This thesis examines policy learning and expertise in the European Union research policy by focusing on the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) initiative. The research is guided by the overarching question - How do experts’ individual policy learning experiences relate to the EU’s research policy? First, background of the European Union’s research policy is presented, clarifying the need for policy learning. Second, the theoretical approaches on expertise and theories of policy learning are analyzed. The synthesis of the two streams of literature leads to a conceptual framework for the study, featuring two distinct perspectives of policy learning – the evidence-based approach and the value-based approach. This framework brings the individual experiences of the OMC participants into focus, allowing an examination of policy processes that do not always result in direct policy changes. For data collection three distinct OMC working groups are selected, each focusing on a different topic related to European research policy – research funding (Group 1), research cooperation with Third Countries (Group 2) and research activities in universities (Group 3). A case study approach is employed, involving document analysis, a pilot study and thirty-four interviews with member-states’ experts and European Commission policy-makers. The findings suggest that individual policy learning shapes the development of European research policy. Through the OMC policy learning initiatives participants gain new knowledge on policy approaches, programs, best practices and policy failures. In addition, learning experiences involve knowledge on individual relationships, decision-making styles, organizational cultures and power-relationships that diverse stakeholders bring with them to the process. Such knowledge helps to update the policy beliefs of participants, providing a strong foundation for developing mutual ownership of decisions that lead to policy coordination. The findings emphasize the importance of a value-based perspective in policy analysis, where results emerge gradually, over a long time period and contribute to policy change.

In this paper I argue that the development of innovation ideas within the financial system of scientific research might have a counterpart within the financial system of the social sciences and the arts. The ideas of innovation share a common way to evaluate science in terms of how well it can contribute to economic growth. In the past two decades a similar development can be observed within Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (RJ), one of the largest external financiers of the social sciences and the arts in Sweden. The idea of evaluating research used by the innovation ideas has grown popular within RJ, only it seems they evaluate research in terms of how well it fits into an international research community rather than how much it can contribute to economic growth as is the case within the innovation ideas. By examining the different ways of financing research that RJ has used during the last 2 decades, this paper aims to introduce a new perspective in which it is possible to understand the development within this type research funding as a part of a bigger system of development.

No description available.

No description available.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been a central pillar of evidence-based practice and policy-making in healthcare over recent years. Traditionally, this has focused on effectiveness evidence from trials.. There is increasing understanding, however, that other study designs also provide essential information and this has led to interest in developing ways to review and synthesis such evidence. Qualitative research has unique potential to illuminate the patient experience. This research has three aims: 1) To review and compare the proposed methods of systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. 2) To develop and assess two methods of systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. 3) To compare these two methods and suggest how they might be used in a policy-making context. In addressing these aims, this thesis substantially contributes to debates about the purpose and practice of systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research, particularly in the context of health technology assessment and related pOlicy-making. I undertake a unique critical comparison of the methods suggested for reviewing and synthesising qualitative research, based on their approach to key stages of systematic review. This is used to produce a comprehensive framework for good practice~ I use the framework in two systematic reviews, one about heavy menstrual bleeding using meta-ethnography, and one about hysterectomy using meta-study. These two reviews allow a comparison of the two methods, and in particular explore the impact of expanding the meta-ethnography approach through meta-study, which adds explicit steps to assess the impact of study methodology and theory on findings. The ability of meta-study to unpack the procedures and theories that produce particular findings is key and illuminates the importance of theory in systematic reviews of qualitative research. Through the two systematic reviews, my thesis also contributes to understanding of these reproductive health topic areas through the creation of new insights and concepts from the synthesis. The synthesis of heavy menstrual bleeding studies produced a detailed patient illness model based on women's experiences. In addition, it allowed an understanding of elements that contribute to women's certainty or uncertainty about whether or not their periods could be seen as problematic and requiring medical help. This helps to establish the limitations of the medical model for doctors, as well as women who suffer from heavy menstrual bleeding. The synthesis of hysterectomy studies produced a detailed description of the journey that women make to, and through, hysterectomy, based on their experiences. I also created a theoretical framework, which shows that hysterectomy needs to be understood in the context of personal, physical experiences, together with sociocultural forces that affect the way in which hysterectomy is experienced, and that the interaction of these micro- and macro-concerns mediate through, and affect, relationships with key other people. Methodology affected the research questions posed and the conclusions of research. Comparing the two methods of review and synthesis showed the importance of taking account of the methods and theories that produce research findings. However this additional detail may be at the expense of certainty and requires additional resources.

The dynamic nature of science is embodied in the growth of knowledge in magnitude and the transformation of knowledge in structure. More specifically, the growth in magnitude is indicated by a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications in recent decades. The transformation of knowledge occurs as the boundaries of scientific disciplines become increasingly less distinct, resulting in a complicated situation wherein disciplines and interdisciplinary research topics coexist and co-evolve. Knowledge production in such a context creates challenges for the measurement of science.This thesisaims to develop more flexible bibliometric methodologies in order to address some of the challenges to measuring science effectively. To be specific, this thesis1) proposes a new approach for identifying emerging research topics; 2) measuresthe interdisciplinarity of research topics; 3) explores the accuracy of the journal classification systems of the Web of Science and Scopus; 4) examines the role of cognitive distance in grant decisions; and 5) investigates the effect of cognitive distance between collaborators on their research output. The data used in this thesisaremainly from the in-house Web of Science and Scopus databases of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University. Quantitativeanalyses, in particular bibliometric analyses,are the main research methodologies employed in this thesis. Furthermore, this thesis primarily offers methodological contributions, proposing a series of approaches designed to tackle the challenges created by the dynamics of science. While the major contribution of this dissertation lies in the improvement of certain bibliometric approaches, it also enhances the understanding of the current system of science. In particular, the approaches and research findings presented here have implications for various stakeholders, including publishing organizations, bibliographic database producers, research policy makers, and research funding agencies. Indeed, these approaches could be built into a software tool and thereby be made available to researchers beyond the field of bibliometric studies. / <p>QC 20160406</p>

<p>One important issue in this dissertation is understanding the concept of ambivalence in academic settings. This is addressed in two empirical studies. The first is an interview study on Swedish sociologists, focusing on how they look at and understand their own research as well as their place within academia. The second study is based on political documents and offers two possible perspectives on the historical development of research policy. On the one hand it can be viewed as a linear development toward more commercialized science, and on the other hand it can be viewed as an ongoing struggle between traditionalists and non-traditionalists. An important perspective in the interpretation of the results is Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural fields. This theory is especially useful in pinpointing the issues of ambivalence in science, showing how both the sociologists and the political documents can be understandable through the concept of "positions". Another important issue in the dissertation is understanding what type of norms are connected ambivalence in relationship to academia. In the final part of the dissertation, Robert Merton's CUDOS norms and John Ziman's PLACE norms are used to explain both the ambivalence itself as well as what kind of norms are related to different "positions".</p>

One important issue in this dissertation is understanding the concept of ambivalence in academic settings. This is addressed in two empirical studies. The first is an interview study on Swedish sociologists, focusing on how they look at and understand their own research as well as their place within academia. The second study is based on political documents and offers two possible perspectives on the historical development of research policy. On the one hand it can be viewed as a linear development toward more commercialized science, and on the other hand it can be viewed as an ongoing struggle between traditionalists and non-traditionalists. An important perspective in the interpretation of the results is Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural fields. This theory is especially useful in pinpointing the issues of ambivalence in science, showing how both the sociologists and the political documents can be understandable through the concept of "positions". Another important issue in the dissertation is understanding what type of norms are connected ambivalence in relationship to academia. In the final part of the dissertation, Robert Merton's CUDOS norms and John Ziman's PLACE norms are used to explain both the ambivalence itself as well as what kind of norms are related to different "positions".

The purpose of this study is to assess the extent to which affiliation with a university research center affects how university scientists allocate their work time across their many academic tasks and responsibilities, including research, teaching, student advising, grants and contracts work, and service and committee duties. The key proposition is that institutional variation across university research centers can affect greatly how center affiliated university scientists allocate their work time insofar as some center level characteristics are more conducive than are others to role strain, which is the structural circumstance (Merton 1957) wherein an individual is beholden to center and departments norms and expectations that are divergent. The concept of role strain befits analysis of the impact of center affiliation on university scientists time allocations insofar as it provides a structural framework with which to characterize the time constraints that center scientists face as a result of being dually obligated to a center and an academic department. Moreover, study at the organizational level of analysis emphasizes competition and even conflict between university research centers and academic departments over the scarce resource of faculty time (Geiger 1990, Stahler and Tash 1994, Mallon 2004). This study uses data from a national survey of university scientists as well as data from interviews with university scientists who affiliate with National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers or Science and Technology Centers. Survey results demonstrate that a centers size, multidisciplinarity, organization within the university, programmatic ties, and external relations increase the time allocated to research, grants and contracts work, and service and committee duties. These findings constitute objective evidence of center induced role strain (Pandey and Kumar 1997, Rizzo et al. 1970) insofar as they identify components of center scientists work environments suggestive of center and department norms and expectations being divergent and even conflicting. Interview results demonstrate similarly that when a center has no ties to an academic department and when its research focus is applied or commercially relevant, workload increases. These findings constitute subjective evidence of center induced role strain (Pandey and Kumar 1997, Kahn et al. 1964) insofar as it is the center scientists themselves observing these divergent norms and expectations. Implications for policy and theory are discussed.

Health information networks continue to expand under the Affordable Care Act yet little research has been done to query and analyze multiple patient populations in parallel. Differences between hospitals relating to patient demographics, treatment approaches, disease prevalences, and medical coding practices all pose significant challenges for multi-site analysis and interpretation. Furthermore, numerous methodological issues arise when attempting to analyze disease association in heterogeneous health care settings. These issues will only continue to increase as greater numbers of hospitals are linked. To address these challenges, I developed the Shared Health Research Informatics Network (SHRINE), a distributed query and analysis system used by more than 60 health institutions for a wide range of disease studies. SHRINE was used to conduct one of the largest comorbidity studies in Autism Spectrum Disorders. SHRINE has enabled population scale studies in diabetes, rheumatology, public health, and pathology. Using Natural Language Processing, we de-identify physician notes and query pathology reports to locate human tissues for high-throughput biological validation. Samples and evidence obtained using these methods supported novel discoveries in human metabolism and paripartum cardiomyopathy, respectively. Each hospital in the SHRINE network hosts a local peer database that cannot be overridden by any federal agency. SHRINE can search both coded clinical concepts and de-identified physician notes to obtain very large cohort sizes for analysis. SHRINE intelligently clusters phenotypic concepts to minimize differences in health care settings. I then analyzed a statewide sample of all Massachusetts acute care hospitals and found diagnoses codes useful for predicting Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). The AMI association methods selected 96 clinical concepts. Manual review of PubMed citations supported the automated associations. AMI associations were most often discovered in the circulatory system and were most strongly linked to background diabetic retinopathy, diabetes with renal manifestations, and hypertension with complications. AMI risks were strongly associated with chronic kidney failure, liver diseases, chronic airway obstruction, hemodialysis procedures, and medical device complications. Learning the AMI associated risk factors improved disease predictions for patients in Massachusetts acute care hospitals.