政策杂交:瑞典研究经费的连续性和变化

Marta Cocos
{"title":"政策杂交:瑞典研究经费的连续性和变化","authors":"Marta Cocos","doi":"10.58235/sjpa.v24i4.8593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper follows recent calls to focus on how policy hybridity is formed using a research policy case, an area that has undergone profound changes in the last four decades. More specifically, it focuses on the case of Swedish research funding and its major institutional reorganization in 2000. Following the argument that conflicting institutional logics often prompt institutional hybridity, the paper conceptualizes and examines the role of three institutional logics present in research policy, namely academic excellence, utility of research, and funding efficiency. Using quantitative policy document analysis, a secondary literature review, and in-depth interviews, the paper reveals that, while a heated conflict existed between the proponents of the first two logics, the third was largely undisputed and, in fact, accommodated the final policy solution. The study’s results show that hybridity choices in Sweden can be linked to a combination of negotiations between vested interests, the state’s pursuit of better management and efficiency, strategic political action, and historical path dependency. Finally, this paper proposes several implications of segregation and other hybridity choices.","PeriodicalId":31772,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","volume":"201 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policy Hybridization: Continuity and Change in Swedish Research Funding\",\"authors\":\"Marta Cocos\",\"doi\":\"10.58235/sjpa.v24i4.8593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper follows recent calls to focus on how policy hybridity is formed using a research policy case, an area that has undergone profound changes in the last four decades. More specifically, it focuses on the case of Swedish research funding and its major institutional reorganization in 2000. Following the argument that conflicting institutional logics often prompt institutional hybridity, the paper conceptualizes and examines the role of three institutional logics present in research policy, namely academic excellence, utility of research, and funding efficiency. Using quantitative policy document analysis, a secondary literature review, and in-depth interviews, the paper reveals that, while a heated conflict existed between the proponents of the first two logics, the third was largely undisputed and, in fact, accommodated the final policy solution. The study’s results show that hybridity choices in Sweden can be linked to a combination of negotiations between vested interests, the state’s pursuit of better management and efficiency, strategic political action, and historical path dependency. Finally, this paper proposes several implications of segregation and other hybridity choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"201 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v24i4.8593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v24i4.8593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文遵循了最近的呼吁,即通过研究政策案例来关注政策混杂性是如何形成的,这一领域在过去四十年中发生了深刻的变化。更具体地说,它侧重于瑞典的研究经费和2000年的主要机构重组的情况。在冲突的制度逻辑常常导致制度混杂的论点之后,本文概念化并考察了研究政策中存在的三种制度逻辑的作用,即学术卓越、研究效用和资助效率。通过定量政策文件分析、二次文献回顾和深入访谈,本文揭示,虽然前两种逻辑的支持者之间存在激烈的冲突,但第三种逻辑在很大程度上是无可争议的,事实上,它容纳了最终的政策解决方案。研究结果表明,瑞典的混合选择可以与既得利益者之间的谈判、国家对更好的管理和效率的追求、战略政治行动和历史路径依赖的结合联系起来。最后,本文提出了种族隔离和其他杂交选择的几点含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policy Hybridization: Continuity and Change in Swedish Research Funding
This paper follows recent calls to focus on how policy hybridity is formed using a research policy case, an area that has undergone profound changes in the last four decades. More specifically, it focuses on the case of Swedish research funding and its major institutional reorganization in 2000. Following the argument that conflicting institutional logics often prompt institutional hybridity, the paper conceptualizes and examines the role of three institutional logics present in research policy, namely academic excellence, utility of research, and funding efficiency. Using quantitative policy document analysis, a secondary literature review, and in-depth interviews, the paper reveals that, while a heated conflict existed between the proponents of the first two logics, the third was largely undisputed and, in fact, accommodated the final policy solution. The study’s results show that hybridity choices in Sweden can be linked to a combination of negotiations between vested interests, the state’s pursuit of better management and efficiency, strategic political action, and historical path dependency. Finally, this paper proposes several implications of segregation and other hybridity choices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信