Abstract

While recent science and technology studies literature focuses on “projectification” and its felt tensions for researchers, a surprising scarcity of empirical work addresses experiences at the “other end,” such as funding bodies often held “responsible” for tensions encountered by researchers. Actors in funding bodies experience similar tensions, however. While projectification necessitates predictability and individual project objectives, research funding is also increasingly organized in networks promoting local experimentation. Moreover, funding bodies are part of a system of accountability in which investments are legitimized politically in often reductionist ways. We argue for the salience of more detailed empirical investigations into the work of funding bodies as they navigate these tensions. We apply a dramaturgical perspective to investigate the “staging work” of program committees responsible for the management of funded programs, identifying three forms of staging work: setting the scene, temporal narration, and signifying success. All come with discursive, material, and symbolic dimensions. We develop the notion “adaptive coherence” to show how the program committee sought to maintain the coherence of the overall program despite continuous risks of fragmentation due to projectification, local experimentation, and divergence in interests. “Adaptive coherence” proves productive in incorporating the temporal and spatial dimensions of staging work in networked contexts.

Highlights

  • The governance of science has historically been a topic of interest in the field of science and technology studies (STS) (Mirowski 2018; Holloway 2015)

  • We develop the notion “adaptive coherence” to show how the program committee sought to maintain the coherence of the overall program despite continuous risks of fragmentation due to projectification, local experimentation, and divergence in interests

  • The effects of projectification as a preferred mode of science governance have been well studied from the perspective of researchers (Torka 2018; Fowler, Lindahl, and Skold 2015; Felt 2017; Sigl 2016; Fochler, Felt, and Muller 2016; Bal 2017; Rushforth, Franssen, and de Rijcke 2019), there has been a surprising scarcity of empirical work in STS that addresses the experiences at the “other end” of the spectrum, such as the funding bodies often held “responsible” for the tensions encountered by researchers

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The governance of science has historically been a topic of interest in the field of science and technology studies (STS) (Mirowski 2018; Holloway 2015). The effects of projectification as a preferred mode of science governance have been well studied from the perspective of researchers (Torka 2018; Fowler, Lindahl, and Skold 2015; Felt 2017; Sigl 2016; Fochler, Felt, and Muller 2016; Bal 2017; Rushforth, Franssen, and de Rijcke 2019), there has been a surprising scarcity of empirical work in STS that addresses the experiences at the “other end” of the spectrum, such as the funding bodies often held “responsible” for the tensions encountered by researchers. Examples include the tension between delegating responsibility for policy outcomes from the national policy level to regional and local levels of implementation while striving to remain in control of program development, and the tension between reducing complexity and clarifying concrete program outcomes while maintaining capacity and flexibility to work within collaborative structures and coordinate policy development (Hodgson et al 2019)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call