Arbetsgruppen för kvalitetsutveckling, i dagligt tal kallad ”pedagoggruppen”, har i januari 2016 av Institutionsstyrelsen fått i uppdrag att utvärdera de tre första terminernas studier i Historia (Historia I-III), komma med förslag på pedagogiska nysatsningar samt utveckla pedagogiska modeller för lärarstudenter. Detta med syftet att göra historieutbildningen på Historiska institutionen vid Stockholms universitet (SU) ännu mer effektiv, attraktiv och anpassad till den verklighet där vi möter allt fler studenter med skiftande akademisk bakgrund och förutsättningar för att klara sina studier. Uppdraget är en fortsättning på det arbete som genomfördes under åren 2012-2013 för att utveckla grundutbildningen i Historia, och som sedermera terminsvis följts upp av studierektorer, kursansvariga och lärarlag.

Previous research has maintained that the governmental control of sport in Sweden has been firmly limited. In this article this statement is called in question. The article states that government authorities have influenced the sports movement through a continuous legitimization of sport and a normative standardization of how sport support should be distributed and the sports movement should act and develop. Furthermore, the article states that both the governmental methods of control and the Swedish Sports Confederations, RF’s, position of power within Swedish sport to a great extent can be explained by the concept of sportrelated public welfare. The idea – and later on discourse – formed conceptions of how sport could contribute to the solution of different problems in the advancing welfare state. The discourse and the close relationship that developed between the state and RF have come to influence the public allotment of resources to sport and the movement’s internal distribution of resources, its structure and aims. The guiding-star for “Sport for all’ has in practice meant that a competition-directed RF has got the exclusive rights to redistribute a large amount of the general means intended for sport according to their own discretion, in spite of severe criticism against the chosen corporate administrative model. This has, by extension, contributed to the fact that some sport federations, clubs and athletes have been allotted considerably more resources than others. 

The Swedish Sports Confederation, RF, defines itself as a ‘popular movement’. This notion has been one of the most fundamental elements of the sports movement’s self-image, and it has also been used as a way for the movement to legitimize itself – considering it is financially supported by the Swedish state. This sport organizational identity also denotes that RF is governed democratically. Both the social movement identity and the notion of democratic comportment have been fundamental to the sports movement’s self-understanding. The governing of Swedish sport has so far been scrutinized mostly on a general level concerning the relationship between public authorities and RF. The association level has not been considered to the same extent in previous research. Nor has the issue of sport democracy been particularly highlighted as a research topic in its own right. However, in order to understand the governing of as well as the social and cultural impact of Swedish sport, we must understand how those institutions in authority have been managed and regulated. Based on both innovative theoretical models and empirical in depth analysis, the articles in this special issue find new ways to explain and understand how Swedish sport has been governed and controlled.

The Swedish Sports Confederation, RF, defines itself as a ‘popular movement’. This notion has been one of the most fundamental elements of the sports movement’s self-image, and it has also been used as a way for the movement to legitimize itself – considering it is financially supported by the Swedish state. This sport organizational identity also denotes that RF is governed democratically. Both the social movement identity and the notion of democratic comportment have been fundamental to the sports movement’s self-understanding. The governing of Swedish sport has so far been scrutinized mostly on a general level concerning the relationship between public authorities and RF. The association level has not been considered to the same extent in previous research. Nor has the issue of sport democracy been particularly highlighted as a research topic in its own right. However, in order to understand the governing of as well as the social and cultural impact of Swedish sport, we must understand how those institutions in authority have been managed and regulated. Based on both innovative theoretical models and empirical in depth analysis, the articles in this special issue find new ways to explain and understand how Swedish sport has been governed and controlled.