I. DISCOURSE ON DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH FUNDING: Development Studies Between Fashion and Reality: Reflections on a Norwegian Impasse

Abstract

Johan Helland's and Stein Tønnesson's critique of development studies in the previous issue of Forum for Development Studies, it is argued here, is based on half truths. They generalise without nuances and propose recipes that would kill rather than cure the patient. Everyone agrees that we need more knowledge about wider aspects of development, but that should not be at the expense of studies of the problems and efforts of downtrodden people, financed by the aid budget. Everybody also agrees that the quality of such studies must be enhanced, but that should not be done at the expense of the already recognised discipline development research. The real crisis of development research is that those best agents of improvements are prevented from making a difference. This is due to poor resources for their independent research and research-based education—in addition to fragmentation and insufficiently broad and dynamic milieus and lack of good governance. The root cause is that Scandinavian research and education have become particularly sensitive to vested interests. There is a lack of balance between guided and independent research and education. The formula is not to trust independent researchers. But in the article that is proved invalid. Norway should rather make its internationally admired 50/50 principle (of combining research and education) real, so that discipline development researchers can do their job, so that NFR-financed institute researchers can contribute to and benefit from academic teaching and unifying dynamic milieus, and so that practitioners can add questions and ground their work on relevant results.

Keywords:

• development research
• financing development research
• research-based education
• independent research