Search results

This article analyses the process of reforming the governance of Danish universities, from an anthropological perspective. Observers saw that the assemblage of steering concepts, tools and mechanisms in the 2003 Danish university law could be articulated in two contrary ways: one would make the university into a power force with ideas that exceeded the government's imagining of the future; the other turned the university into a tightly steered service provider, quick to respond to changes in political priorities. Initially, the government took the first approach in promoting the internationalisation of research and education. Its strategy provided a framework of opportunities that university leaders and academics used voluntarily to fulfil their own visions for their institution or discipline. In 2018, the government's priority suddenly shifted to de-internationalisation of Danish higher education. To achieve this, it rearticulated the same steering concepts, tools and mechanisms to impose cuts to English-medium courses through commando-style steering, and academics and students were disenfranchised. The internationalisation strategy first mobilised the capacities of the university as a power force. When the government decided to de-internationalise, it turned the same steering assemblage into a chain of command that made the university respond quickly to a changed political priority.

The general purpose of this essay is to explore key features of the disciplinary gulf between the natural and social sciences, and, in particular, differences in fundamental assumptions concerning the nature and purpose of knowledge. The essay contrasts the claims of the natural sciences to objectivity and universality with those of the social sciences, especially the qualitative social sciences, to the historical and cultural contingency of knowledge. It examines the ways in which the use of two 'key words' – 'expertise' and 'responsibility' – serves to maintain the disciplinary gulf by reinforcing assumptions concerning the neutrality and technical nature of scientific knowledge and how those concepts marginalize social and ethical dimensions to create a politically influential hierarchy of knowledge claims.