IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i5p321-340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Myths or reality - a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate

Author

Listed:
  • Anders Granberg
  • Staffan Jacobsson

Abstract

This paper identifies and critically discusses the validity of a set of dominant beliefs in the current debate on Swedish science policy. The beliefs, which centre on academic research, include important assumptions about the scale, orientation, functions, control and funding of such work. We argue that these beliefs are either wrong or stand on very shaky empirical ground. Mistaken beliefs are dangerous in that they may lead policy-makers to define the key issues wrongly, or to ignore some of them. By formulating alternative beliefs, we point to a set of policy issues that need to be addressed, and urgently. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Anders Granberg & Staffan Jacobsson, 2006. "Myths or reality - a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 321-340, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:5:p:321-340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778894
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    3. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    4. Daniel Ljungberg & Mattias Johansson & Maureen McKelvey, 2009. "Polarization of the Swedish University Sector: Structural Characteristics and Positioning," Chapters, in: Maureen McKelvey & Magnus Holmén (ed.), Learning to Compete in European Universities, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Yu, Haijing & Devece, Caarlos & Martinez, José Manuel Guaita & Xu, Bing, 2021. "An analysis of the paradox in R&D. Insight from a new spatial heterogeneity model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    6. Olof Hallonsten & Milena Slavcheva, 2018. "RIO Country Report 2017: Sweden," JRC Research Reports JRC111366, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Kitagawa, Fumi & Wigren, Caroline, 2010. "From Basic Research to Innovation: Entrepreneurial Intermediaries for Research Commercialization at Swedish ‘Strong Research Environments’," Papers in Innovation Studies 2010/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    8. Ejermo, Olof & Kander, Astrid & Svensson Henning, Martin, 2011. "The R&D-growth paradox arises in fast-growing sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 664-672, June.
    9. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is Flawed: The case of Sweden – not being the innovation leader of the EU," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/16, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:5:p:321-340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.