Competing frames of STI policy: uncovering ‘fragmented cohesion’ in reorganization of public research funding

Abstract

Despite variation across Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policies, project-based public research funding allocation models, characterized by a complexity of policy objectives, are becoming increasingly prevalent. This article examines the emergence of such a development within a specific context through a case study on the policy process leading to the establishment of Finland’s Strategic Research funding instrument. Drawing on the policy proposal, organizational responses, and interviews, it explores five frames for and against the proposal and its development into a decision. Based on the empirical analysis, I propose the notion of ‘fragmented cohesion’ to characterize how several stakeholder organizations employed framing as an argumentative tool to valorize the proposal’s objectives, while selectively justifying and opposing the proposed methods of achieving them. I argue that this dynamic increased the likelihood of policymakers embracing one-size-fits-all models across diverse sectors, as originally outlined, rather than case-by-case consideration.