Book•
Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty
01 Jan 2001-
TL;DR: This book discusses the evolution of Science and Society, the transformation of Knowledge Institutions, and the role of Universities in Knowledge Production.
Abstract: Preface. Chapter 1: The Transformation of Society. Chapter 2: Beyond Modernity -- Breaching the Frontiers. Chapter 3: The Co--Evolution of Science and Society. Chapter 4: The Context Speaks Back. Chapter 5: The Transformation of Knowledge Institutions. Chapter 6: The Role of Universities in Knowledge Production. Chapter 7: How does Contextualization Happen?. Chapter 8: Weakly Contextualized Knowledge. Chapter 9: Strongly Contextualized Knowledge. Chapter 10: Contextualization in the Middle Range. Chapter 11: From Reliable Knowledge to Socially Robust Knowledge. Chapter 12: The Epistemological Core?. Chapter 13: Science Moves to the Agora. Chapter 14: Socially Distributed Expertise. Chapter 15: Re--Visioning Science. Chapter 16: Re--Thinking Science is not Science Re--Thought. References. Index
Citations
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research is evaluated.
Abstract: Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge base. However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can be biased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contradictory evidence has become progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has been questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process by synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge base and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
7,368 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research and highlight the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
Abstract: Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge hase. However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can he hiased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contrad ictory evidence has hecome progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has heen questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process hy synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducihie manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge hase and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.
7,020 citations
TL;DR: This special issue of Technology Analysis and Straights focuses on expectations in science and technology innovation and the role that expectations play in innovation.
Abstract: In recent years a growing number of social science studies have pointed out the significance of expectations in science and technology innovation. This special issue of Technology Analysis and Stra...
1,314 citations
TL;DR: The 'Quadruple Helix' emphasises the importance of also integrating the perspective of the media-based and culture-based public, and results is an emerging fractal knowledge and innovation ecosystem, well-configured for the knowledge economy and society.
Abstract: 'Mode 3' allows and emphasises the co-existence and co-evolution of different knowledge and innovation paradigms: the competitiveness and superiority of a knowledge system is highly determined by its adaptive capacity to combine and integrate different knowledge and innovation modes via co-evolution, co-specialisation and co-opetition knowledge stock and flow dynamics. The 'Quadruple Helix' emphasises the importance of also integrating the perspective of the media-based and culture-based public. What results is an emerging fractal knowledge and innovation ecosystem, well-configured for the knowledge economy and society.
1,267 citations
Cites background from "Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and ..."
...…‘transdisciplinarity’; “heterogeneity and organisational diversity”; “social accountability and reflexivity”; and ‘quality control’ (furthermore, see Nowotny et al., 2001, 2003; Umpleby, 2002).17 Metaphorically speaking, the first-then sequence of relationships of different stages…...
[...]
...Schumpeter is to put up the following equation: entrepreneurship, leveraging the opportunities of new technology life cycles, creates economic growth. Addressing the cyclicality of capitalist economic life, Schumpeter (1942) used the notion of the ‘Creative Destruction’....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the role of power in science and technology and identify key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy, concluding that greater appreciation is required in both analytic and participatory appraisal to facilitate the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technologies.
Abstract: Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between appraisal and commitment in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is requiredin both analytic and participatory appraisalto facilitating the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technology.
1,207 citations