Suchergebnisse

Iver Neumann has been an inter-disciplinary entrepreneur for political science in Norway. For Neumann, interdisciplinarity has been coupled with an understanding of politics as the search for meaning and identity. These features are well-developed in European political science, particularly within the field of international relations, but they are more rarely encountered in Norway. This brief article provides a sketch of political science as it evolved and matured in its Norwegian incarnation. In situating Iver Neumann within the discipline, I emphasise his international and eclectic orientation. The personal, national and international meet in Neumann's works, as do popular culture and politics.

A Danish researcher tells about his experiences with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) in the 1970's, 80's and 90's and how the institute has changed over the years. Earlier the institute was heavily focused on security policy research, but in the late 20th century this focus widened into other research areas. L. Pitkaniemi

Iver Neumann has been one of the most productive and visible foreign policy and IR scholars of his generation. He has had great influence both internationally and at NUPI. He has, however, not become a prophet in his own country. Norway's political science community has expressed little interest in the three traditions that have been the lasting anchor points in Neumann's works: the English School, the German tradition of critical theory and French post-modernism. This article suggests that Norwegian political studies have expressed a lack of curiosity – if not an active skepticism – towards political theory in general and continental approaches in particular. The errand here is not to wonder why. Rather, it is to provide the briefest of glimpses into some of the perspectives that lie outside the Anglo-American, methodological mainstream of Norwegian political science.

With a summary and list of tables and figures in English

A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.