Disciplines are, and have always been, in dynamic change, and with change come new challenges for educating new generations of researchers into the academic profession. This paper address these challenges by focusing on the latest decade’s regulation of the production of knowledge in contemporary PhD Education, and especially, the organising of Doctoral Schools (or Research Schools, Graduate Schools, etc.) as a more recent initiative to structure the distribution of knowledge into education as well as research. With regard to a sample of Doctoral schools within the field of Educational Science in Sweden (Utbildningsvetenskap) we analyse different ways of organising curriculum knowledge, and discuss what consequences these differences can be said to have for the survival and traditional dynamics of the disciplines within the field.

IGert Biesta is in Citizenship and Education putting forwards is based on a strategy which we are titling Middle Man Theorizing, by which we mean a strategy of mobilizing theoretical insights from another domain into your own and thereby create an alternative pathway for possible conceptual renewals. The man in the middle” is the author in personal (here Gert Biesta) - the one who is giving voice of others (here Jacques Rancière and Chantal Mouffe) by stating their thoughts and ideas in order to re-conceptualizing a certain problematic (here citizenship education). This kind of middle man theorizing is very frequent in the educational field (as noted by e.g. Foss Lindblad & Lindblad, 2009 concerning the framing of educational restructuring and teaching in relation to professionalization theorizing) and has its own dynamic in terms of conceptual travelling and knowledge organization. It is our ambition to discuss this strategy, its strengths as well as its weaknesses, in relation to the Biesta text. Middle-man theorizing has a double agenda. On the one hand the stating of a problem, on the other hand the presentation of conceptual imports by means of which the problem is going to be fruitfully handled (solved, re-stated, re-conceptualised etc.). In the text by Biesta the very possibilities of education to contribute to what is called “the desire for democracy” both sets and solves the problem of citizenship education. “The “desire for democracy” could be seen as a condensed conceptual result of Biestas reading of the writings of Chantal Mouffe and Jacques Rancière. It is based on distinctions such as those between police/politics, antagonism/agonism, subject/subjectification etc., and is seen as the possible solution to the problems of democracy generally, an alternative both to “the logic of positive identity”, which is said to dominate the conceptions of citizenship, and to “the logic of socialization”, which is said to dominate the conception of education.

Att forskningskritik utgör en viktig och på många sätt ofrånkomlig del av vetenskaplig kun-skapsproduktion tas ofta för givet och forskningskritiken är också på olika sätt en institution-aliserad del i det högre utbildningssystemet. I mitt inlägg kommer jag att argumentera för att just forskningskritiken – och speciellt möjligheterna av en konstruktiv sådan – är något som vi emellertid idag behöver ta upp tll diskussion och ställa oss undrande inför. Som en vital och viktig del av forskningsverksamheter överlag finns fog för antagandet att forskningskriti-kens villkor och grunder har förändrats liksom det högre utbildningssystemet i övrigt. Mitt inlägg syftar till att lyfta frågor kring dessa förändringar och stimulera en diskussion kring frågan om vad en ”konstruktiv” forskningskritik skulle kunna tänkas vara i sammanhanget. I sin introduktion till den idag välciterade och kända boken Educational Research on Trial från 2009 skriver redaktörerna Pamela Walters, Annete Lareau och Shiri Ranis: When the smoke and dust had settled, it became clear that the field of education research had been hit by a major earthquake. Roughly between 1995 and 2002, numeroous reorts citing scientific de-ficiencies in education research or suggesting that it was a field in need of rehablitation were isued. Critics of education research charged that the designs on which much of the research is ba-sed are inferior, the quality of the data typically collected is shoddy, and the results of most studies are not to be belived or trusted. To make matters worse, critics charged, the poor quality of educat-ion research rendered it useless as a scientific guide to policymakers’ and practioners’ decisions about how to improve education in the United States. (sid. 1). Situationen i Sverige är kanske inte så extrem eller så tydligt uttalad som denna, men nog känns den igen. Kritik mot forskningen har också här kommit från flera håll och har oavsett om den kommit från professionens, politikens eller akademins företrädare varit likartat inrik-tat på att ifrågasätta både forskningens kvalitet och dess användbarhet och har i vissa fall, som i Sundell (2009), kunnat konstaterats vara bristfällig endast på grund av att forskningspublice-ring etc. inte följer utvärderingens standarder för kvalitetsmätning. Kritikens huvudpunkter är i sig inte nya. I ett ämnesområde vars konstitutionella kärna består i att forskningen ska svara upp på behov utanför sig själv kan det tyckas självklart att frågor kring kvalitet kopplas till frågor om nytta och användbarhet. Samhällsvetenskaperna i gemen har förväntats ”serva” olika samhällssektorer, vilket för den pedagogiska forskningens del traditionellt har bestått av lärarutbildningar, lärarprofession och (något senare) utbildningspo-litik. Historiskt har konstitutionen visat sig fruktbar och de spänningar som funnits mellan ämnes-området och lärarutbildning, lärarprofession och utbildningspolitik har gett upphov till kritik som varit konstruktiv och kunnat utnyttjas i differentierings- och specialiseringssträvanden. Mycket tyder emellertid på att sådana utvecklingslinjer kommer att bli allt svårare i framtiden och att kritiken, området – liksom dess sammanhang - förändrats mycket kraftfullt. Förra århundradets sista decennier innebar kraftfulla och tillsynes globala förändringar för vetenskaplig kunskapsproduktion inom samtliga ämnesområden (se t ex. Gibbons, et.al, 1994; Ziman, 1994). I de globala kunskapsekonomier som råder har visserligen forskning med rele-vans för utbildning fortsatt att hamna högt på de politiska agendorna, men den institutionella grunden både för att bedriva och styra universitets- och högskolebaserad forskning är sig inte lik. Uttrycken ”University in Ruin” och ”Academic Capitalism”, myntat av Readings (1997) respektive Slaugher och Lesley (1997), ger på ett så slagfullt sätt gestalt åt igenkännbara sammanhang. Lägger vi därtill till de också i Sverige allt mer hörbara kraven på evidensbase-rade praktiker och evidensbaserad forskning framträder konturerna av vad Pamela Walters (2009) kallat för en ”educational research movement” där vetenskaplig legitimitet och veten-skaplig auktoritet ställts på spel inför kraftfulla förändringar och utmaningar i utbildningssek-torn. PISA men också neo-liberala strömningar och marknadisering tillhör samma scenarie där också nya villkor och former för att hantera allt ifrån tjänstetillsättningar till forskningsfi-nansiering gjort sig gällande. Om både de institutionella, politiska och kunskapsmässiga grunderna är under så radikal för-ändring som ovanstående antyder menar jag att vi också står inför en hittills ny situation där inte bara den pedagogiska forskningens villkor utan också innebörderna och möjligheterna av att vara forskare inom området har omvandlats. Självklart utmanas också kritikens roll i sammanhanget och våra mer traditionella uttryck för forskningskritik har, kan vi förmoda, inte stått opåverkad av den senare ”rörelsen” (Educational Research Movements) och de kon-stitutionella förändringar denna bär vittne om. Som jag kommer att argumentera för ställer ett antagande om konstitutionella förändringar oss inför strategiskt svårbemästrade frågor där vi får allt svårare att förstå oss själva isolerade eller immuna från närvaro av neo-liberala strömningar och omvandlingar av universitets- och högskolesystemet i stort. Med några exemplifieringar från omvandlingen av den pedagogiska forskningens organisering och villkor i Sverige kommer jag att i mitt inlägg peka på vissa av de konstitutionella paradoxer vi fortfarande lever under där ”gammalt” i vissa fall lever sida vid sida med ”nytt” och där det ”gamla” i andra sammanhang så uppenbart omformats genom det ”nya”. Utan att tro på att svar i vanlig mening är möjliga är den fråga jag menar är viktigt för oss att ha rådslag om är: Vad är eller skulle en konstruktiv forskningskritik kunna vara i sammanhanget och åt vad (ska) den riktas? Referenslitteratur: Biesta, G. (2007). Why »what works» won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democra-tic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. Bohlin, Ingemar (2010): Systematiska översikter, vetenskaplig kumulativitet och evidensba-serad pedagogik. I Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 2010 årg 15 nr 2/3 s 164–186. Gibbons, M. C., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hammersly, M. (2001): ’On ”systematic” reviews of research litteratures: A ”narrative re-sponse to Evans and Benefield.’ British Educational Reserch Journal, 27, p. 543 – 554. Nihlholm, Claes & Evaldsson, Ann-Carita, (2010). Var finns evidensen för evidensrörelsens anspråk? Debatt. I Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 2010 årg 15 nr 2/3 sid. 321. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Oanecea, A and Pring, R. (2008). ’The importance of being thorough: On systematic accumu-lation of ”what workds” in Educational Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 42: 4 – 15. Ranis, Sheri H. (2009): Blending Quality and Utiliity: Lessons Learned from the Education Research Debate. Sid. 125 – 143. I Walters, Lareau, and Ranis (Eds.) Education Research on Trial. Policy Refrom and the Call for Scientific Rigour. Routledge. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism, politics, policies, and the entrepre-neurial university. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sundell, K. (2010). Internationella publikationer och citeringar under perioden 2000–2009 hos svenska professorer och docenter inom folkhälsovetenskap, omvårdnadsvetenskap, pedagogik, psykologi, socialt arbete och sociologi. Socialstyrelsen november 2010.

This paper deals with differences and changes of self-understandings, scientific ideals and research practices in gender education research in Sweden, with comparisons made to Germany. In the paper we highlight differences in the ways in which gender education research has come to construct its history, its disputes as well as its present and future challenges. The identification and analyses of such differences have the purpose of exposing epistemic and social dynamics involved in the methodological specificities of educational gender research itself. Our focus is the meta-narratives on research identities and methodological innovations. Our research show significant differences in meta-narratives of gender education research in Sweden and Germany, and also important differences between these and the Anglo-American metanarratives that so strongly have dominated the gender and feminist research discourses. Whereas some of these differences can be explained in political terms (as differences in feminism and feminist impact), some can only by explained by differences in the constitution of the discipline (Education/pedagogik) and the ways in which educational research has been institutionalised within it.

The starting point for this study is that educational reform and educational research is moving in tandem, as could be expected from theoretical insights of the co-production of science and society in Science and Technology Studies. The ideas of relevance in educational research plays a vital role here and will be in focus when the interplay between the restructuring of educational systems and the reforming of educational research are analyzed.
Our focuses on prevalent ideas of relevance in educational research aims to show ways in which these ideas has been important in the restructuring of educational systems and research and what consequences it has had on the expertise of teachers and researchers. The study is based on the case of educational reform in Sweden in relation to changing demands on educational expertise and research over a period of twenty years. The case is of special interest for understanding interrelations between educational restructuring and educational expertise. Swedish education is a radical example of (global) trends in restructuring since the early 1990s, but the transition of Swedish educational research follows only recently, and still with some exceptions, the very same trends. Our analyses are based on two different kinds of sources – a selection of policy documents from the Swedish government and documentation of strategic instruments developed and used by Swedish Research Councils for the renewal of educational research, as well as an analysis of the concrete outcome of its uses in terms of approved research applications.
 Our results are presenting large changes in educational research policy, which has moved educational research from (a) a disciplinary organization in terms of “pedagogic” towards a multidisciplinary “educational research field”, and (b) which in tandem with Higher Education reforms has led to increased dependences and competition of external research funds, where (c) productivity in terms of international scientific publications is becoming the most important indicator for scientific quality. This dependency is combined with increasing demands for quantitative studies of school performances and international comparative studies of different kinds, all supposed to function in the control and surveillance of educational systems. However, these findings are complemented by another finding, where the relevancy of educational research for the teaching professions is emphasized, underlining the needs for praxis-relevant research either to be carried out in teacher education departments or otherwise expected to serve the needs of the teaching professions. Similar patterns are identified in Norwegian educational research policy and will be compared to the Swedish case. In sum, and taken together, our research findings shows a new and more subtle governing of the ways in which educational research now is engaging with educational practices on systems and school levels congenial to restructured education. It should alarm us for the prevalent dangers of creating an incapacity for more “radical” (reflexive and critical) forms of research practices to supersede current educational regimes.

This chapter addresses changing premises and practices for and in educational research in the case of Sweden. The ambition is to analyse changing preconditions for educational research and potential implications of this for research practices and knowledge production in the field of education. The text is organised in three inquiries: First, we present a general framework of transitions in the system of higher education and research as a combination of expansion and contraction. Second, we analyse educational research in Sweden, its trajectory, playground and play performances, indicating possible changes in the rules of the game. Here we apply an international perspective. Thirdly, based on this, we discuss the current situation - the condition we are in for educational research, and where to go?

This paper aims to analyze current impact of transnational organizations and multinational corporations in governance of higher education in Sweden. We put this in context of welfare state restructuring and performative governing by means of indicators and ranking and related to changing policy demands on research and expertise. Are these changes in higher education policy and research policy working in tandem as could be suggested by science - technology studies (Nowotny et al, 2003)? Our study will be based on policy network analysis and identification and analyses of expertise in education policy discourses. We analyze current policy discourses (since 2006 and onwards) giving special attention to what expertise that are referred to in these discourses, as well as the meanings and objects of the expertise concept in use. In relation to our aim of analyzing the impact of transnational organizations and multinational corporations in educational policy making, we refer to the studies on transnational governance by Djelic Sahlin-Anderson (2006) and the increasing use of incomplete organizing (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2010) in higher education. Concepts of "thin descriptions" (Porter, 2012) and potential "looping" (Hacking, 2004) are used here. As a result important changes in higher education governance and expertise are identified. Our analyses lead to a discussion of couplings between governance and research policy in higher education. This paper is attached to the symposium "Globalization and The Nordic model - conflicting, resisting and converting tendencies in policy of education" in Network 21, "Politics of Education and Education Policy Studies". References: Ahrne, G. & Brunsson, N. (2009). Complete and incomplete organisation (Scores Reports 2009:2). Stockholm: University Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press. Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. D. Sperber, D. Premack and A. J. Premack. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 351-94. Nowotny, H.; Scott, P.; Gibbons, M. (2003): Introduction: Mode 2'Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 2003, 41.3: 179-194. Porter, T. M. (2012). Thin Description: Surface and Depth in Science and Science Studies. Osiris, 27(1), 209-226.

The seminars working hypothesis has a lot in common with the well-known hypothesis of Lyotard (1984) saying that when society alters so does the status of knowledge. Knowledge can as such be described in terms of a discourse where legitimation of different kinds of knowledge is put in the fore. This discourse of legitimating knowledge is taking place in societal systems (cf. Luhmann, 1996) where knowledge legitimates itself as well as the systems which harboring legitimacy. In this, the society-science interaction is especially important due to that it acknowledges important relations and settings of power. In the seminar, we are elaborating on how a society-science connection is portrayed in the domain of education where we note how educational knowledge and educational policy is constructed and functioning in tandem in ways similar to the Lyotard hypothesis – when educational knowledge alters so does educational policy, and vice versa. This connection is analyzed based on an analytical use of the conceptual space description of agora (Nowotny et al., 2003), where various activities takes place in which educational knowledge and policy is constructed, framed and disseminated in tandem. Based on historical and empirical investigations we state that one prevailing reasoning (Hacking, 1992, Lindblad, Pettersson & Popkewitz, 2015) necessary for educational knowledge and policy in the contemporary is the notion on comparativism where comparisons such as rankings and hierarchizations between educational systems are in focus and not the qualities of education as such. Comparativism implies a reduction of complexity which is required to maintain a system’s power capability. During the last decades, the dissemination and growth of international large-scale assessments (ILSA) represents a reduction of such complexity. The power of new algorithms and technologies for classifying educational systems at the intersection of international actors and national policy and science, is repeatedly expressed in education policy debates. The emergence of this approach to education has been noted in research (Carvalho, 2012; Grek, 2009), mostly with a focus on relations between different actors at work in different layers and in transnational governance (Ozga, 2012; Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006). However, few studies have investigated the educational activities for providing educational knowledge and how they together provide major contributions of educational knowledge. Based on such notions, the purpose is to describe and analyze comparativism in education in order to critically examine and clarify what claims and educational reasoning that are put forwards as well as implications for educational design and action. We search for answers to the following set of questions: - how to capture and analyze the emergence of a comparativistic turn in educational research and policy; - how to describe the dynamics of an agora in the making of educational knowledge staged in tandem processes in research and policy; - how do international and national settings and agents interact in educational discourses? These problematics will be elaborated on in the seminar with a specific focus on Nordic contexts (Sweden and Norway) in international perspectives. We approach the problematics by especially observe the function of ILSA in the society-science relations and how these are discussed on the agora leading to tandem processes of policy and research. With the contributions in the seminar we are in a position to highlight some of the relations on how educational knowledge is constructed, framed and disseminated as tandem processes in a situation dissolving the dichotomy of society-science by reducing some of its complexity. When doing so we have the opportunity to analyze the intersection between science and society as an important field of education. We will also raise questions on how these kind of knowledge is perceived by media and public. 

In accordance with the scientific enterprise at large, educational research is considered to be of increased importance - for the improvement of education and for the possibilities of social and economical developments. But as funding has its limits (Ziman,1994) this has also meant increases in demands and pressures on educational research to conduct according to what is needed and asked for – e.g. to be relevant (Besley, 2009). But how are decision over needs taken and how are the balance between research relevance and research quality handled, and with what consequences? These are questions addressed in this paper whose main aim is to reflect on the role of research in processes of expertizing educational change. Reflection means here to rethink (to reconceptualise) what already has been altered in a period of time where educational research and educational research policy are increasingly run by global agendas (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and where changes in epistemologies could be expected to follow changes in research assessments and research practices. The study addresses questions of research quality and research relevance from a perspective where images of differences between “external” and “internal” quality standards play a vital, but different, role in different forms of assessment of educational research (see Boaz & Ashby, 2003). This external/internal divide are here seen from a perspective of social epistemology (Fuller, 2002), and the paper analyse and exemplify the performativity and translations of these divides and its conceptual specificities as they are performed. Our analyses are based on different sources - selections of policy documents as well as selections of research assessment procedures from selected Research Councils. The paper is to be seen as an extension – and a conceptual rethinking - of our previous studies on the politics of assessments of educational research in Sweden (Foss Lindblad, Lindblad & Popkewitz, 2009), Norway (Lindblad, 2013) and Australia (Lindblad & Foss Lindblad, 2013). Our findings indicate, firstly, that the conceptual ambiguities of quality and relevance in educational research assessments are founded in epistemological terrains that mirror differences in the roles given to research in the processes of expertizing educational changes. While our empirical cases (Sweden, Norway and Australia) gives clear evidence for the fact that, secondly, such differences makes a difference also for the agenda setting of research priorities and the actual funding of research, the situation could also be seen as one where, thirdly, the external/internal divides conceptually hidden in ideas about scientific quality and scientific relevance demonstrates that struggles over different kinds of research has other dimensions than those addressed in the discussions on evidence-based research (Hammersley, 2007) and/or questions on qualitative vs. quantitative research (Denzin, Lincoln & Giardina, 2006). Disciplinary differences are important here – as are questions of the future of educational research (see Furlon & Lawn, 2011) and we will here take a clear stance for the importance of disciplines, and disciplinary crossings, in processes of expertizing educational change. References Boaz, A. & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based policy and practice. Retrieved 2014, from ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy. Besley, T. (2009). Assessing the Quality of educational research in higher education: International perspectives. Sense Publishers. Denzin, N: Lincoln, Y & M Giardina,. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 19, No 6. Pp. 769 – 782. Fuller, Steven (2002). Social Epistemology. Indiana University Press. Furlong, J. & Lawn, M. (2011). Disciplines of Education. The role in the future of educational research. London & New York: Routledge. Hammersley, M (Ed.) (2007). Educational evidence-based practices. London:Sage. Lindblad, S. ; Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. ; Jensen, B. et al. (2013). Evaluering av forskningsprogrammene PRAKSISFOU og UTDANNING 2020. Oslo: Norges Forskningsråd. Foss Lindblad, R. ; Lindblad, S. ; Popkewitz, T. S. (2009). Narratives on Educational Research Evaluation in Sweden. Besley, A.C (Ed): Asessing the Quality of Educational Research in Higher Education. s. 279-292. Rotterdam: Sense Publications Lindblad, S. & Foss Lindblad, R. (2013). Educational Research: the State of Sweden and the Australian 2.2 world. The Australian Educational Researcher. 40 (4) s. 527-534. Rizvi F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge. Ziman, J.M. (1994). Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge: University Press.

The Swedish case in a globalized context; This paper address governance by performances in Higher Education Institutions by discussing two strategies for assessing research quality, PeerReview systems and systems of performance indicators. While systems of performance indicators are of later date and has its origin in newer forms of governance, it has nevertheless usually been discussed as a system that operates on the same rationalities as the Peer-review system. Research excellence is for example still considered based on principles and norms such as those of originality and rigour, only translated into quantified figures. However, the translation of values between the two system is, we will argue, far from neutral and its significance has more to do with governance than with values per se, and, as we will argue, changes in governance includes the governance of peers. This will be the radical difference. We will here refer to the history of reviews of educational research in Sweden and to a context of changing research policies in a higher education and research system (Parliament bill 2012/13:30) that is based on increased competition of research funds. This we will put into the context of higher education and research as a system of different higher education institutions, such as university colleges and universities with large research funds.

The making of the “European Higher Education Area” (EHEA) is based on a number of initiatives from a number of actors and networks. We will here put forwards these initiatives and the actions at work. Firstly, we will deal with the making of the “Knowledge Triangle” (KT), where education, research and innovation are assumed to be the interdependent drivers in the making of a Knowledge Society. How is this configured and what tools are at work – e.g. Erasmus and instruments such as U-multirank? Secondly, we go into research assessment exercises and how these construct higher education and research, and their mutual relations. Our study is based on notions of governing and dynamic nominalism. We have analysed documents that are strategic in the construction of EHEA and KT plus analyses of RAE technologies and constructions. This is combined with analyses of ranking instruments as navigation tools and standardization of EHEA. Here, we will focus on Sweden as a case scrutinising three larger universities and their recent use of Research Assessment Exercises and put this in an national and international context. The study is resulting in presenting critical research issues concerning transnational governance in the Europeanization of higher education and research.

Research topic/Aim: Our case is Sweden with its comprehensive welfare state education. This case have been in rapid change in education during the last decades, including worldwide restructuring measures such as deregulation, privatization and governing by school performances. Our aim is to analyze education as part of a modernization project based on the development of science as well as on democracy. Our approach to this is analyses of the public opinion in the Swedish welfare state in relation to the current context of Sweden and what its educational system offers. In order to realize these ambitions, we put forwards the following research questions: • What confidence and discontent in education is presented by the public opinion? How is this related to educational levels and political preferences among individuals? • To what extent is there confidence or mistrust in research in different fields – including educational research – and to what extent is this connected with educational levels and social positions among the individuals? Given our interest in modernization of education we have a special interest in how individuals in in teaching professions assess educational research. In order to sharpen the analysis of current trends in education modernization and educational research we made special analyses of the public opinion on the uses of large scale assessments of educational performances. Theoretical frameworks: Trust has become an important factor for understanding operations of governance and educational reforms and variances of success over countries. Given the present context of rapid social and political transformations and ongoing restructuring of higher education and research, the level and objects of trust thus becomes an important indicator of possibilities and readiness of change. Methodology/research design: We have chosen to analyze the views of the public opinion considering trust in science as such and for the eventual betterment of society, with a special focus on educational science. Data are obtained from the SOM-Institute survey 2014 sent to a national sample of 3 400 individuals, out of which 54 percent answered the questions – in sum 1 634 persons. Findings: In the public opinion the confidence in the school is not very high, and most individuals take very critical stances to current developments in schooling. Regarded as indicators of perceptions of education in a modernizing welfare state, the results present somewhat of a crisis in trust of schooling. This is further underlined by the finding that individuals with lower levels of education are more discontent with recent developments in education. Of special interest is the finding that the right wing populists – often in low paid jobs – are most dissatisfied with what education can offer them. Trust in educational research – especially among those in teaching professions – is also indicating that the modernization processes in education is at work. Stated otherwise, modernization of education and schooling seems to correspond to predominant distribution of resources in society, and universalistic claims about modernization seem to be contradicted by its premises and practices. Relevance for Nordic Educational Research: There is a large need for analyzing the current political situation and its politics of knowledge and educational policies in the Swedish welfare state and in similar welfare state contexts, such as the Nordic countries. 

The Swedish case in a globalized context; This paper address governance by performances in Higher Education Institutions by discussing two strategies for assessing research quality, PeerReview systems and systems of performance indicators. While systems of performance indicators are of later date and has its origin in newer forms of governance, it has nevertheless usually been discussed as a system that operates on the same rationalities as the Peer-review system. Research excellence is for example still considered based on principles and norms such as those of originality and rigour, only translated into quantified figures. However, the translation of values between the two system is, we will argue, far from neutral and its significance has more to do with governance than with values per se, and, as we will argue, changes in governance includes the governance of peers. This will be the radical difference. We will here refer to the history of reviews of educational research in Sweden and to a context of changing research policies in a higher education and research system (Parliament bill 2012/13:30) that is based on increased competition of research funds. This we will put into the context of higher education and research as a system of different higher education institutions, such as university colleges and universities with large research funds.

Current tendencies in educational research in Sweden are presented and compared to Australia. We here refer to; organization of research, research allocation, publication patterns, and assessments of research qualities. Different trajectories of educational research were identified, where Australian research was organized as a field of study, while Swedish research had a disciplinary organization, which now is eroding into a situation more close to the Australian one. In other aspects the Australian and Swedish trajectories seem to harmonize, except for the fact that RAEs in Sweden are initiated and run by the universities themselves. There are also some differences in how research qualities are assessed and the outcomes of these assessments. Given these findings different strategies to deal with the current situation are discussed.