要求还是谨慎?市场模式应用于科学及其核心价值和制度

Ylva Hasselberg
{"title":"要求还是谨慎?市场模式应用于科学及其核心价值和制度","authors":"Ylva Hasselberg","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the hypothetical consequences of applying the rationality of the market model to the core activities of science, viz. reading, writing texts, and posing and answer- ing scientific questions. What would happen to science and to our ideas and norms regarding sci- ence if we ascribed to the individual scientist the rationality of 'economic man'? The starting point is a discussion of scientific norms and driving forces in the sociology of science. A central conclu- sion is that science has until now been perceived as being judgment driven, and that scientific judgment historically has been formed in a setting where intersubjectivity has been central. This analysis bridges the gap between classical Mertonian sociology of science and science and tech- nology studies. What then happens to discretionary decision making if we introduce economic rationality into science? Economics tends to treat science from a Mertonian viewpoint, presuppos- ing a value-based rationality, and when economic rationality (the supply/demand mechanism) is introduced, these values are not affected. However, the conclusion of this article is that this would indeed deeply affect scientific rationality. Discretionary decision making would be downplayed, as focus would shift from the text as a means of communicating the result, to the text as a commod- ity in a market of publication. This would disembed the credibility cycle, and it would alter the character of scientific work and undermine intersubjectivity. Consumption would be disembed- ded from the context of use and from the norms regarding the use of texts and their value. The knowledge base necessary for intersubjectivity would decrease.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"35-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demand or discretion? The market model applied to science and its core values and institutions\",\"authors\":\"Ylva Hasselberg\",\"doi\":\"10.3354/ESEP00118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses the hypothetical consequences of applying the rationality of the market model to the core activities of science, viz. reading, writing texts, and posing and answer- ing scientific questions. What would happen to science and to our ideas and norms regarding sci- ence if we ascribed to the individual scientist the rationality of 'economic man'? The starting point is a discussion of scientific norms and driving forces in the sociology of science. A central conclu- sion is that science has until now been perceived as being judgment driven, and that scientific judgment historically has been formed in a setting where intersubjectivity has been central. This analysis bridges the gap between classical Mertonian sociology of science and science and tech- nology studies. What then happens to discretionary decision making if we introduce economic rationality into science? Economics tends to treat science from a Mertonian viewpoint, presuppos- ing a value-based rationality, and when economic rationality (the supply/demand mechanism) is introduced, these values are not affected. However, the conclusion of this article is that this would indeed deeply affect scientific rationality. Discretionary decision making would be downplayed, as focus would shift from the text as a means of communicating the result, to the text as a commod- ity in a market of publication. This would disembed the credibility cycle, and it would alter the character of scientific work and undermine intersubjectivity. Consumption would be disembed- ded from the context of use and from the norms regarding the use of texts and their value. The knowledge base necessary for intersubjectivity would decrease.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"35-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文讨论了将市场模型的合理性应用于科学的核心活动,即阅读、写作以及提出和回答科学问题的假设后果。如果我们把“经济人”的合理性归于个别科学家,科学以及我们关于科学的观念和规范会发生什么?本文的出发点是对科学社会学中的科学规范和驱动力的讨论。一个中心结论是,科学至今被认为是判断驱动的,而科学判断在历史上是在主体间性为中心的环境中形成的。这种分析弥合了经典默顿科学社会学与科学技术研究之间的鸿沟。如果我们把经济理性引入科学,那么自由裁量的决策会发生什么呢?经济学倾向于从默顿的观点来看待科学,预设了一种基于价值的理性,当引入经济理性(供求机制)时,这些价值不会受到影响。然而,本文的结论是,这确实会深刻影响科学合理性。自由裁量的决策将被淡化,因为重点将从作为传达结果的手段的文本转移到作为出版市场商品的文本。这将脱离可信度循环,并将改变科学工作的性质,破坏主体间性。消费将从使用语境和关于文本使用及其价值的规范中剥离出来。主体间性所必需的知识基础将会减少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Demand or discretion? The market model applied to science and its core values and institutions
This paper addresses the hypothetical consequences of applying the rationality of the market model to the core activities of science, viz. reading, writing texts, and posing and answer- ing scientific questions. What would happen to science and to our ideas and norms regarding sci- ence if we ascribed to the individual scientist the rationality of 'economic man'? The starting point is a discussion of scientific norms and driving forces in the sociology of science. A central conclu- sion is that science has until now been perceived as being judgment driven, and that scientific judgment historically has been formed in a setting where intersubjectivity has been central. This analysis bridges the gap between classical Mertonian sociology of science and science and tech- nology studies. What then happens to discretionary decision making if we introduce economic rationality into science? Economics tends to treat science from a Mertonian viewpoint, presuppos- ing a value-based rationality, and when economic rationality (the supply/demand mechanism) is introduced, these values are not affected. However, the conclusion of this article is that this would indeed deeply affect scientific rationality. Discretionary decision making would be downplayed, as focus would shift from the text as a means of communicating the result, to the text as a commod- ity in a market of publication. This would disembed the credibility cycle, and it would alter the character of scientific work and undermine intersubjectivity. Consumption would be disembed- ded from the context of use and from the norms regarding the use of texts and their value. The knowledge base necessary for intersubjectivity would decrease.
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
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: •provides a global stage for presenting, discussing and developing issues concerning ethics in science, environmental politics, and ecological and economic ethics •publishes accepted manuscripts rapidly •guarantees immediate world-wide visibility •is edited and produced by an experienced team
×
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