With this special issue, we would like to promote research on changes in the funding of the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Since funding secures the livelihood of researchers and the means to do research, it is an indispensable condition for almost all research; as funding arrangements are undergoing dramatic changes, we think it timely to renew the science studies community's efforts to understand the funding of research. Changes in the governance of science have garnered considerable attention from science studies and higher education research; however, the impact of these changes on the conduct and content of research has not received sufficient attention, and theoretical insights into the connections between funding practices and research practices are few and far between. The aim of this special issue is to contribute to our theoretical understanding of the changing nature of research funding and its impact on the production of scientific knowledge. More specifically, we are interested in the interplay between funding and research practices: What is the impact of institutionalised funding arrangements on the production of scientific knowledge?

No abstract

This monograph showcases some recent developments in the sociology of organizations, mapping out the most productive relationships between current social scientific work on organizations and core theoretical and empirical concerns in the discipline of sociology.

The article examines the role of policy advisory bodies in the emergence of national innovation policy. Cross-cutting policy issues such as innovation policy pose unique challenges to governments. Given that they do not fit neatly within the purview of existing government departments, it is often unclear who is responsible for dealing with a given issue. Issues may go unaddressed or else be subject to competing initiatives from different departments. What role do policy advisory bodies play in addressing and advancing cross-cutting policy issues? The article examines how the issue of innovation policy was taken up and addressed by policy advisory bodies in two empirical cases: Norwegian ad hoc advisory commissions examining innovation policy during the period 1972-2016, and the German standing expert commission for science and innovation formed in 2006. The article finds that policy advice on innovation was adopted to a varying extent by the political-administrative system. It argues that this can be attributed to the organisation of advisory bodies and to the efforts of these bodies to establish connections and draw bridges across an entrenched political landscape.

The sociology of education has much to gain from an organizational perspective on learning processes. This is especially true for ‘informal learning’ – that is, learning beyond traditional educational settings such as schools and universities. The present article addresses this gap by providing a theoretical and empirical account of the informality of learning situations in formal organizations. Following the insights of the ‘situated learning’ literature and interaction-based analysis, the article investigates the role and place of informal learners in formal organizations by analysing the learning experience of volunteers who have chosen to take part in the German national voluntary service. The author grasps the complexity of their learning experience over time by using a mixed methods design that combines ethnographic protocols with a series of narrative interviews with German voluntary service participants in hospitals. Since the volunteers observed in the hospital context were constrained to routine tasks that do not require medical skills, their scope of learning new things is indeed limited. Learning thus comes with the necessity of challenging the boundaries of their volunteer role, which in turn requires the cooperation of the regular staff. The article reveals the social mechanisms underlying the individual learning experience of hospital volunteers. It does so by focusing on their boundary work and by identifying the limits of their participation in the communities of practice that they are ‘trying to help’.