Umeå University's logo

This article discusses different approaches to evaluating a knowledgeexchange programme designed to foster closer university–industry interaction. It shows how the same policy or programme can be understood and thus evaluated in a number of ways. First, a particular knowledgeexchange programme evaluated by the authors is described. The article then outlines four different methodologies that can be used to evaluate the programme, and assesses it from the perspective of each, outlining the respective strengths and weaknesses of the approaches. The first two evaluation approaches, programme theory evaluation and outcome analysis, tend to be applied in ways that privilege the policy/programme makers’ worldview, and in this sense may be considered ‘management-oriented’ approaches; the second two approaches, policy discourse analysis and qualitative network analysis, are often applied in ways that incorporate a critical stance to this worldview, and may in this sense be considered ‘non-management-oriented’ approaches. The validity of a policy or programme evaluation can be enhanced by adopting a multi-methodological design incorporating both types of approach. Stakeholders are more likely to learn from a programme/policy evaluation and to be receptive to its conclusions if their differing perspectives and success criteria are incorporated into the evaluation.

This report investigates the extent to which the various parts of the Swedish university research system are pulling together towards greater interdisciplinarity. Do national policy initiatives foster greater interdisciplinarity at the local level of universities? How far is interdisciplinarity embedded in university practice, and what is the driving force behind the emergence of interdisciplinarity in universities? Further, what is the attitude to it among university leaders and researchers? These questions are particularly pertinent to the Swedish research system, where the basic research councils, along with direct government funding to universities, have dominated the research funding system for most of the postwar period, and where research activities outside the corporate sector are concentrated to the universities. To answer these questions, data on interdisciplinary policy and practice were collected at three levels of analysis: the political/policy level, the organizational level of the university, and at the grass-roots level of interdisciplinary programmes.

This thesis investigates the tension between science and politics in contemporary polar research. Twin objectives underpin this central theme. The first is to investigate the relationship between science and politics when analysed through an understanding of international collaboration in Arctic and Antarctic research. The second is to gain an understanding of the nature of research collaboration as an important mode of working in modern science.

A framework for analysing collaboration as a work process is proposed. The empirical research interprets how and why polar researchers collaborate. This is done by investigating a number of collaborative projects with reference to their policy and political context. Three countries with contrastive polar political interests were chosen within which to conduct the empirical work: the UK, Norway and Germany.

Science logistics (the means of supporting research in the field, e.g. transport, research platforms) are identified as the most significant enabling factor in experimental polar research. They also perform a symbolic political role for governments. In the three countries forming the focus of this study, science logistics are controlled bygovernment polar research institutes which also house multidisciplinary research programmes.

Logistics are traced to the heart of collaboration; they bring researchers together, and shape the nature of collaborative research. Differences in ease of access to national logistics structure collaboration. The interface between these politics of access andnational political agendas is blurred, owing to the central role played by logistics in both science and politics. However, the apparent conflict between scientists' careers and polar politics masks the finding that scientists shape their careers in creative ways, despite, or perhaps because of the constraints imposed by structural conditions. Viewing science as work reveals the importance of taking account of what scientists do when analysing the relation between science and politics.

In 1987, the Norwegian Government passed the Sámi Law, which expressly protected the interests of' the Norwegian Sami as an ethnic group and provided for the establishment of the Norwegian Sami Parliament, a representative body to be elected by and among the Norwegian Sámi. This body will replace the current Norwegian Sami Council. Although the reform reflects Government response to Sámi demands for greater ethnic self-determination, the Sámi Parliament can, as yet, only act in an advisory capacity.

The passage of the Sámi Law has exacerbated the division between Sámi ethnopolitical factions, as reflected in the polarization of the three Norwegian Sámi organizations vis-á-vis ethnic self-determination. The Sámi organizations project different versions of a Sámi ethnic identity as shown in the way they manipulate ethnic symbols. These differences in approach towards ethnic identity management reflect differing experiences of Norwegian/Sámi relations. Thus the essence of a Sami ethnic identity is no longer straightforward, owing to codifications of Sámi ethnicity imposed from without. This has implications for the viability of the Sami Parliament: its credibility depends on it being representative of the Sámi population in general. Since decisive powers have not, as yet, been conferred upon the Sámi Parliament, its symbolic significance will, at least at the outset, be paramount. In light of these considerations, the Sámi Parliament may be unsuccessful in gaining the support of that sector of the Sámi population which experiences a Sámi ethnic identity as problematic.