Knowledge Politics and Policies

09/02/2026

Excellent Paper Award this year too for early career scholars.

In order to be eligible for the 2025 round, the applicant and the paper need to fulfil the following criteria:

Is an «emerging scholar» = currently enrolled in a PhD programme or has obtained PhD after January 2021;
Is the Sole or Lead Author in the paper + the paper is topically relevant;
Papers where all authors are emerging scholars are given priority;
Presented the paper at a conference or workshop between November 2024 and November 2025
A revised version of the paper can be submitted for the competition
Is a registered member of the Standing Group when applying
Application consists of:

Paper presented (less than 8000 words, excluding references), along with details of the conference (panel title, date of presentation)
CV (2 pages, including details of institutional affiliation)
and needs to be submitted to [email protected] by 15 March 2026.

The decision of the jury, comprising Tatiana Fumasoli (UCL, UK), Emanuela Reale (IRCRES NRC, Italy), Kieron Flanagan (U of Manchester, UK), is expected to be announced in May 2026.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

11/07/2025

Excellent Paper Award 2024 by the ECPR Standing Group on Knowledge Politics & Policies

It is our great pleasure to announce that the jury comprising Tatiana Fumasoli (University College London, UK), Emanuela Reale (IRCRES NRC, Italy), and Kieron Flanagan (University of Manchester, UK) has decided to award the 2024 Excellent Paper Award by the ECPR Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies to Anna-Lena Rüland from the University College London (UK) for her paper titled “We need a CERN for AI”: Organized scientific interests and agenda-setting in European science, technology, and innovation policy.

In the view of the jury, the paper presents an in-depth case study of the CERN for AI initiative to shed light on the role of organized scientific interests in European STI agenda-setting. The manuscript is very informative on the lobbying strategies and process of interactions in the case analyzed. The analytical framework is constructed well and the methodological approach and analysis of whether and how prominent ideas make it onto the formal political agenda.

The paper has been recently published in Minerva, and you can read it open access here [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-024-09568-6].

Dr. Anna-Lena Rüland is a research fellow with the European Research Council-funded project “Addressing Global Challenges through International Scientific Consortia” at the University College London Global Business School for Health. She graduated with a PhD in science policy from Leiden University (Netherlands) in July 2024 and currently conducts research on science diplomacy, research security, as well as science, technology and innovation policy.

30/03/2025

Ukrainian universities in QS World University Rankings: when the means become ends by Myroslava Hladchenko

Global university rankings have got prominence in recent decades. Nation-states develop evaluation policies drawing on the assessment criteria of world rankings aiming their universities to take higher positions in these rankings (Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). QS Rankings is one of them. It is a profitable business that generated €46 m in revenue in 2019 (Shahjahan et al., 2022). Research assessment by QS Rankings takes the form of citations (excluding self-citations) per faculty indicator (Staff, 2021).

Since the 2010s Ukrainian media and the education ministry have traced the positions of Ukrainian universities in QS Rankings (Higher Education, 2011). However, since 2022, everyday survival has taken priority over research in the lives of Ukrainian scholars. The paradox of war is that, while life-threatening conditions, shelling, blackouts and economic recession are the part of everyday reality, work obligations and responsibilities remain the same as they were in pre-war life. This applies to all, including scholars. Despite the war, Ukrainian scholars continue to publish which deserves respect. As well, Ukrainian universities participate in QS Rankings 2025.

However, QS is a for-profit company the aim of which is not to contribute to societal well-being but to increase its profits. Elsevier which provides data for QS is another for-profit company the aim of which is also to increase revenue. The same concerns publishers issuing Gold Open Access journals, as many of them are oriented on publishing as many articles as possible to ensure profits.

The university is a key institution for social and economic development in a knowledge-intensive society (Mohrman et al., 2008). University performance is supposed to result in the quality of life, technological progress and social well-being of the nation. These are the ends that the university is supposed to achieve through research. Publications are just one of the means of achieving of these ends. QS Rankings has turned the means of universities into their ends. The university’s position in the global ranking reflects, first, the economic development of the country. Second, the university position at the national level. A university cannot increase its position in the ranking, if there is no economic growth and beneficial conditions for science in the country. On the other hand, the university should contribute to economic growth at the national level.

The examination of the assessment of six Ukrainian universities in QS Rankings 2025, first, raise concerns regarding the mismatch between the faculty staff of universities announced on the QS Rankings website and the number of authors affiliated with the explored institutions in their research outputs. Second, it is unclear why the articles in the journals discontinued from Scopus are still in Scopus and correspondingly they are not excluded from the research output assessed by QS Rankings. Third, QS Rankings uses closed data. University managers do not have access to these data and cannot use them while developing research assessment policies. While developing the research assessment policies, universities mostly use SciVal provided by Scopus for a fee. However, there is a mismatch in data that shows SciVal and data that uses QS Rankings. First, QS Rankings normalises only by disciplines but SciVal normalises by year, discipline and document type. As conference papers are less cited than articles, normalisation by a document type results in a high FWCI shown by SciVal. Second, QS Rankings excludes self-citations but SciVal provides data including self-citations.

The IRN (International Research Network) index introduced by QS Rankings requires universities to increase the number of countries they collaborate with. It means that not academics but QS Rankings decides with whom they need to collaborate. Aiming to increase the IRN index, Sumy State University gives points if the article increases the number of collaborating countries. This is nothing else but means-ends decoupling.
The study findings resonate with the other studies that raise concerns about the ability of QS Rankings as well as other rankings to be a trustworthy assessment tool (Chirikov, 2023; Teixeira da Silva, 2024; Shahjahan, et al., 2021). In 2024, the University Zurich has withdrawn from the ranking published by Times Higher Education magazine. University announced that rankings create false incentives focusing on measurable output, forcing universities to increase the number of publications rather than prioritise the quality of content (Swissinfo, 2024). In 2023, Korean universities boycotted QS Rankings because of the IRN index (Jung & Sharma, 2023).

Six Ukrainian universities participating in QS Rankings 2025 have publications in discontinued from Scopus and MDPI journals. MDPI journals is a fast and easy way of publishing for a fee. The question is why academics from a country at war with underfunding science and low salaries are ready to pay an unaffordable APC (article processing fee). Arguably there is a high degree of international collaboration in articles in MDPI journals because Ukrainian academics are interested in finding a foreign co-author able to pay an APC. However, the question is who benefits from publications with a high APC except for publishers that make revenue? Academics publish at the cost of science because the money spent on APCs could be invested in science.

The findings highlight that articles (co)-authored by Ukrainian academics co-affiliated with foreign institutions or foreign academics have a higher impact than articles authored by only Ukrainian researchers. The share of articles authored by only Ukrainian authors ranges from 52.6% to 73.3%. Thus, Ukrainian academics have the space to strengthen collaboration with foreign colleagues.

To summarise, the research assessment criteria at the global, national and university levels must be oriented towards scientific excellence that results in economic growth and societal well-being. Ukrainian case shows that means-ends decoupling at the global, national and organisational levels results in diversion of critical resources, both financial and human. This negatively impacts on the development of society, the economy and the fulfilment of the talents of individuals in academia as well.

Myroslava Hladchenko is researcher in Kyiv, Ukraine. Her research focuses on higher education, universities and research assessment. This blog post is based on her recent article Hladchenko, M. (2025) Ukrainian universities in QS World University Rankings: when the means become ends. Scientometrics 130, 969–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05165-2

Acknowledgements
This project has received funding through the MSCA4Ukraine project, which is funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the MSCA4Ukraine Consortium as a whole nor any individual member institutions of the MSCA4Ukraine Consortium can be held responsible for them.

References
Chirikov, I. (2023). Does conflict of interest distort global university rankings?. Higher education, 86(4), 791-808.
Higher Education (2011). Ukrainian universities at first in the global rankings http://vnz.org.ua/statti/879-ukrayinski-vnz-upershe-v-mizhnarodnomu-rejtyngu-zadovoleni-ne-vsi
Jung, U., and Sharma, Y. (2023) Korean universities unite against QS ranking changes https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20230704195008557
Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: The emerging global model. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 5–27
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher education management and policy, 19(2), 1-38.
Shahjahan, R. A., Grimm, A., & Allen, R. M. (2021). The “LOOMING DISASTER” for higher education: How commercial rankers use social media to amplify and foster affect. Higher Education, 1-17.
Shahjahan, R. A., Sonneveldt, E. L., Estera, A. L., & Bae, S. (2022). Emoscapes and commercial university rankers: the role of affect in global higher education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 63(3), 275-290.
Staff, W. (2021). Understanding the methodology: QS World University Rankings https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/understanding-methodology-qs-world-university-rankings
Swissinfo (2024) University of Zurich withdraws from international university ranking https://education.am/abroad_en/tpost/48hm4eipi1-university-of-zurich-withdraws-from-inte
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2024). How are global university rankings adjusted for erroneous science, fraud and misconduct? Posterior reduction or adjustment in rankings in response to retractions and invalidation of scientific findings. Journal of Information Science, 01655515241269499.

This post was originally published on Europe of Knowledge blog.

07/03/2025

Tracing Military AI in the EU: Insecurities, Ambitions, and an In-Between Position

Justinas Lingevicius
The European Union's (EU) decision to exclude the military from the scope of its AI policy, as outlined in the AI Act, raises an important question: to what extent does this decision align with reality, particularly in the context of evolving defense-related programs and instruments, such as the European Defence Fund? This question builds on existing analyses, which reveal that dual-use technologies are already embedded in military-related practices within the EU but are still framed primarily as market-driven industrial policies rather than as security-focused initiatives. I argue that, given the dual-use nature of AI, the EU follows the same pattern to focus on the market and industry side of AI as civilian. Meanwhile the military side is being sidelined despite exercising military power in terms of AI. The main intrigue is – how the EU frames military AI within the related strategic discourse.

I analyse this question in my new article ‘Transformation, insecurity, and uncontrolled automation: frames of military AI in the EU AI strategic discourse’ (Lingevicius, 2024) released in the Critical Military Studies journal.
Frames of military AI
In the article, I identify three intertextual frames within the EU’s AI strategic discourse. These frames do not appear to be static or arranged in a hierarchical order. Instead, they reflect diverse positions and ongoing tensions within EU institutions. For instance, the European Parliament advocates for a more proactive approach to incorporating the military, whereas the European Commission maintains its stance of excluding the military from the policy scope.

The first frame suggests that military AI is perceived as transformative technology which requires the EU to adapt to this changing landscape. Transformation is closely attached to the international environment which is seen as competitive and challenging the EU to be competitive as well. Therefore, transformation is not solely about pursuing technological advancement but also about positioning the EU at the forefront, particularly in comparison to other major powers such as the United States and China. Lastly, this frame encompasses various calls for building military AI-enabled capacities, suggesting that transformation has also become synonymous with increased armament aimed at securing a competitive edge.

The second frame leans towards a different direction where in international dynamics there is about increased insecurity because of the arms race. In other words, it contains meanings which portray external developments related to military AI as threatening the EU. Again, international dynamics is interwoven with the perception of technology, which is considered as being unknown and uncontrolled while its developments and (mis)uses may raise concerns. Therefore, such a situation is unfavorable to the EU’s ambitions to be competitive because the race creates even more uncertainty.

The third frame portrays military AI as uncontrolled automation, focusing less on the international environment and more on the nature of the technology itself. In this case, concerns are mainly articulated through anticipating reduced human involvement and challenged human agency mainly through autonomous weapons systems. Therefore, the international engagement receives different perspectives – to multilaterally engage and cooperate with other partners in order to ensure the ‘human in the loop’ principle. In this case, military AI is perceived as a source of insecurity, with the response rooted not in the pursuit of greater technological power but in normative principles aimed at mitigating the potential of automation.
Overall, these identified frames reveal different sources of insecurity leading to different EU responses (to build military capability, to navigate through the arms race, and/or to ensure control) internalizing the military as well.

The EU takes an in-between position
The frames also appear closely related to how the EU perceives and aims to define itself. Despite mentioned ambiguity of the EU to openly discuss military-related concerns, the empirical evidence suggests that the integration of military thinking into the AI framework is being actively pursued. Therefore, I argue that the EU’s position can be described as one of in-betweenness, as it navigates a state of liminality while transitioning across boundaries. Those boundaries are marked by different elements of the military power (embracing transformation and military capacity building), the normative power (establishing values-driven principles to control military AI uses) and market power (competition through production and ownership).

At the same time, the empirical evidence supports claims that the EU exploits the nature of AI as dual-use technology by putting the spotlight on one side (civil) but sidelining the other (military). Such reinforced duality enables the EU to keep room for manoeuvres and frame its self-image as it prefers, despite evolving military practices and noticeable contradictions. However, potentiality of dual-use technology to be civil and military also creates risks of manipulation, which involves challenging boundaries and accountability in the context where the expansion of the military power is dispersed across different policies. The case of the emerging EU AI policy demonstrates that the military then becomes implicated in civilian policies such as the single market, industry, R&D, and digitalization. Therefore, it remains important to challenge official positions to understand their implications and to foster critical debates that address existing inconsistencies.

Justinas Lingevicius is a Lecturer and PhD candidate at Vilnius University, Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Lithuania.

References:
Justinas Lingevicius (2024): Transformation, insecurity, and uncontrolled automation: frames of military AI in the EU AI strategic discourse, Critical Military Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2024.2387890

This post was initially published on Europe of Knowledge blog:
https://era.ideasoneurope.eu/2025/02/26/tracing-military-ai-in-the-eu-insecurities-ambitions-and-an-in-between-position/

22/02/2025

ECPR General Conference Funding Opportunities for Early Career Researchers / students:

ECPR provides funding opportunities to help graduate students and early career scholars boost their careers by participating in events. These funding opportunities are available to students and scholars affiliated with ECPR Member and Non-Member institutions. They can cover, but are not limited to, registration fees, travel and accommodation (for in-person events). Terms and conditions apply:

European Consortium for Political Research

05/01/2025

EUropeanisation in and through Science by David Irion
On 9 September 2024, the world’s press gathered in Brussels. On that day, Mario Draghi, former Italian Prime Minister and previous President of the European Central Bank, presented his eagerly awaited report on “The Future of European Competitiveness”. The publication of the so-called Draghi report was timed to coincide with the start of the Commission’s next mandate, which the Commission itself has declared to be the decisive phase in its fundamental reorientation. The Commission intends the Draghi report to have a significant impact on policy-making and priority-setting in the European Union (EU) in the coming years.

The Draghi report provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing the EU and develops strategic approaches to promote stability. Draghi notes that growth in the EU is slowing down, mainly due to weak productivity. He also sees recent negative developments in foreign trade, energy supply and external security as a threat to the EU’s previous growth model. But one of the main reasons for him is the poor performance in terms of breakthrough innovation and the initial concentration of innovation activities in medium to low R&D intensive sectors, which is forcing the new European institutions to adopt a new approach to EU R&D policy.

The report recommends creating science as a ‘fifth freedom’ and a ‘Research and Innovation Union’ to reduce the R&D spending gap between the EU and its main competitors. Draghi’s view is undoubtedly that the future of the EU hinges on the success of science and research and its policy.

On the way to centre stage
Against this background, the question arises as to how science and research have become such an important policy area in the EU today. This question is addressed in a special issue recently published in the Journal of European Integration History entitled “EUropeanisation in and through Science: Unveiling the Long-Term Dimensions of European Integration” (Irion & Volf 2024). The six contributions to this special issue, written by historians and political scientists, take a multi-angle view of the impact of integration within the political framework of the European Union and its predecessors, covering a wide historical range of almost seventy years - from the formative years of post-war European cooperation to contemporary debates on research infrastructure.

The articles highlight that an indispensable part of the EU’s complicated journey to its present form is the fascinating but often overlooked story of the Europeanisation of science and research which comprises two interrelated strands: the transformation of European science and research in the wake of political, economic and monetary integration, on the one hand, and the transformative impact of scientific research on the evolving European Union, on the other.

One policy, many forms, many forums
Each contribution explores this symbiotic relationship, examining in detail how the various actors, institutions, practices and policies have been shaped by the process of European integration and, conversely, how they have influenced the development of the EU. In doing so some authors even look at networks and institutions that have emerged on the margins or even outside the EU framework, but have interacted with its structures in a lively way. One example is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which in the 1950s was one of the first major instances of scientific cooperation in post-war Europe. Another is the Standing Committee for the Social Sciences of the European Science Foundation (ESF), which was set up in the 1970s and is another organisation independent of the EU.

Looking at the EU itself, the Commission’s initiative for the so-called Framework Programmes illustrates how research is being integrated into the fabric of European governance in the 1980s. The special issue also looks at the evolution of key concepts within European research policy. It examines the evolution of ‘scientific excellence’ in European research, tracing its transformation from a critical concept in the early 1990s to a normative standard within the European Research Council (ERC) since 2007. The European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC), launched by the European Commission in 2009 and which represents a turning point in the organisation and management of European research infrastructures, is also investigated.

Taken together, the articles sketch the landscape of European scientific cooperation and examine its various forms and impacts, but there is still much to be explored in this area. We would therefore like to provide a starting point and some food for thought.

David Irion is a PhD candidate and research fellow at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich (Germany). His current research focuses on the emergence and development of European research policy since the 1980s.

Reference:
Irion, D. & Volf, D. (2023) EUropeanisation in and through Science: Unveiling the Long-Term Dimensions of European Integration – Introduction. Journal of European Integration History, 30(2): 205–216. https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9511-2024-2-205

This post was initially published on Europe of Knowledge blog.

08/12/2024

Reminder:
As you may already know, we continue the tradition and organise again a section on Knowledge Politics and Policies at the 2025 ECPR conference in Thessaloniki, 26-29August 2024.
ECPR has indicated we would be available to organise 10 panels.

There are two ways to apply for the conference:
If your proposal fits into one of the topics covered by the existing panels, you can submit your proposal to the chair(s) of that panel by email (addresses are listed below). If the chair(s) of your targeted panel inform(s) you that the panel is full, please submit your proposal directly to the section and indicate clearly which panel you were interested in.
If your proposal does not fit clearly into one of the existing panels, you should submit your proposal directly to the Section, via ECPR website.


The deadline to submit all proposals for panels and papers to ECPR is 6 January 2025.
This is right before the winter holiday break, so please make sure that you submit your proposal on time.
This is particularly important in case you are interested in an existing panel. In this case, please contact the panel chair ASAP.

The titles and descriptions of panels, as well as contact details of their chairs are given below.

Demystifying power in/ of Artificial Intelligence
Chairs: Inga Ulnicane (University of Birmingham, [email protected]), Tero Erkkilä (University of Helsinki, [email protected]) and Ronit Justo-Hanani (Tel Aviv University, [email protected])
Artificial Intelligence (AI) today is often seen as an all-powerful technology changing almost every aspect of our lives. This panel invites theoretical and empirical contributions that critically examine what power means when we talk about AI. Who has the power to make AI (seem) powerful and who is left powerless?

Interest organizations in knowledge politics and policies
Chair: Martina Vukasovic (University of Bergen, [email protected])
The panel focuses on organizations representing interests of various stakeholders in the knowledge policy domain. The panel is particularly interested in studies that analyze the role of these organizations in the policy process, how they develop their policy agendas, how they relate to their members, their internal organization and operation, as well as their positioning towards other policy actors.

Science diplomacy: new directions and area of study
Chair: Mitchell Young (Charles University, [email protected])
Papers in the panel will seek to uncover new theoretical angles for the study of science diplomacy as well as new areas of study which could bring insight, focus and coherence to this emerging area of global policymaking and diplomacy.

Academia in Times of Crises
Chair: Hila Zahavi (Ben Gurion University, [email protected])
The proposed panel aims to examine the complex role of academia during crises and wars. Using various perspectives of case studies from recent global events, the panel will illustrate the challenges faced by academia in times of crises: maintaining its activities and fulfilling its different missions while serving as both refuges for critical thought and battlegrounds for ideological conflict. Ultimately, this discussion will shed light on how academia can adapt and contribute meaningfully during tumultuous times.

The politics of migration-higher education policy nexus (2 panels!)
Chairs: Meng-Hsuan Chou (NTU, [email protected]), Tero Erkkilä (University of Helsinki, [email protected]), Alina Felder-Stindt (University of St.Gallen, [email protected])
These panels aim to uncover and compare the roles of migration and higher education policy nexus in filling or exacerbating contemporary skills shortages. While shortages affect all skills levels, these panels zoom into the tertiary level of skills where shortages have traditionally been met by skilled labour migration and, increasingly, policies concerning post-study pathways. These panels address the overlaps, coordination issues, and administrative conflicts among the relevant political, institutional, and economic actors when meeting the demands for changing high skills through skilled migration and higher education internationalisation.

Comparing University Alliances: Politics, Policies, Actors and Institutions.
Chairs: Marina Cino Pagliarello (EUI, [email protected]), Andrew Gunn (University of Manchester, [email protected])
This panel looks at the rise in university collaboration through multilateral and bilaterial alliances from a comparative perspective. In addition to the European Universities initiative there has been growing interest in alliances globally. The panel welcomes theorical and empirical studies that focus on one alliance as a case study or engage in a comparative analysis across different alliances.

Academic freedom in higher education
Chairs: Mari Elken (University of Oslo, [email protected]) & Peter Maassen (University of Oslo [email protected])
Recent studies have shown how academic freedom is declining in a number of countries globally, including in Europe. Threats are manyfold and include, for example, strengthening geopolitical tensions, security concerns in research, and political interference. The panel invites contributions that explore various aspects of academic freedom, both the threats to academic freedom as well as measures to safeguard it.

How do universities die? (not yet included in the Section description that is online, but will be very soon)
Chair: Alexander Mitterle (Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, [email protected])
Universities are survival experts. Despite the common trope that universities are difficult to reform, they have shown a high level of adaptability and resilience since their formal organization in the 13th century. Still, the success story of higher education as a global institution is scattered by gravestones of universities that died along the way, especially private endeavours. The panel invites contributions that shed light on how universities as organizations adapt to changing environmental pressures, how they fail, close, or continue in a different form in their organizational afterlife.


In case you have any questions, do not hesitate to get in touch.

Kind regards,
Martina ([email protected]) and Mitchell ([email protected]), KPP section chairs