Elite Circulation and Instrumentalisation - The transformation of the Hungarian scientific field in the 2010s

My research explores the ongoing transformation of the Hungarian scientific field, focusing on the impact of politics on the selection of scientific elites, the consequences of institutional change in the field and the ideological discourses surrounding it. In my paper, I will examine the discourses surrounding the transformation of the Hungarian scientific institutional system in the 2010s, identifying the arguments and narratives of the most important actors. The post-2010 authoritarian political turn in Hungary has had its consequences for public policies. My previous research has shown that the cultural sphere has witnessed (1) an increasing culture war (2) political patronage and elite circulation (3) an increasing instrumentalisation of cultural policy. In the second half of the 2010s, the scientific field was also affected by the political elite's desire to change existing cultural structures and redistribute resources. The government created a parallel network of research institutes in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, in the social sciences, brought the funding of basic research and the network of research institutes of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under government control, and forced Central European University to leave the country. A „model change” of higher education is currently underway, with the appointment of non-recallable political elites to university boards which has caused conflict between the European Union and the Hungarian government. Much of the elite replacement is justified by an instrumental narrative of the government, while a smaller part is justified by an ideological (anti-liberal) narrative. As a consequence, I the autonomy of the academic field is weakened. In my paper, I would like to examine two attempts of institutional restructuring as a case study: the 2017 "Lex CEU" and the 2018 "Lex HAS". My research questions are: What were the most important narratives and argumentations in the context of the transformation of the academic institutional system? Is political instrumentalisation (arguing for economic or political utility) observable? What ideological frames are used by the actors in the discourse? A qualitative content analysis of the public discourse reveals that in both cases, instrumental and ideological arguments were used by both those in favour of and those against the governmental public policy measure. However, while in the case of the CEU there was a clear distinction between legal/administrative and ideological arguments, and instrumental motives were only marginally present, in the case of the HAS, there was a strong instrumental argumentation, both from the political and the academic elite, alongside the political/ideological discourse that was also clearly visible here. In the case of CEU, although clearly motivated by political intentions, governmental actors have always insisted on the legal argument. In the case of the HAS, however, the justification for a specific public policy measure was (also) embedded in a broader science policy discourse on the place and social utility of different scientific disciplines. This argument, however, as I will show in my presentation, proved to be highly diffuse and contradictory, which contributed to the protracted conflict within the scientific elite.