![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
Abstract
The perennial issue of the relations between science and technology and society is a backdrop to this study of material, symbolic and economic foundations of engineering science in Sweden. It analyzes three cases of institutional reform from the first half of the twentieth century that were essential to the formation of engineering research as a distinct and respected scientific field. Taking the intersection of institutional and linguistic analysis as a starting point, two intertwined processes are followed: the drawing of boundaries by different actors that delineated the new kind of research, and the struggle over resources for the institutions that could enable this research. The institutional reforms are placed in context, relating arguments by the proponents of engineering research to the politicians and university academics who were in control of various resources. It is suggested that an institutionalist perspective enunciated in terms of form and content is a productive interpretive possibility.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the anonymous referees of History and Technology for their helpful comments, and the editor Martin Collins for his keen eye, precise suggestions and reassuring patience. Thanks also to Aant Elzinga for linguistic and moral support. I have written the final version of this article, which is to the memory of Jan Hult, within the research program ‘Science and Modernization in Sweden: An Institutional Approach to Historicizing the Knowledge Society’, funded by the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation and hosted by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Notes
1. There are varieties of institutionalism in different disciplines; an overview with a focus on politics that discusses varieties in terms of old–new and difference–similarity is Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science. The historical aspect is in focus in Fioretos, Falleti and Sheingate, Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism.
2. See, for example, Magnusson and Ottosson, Evolution of Path Dependence.
3. A starting point in this case is DiMaggio and Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited”; for an overview, see Greenwood et al., Sage Handbook of Organizational.
4. Higher technical education is discussed with reference to a form and content perspective in Lindqvist, “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Science”; Liedman, Stenarna i själen is a grand history of the concepts of form and content (or matter/substance).
5. For a general discussion of research-based technical education, see Harwood, “Understanding Academic Drift”, and his nation-by-nation review of the literature in “Engineering Education between Science and Practice”. For a comparison in time rather than space, see Kaiserfeld, “Why New Hybrid Organizations Are Formed”. For a more theory-driven discussion, see Morphew and Huisman, “Using Institutional Theory.”
6. See, for example, Richter, History of Political and Social Concepts and, more recent, Ifversen, “About Key Concepts” and the collection of articles in “Roundtable: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe Reloaded?” The relevance of conceptual history in relation to the history of the notion of applied science is discussed in Bud, “Framed in the Public Sphere”; cf. the collection of articles in “Focus: Applied Science”, with an introduction by Bud, and the earlier Kline, “Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’”. Histories of related concepts are in focus in Schautz, “What is Basic Science?”, and Godin, Innovation Contested.
7. The discussions of intricacies such as the distinction between term and concept can be somewhat philosophical, and I have found the argument for studying contested concepts as developed in Connolly, Terms of Political Discourse to be useful as a historian; the notion of essentially contested concepts has been discussed within the tradition of conceptual history, but with reference to the original 1956 articulation rather than to Connolly’s elaboration of it.
8. Metaphors have also been discussed within conceptual history, see for example, Schäfer, “Historicizing Strong Metaphors”. The question of how to understand relationships between ideas, concepts and metaphors is also theoretically intricate. I have found the praxis-oriented approach in Schön, “Generative Metaphor” useful. In this context I can also mention his book Displacement of Concepts, which has not been commonly cited in recent discussions, but perhaps a quote (45) can spur curiosity: ‘Focusing attention on the metaphors in ordinary language is like focusing on the colour green. We see it everywhere. It has, too, the effect of immediately removing the film of obviousness that covers our way of looking at the world.’
9. Although my focus is on Sweden, the notes will refer, when possible, to literature in English, such as Torstendahl, Dispersion of Engineers in a Transitional Society. For comparative perspectives on trajectories in this context, with chapters on Sweden, see Ahlström, Engineers and Industrial Growth, Fox and Guagnini, Education, Technology and Industrial, and Meiksins and Smith, Engineering Labour. Sweden is not in focus in antoher comparative study, Fox and Guagnini, “Laboratories, Workshops, and Sites”, but the laboratory institution that is central to the first case presented below is.
10. Cf. Harwood, Technology’s Dilemma, chapter 1.
11. I discuss the notion of political industrialization in my Staten, Chalmers och vetenskapen.
12. For the notion of boundary work, cf. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science. Even if I have different points of departure, my mode of working has features in common with Gieryn’s: a focus on contested concepts such as science, a sensitivity to metaphorical reasoning in the arguments, an appreciation of the role of acquiring authority to obtain resources. Like Harwood, “Engineering Education”, my use of the spatial analogies of ‘boundary’ and ‘field’ is loosely inspired by more elaborate views on their use in (historical) analysis; for a discussion of the terms, cf. Silber, “Space, Fields, Boundaries.”
13. On the origins and tradition of the German university ideals, see Clark, Academic Charisma and the Origins and Josephson, Karlsohn and Östling, Humboldtian Tradition. On German cultural influence on the Scandinavian countries in general, see Henningsen et al., Skandinavien och Tyskland, and on education in Sweden, Liedman, “In Search of Isis.”
14. Cf. Blomqvist, “State, University and Academic Freedom in Sweden”, and, from 1919 to the 1990s, Elzinga, “Universities, Research and the Transformation of the State in Sweden.”
15. Torstendahl, Teknologins nytta.
16. Runeby, Teknikerna, vetenskapen och kulturen. An influence from the USA came early in the technical sphere, cf. Grönberg, Learning and Returning.
17. Relevant material has been collected in the National Archives (hereafter NA), Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 11/1 1890 no. 17, item 48. I have analyzed the process that follows in my Staten, Chalmers och vetenskapen, chapter 3, cf. Sundin, Ingenjörsvetenskapens tidevarv, chapter 4, and Berner, Teknikens värld, chapter 11.
18. Underdånigt betänkande och förslag till utvidgning; subsequent material has been collected in NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 13/1 1894 no. 1, item 47, and NA, archive of Younger Commission no. 14. The distinction between different cultures is from Calvert, Mechanical Engineer in America.
19. Underdånigt betänkande och förslag till ordnandet.
20. Ibid., vol. 2, 74: a protest against the answers submitted by the Swedish Association of Engineers and Architects.
21. Cf. Layton, Revolt of the Engineers; with their sensitivity to issues of Bildung in relation to social standing, the reactions of Swedish engineers with higher education are somewhat similar to those of their German counterparts, cf. Voskuhl, “Engineering Philosophy.”
22. Underdånigt betänkande och förslag till ordnandet, vol. 1, 21.
23. The publications of the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag), 1909: Bill 155; Lower House (hereafter LH) minutes 38; LH motions 239, 246, 250; State Committee report 173; LH minutes 65; Upper House (hereafter UH) minutes 44.
24. NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 10/3 1911 no. 52; Riksdag 1911: Bill 124.
25. For the committee’s statement and the debate at the meeting, see Meddelanden från Sveriges industriförbund; cf. the views of the president of the Royal Institute in [Magnell], “Tekniska högkolans omorganisation” and idem, Inledningsföredrag.
26. NA, J. Sigfrid Edström’s collection, vol. 36, telegram Arvid Lindman to Edström 30/4 1911; Centre for Business History in Stockholm, Federation of Swedish Industries, board meeting 3/5, cf. dossier 7610 and press clipings.
27. Riksdag 1911: LH motion 345; Select Committee no. 2 report 1; UH minutes 30; LH minutes 53.
28. Cf. Sundin, Ingenjörsvetenskapens tidevarv.
29. Kändler, Anpassung und Abgrenzung, 114–118. I have analyzed the Swedish process in my Teknikens art och teknikernas grad, to which I make a general reference.
30. NA, Royal Institute of Technology (hereafter RIT) main archive, faculty meeting 3 & 5/4 1905, protest by Peter Klason.
31. Op. cit., protest by Erik Odelstierna.
32. The drama notion here is from Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. The primary sources for discussions among engineers have been collected in NA, RIT main archive, FI vol. 3: “Handlingar rörande införande av teknisk doktorsgrad”, and Om införande av teknisk doktorsgrad vid Tekniska högskolan. Supplementary material from the later ‘acts’ has been collected in NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 7/10 1926 no. 31, and Cabinet Act 9/9 1927 no. 35. In the following summary of the process, I will basically limit the notes to quotations.
33. NA, RIT main archive, faculty meeting 15/1 1919.
34. Proposal of April 1922, reprinted in Om införande: Betänkande, 57.
35. RIT main archive, faculty meeting 8/3 1922. Forssell had also published articles in which he debated the issue.
36. NA, Swedish Association of Engineers and Architects main archive, AII: 30 (item 33).
37. NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 7/10 1926 no. 31, Lund University, faculty of philosophy 23/4 1926.
38. Axel Wahlberg’s comment to the debate in Blad för bergshandteringens vänner, 316.
39. Henriques, Kungl. Tekniska högskolans 100-årsjubileum.
40. Cf. Larsson, “Physics in a Stronghold of Engineering.”
41. Chalmers’s history is in focus in my book Staten, Chalmers och vetenskapen, to which I make a general reference.
42. Regional State Archives in Gothenburg, August Wijkander’s collection, letters from various commission members, especially vol. 32, Axel Wahlberg to Wijkander, 22/4 1908.
43. Riksdag 1909: Bill 1, 8th main title, item 116; Bill 155, 15.
44. Underdånigt utlåtande och förslag.
45. Riksdag 1913: Bill 1, 8th main title, item 211.
46. Op. cit. The unpublished report of the commission can be found in the Regional State Archives in Gothenburg, Chalmers archive, EI: 10, no. 219.
47. NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 29/5 1914 no. 56; Riksdag 1914: Bill 144.
48. Betänkande avgivet av 1919 års sakkunnige.
49. Riksdag 1922: Bill 238; State Committee report 56; UH minutes 30; LH minutes 34.
50. For example, Riksdag 1922: UH minutes 35, 32; LH minutes 41, 17; cf. Blomquist.
51. NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 4/11 1932 no. 21.
52. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, Gregori Aminoff’s papers, letter from Arvid Hedvall to Aminoff 21/11 1932.
53. Riksdag 1934: Bill 1, 8th main title, item 105; State Committee report 8; cf. report 124; UH minutes 17; LH minutes 18.
54. NA, archive of Younger Commission no. 492; material collected in NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 5/3 1937 no. 64.
55. Gothenburg Maritime Museum, Hugo Hammar’s collection, E3:3, draft letter to Martina Lundgren 27/11 1935; Regional State Archives in Gothenburg, Chalmers archive, FVIII:1 stack no. 6, copies of letters from Chalmers’s president Sven Hultin to ministerial secretary Georg Zacharias Topelius 3/2, 10/2 1936.
56. Riksdag 1936: Bill 135; UH motion 333; LH motion 658; State Committee report 83; UH minutes 28 (quote: 18-9); LH minutes 28. On naval architects and their education, cf. Olsson, Technology Carriers.
57. Riksdag 1937: Bill 268; State Committee report 191; UH minutes 41; LH minutes 41.
58. NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 3/5 1940 no. 29.
59. Cf. the numerous articles and reports in the 1936 volume of Teknisk tidskrift; Engberg, Demokratisk kulturpolitik; “Teknisk forskning”, Den svenske nationalsocialisten 9/11 1938.
60. Cf. Nybom, “Socialization of Science”. For subsequent changes, cf. Althin, KTH 1912–62, Samuelsson and Samuelsson, Chalmers tekniska högskola.
61. Williams, Retooling.
62. Cf. Harwood, Technology’s Dilemma, chapter 6, where the discussion is extended to other cases.
63. NA, archive of Younger Commission no. 492, vol. 1, meeting 17/4 1941, proposal dated 24/9 1941; material collected in NA, Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cabinet Act 3/1 1942 no. 112.
64. On ‘research training’, cf. Odén, Forskarutbildningens förändringar 1890–1975, a comprehensive historical account, focusing on historical disciplines at the university.
65. I suggest that the basic pattern in the recurring arguments can be understood by way of combining the perspectives of Fabian, Time and the Other, and Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men. The pattern may, in a sense, be clearer in Swedish, a language in which the temporal and spatial aspects in focus here are mixed in the same prepositions (‘före’ for both before and ahead; ‘efter’ for both after and behind).
66. Cf. Rydell, All the World’s a Fair.