From 'making lists' to conducting 'well-rounded' studies: Epistemic re-orientations in soil microbial ecology.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-30 DOI:10.1177/03063127231179700
Ruth Falkenberg, Lisa Sigl, Maximilian Fochler
{"title":"From 'making lists' to conducting 'well-rounded' studies: Epistemic re-orientations in soil microbial ecology.","authors":"Ruth Falkenberg, Lisa Sigl, Maximilian Fochler","doi":"10.1177/03063127231179700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Soil microbial ecology is a relatively young research field that became established around the middle of the 20th century and has grown considerably since then. We analyze two epistemic re-orientations in the field, asking how possibilities for creating do-able problems within current conditions of research governance and researchers' collective sense-making about new, more desirable modes of research were intertwined in these developments. We show that a first re-orientation towards molecular omics studies was comparably straightforward to bring about, because it allowed researchers to gain resources for their work and to build careers-in other words, to create do-able problems. Yet, over time this mode of research developed into a scientific bandwagon from which researchers found it difficult to depart, even as they considered this kind of work as producing mostly descriptive studies rather than exploring interesting and important ecological questions. Researchers currently wish to re-orient their field again, towards a new mode of conducting 'well-rounded' interdisciplinary and ecologically-relevant studies. This re-orientation is, however, not easy to put into practice. In contrast to omics studies, this new mode of research does not easily enable the creation of do-able problems for two reasons. First, it is not as readily 'packaged' and hence more difficult to align with institutional and funding frameworks as well as with demands for productivity and career building. Second, while the first re-orientation was part of a broader exciting bandwagon across the life sciences and promised apparent discoveries, the current re-orientation goes along with a different sense of novelty, exploring complex environmental relations and building an understanding at the intersection of disciplines, instead of pushing a clearly circumscribed frontier. Ultimately, our analysis raises questions about whether current conditions of research governance structurally privilege particular kinds of scientific re-orientation over others.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"78-104"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10832317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231179700","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil microbial ecology is a relatively young research field that became established around the middle of the 20th century and has grown considerably since then. We analyze two epistemic re-orientations in the field, asking how possibilities for creating do-able problems within current conditions of research governance and researchers' collective sense-making about new, more desirable modes of research were intertwined in these developments. We show that a first re-orientation towards molecular omics studies was comparably straightforward to bring about, because it allowed researchers to gain resources for their work and to build careers-in other words, to create do-able problems. Yet, over time this mode of research developed into a scientific bandwagon from which researchers found it difficult to depart, even as they considered this kind of work as producing mostly descriptive studies rather than exploring interesting and important ecological questions. Researchers currently wish to re-orient their field again, towards a new mode of conducting 'well-rounded' interdisciplinary and ecologically-relevant studies. This re-orientation is, however, not easy to put into practice. In contrast to omics studies, this new mode of research does not easily enable the creation of do-able problems for two reasons. First, it is not as readily 'packaged' and hence more difficult to align with institutional and funding frameworks as well as with demands for productivity and career building. Second, while the first re-orientation was part of a broader exciting bandwagon across the life sciences and promised apparent discoveries, the current re-orientation goes along with a different sense of novelty, exploring complex environmental relations and building an understanding at the intersection of disciplines, instead of pushing a clearly circumscribed frontier. Ultimately, our analysis raises questions about whether current conditions of research governance structurally privilege particular kinds of scientific re-orientation over others.

从 "列出清单 "到开展 "全面 "研究:土壤微生物生态学的认识论重新定位。
土壤微生物生态学是一个相对年轻的研究领域,大约在 20 世纪中叶建立,自那时起得到了长足的发展。我们分析了该领域的两次认识论重新定向,探讨了在当前研究管理条件下创造可行问题的可能性与研究人员对新的、更理想的研究模式的集体认识是如何交织在一起的。我们的研究表明,对分子奥米克研究的首次重新定位是比较直接的,因为它允许研究人员为其工作获得资源并建立职业生涯--换句话说,创造可行的问题。然而,随着时间的推移,这种研究模式发展成为一种科学潮流,研究人员发现很难摆脱这种潮流,甚至他们认为这种工作主要是进行描述性研究,而不是探索有趣而重要的生态问题。目前,研究人员希望再次调整其研究领域的方向,转向开展 "全面的 "跨学科和生态相关研究的新模式。然而,这种重新定位并不容易付诸实践。与 omics 研究相比,这种新的研究模式不容易产生可行的问题,原因有二。首先,它不容易 "包装",因此更难与机构和资金框架以及对生产力和职业发展的要求保持一致。其次,第一次重新定位是整个生命科学领域更广泛的令人兴奋的大潮的一部分,并承诺会有明显的发现,而目前的重新定位则带有不同的新奇感,探索复杂的环境关系,并在学科交叉处建立一种理解,而不是推动一个明确限定的前沿。归根结底,我们的分析提出了这样的问题:当前的研究管理条件是否在结构上赋予了特定类型的科学重新定向以优于其他类型的特权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信