Quality pp 217-231 | Cite as

Epilogue: What to Do

  • Peter Dahler-LarsenEmail author


Let us imagine someone wanted a large transformation of society, including a reconfiguration of res publica. Let us say they wanted to cut all kinds of activities and institutions into little pieces and make them all measurable and comparable in large territories in time and space. Let us say they wanted to do that in ways that presented a fait accompli, often circumventing conventional forms of government control and democratic deliberation. Let us say that in order to do that, it would be necessary to involve many social actors in many ways, and it should happen through a form of responsibilization that would be difficult to refuse. Let us say that to do that, opposition should be minimized. Therefore, the tools involved in that process should be both ambiguous and powerful and positively loaded. What vehicle would they call for which could facilitate such ambitious process? They would call for the concept of quality.


  1. Best, Jacqueline. 2008. Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Risk: Rethinking Indeterminacy. International Political Sociology 2: 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruno, Isabelle, Emmanuel Didier, and Tommaso Vitale. 2014. Statactivism. Forms of Action between Disclosure and Affirmation. Partecipazione e Conflitto 7 (2): 198–220.Google Scholar
  3. Cook, S.D. Noam, and Dvora Yanow. 1993. Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry 2: 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fochler, Maximilian, and Sarah de Rijcke. 2017. Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3: 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gjørup, Jes, and Henrik Hjortdal. 2007. Kronik: Tilgiv Os – Vi Vidste Ikke, Hvad Vi Gjorde [Feature: Forgive Us – We Did Not Know What We Were Doing]. Politiken, March 29.Google Scholar
  6. House, Ernest R., and Kenneth R. Howe. 2000. Deliberative Democratic Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 85: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kristoffersen, Dorte, and Tobias Lindeberg. 2004. Creating Quality Assurance and International Transparency for Quality Assurance Agencies: The Case of Mutual Recognition. Quality in Higher Education 10 (1): 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Latour, Bruno. 2003. The Promises of Constructivism. Paper Prepared for a Chapter. In Chasing Technology: Matrix of Materiality, Indiana Series for the Philosophy of Science, ed. D. Idhe, 27–46. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Normand, Romuald. 2016. The Changing Epistemic Governance of European Education, the Fabrication of the Homo Academicus Europeanus? Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2009. Demokratin som Problem [Democracy as the Problem]. Hägersten: TankeKraft Förlag.Google Scholar
  11. Schwandt, Thomas A. 2002. Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2003. ‘Back to the Rough Ground!’ Beyond Theory to Practice in Evaluation. Evaluation 9 (3): 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sennett, Richard. 2008. The Craftsman. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Sørensen, Eva M., and Jacob Torfing. 2009. Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Metagovernance. Public Administration 87 (2): 234–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stark, David. 2009. The Sense of Dissonance, Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2000. Quality Improvement: A Sensemaking Perspective. In The Quality Movement and Organization Theory, ed. R.E. Cole and W.R. Scott, 155–172. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Weick, Karl E., Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, and David Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the Process of Sense-making. Organization Science 16 (4): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Whatmore, Sarah J. 2009. Mapping Knowledge Controversies: Science, Democracy and the Redistribution of Expertise. Progress in Human Geography 33 (5): 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations