The Digital Government Research Consortium has since 2018 been successfully engaged in scaling high-impact research in the public sector. Through a steady stream of interventions, we have actively contributed to enhanced digital capabilities in the Swedish public sector, and to science through strong publications. Throughout all of this, we have explored new ways of making social science matter (Flyvbjerg, 2001). As our research continues to evolve, so will the manifesto.
To be able to address the challenges currently facing society we see the need for a new complementary approach to science, along the lines of what Auguste Comte saw as the general aim for research: ”… to bring into play the forces which are to lead society on the road to the new system.” (1998, p.50). We identify seven tenets of this new approach.
Seven tenets of research
First, pragmatism constitutes the philosophical foundation. Through equating the value of science with the value-in-practice we disband the ideas of an inherent value in science and the sequential logic of research followed by dissemination in “the last research mile” (Nunamaker et al., 2015). Science is a method to directly and effectually solve societal challenges (Rorty, 1990).
Second, interventionism sets the logic of inquiry. We steer clear of systems-level and transformative notions to instead focus on the continuous identification of pertinent phenomena and the supply of micro-contributions that drive action and further inquiry. With the wicked nature of societal challenges, we delimit our interventions to the practice level and to short, iterative, highly focused sprints (boyd, 2025).
Third, clinical sets the framing of intervention. Through engaging directly in the empirical setting, often in roles of clinicians tasked with solving practical problems, we safeguard the direct application of findings into practice and the subsequent systematization of learnings (Schein, 2008).
Forth, transdisciplinarity sets the parameters of resourcing. We work in small agile teams with representation from both other scientific disciplines as well as various professions. The selection of representation is based on initial assessments of the problem and setting, focused on assuring optimal impact rather than the optimal scientific quality (Max-Neef, 2005).
Fifth, bricolage sets the selection criteria for method. We choose methods that offer the best possibilities for conducting strong research, embracing eclecticism and continuously exploring new methods. The choice in method is hence not dependent on our researchers, but on the research setting and access to data. This means that we combine qualitative and quantitative methods, often through computational intense approaches to aspire for impactful and rigorous research (Miranda et al., 2022).
Sixth, programmatic provides the organizing principle for our research. With the diminutive delineation in scope in each instance of research, we acknowledge the necessity to accumulate insights to address higher-level phenomena and drive strong scientific contributions. All projects are nested in an overarching program, that naturally morphs over time (Ram and Goes, 2021).
Seventh and final, openness sets the mode of operations. We continuously engage in sharing both insights and data with external stakeholders. Through a steady stream of insights, conducted in parallel with our research we take on the role of teachers, inspirators and truth-sayers to enhance reflection and learning among practitioners and policy-makers. By generously sharing data with other researchers, we aspire for scaling the value of our research data, instigating collective data-work (Foster et al., 2018). Through high activity and visibility in social- and national media, we remain vigilant and own a seat at the table.
Taken together, these tenets offer us the possibility of redesigning the role of researchers into what Michel Foucault described as “…a dealer in instruments, a recipe maker, an indicator of objectives, a cartographer, a sketcher of plans, a gunsmith.” (Ezine, 1985, p. 14) .
Settings for research
But as we have learned, traditional university-based research does not offer optimal settings for the type of research that we wish to pursue. Therefore, we have implemented three management innovations to facilitate operations aligned with the tenets. These three innovations have been found through a constant exploration and testing of conventional limitations in our institutional environment (Weick, 1979). We will continue this exploration and challenging of limitations, to assure the optimal prerequisites for our fantastic researchers in their quest for solving societal challenges.
First, we apply an academic work allocation model that provides all researchers with substantial slack resources. We avoid micro-management and assure freedom to operate for our amazing faculty, through focusing their teaching engagement to one isolated ten-week stint per year. The remaining time is earmarked for service and research. Through this, we assure that our researchers have sufficient resources to enact the tenets and to conduct excellent research, addressing emerging phenomena in an agile fashion.
Second, we apply a portfolio approach to research funding where we balance our funding in two dimensions, i.e., short vs long-term funding and high vs low levels of autonomy. Through this, we assure a sound and stable mix of purposive funding. This implies that we, compared to other research environments usually steer clear of traditional, state-based research funding. Since these projects and programs often address sub-relevant issues one-off, far removed from emerging phenomena and decoupled from practical contribution, we avoid allocating resources to high-risk application processes and projects that do not offer sufficient levels of researcher autonomy. Through using highly focused commissioned research and -education, we assure a strong supply of high-autonomy funding.
Third, we acknowledge the value of venture and public-private partnerships in assuring sustainable impactful research. Through actively inspiring and supporting our faculty to commercialize their research directly into venture design research setups (Nilsson et al., 2025), where commercial digital solutions act as conduits of impact and data pumps, we assure sustainable research setups.
References
Boyd, D., 2025. We need an interventionist mindset. TechPolicy.press.
Comte, A. 1998. Early Political Writings. Cambridge university press.
Ezine, J.-L., 1985. An interview with Michel Foucault. History of the present 2–4.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511810503.004
Foster, J., McLeod, J., Nolin, J., Greifeneder, E., 2018. Data work in context: Value, risks, and governance. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69, 1414–1427. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24105
Max-Neef, M.A., 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol. Econ. 53, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014
Miranda, S., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., Burton-Jones, A., 2022. Editor’s Comments: Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly 46, iii–xviii.
Nilsson, A., Magnusson, J., Päivärinta, T., 2025. Venture design research: Description and Illustration. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93979-2_11
Nunamaker, J., Briggs, R.O., Derrick, D.C., Schwabe, G., 2015. The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research. J Manage Inform Syst 32, 10–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1094961
Ram, S., Goes, P., 2021. Focusing on programmatic high impact information systems research, not theory, to address grand challenges. MIS Quarterly 45, 479–483.
Rorty, R., 1990. Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schein, E.H., 2008. Clinical inquiry/research, in: The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, New York, USA, pp. 266–279. Weick, K., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.