Browsing by Subject "Strategic research"

During recent years, science policy has increasingly addressed the societal impact of science. Programmes that highlight transdisciplinary interaction, and finding solutions to grand challenges, have emerged globally. Strategic Research Council (SRC) is a funding instrument that was founded as part of the renewal of state research institutes in 2015. It emphasizes these trends in the projects it funds. The thesis looks at strategic research from participants’ perspective. The aim is to shed light on how strategic research, with its new criteria, looks like among researchers from diverse academic backgrounds, and what may be concluded about research environment changes in general. To achieve this aim, the thesis seeks answers to the following research questions: What kinds of similarities are there among participants’ adaptation to the programme? Are there differences in participants’ adaptation to the programme, and if there are, where do these differences derive from? The empirical data of the thesis consisted of semi-structured interviews with researchers who have participated in the SRC programme (N=15). The interview data was analyzed with grounded theory methodology, and by linking the findings to relevant previous research literature around the phenomenon. In particular the concept of boundary object by Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer, and the concept of articulation work by Anselm Strauss, were utilized in construing and analyzing the findings. By utilizing these concepts, different characteristics of strategic research were recognized. They concretized in different ways depending on the context, and caused some of the researchers to practice more articulation work. The analysis indicates that, regardless of researcher’s background, the characteristics of strategic research enable it to be applied in flexible ways within diverse contexts. Researchers may include various research subjects and approaches under the vague research framings. Hence, researchers are able to, for example, continue investigating the same research subject as before. With the help of strategic research’s boundary object-like flexibility, participants can also justify, include and defend various activities, needs and motivations, and increasingly communicate with actors of diverse backgrounds. This enables the discussion between various actors, and enhances understanding of the different sides to phenomena. The vague characteristics of strategic research also, however, result in inflexible forms that come across as different types of contradictions. The differences in adaptation indicate that contradictions emerge, for example, as a result of experienced exclusion in cross-disciplinary collaboration, due to one-sided conceptualization of impact. In the light of the data, certain research fields’ and state research institutes’ conceptualizations of impact, for example, ones that are more easily measured quantitatively or in a shorter time-span, gain a more dominating position in some projects, leaving the respective conceptualizations of social sciences and humanities at the university to the margin. In addition, controversies emerge from compatibility issues regarding dissimilar incentives, interests and conventions. For some the participation causes notably more contradictions than for others. Hence, strategic research may also look very different for researchers of dissimilar backgrounds. The most important factors for the observed differences appeared to be different academic orientations and interests, project types, collaborating partners, career phases and power relations. It can be concluded that the inclusion of different research approaches does not necessarily guarantee that they will equally be taken into account in common problem-solving. Integrating different approaches and perspectives can be challenging, especially when schedules are tight. In addition, in spite of the increasing communication between various actors, for some, especially the early-stage researchers, interaction seems to be lacking. Even when a shared space is engineered between various actors, the changes in the nature or principles of research might not, in the end, be that profound within research groups. The programme’s emphasis of interaction and impact also brings along work and participation opportunities that are external to the actual conduct of research, which provokes several questions among researchers regarding career progression and project management. In balancing between different commitments, motivations and interests, researchers practice varying amounts of invisible articulation work. Based on the data, it is important to take into account the invisible work and diversity regarding the societal impact of science, as well as increase mutual reflexivity.