Lukas Fuchs

The paper discusses the challenges universities face in responding to the calls to contribute to sustainability transitions. In these calls, universities are expected to be reflexive and co-creative and act as transformative change agents. Universities also face other expectations to improve the strategic management of their traditional missions of teaching, research, and societal service. We discuss how these latter expectations create especially for technological universities complex managerial challenges that become hurdles in becoming transformative change agents for environmental sustainability. Empirically, we examine sustainability strategizing in four European technological universities and ask: a) How are technological universities balancing their delivery of traditional missions and sustainability-oriented expectations? b) What role does co-creation play as a potential tool for developing capabilities to carry out sustainability-oriented roles? We show that sustainability tends to be added to existing activities without redesigning core strategies, structures and managerial practices. This "add-on" approach tends to be ineffective, and universities need to consciously focus on developing novel capabilities to implement complex tasks such as contributing to sustainability transition.

Adding an option is a neglected mechanism for bringing about behavioural change. This mechanism is distinct from nudges, which are changes in the choice architecture, and instead makes it possible to pursue republican paternalism, a unique form of paternalism in which choices are changed by expanding people's set of options. I argue that this is truly a form of paternalism (albeit a relatively soft one) and illustrate some of its manifestations in public policy, specifically public options and market creation. Furthermore, I compare it with libertarian paternalism on several dimensions, namely respect for individuals' agency, effectiveness, and efficiency. Finally, I consider whether policymakers have the necessary knowledge to successfully change behaviour by adding options. Given that adding an option has key advantages over nudges in most if not all of these dimensions, it should be considered indispensable in the behavioural policymaker's toolbox.

In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs. This article is followed up by Commentaries of Carl Mitcham, Alfred Nordmann, Sabina Leonelli, Lukas Fuchs, Monica Edwards-Schachter