IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-05-02 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-018-9352-6

Noomi Weinryb, Maria Blomgren, Linda Wedlin

{"title":"Rationalizing Science: A Comparative Study of Public, Industry, and Nonprofit Research Funders.","authors":"Noomi Weinryb, Maria Blomgren, Linda Wedlin","doi":"10.1007/s11024-018-9352-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9352-6","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of more and more project-based research funding, commercialization and economic growth have increasingly become rationalized concepts that are used to demonstrate the centrality of science for societal development and prosperity. Following the world society tradition of organizational institutionalism, this paper probes the potential limits of the spread of such rationalized concepts among different types of research funders. Our comparative approach is particularly designed to study the role and position of nonprofit research funders (NPF), a comparison that is relevant as NPF could potentially be shielded from such rationalized pressures given their lack of profit gaining motives. By making a qualitative interview-based investigation we are able to describe how research funders rationalize their contributions to society at large, as well as their obligations to the researchers they fund. Four types of research funders are compared-independently wealthy philanthropists, fundraising dependent nonprofits, public agencies, and industry. We find that NPF, and especially philanthropists, are the least commercially geared type of funder, but that philanthropists also express least obligations to researchers funded. This is in sharp contrast to public research funders who, even more than industry, employ commercially geared rationalizations. We also find that both public and corporate funders express obligations to the researchers they fund. Our results indicate that there are limits to the spread of commercially tinted rationalizations among NPF, but that this does not necessarily mean an increased sense of obligations to the researchers funded, and by extension to the integrity of scientific pursuit.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"56 4","pages":"405-429"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-018-9352-6","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36748499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identity Work in Science and Science Policy. 大挑战论述：改变科学和科学政策中的身份认同工作。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-09-04 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2

David Kaldewey

{"title":"The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identity Work in Science and Science Policy.","authors":"David Kaldewey","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the concept of \"grand challenges\" as part of a shift in how scientists and policymakers frame and communicate their respective agendas. The history of the grand challenges discourse helps to understand how identity work in science and science policy has been transformed in recent decades. Furthermore, the question is raised whether this discourse is only an indicator, or also a factor in this transformation. Building on conceptual history and historical semantics, the two parts of the article reconstruct two discursive shifts. First, the observation that in scientific communication references to \"problems\" are increasingly substituted by references to \"challenges\" indicates a broader cultural trend of how attitudes towards what is problematic have shifted in the last decades. Second, as the grand challenges discourse is rooted in the sphere of sports and competition, it introduces a specific new set of societal values and practices into the spheres of science and technology. The article concludes that this process can be characterized as the sportification of science, which contributes to self-mobilization and, ultimately, to self-optimization of the participating scientists, engineers, and policymakers.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"56 2","pages":"161-182"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5948272/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36114582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding. 认知创新项目资助的弊端:比较不同类型研究资助的制度负担与约束。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-01-09 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9

Thomas Franssen, Wout Scholten, Laurens K Hessels, Sarah de Rijcke

{"title":"The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding.","authors":"Thomas Franssen, Wout Scholten, Laurens K Hessels, Sarah de Rijcke","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"56 1","pages":"11-33"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35836803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 44

Autonomy and Authority in Public Research Organisations: Structure and Funding Factors. 公共研究机构的自主性和权威性：结构与资金因素》。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-03-03 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-018-9349-1

Laura Cruz-Castro, Luis Sanz-Menéndez

引用次数: 0

The Nomos of the University: Introducing the Professor's Privilege in 1940s Sweden. 大学的Nomos:介绍20世纪40年代瑞典的教授特权。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-02-19 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-018-9348-2

Ingemar Pettersson

{"title":"The Nomos of the University: Introducing the Professor's Privilege in 1940s Sweden.","authors":"Ingemar Pettersson","doi":"10.1007/s11024-018-9348-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9348-2","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the introduction of the so-called professor's privilege in Sweden in the 1940s and shows how this legal principle for university patents emerged out of reforms of techno-science and the patent law around World War II. These political processes prompted questions concerning the nature and functions of university research: How is academic science different than other forms of knowledge production? What are the contributions of universities for economy and welfare? Who is the rightful owner of scientific findings? Is academic science \"work\"? By following the introduction of the professor's privilege, the paper shows how spokespersons for the academic profession addressed such questions and contributed to a new definition of university science through boundary-setting, normative descriptions, and by producing symbolic relationships between science and the economy. The totality of those positions is here referred to as a \"nomos\" - that is: a generic and durable set of seemingly axiomatic claims about universities. This Swedish nomos, as it took shape in the 1940s, amalgamated classical notions of academic science as exceptional and autonomous with emerging ideas of inventiveness and close connections between academics and business. Crucially, though, the academic-industrial relations embedded in this nomos were private and individual, thus in sharp conflict with the ideas of entrepreneurial universities evolving globally by the end of the 20th century.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"56 3","pages":"381-403"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-018-9348-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36431142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

From Eminent Men to Excellent Universities: University Rankings as Calculative Devices. 从杰出人物到优秀大学：作为计算工具的大学排名。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-06-28 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9329-x

Björn Hammarfelt, Sarah de Rijcke, Paul Wouters

引用次数: 0

Science Production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg: Comparing the Contributions of Research Universities and Institutes to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Health. 德国、法国、比利时和卢森堡的科学生产:比较研究型大学和研究所对科学、技术、工程、数学和健康的贡献。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-07-10 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z

Justin J W Powell, Jennifer Dusdal

{"title":"Science Production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg: Comparing the Contributions of Research Universities and Institutes to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Health.","authors":"Justin J W Powell, Jennifer Dusdal","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z","url":null,"abstract":"Charting significant growth in science production over the 20th century in four European Union member states, this neo-institutional analysis describes the development and current state of universities and research institutes that bolster Europe's position as a key region in global science. On-going internationalization and Europeanization of higher education and science has been accompanied by increasing competition as well as collaboration. Despite the policy goals to foster innovation and further expand research capacity, in cross-national and historical comparison neither the level of R&D investments nor country size accounts completely for the differential growth of scientific productivity. Based on a comprehensive historical database from 1900 to 2010, this analysis uncovers both stable and dynamic patterns of production and productivity in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Measured in peer-reviewed research articles collected in Thomson Reuters' Science Citation Index Expanded, which includes journals in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Health, we show the varying contributions of different organizational forms, especially research universities and research institutes. Comparing the institutionalization pathways that created the conditions necessary for continuous and strong growth in scientific productivity in the European center of global science emphasizes that the research university is the key organizational form across countries.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"55 4","pages":"413-434"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9327-z","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35215501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 32

Who is the Scientist-Subject? A Critique of the Neo-Kantian Scientist-Subject in Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's Objectivity. 谁是科学主体?洛林·达斯顿与彼得·加利森《客观性》中新康德主义的科学家主体批判。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-01-30 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9313-5

Esha Shah

{"title":"Who is the Scientist-Subject? A Critique of the Neo-Kantian Scientist-Subject in Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's Objectivity.","authors":"Esha Shah","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9313-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9313-5","url":null,"abstract":"The main focus of this essay is to closely engage with the role of scientist-subjectivity in the making of objectivity in Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's book Objectivity, and Daston's later and earlier works On Scientific Observation and The Moral Economy of Science. I have posited four challenges to the neo-Kantian and Foucauldian constructions of the co-implication of psychology and epistemology presented in these texts. Firstly, following Jacques Lacan's work, I have argued that the subject of science constituted by the mode of modern science suffers from paranoia. It is not the fear of subjectivity interfering with objectivity but the impossibility of knowing the truth of the real that causes paranoia. Here, I have argued that it is not the ethos of objectivity that drives epistemology as Daston and Galison suggest, but the pathos of paranoia. The second challenge builds upon Kant's own denial that the perfect correspondence between the human will and the moral law is possible. Kant himself thought that an ethical human act is impossible without the component of \"pathology.\" This questions Daston and Galison's argument that there is always ethical imperative at the core of epistemic virtue. The third challenge contests the way Daston and Galison take appearance for being in their application of the Foucauldian concept of technologies of the self in modeling the master scientist-self. The fourth challenge questions the notion of the psychological and unconscious in the making of epistemology in Daston's later and earlier work. Against this background, I aim to make a claim that understanding and disclosing \"entities\" in the scientific domain presupposes an understanding of \"being\" in general. My goal is to open up the discussion for an alternative conception of the scientist-subject and thereby an affective and existential formulation of science.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"55 1","pages":"117-138"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9313-5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34765688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can 'Know' Jetliners But Not Reactors. 航空悖论:为什么我们能“知道”喷气式飞机，却不知道反应堆。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-06-07 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4

John Downer

{"title":"The Aviation Paradox: Why We Can 'Know' Jetliners But Not Reactors.","authors":"John Downer","doi":"10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","url":null,"abstract":"Publics and policymakers increasingly have to contend with the risks of complex, safety-critical technologies, such as airframes and reactors. As such, 'technological risk' has become an important object of modern governance, with state regulators as core agents, and 'reliability assessment' as the most essential metric. The Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature casts doubt on whether or not we should place our faith in these assessments because predictively calculating the ultra-high reliability required of such systems poses seemingly insurmountable epistemological problems. This paper argues that these misgivings are warranted in the nuclear sphere, despite evidence from the aviation sphere suggesting that such calculations can be accurate. It explains why regulatory calculations that predict the reliability of new airframes cannot work in principle, and then it explains why those calculations work in practice. It then builds on this explanation to argue that the means by which engineers manage reliability in aviation is highly domain-specific, and to suggest how a more nuanced understanding of jetliners could inform debates about nuclear energy.","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"55 2","pages":"229-248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35609389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 14

The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies. 知识社会中的专家问题。

IF 2.3 2区哲学

Minerva Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2016-09-27 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7

Reiner Grundmann

引用次数: 125

Minerva最新文献