Editorial
Grand Schemes and
Tiny Issues Should Meet
in Science Politics
The Council of State and Ministry of Education and Culture are pushing
Universities and research institutes into directions they find desirable
for them by using performance management, profiling and
strategic resourcing. The new management model in the Universities
has transferred power to the rectors and governments, so that these
can effectively lead their institutions in the competition, in which the
main discipline seems to be the meeting of the requirements set by
performance indicators.
It is widely believed that once the right cuts and choices have been
made and the more efficient organization has been created, the doors
will be open for science that represents more quality and influence
than its contemporary counterpart.
The researcher, however, approaches various kinds of ”new openings”
from quite another angle. Should it happen that the researcher has
a hunch of a nearing breakthrough, it will usually not become apparent
in the prevalent administrational model, but rather on the screen of a
microscope or in a short piece of text on a tiny scrap of paper found
in an archive. In the organization of research teams, the posts, background
institutions and nationalities are secondary matters, which can
be turned into a problem by incompetent research management. The
trust in the ability of organization charts to enhance the quality of research
appears theoretical and seems to be based on good faith.
Is it possible for the viewpoints of science and science politics to
ever actually meet? University without science would be absurd, but science politics is needed, because the development
of the University institution, or even just one University
alone, cannot be based solely on science – and
even if it could, on which science? Physics, theology,
or marketing, one might need to ask?
Due to the fact that science politics should be able
to comprehend both the grand schemes and the tiny
revelations, it will probably turn out as a compromise
even in the best scenario. But there are various ways
of conducting science politics.
The strengthening of strategic management
moves the power over resources and management
upwards in organizations. One of the risks caused by
movement to this direction is that the contact surfaces
between research and higher-level science politics
become more narrow. There will always be influential
parties that will describe Universities and the ”requirements
of the society” weighing on them with
alarmingly restricted and offhanded remarks.
If the contact surface between science and science
politics vanishes, the results will, in one direction, be
hollow strategies and uncovered wishes. In another
direction, there will be a crowd of frustrated researchers
with real and actual problems before them,
but no resources for researching.
The challenge for national science politics is to
make the headlines and the reality to correlate better
with one another. Science, however, is largely international
and follows its own autonomous logic. Its
progress cannot be regulated by national decisions.
Situation awareness in research should not only mean ”more intense international competition”. It should
also include better information on the contents and
substance of what is happening in Universities and
research institutes at the moment. Mere quantitative
indicators are not enough, as they tend to just produce
more quantity.
More concrete argumentation is required for the
new reforms. For instance, what would those study
programs and research projects be like that are now
sought for through the co-operation and even combination
of Universities and Universities of applied
sciences. What would they be like in practice? ”New
openings” and ”wide-ranging” are phrases that we often
here in these contexts. Regrettably, they are rather
vague. Those who promote these projects have the
readiness to dismantle the existing structures and to
”choose away” small units and fields. Apparently, they
have less readiness to discuss the contents of the teaching
and research with the personnel and the students.
Correspondingly, researchers and those in favor
of research should be more adamant in bringing their
views and ideas to the awareness of the ”administration”
and the public at large – otherwise it may happen
that no-one comes asking about them. Saying
something well-argued and interesting publicly is
often the best form of speech on behalf of science.
Still, compared to party politics, for instance, science
in itself has little direct or immediate power, or means
and channels to brighter publicity. The kind of system,
where the weaker has the means of affecting a
change in the stronger, would be preferable.
Petri Koikkalainen
President, The Finnish
Union of University
Researchers
and teachers
- Painetussa lehdessä sivu 40
|