Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness: Discourses on science by Sweden's strategic research bodies

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 443-467

  Hellström, Tomas ^a   Jacob, Merle ^a,b  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Discourse; Image of science; Relevance; Rhetoric; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 27144508108     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243905276504     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Benner, M. 2001. Controversy and consensus: Swedish science and policy in the 1990s [Kontrovers och konsensus: vetenskap och politik i svenskt 1990-tal]. Stockholm: Institutet för studier av utbildning och forskning (SISTER)/Nya Doxa.
2. Bush, V. 1945. Science: The endless frontier. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
3. Cohen, L., J. McAuley, and J. Duberley. 2001. Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26:145-66.
4. Davies, B. 2003. Death to critique and dissent? The policies and practices of new managerialism and of "evidence-based practice." Gender and Education 15:91-103.
5. Department of Trade and Industry. 2001. Research and development cooperation in the innovation system [Government proposition]. Sweden: Department of Trade and Industry.
6. Elzinga, A. 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation: With special reference to "epistemic drift." Social Science Information 36:411-46.
7. Elzinga, A. 1980. Science policy in Sweden: Sectorization and adjustment to crisis. Research Policy 9:116-46.
8. Elzinga, A., and C. Landström, eds. 1996. Internationalism and science. London: Taylor and Francis.
9. Etzkowitz, H., P. Asplund, and N. Nordman. 2000. The university and regional renewal: Emergence of an entrepreneurial paradigm in the US and Sweden. In The wealth of knowledge: Universities in the new economy, eds. G. Törnqvist and S. Sörlin, forthcoming.
10. Evans, G. R. 2001. The integrity of UK academic research under commercial threat. Science as Culture 10:97-111.
11. Fisher, F., and J. Forrester. 1993. Introduction. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, eds. F. Fisher and J. Forrester, 1-17. London: Duke University Press.
12. Fridlund, M. 1999. Procuring products and power: Developing international competitiveness in Swedish electrotechnology and electric power. In Public technology procurement and innovation, economics of science, technology and innovation, eds. C. Edquist, L. Hommen, and L. Tsipouri, 99-120. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
13. Fuller, S. 1998. Society's shifting human-computer interface: A sociology of knowledge for the information age. Information, Communication and Society 1:182-198.
14. Fuller, S. 2002. Knowledge management foundations. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
15. Geiger, R. 1992. The ambiguous link: Private industry and university research. In The economics of American higher education, eds. W. E. Becker and D. R. Lewis, 265-97. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
16. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, C. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage Publications.
17. Hague, D., and K. Oakley. 2000. Spin-offs and start-ups in UK universities. London: CVCP.
18. Hall, B. 2002. The assessment: Technology policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18 (1): 1-9.
19. Henrekson, M., and N. Rosenberg. 2001. Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26:207-31.
20. Hessen, B. 1931. The social and economic roots of Newton's Principia. In Science at the cross roads, ed. N. Bukharin. London: Cass, 1973.
21. Jacob, M. 2001. Managing the institutionalisation of Mode 2 knowledge production. Science Studies 14:83-100.
22. Katz, J. S., and B. R. Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26:1-18.
23. Kleinman, D. L., and S. P. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism and the rise of the "knowledge worker": The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society 30:451-92.
24. Landberg, H., O. Edquist, and U. Svedin. 1995. Parliament, the government and research: Selected themes in two decades of Swedish research policy. Stockholm: Fritzes förlag. (Available in Swedish only.)
25. Luks, F. 1999. Post-normal science and the rhetorics of inquiry: Deconstructing normal science? Futures 31:705-19.
26. Lundvall, B.-Å. 1998. Why study national systems and national styles of innovation? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10:407-22.
27. Manzione, J. 2000. "Amusing and amazing and practical and military": The legacy of scientific internationalism in American foreign policy, 1945-1963. Diplomatic History 24:21-55.
28. Martin, R. 1999. The regional dimension in European public policy: Convergence or divergence? Basingstoke: Macmillan.
29. Möllerud, B. G. 1999. In Entrepreneurship in technological systems: The development of mobile telephony in Sweden. Stockholm: EFI.
30. Nelson. R., ed. 1993. National systems of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Nightingale, P. 1998. A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy 27:689-709.
32. Odén, B. 1991. Research training and the state: Politics and university research in Sweden. In University and society: Essays on the social role of research and higher education, eds. M. Trow and T. Nybom, 143-55. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
33. OECD. 1994. Science and technology policy: Review and outlook. Paris: OECD.
34. OECD. 1996. Science, technology and industry outlook. Paris: OECD.
35. OECD. 1999. Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.
36. OECD. 2001. Science, technology and industry outlook (Drivers of growth: Information technology, innovation and entrepreneurship). Paris: OECD.
37. Parsons, W. 2001. Scientists and politicians: The need to communicate. Public Understanding of Science 10:303-14.
38. Polster, C. 2000. The future of the liberal university in the era of the global knowledge grab. Higher Education 39:19-41.
39. Poti, B., and E. Reale. 2000. Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: The decreasing role of public research institutes. Science and Public Policy 27:421-31.
40. Powell, W. W., and P. J. DiMaggio. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48:147-60.
41. Roberts, R. 1998. Managing innovation: The pursuit of competitive advantage and the design of innovation intense environments. Research Policy 27:159-75.
42. Ruin, O. 1991. Bending with the breeze. Political preferences and institutional reforms in the modern university system - A case study. In University and society: Essays on the social role of research and higher education, eds. M. Trow and T. Nybom, 47-58. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
43. Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Schumpeter, J. 1939. Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45. Shenk, D. 1999. Money + science = Ethics problems on campus. The Nation, March 22, 11-18.
46. Shove, E., and A. Rip. 2000. Users and unicorns: A discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science. Science and Public Policy 27:175-82.
47. Simon, H. A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49. Strathern, M., ed. 2000. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.