瑞典的研究和数据共享政策——新自由主义课程、力量和话语*

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Z. Slavnic
{"title":"瑞典的研究和数据共享政策——新自由主义课程、力量和话语*","authors":"Z. Slavnic","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2018.1499542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The discourse of openness has proved to be a very powerful instrument for promoting new research policies and the (neoliberal) reforms of higher education in all so-called ‘advanced economies’. It has triggered positive democracy-, transparency-, and accountability-related associations when used in the context of politics, fair resource distribution when used in the sphere of public service, and free access to information and knowledge when used in the field of science and higher education. At the same time, international research shows that university autonomy is increasingly being attacked, reduced, and marginalized by the same policies. Power instances outside academia impose new criteria, such as ‘accountability,’ ‘performance,’ ‘quality assurance,’ and ‘good practice.’ They also impose ideas about what good research is, which scientific method is to be prioritized, and what good data are. The process of the de-professionalization, polarization, and proletarianization of the academic profession is increasingly affecting academia. However, none of this has much in common with the open-access discourse. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how this discussion applies to Sweden. Courses, forces, and discourses of the national research infrastructure development policy in general, and qualitative data preservation policy in particular, are described and deliberated.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"37 1","pages":"249 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research and data-sharing policy in Sweden – neoliberal courses, forces and discourses*\",\"authors\":\"Z. Slavnic\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08109028.2018.1499542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The discourse of openness has proved to be a very powerful instrument for promoting new research policies and the (neoliberal) reforms of higher education in all so-called ‘advanced economies’. It has triggered positive democracy-, transparency-, and accountability-related associations when used in the context of politics, fair resource distribution when used in the sphere of public service, and free access to information and knowledge when used in the field of science and higher education. At the same time, international research shows that university autonomy is increasingly being attacked, reduced, and marginalized by the same policies. Power instances outside academia impose new criteria, such as ‘accountability,’ ‘performance,’ ‘quality assurance,’ and ‘good practice.’ They also impose ideas about what good research is, which scientific method is to be prioritized, and what good data are. The process of the de-professionalization, polarization, and proletarianization of the academic profession is increasingly affecting academia. However, none of this has much in common with the open-access discourse. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how this discussion applies to Sweden. Courses, forces, and discourses of the national research infrastructure development policy in general, and qualitative data preservation policy in particular, are described and deliberated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prometheus (Italy)\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"249 - 266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prometheus (Italy)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2018.1499542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prometheus (Italy)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2018.1499542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在所有所谓的“发达经济体”中,开放的话语已被证明是促进新的研究政策和高等教育(新自由主义)改革的一种非常强大的工具。在政治领域,它引发了积极的民主、透明和问责相关的联系;在公共服务领域,它引发了公平的资源分配;在科学和高等教育领域,它引发了信息和知识的自由获取。与此同时,国际研究表明,大学自主权正日益受到同样政策的攻击、削弱和边缘化。学术界以外的权力实例强加了新的标准,如“问责制”、“绩效”、“质量保证”和“良好实践”。他们还会强加一些观念,比如什么是好的研究,哪种科学方法应该优先考虑,什么是好的数据。学术职业的去职业化、两极分化和无产阶级化进程日益影响着学术界。然而,这些都与开放获取的话语没有太多共同之处。本文的目的是说明这种讨论如何适用于瑞典。总体而言,国家研究基础设施发展政策的过程、力量和话语,特别是定性数据保存政策,被描述和审议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research and data-sharing policy in Sweden – neoliberal courses, forces and discourses*
ABSTRACT The discourse of openness has proved to be a very powerful instrument for promoting new research policies and the (neoliberal) reforms of higher education in all so-called ‘advanced economies’. It has triggered positive democracy-, transparency-, and accountability-related associations when used in the context of politics, fair resource distribution when used in the sphere of public service, and free access to information and knowledge when used in the field of science and higher education. At the same time, international research shows that university autonomy is increasingly being attacked, reduced, and marginalized by the same policies. Power instances outside academia impose new criteria, such as ‘accountability,’ ‘performance,’ ‘quality assurance,’ and ‘good practice.’ They also impose ideas about what good research is, which scientific method is to be prioritized, and what good data are. The process of the de-professionalization, polarization, and proletarianization of the academic profession is increasingly affecting academia. However, none of this has much in common with the open-access discourse. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how this discussion applies to Sweden. Courses, forces, and discourses of the national research infrastructure development policy in general, and qualitative data preservation policy in particular, are described and deliberated.
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
Prometheus (Italy)
Prometheus (Italy) Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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