科学评价与社会变革

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
P. Wagner
{"title":"科学评价与社会变革","authors":"P. Wagner","doi":"10.1177/05390184211019831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This editorial and introductory article outlines some of the aspects that are being addressed and questions that are being raised in the subsequent special section on science evaluation. It sets the emergence of new evaluation practices in the context of changing state forms; it reflects on the distinction between internal and external evaluation procedures as an expression of boundaries between fields of social practice or between orders of justification; it suggests the need for distinguishing between foci of evaluation: on research results, on researchers, or on research proposals; and it asks the question if and how different modes of critique lead to different conclusions for remedy.","PeriodicalId":47697,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","volume":"60 1","pages":"299 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211019831","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science evaluation and social transformations\",\"authors\":\"P. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/05390184211019831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This editorial and introductory article outlines some of the aspects that are being addressed and questions that are being raised in the subsequent special section on science evaluation. It sets the emergence of new evaluation practices in the context of changing state forms; it reflects on the distinction between internal and external evaluation procedures as an expression of boundaries between fields of social practice or between orders of justification; it suggests the need for distinguishing between foci of evaluation: on research results, on researchers, or on research proposals; and it asks the question if and how different modes of critique lead to different conclusions for remedy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"299 - 302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211019831\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211019831\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211019831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇社论和介绍性文章概述了在随后的科学评价专题部分中正在讨论的一些方面和正在提出的一些问题。它设置了新的评估实践在不断变化的国家形式的背景下出现;它反映了内部和外部评价程序之间的区别,作为社会实践领域之间或证明顺序之间界限的表达;这表明有必要区分评估的重点:研究成果、研究人员或研究建议;它提出的问题是,不同的批判模式是否以及如何导致不同的补救结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Science evaluation and social transformations
This editorial and introductory article outlines some of the aspects that are being addressed and questions that are being raised in the subsequent special section on science evaluation. It sets the emergence of new evaluation practices in the context of changing state forms; it reflects on the distinction between internal and external evaluation procedures as an expression of boundaries between fields of social practice or between orders of justification; it suggests the need for distinguishing between foci of evaluation: on research results, on researchers, or on research proposals; and it asks the question if and how different modes of critique lead to different conclusions for remedy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Social Science Information is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research in the social sciences at large with special focus on theoretical debates, methodology and comparative and (particularly) cross-cultural research.
×
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