent to which it focuses on the Global South. We find that literature addressing the social and policy aspects of astronomy facilities has an emphasis on the Global North. However, literature addressing host communities has an emphasis on the Global South. Broadly, the discourses related to host communities in the Global South have emerged from reflections on the controversies related to large-scale telescopes in Hawai’i, Chile, and South Africa. One common theme linking these discourses is that a focus on benefits at the national and international levels obscures a range of problematic power dynamics and outcomes at the local level. The notion of the Global South as an ‘empty space’ in which astronomical observation does not constitute impactful action amongst local communities, is challenged by discourses that centre local contexts, and challenged by discourses that employ conceptual frameworks with a focus on revealing power dynamics.

In recent years an uneasy peace has descended in U.S. academe between those who feel research universities have done too little to advance the representation of minority groups and women and those who feel that the administrative policies developed to improve representation can and sometimes do come into conflict with core intellectual commitments of universities. Using quantitative and qualitative evidence from interviews with 47 natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics faculty members at a U.S. research university, the paper examines the background characteristics of three sets of protagonists - academic progressives, academic traditionalists, and those whose views bridge the divide - and the way respondents discussed and justified their viewpoints. The paper draws on the theory of strategic action fields to illuminate the structure and dynamics of the conflict and suggests modifications to the theory that would improve its explanatory power for this case.