排序方式: 共有3条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
The objective of this paper is to balance two major conceptual tendencies in science policy studies, continuity and discontinuity
theory. While the latter argue for fundamental and distinct changes in science policy in the late 20th century, continuity
theorists show how changes do occur but not as abrupt and fundamental as discontinuity theorists suggests. As a point of departure,
we will elaborate a typology of scientific governance developed by Hagendijk and Irwin (2006) and apply it to new empirical material. This makes possible a contextualization of the governance of science related to
the codification of the “third assignment” of the Swedish higher education law of 1977. The law defined the relation between
university science and Swedish citizens as a dissemination project, and did so despite that several earlier initiatives actually
went well beyond such a narrow conceptualisation. Our material reveals continuous interactive and rival arrangements linking
the state, public authorities, the universities and private industrial enterprises. We show how different but coexisting modes
of governance of science existed in Sweden during the 20th century, in clear contrast with the picture promoted by discontinuity
theorists. A close study of the historical development suggests that there were several periods of layered governance when
interactions and dynamics associated with continuity as well as discontinuity theories were prevalent. In addition, we conclude
that the typology of governance applied in the present paper is fruitful for carrying out historical analyses of the kind
embarked upon in spite of certain methodological shortcomings. 相似文献
2.
When the journal Minerva was founded in 1962, science and higher educational issues were high on the agenda, lending impetus to the interdisciplinary field of “Science Studies” qua “Science Policy Studies.” As government expenditures for promoting various branches of science increased dramatically on both sides of the East-West Cold War divide, some common issues regarding research management also emerged and with it an interest in closer academic interaction in the areas of history and policy of science. Through a close reading of many early issues of Minerva but also of its later competitor journal Science Studies (now called Social Studies of Science) the paper traces the initial optimism of an academically based Science Studies dialogue across the Cold War divide and the creation in 1971 of the International Commission for Science Policy Studies as a bridging forum, one that Minerva strangely chose to ignore. In this light, attention is drawn to aspects of the often forgotten history of Science Studies in the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European block. Reviewed also are several early discussions that are still relevant today: e.g., regarding differing concepts of Big Science, science and democracy, autonomy in higher education and what conditions are necessary to sustain academic freedom and scientific integrity (some of Edward Shils’ primary concerns). Finally, it is noted how the question of quantitative methods to measure scientific productivity lay at the heart of a “Science of Science” movement of the 1960s has re-emerged in a new form integral to the notion of a “Science of Science Policy.” 相似文献
3.
1