Always Relevant? Finding a Place for the Social Sciences in the Technical University and the Business School

TY - JOUR

T1 - Always Relevant? Finding a Place for the Social Sciences in the Technical University and the Business School

AU - Irwin, Alan

AU - Horst, Maja

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2025/6

Y1 - 2025/6

N2 - Relevance with regard to the social sciences can be presented as a new imposition from external stakeholders and an obligation imposed upon the individual researcher. As an alternative approach, we place relevance in a larger institutional but also historical perspective. Taking the case of two non-traditional locations for the social sciences, we suggest that ‘relevance’ has been actively constitutive of both institutions from the beginning—even if the definition and practice of relevance have been matters of discussion, change and contestation. In what we describe as a process of multi-layering, relevance has over time accumulated new meanings which can co-exist with older concerns. It follows that, even when universities express a commitment to relevance, the enactment of that commitment will be open to competing interpretations. Our account identifies an element of circularity as old issues return in new form. We also note that both the institutional past and organizational complexity can be overlooked within contemporary discussions. Relevance is not a static concept around which critical debate then circulates. Its contextuality, case-specificity and multi-dimensionality make it difficult to impose from above. Nevertheless, the shifting construction of its meaning and enactment provokes questions about the identity and purpose of both the social sciences and the universities.

AB - Relevance with regard to the social sciences can be presented as a new imposition from external stakeholders and an obligation imposed upon the individual researcher. As an alternative approach, we place relevance in a larger institutional but also historical perspective. Taking the case of two non-traditional locations for the social sciences, we suggest that ‘relevance’ has been actively constitutive of both institutions from the beginning—even if the definition and practice of relevance have been matters of discussion, change and contestation. In what we describe as a process of multi-layering, relevance has over time accumulated new meanings which can co-exist with older concerns. It follows that, even when universities express a commitment to relevance, the enactment of that commitment will be open to competing interpretations. Our account identifies an element of circularity as old issues return in new form. We also note that both the institutional past and organizational complexity can be overlooked within contemporary discussions. Relevance is not a static concept around which critical debate then circulates. Its contextuality, case-specificity and multi-dimensionality make it difficult to impose from above. Nevertheless, the shifting construction of its meaning and enactment provokes questions about the identity and purpose of both the social sciences and the universities.

KW - Business schools

KW - Relevance

KW - Social sciences

KW - Technical universities

KW - University strategy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85210142547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11024-024-09553-z

DO - 10.1007/s11024-024-09553-z

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85210142547

SN - 0026-4695

VL - 63

SP - 281

EP - 300

JO - Minerva

JF - Minerva

IS - 2

ER -