LIST OF PANELS

While comparative studies between Portugal and Brazil have long explored areas such as education  and migration, the critical-interpretive analysis of science funding remains an underdeveloped  frontier. Existing literature on scientific policy within the Lusophone space is predominantly  quantitative or descriptive, focusing on budgetary allocations and diplomatic cooperation. This  panel breaks new ground by treating funding not as a neutral resource or a mere technical output,  but as a contested site of meaning-making where the very value of knowledge is negotiated. 

The panel’s core innovation lies in its application of a cutting-edge tripartite heuristic—Discourse,  Framing, and Narrative—as a holistic framework for contemporary Interpretive Policy Analysis  (IPA). By moving beyond isolated methodological approaches, we provide a multidimensional  view of how power, strategy, and sensemaking converge. This framework allows for a unique  exploration of how Lusophone scientific identities negotiate their space against the dominant,  English-centric metrics and traditional power structures, capturing both the macro-discursive  structures that discipline research and the micro-interactional “plots” of those who navigate them. 

Our primary objective is to move beyond technocratic evaluations of budgets to deconstruct the  “regimes of truth” that dictate which knowledge is considered “investable.” We welcome papers  that explore how power is embedded in the language of funding agencies (such as FCT, CNPq,  and CAPES), how specific scientific priorities are “foregrounded” while others are silenced, and  how storytellers—from policymakers to precarious researchers—emplot the future of science. By  bridging actor-focused and structure-focused analyses, this panel aims to renew critical dialogue  on how the Lusophone identity can challenge, resist, or adapt to global scientific hegemonies.  

In alignment with the conference theme, “Interpretive Policy Analysis Community: Renewing Critical  Dialogue, Building Connections,” this panel seeks to revitalise the study of science policy by  challenging the positivist bias that often dominates the field. By bringing together scholars from  the Lusophone world and researchers from across the globe, we aim to build connections that  transcend the North-South divide. This cross-pollination of perspectives will link political science,  the sociology of knowledge, and discourse studies, creating a vibrant network of critical policy  researchers dedicated to reimagining science funding as a tool for social equity and democratic  participation worldwide.

References:

I. Core Heuristic  

Van Hulst, M., Metze, T., Dewulf, A., de Vries, J., van Bommel, S., & van Ostaijen, M.  (2025). “Discourse, framing and narrative: three ways of doing critical, interpretive policy  analysis.” Critical Policy Studies, 19(1), 74-96. 

II. Foundations of Interpretive Policy Analysis  

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke  University Press. 

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Sage. 

Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. M.E. Sharpe.

III. Theory-Specific References  

Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford University Press.  

Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies.  Basic Books.  

Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Norton.  IV. Science Policy, Power, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge 

Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.  

Vessuri, H., Guédon, J. C., & Cetto, A. M. (2014). “Excellence or quality? Impact of the current  competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for  development.” Current Sociology, 62(5), 647-665.  

V. Lusophone and Developing Contexts 

Madeira, A. I. (2010). “Portuguese, a language of science?” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences.  Arvanitis, R., & Gaillard, J. (Eds.). (1992). Science and Technology Policy in Developing Countries.

We invite researchers to address one or more of the following interpretive dimensions in the  context of science funding and policy: 

1. On Discursive Structures and Power  

What are the dominant “regimes of truth” (e.g., Innovation, Global Excellence, Economic Utility)  that discipline science funding calls in Portugal, Brazil, or other Lusophone spaces? 

How does the discourse of “fiscal austerity” or “European integration” silence alternative forms  of knowledge production or specific scientific disciplines? 

In what ways is the Portuguese language itself a site of discursive struggle or marginalisation within  globalised, English-centric funding metrics? 

2. On Strategic Framing and Interaction  

How do funding agencies (such as FCT, CNPq, or CAPES) perform the “normative leap” from  what science is to what it ought to be through the strategic framing of social problems? 

Which elements of the scientific reality (e.g., researcher precarity, regional inequalities)  are “backgrounded” to grant saliency to specific “innovation success stories”? 

How is the identity of the “productive scientist” framed in interactional spaces like grant  evaluation panels and policy documents? 

3. On Narratives and Sensemaking  

Who are the “heroes,” “villains,” and “victims” in the stories told by policymakers to justify budget  cuts or massive investments in specific scientific clusters? 

How do narratives of “brain drain” or “technological sovereignty” function as sensemaking  devices to mobilise public opinion and influence parliamentary budget decisions? 

How do silenced storytellers—such as early-career researchers or marginalised academic groups— construct counter-narratives to resist or adapt to precarious funding landscapes?