Showing papers on "Science studies published in 2008"
TL;DR: Two major reform efforts in K-12 science education have taken place during the past 50 years as discussed by the authors during the 1950-1970 curriculum reform efforts motivated by the launching of Sputnik and sponsored by the newly formed National Science Foundation (NSF) in United States and by the Nuffield Foundation in the United Kingdom.
Abstract: Two major reform efforts in K-12 science education have taken place during the past 50 years. The first was the 1950-1970 curriculum reform efforts motivated by the launching of Sputnik and sponsored by the newly formed National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States and by the Nuffield Foundation in the United Kingdom. The signature goal for these reformed programs was to produce courses of study that would get students to "think like scientists," thus placing them in a "pipeline" for science careers (Rudolph, 2002). The second U.S. and U.K. reform effort in science education began in the 1980s and continues to this day as part of the national standards movement. Referred to as the "Science for All" movement in the United States and the "Public Understanding of Science" in the United Kingdom, here the education goal was and is to develop a scientifically literate populace that can participate in both the economic and democra tic agendas of our increasingly global market-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) societies. In addition to the economic and democratic imperatives as a purpose for science education, more recent voices of science education reform (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Millar, 1996; Millar & Hunt, 2002; Osborne, Duschl, & Fairbrother, 2002) have advocated that the proper perspective for science education in schools ought to be the cultural imperative. The cultural impera tive perspective sees STEM disciplines, knowledge, and practices as woven into the very fabric of our nations and societies. What the cultural imperative provides that the democratic and economic imperatives do not is recognition of important social and epistemic dimensions that are embedded in the growth, evaluation, representation, and communication of STEM knowledge and practices. New perspectives and under standings in the learning sciences about learning and learning environments, and in science studies about knowing and inquiring, highlight the importance of science
772 citations
Book•
25 Jun 2008
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the problems with Modernity's Science and Politics: Perspectives from Northern Science Studies and why modernity's focus on modernity is problematic and why women as subjects of history and knowledge should focus on other aspects of modernity.
Abstract: Acknowledgments vii Introduction: Why Focus on Modernity? 1 I. Problems with Modernity's Science and Politics: Perspectives from Northern Science Studies 1. Modernity's Misleading Dream: Latour 23 2. The Incomplete First Modernity of Industrial Society: Beck 49 3. Co-evoloving Science and Society: Gibbons, Nowotny, and Scott 75 II. Views from (Western) Modernity's Peripheries 4. Women as Subjects of History and Knowledge 101 5. Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies: Are There Multiple Sciences? 130 6. Women on Modernity's Horizons: Feminist Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies 155 III. Interrogating Tradition: Challenges and Possibilities 7. Multiple Modernities: Postcolonial Standpoints 173 8. Haunted Modernities, Gendered Traditions 191 9. Moving On: A Methodological Provocation 214 Notes 235 Bibliography 257 Index 281
423 citations
TL;DR: The authors explored the relation between how scientific knowledge is created and the reasoning involved in learning content with understanding, highlighting a dialectic between construction and critique of claims in both scientific reasoning and practice.
Abstract: This article explores the relation between how scientific knowledge is created and the reasoning involved in learning content with understanding. Although an asserted parallel between these underpins reform, little is actually known about this relation. This article offers a model of this relation that draws coherent connections between the science studies literature, which suggests ways of conceiving how scientific knowledge is created; and sociocultural learning theory, which suggests ways of conceiving scientific reasoning. This model highlights a dialectic between construction and critique of claims in both scientific reasoning and practice. A “grasp” of scientific practice as such is instrumental to learning because informational content of scientific knowledge lies not only on the level of facts, but also on the levels of methods and values, and coordinating information across these levels is crucial for understanding. In contrast to prevailing constructivist ideas that highlight student authority to construct knowledge as scientists do, this model emphasizes the importance of knowing how to hold claims accountable. Thus, the ideal vision of students making their own sense of content is superceded by a more defensible ideal vision of students learning how to make scientific sense of content. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed92:404–423, 2008
334 citations
TL;DR: The authors review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation and discuss the possible implications for the orchestration of science education; the goal being that the science education research community might consider a broader range of arguments forms and roles in conjunction with the learning of science.
Abstract: Argumentation has become an increasingly recognized focus for science instruction---as a learning process, as an outcome associated with the appropriation of scientific discourse, and as a window onto the epistemic work of science. Only a small set of theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation have been deployed and investigated in science education, however, while a plethora of conceptualizations have been developed in the interdisciplinary fields associated with science studies and the learning sciences. This paper attempts to review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation and discuss the possible implications for the orchestration of science education; the goal being that the science education research community might consider a broader range of argumentation forms and roles in conjunction with the learning of science. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed92:473–493, 2008
283 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The Social Text affair does and does not prove what the social text affair does as discussed by the authors, but it does not reveal what it does or does not imply, and it is difficult to know whether the authors of the affair are antagonists or fellow-travelers.
Abstract: PART I: THE SOCIAL TEXT AFFAIR 1. Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity [annotated version] 2. Transgressing the boundaries: An afterword 3. Truth, reason, objectivity, and the Left 4. Science studies: Less than meets the eye 5. What the Social Text affair does and does not prove PART II: SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 6. Cognitive relativism in the philosophy of science 7. Defense of a modest scientific realism PART III: SCIENCE AND CULTURE 8. Pseudoscience and postmodernism: Antagonists or fellow-travelers? 9. Religion, politics and survival 10. Epilogue: Epistemology and ethics Index
189 citations
TL;DR: This discussion essay revisits some of the theoretical props supporting this turn to space and provides a number of worked examples from the history of the life sciences that demonstrate the different ways in which the spaces of science have been comprehended.
Abstract: Over the past decade or so a number of historians of science and historical geographers, alert to the situated nature of scientific knowledge production and reception and to the migratory patterns of science on the move, have called for more explicit treatment of the geographies of past scientific knowledge. Closely linked to work in the sociology of scientific knowledge and science studies and connected with a heightened interest in spatiality evident across the humanities and social sciences this 'spatial turn' has informed a wide-ranging body of work on the history of science. This discussion essay revisits some of the theoretical props supporting this turn to space and provides a number of worked examples from the history of the life sciences that demonstrate the different ways in which the spaces of science have been comprehended.
161 citations
TL;DR: The history of `the social' in information science traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base and the continuing appropriation from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.
Abstract: This paper explores the history of `the social' in information science. It traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base. The continuing appropriation of both theoretical and methodological insights from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.
115 citations
TL;DR: This paper reviewed the significant sociocultural literatures on science studies, cultural diversity, and sustainability science to develop theoretical perspectives for science education more suitable to the challenges of contemporaneity.
Abstract: This paper reviews the significant sociocultural literatures on science studies, cultural diversity, and sustainability science to develop theoretical perspectives for science education more suitable to the challenges of contemporaneity. While the influences of science studies and cultural diversity are not uncommon within the science education literature on innovation, the difference here is the inclusion of the newer field of sustainability science. These threads are drawn are together to help formulate a view of science education that contributes to the ongoing discussion of what it could be in the 21st century. Finally, a science unit in a preservice teacher education course is then described, which aims to engage, inform, and empower beginning teachers in ways that tackle the challenges of contemporaneity. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed92:165–181, 2008
108 citations
TL;DR: In this article, an epistemological discussion based on the works of Cartwright (1983, 1999), Fleck (1935/1979), and Hacking (1983) is proposed.
Abstract: Models and modeling are a major issue in science studies and in science education. In addressing such an issue, we first propose an epistemological discussion based on the works of Cartwright (1983, 1999), Fleck (1935/1979), and Hacking (1983). This leads us to emphasize the transitions between the abstract and the concrete in the modeling process, by using the notions of nomogical machine (Cartwright, 1999), language game (Wittgenstein, 1953/1997), and thought style (Fleck, 1935/1979). Then, in the light of our epistemological approach, we study four cases coming from the implementations of research-based design activities (SESAMES, 2007). These four case studies illustrate how students are engaged in constructing relations between the abstract and the concrete through modeling activities, by elaborating at the same time specific language games and appropriate thought styles. Finally, we draw some implications for science teaching. It is suggested that considering didactic nomological machines as embedding knowledge on the one hand, and classes as thought collectives, on the other hand, may relevantly contribute to science education and science education research. C
100 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: Nowotny argues that the ambivalence about science is an inevitable legacy of modernity as discussed by the authors, and argues that science brings uncertainties; innovation successfully copes with them, harnessing the passion of science to produce "deliverables".
Abstract: An influential scholar in science studies argues that innovation tames the insatiable and limitless curiosity driving science, and that society's acute ambivalence about this is an inevitable legacy of modernity. Curiosity is the main driving force behind scientific activity. Scientific curiosity, insatiable in its explorations, does not know what it will find, or where it will lead. Science needs autonomy to cultivate this kind of untrammeled curiosity; innovation, however, responds to the needs and desires of society. Innovation, argues influential European science studies scholar Helga Nowotny, tames the passion of science, harnessing it to produce "deliverables." Science brings uncertainties; innovation successfully copes with them. Society calls for both the passion for knowledge and its taming. This ambivalence, Nowotny contends, is an inevitable result of modernity. In Insatiable Curiosity, Nowotny explores the strands of the often unexpected intertwining of science and technology and society. Uncertainty arises, she writes, from an oversupply of knowledge. The quest for innovation is society's response to the uncertainties that come with scientific and technological achievement. Our dilemma is how to balance the immense but unpredictable potential of science and technology with our acknowledgement that not everything that can be done should be done. We can escape the old polarities of utopias and dystopias, writes Nowotny, by accepting our ambivalence-as a legacy of modernism and a positive cultural resource.
70 citations
TL;DR: The role of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (‘pharma’) in the construction of scientific and medical knowledge is analyzed, characterized by the attachment (and at times subordination) of paradigmatic tenets to extrinsic goals and a capacity for infringement of traditional norms of scientific truthfulness.
Abstract: This article analyses the role of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (‘pharma’) in the construction of scientific and medical knowledge. Pharma's activities are part of the broader dispositif of institutions, enterprises, regulations and constituencies within which medical-scientific knowledge is generated, but pharma's contributions exhibit a specific character reflecting commercial pressures. As drug development proceeds, research and marketing activities coalesce around ‘product canons’ that integrate scientific truth-claims and commercial positioning, generating knowledge with implicit commercial functionality. From this platform, pharma stamps consensus-building ‘narratives’ into medical-scientific discourse, in which ‘problems’ arise and are ‘solved’ by drugs. Concurrently, pharma modulates the structure of discourse and the social networks through which discourse proceeds. Implicit within these activities is a meta-science whose goal is to understand and technologize the operation of science to an external end. This mode of knowledge production can be viewed as a normative transformation of Kuhnian normal science, characterized by the attachment (and at times subordination) of paradigmatic tenets to extrinsic goals; exaggerated control of belief, research and consensus formation; and a capacity for infringement of traditional norms of scientific truthfulness. An International Standard of Integrity in Science would strengthen pharma's contributions to medical and scientific knowledge.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that under certain conditions, cases from the history of science should be included in science curricula for democratic participation, one condition is that the concept of processes is broadened to include science-society interactions in a politically sensitive sense.
Abstract: Scholars have argued that the history of science might facilitate an understanding of processes of science. Focusing on science education for citizenship and active involvement in debates on socioscientific issues, one might argue that today’s post-academic science differs from academic science in the past, making the history of academic science irrelevant. However, this article argues that, under certain conditions, cases from the history of science should be included in science curricula for democratic participation. One condition is that the concept of processes is broadened to include science–society interactions in a politically sensitive sense. The scope of possibilities of using historical case studies to prepare for citizenship is illustrated by the use of a well-known case from the history of science: Millikan’s and Ehrenhaft’s “Battle over the electron”.
01 Jan 2008
Abstract: Acknowledgements - The ScientificRevolution and the Historiography of Science - Renaissance and Revolution - The Scientific Method - Magic and the Origins of Modern Science - The Mechanical Philosophy - Religion and Science - Science and the Wider Culture - Conclusion - Bibliography - Glossary - Index
TL;DR: In this article, the framings that the social studies of science and science education use for each other are examined and an alternative in which schools are understood, drawing on actor-network theory and cultural studies, as constituted through contesting scientific practices and discourses.
Abstract: This paper examines the framings that the fields of the social studies of science and science education use for each other. It is shown that the social studies of science frames science education as passive and timeless. Science education frames science studies as a set of representations to better capture how science works. The paper then proceeds to sketch an alternative in which schools are understood, drawing on actor-network theory and cultural studies of science, as constituted through contesting scientific practices and discourses and, therefore, are proper objects of study within science studies frameworks. The curricular implications are briefly developed, emphasizing the need for much more reflection upon and activism within science education regarding the technoscientific constitution of students and schools. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed92:389–403, 2008
TL;DR: The authors identified a fundamental distinction in scientific practice: the mismatch between what scientists do and what they state they did when they communicate their findings in their publications, and surveyed a number of approaches to the mismatch.
Abstract: This article identifies a fundamental distinction in scientific practice: the mismatch between what scientists do and what they state they did when they communicate their findings in their publications. The insight that such a mismatch exists is not new. It was already implied in Hans Reichenbach’s distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification, and it is taken for granted across the board in philosophy of science and science studies. But while there is general agreement that the mismatch exists, the epistemological implications of that mismatch are not at all clear. Philosophers, historians, and sociologists of different stripes have expressed widely different views about how one should understand and interpret the relation between what scientists do and what they state they did. This article surveys a number of approaches to the mismatch. Based on this survey, I offer an assessment of the epistemological significance of the mismatch and identify the major meta‐epistemological challenges...
[...]
TL;DR: The authors discuss the character of social knowledge, the goals of scientific inquiry, the connections between Social Empiricism and other approaches in science studies, productive and unproductive dissent, and the distinction between empirical and non-empirical decision vectors.
Abstract: In this paper I respond to the criticisms of Helen Longino, Alan Richardson, Naomi Oreskes and Sharyn Clough. There is discussion of the character of social knowledge, the goals of scientific inquiry, the connections between Social Empiricism and other approaches in science studies, productive and unproductive dissent, and the distinction between empirical and nonempirical decision vectors.
TL;DR: The authors survey historical scholarship on science education over the last 15 years and lay out a map of the different approaches to writing about this topic found in a variety of disciplines and fields, highlighting the compartmentalised nature of current work which, they argue, presents an obstacle to more productive thinking about the history of science education in modern society.
Abstract: This article surveys historical scholarship on science education over the last 15 years and lays out a map of the different approaches to writing about this topic found in a variety of disciplines and fields. The hope is to provide scholars interested in science education past and present a better understanding of how this enterprise has functioned in western culture, both in terms of training future scientists and managing the relationship between science and the lay public. Highlighted in this article is the compartmentalised nature of current work which, I argue, presents an obstacle to more productive thinking about the history of science education in modern society.
17 Dec 2008
TL;DR: Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse are discussed in this paper, where the role of pragmatics, rhetoric, and dialectic in scientific controversies is discussed, as well as a historical perspective on communication principles for controversies.
Abstract: 1. Preface 2. List of contributors 3. Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse (by Eemeren, Frans H. van) 4. Dichotomies and types of debate (by Dascal, Marcelo) 5. Charles Darwin versus George Mivart: The role of polemics in science (by Regner, Anna Carolina) 6. Scientific demarcation and metascience: The national academy of sciences on greenhouse warming and evolution (by Lessl, Thomas) 7. Reforming the Jews, rejecting marginalization: The 1799 German debate on Jewish emancipation in its controversy context (by Saim, Mirela) 8. Communication principles for controversies: A historical perspective (by Fritz, Gerd) 9. On the role of pragmatics, rhetoric and dialectic in scientific controversies (by Ferreira, Ademar) 10. A "dialectic ladder" of refutation and dissuasion (by Marras, Cristina) 11. Responding to objections (by Johnson, Ralph H.) 12. Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility (by Laar, Jan Albert van) 13. Reasonableness in confrontation: Empirical evidence concerning the assessment of ad hominem fallacies (by Eemeren, Frans H. van) 14. Managing disagreement in multiparty deliberation (by Aakhus, Mark) 15. Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education (by Jackson, Sally) 16. Rhetoric of science, pragma-dialectics, and science studies (by Kutrovatz, Gabor) 17. Scientific controversies and the pragma-dialectical model: Analysing a case study from the 1670s, the published part of the Newton-Lucas correspondence (by Zemplen, Gabor) 18. Index
TL;DR: A geography of science framework is developed to examine the social, scientific and medical dimensions of human embryonic stem cell research and argues that this “places of performance” perspective proffers a productive approach to understanding the shaping of contested “embryonic landscapes”.
Abstract: In this paper we develop a geography of science framework to examine the social, scientific and medical dimensions of human embryonic stem cell research. We outline David Livingstone's approach to geographies of science as “sites of speech and locations of locution” to explore the spatial shaping of science and the scientific shaping of space. Drawing upon our ongoing research on the problems and prospects of stem cell science, particularly the interactions between the bench and the bedside in the field of diabetes, we examine the influence of seminal papers on laboratory and clinical practices, and the subsequent transformation of the spaces of science on several spatial scales. We investigate the laboratory production of scientific knowledge, particularly how scientists choose which research to pursue in “scientific-landscapes-in-the-making”. Finally, we explore how diverse disciplinary spaces deconstruct the stem cell transplant approach to diabetes. In conclusion, we argue that this “places of perform...
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that the legitimacy of an emergent technology such as nanotechnology depends on its ability to develop a narrative that mobilises and integrates a number of pre-existing narrative scripts.
Abstract: It is argued that the legitimacy of an emergent technology, such as nanotechnology, depends on its ability to develop a narrative that mobilises and integrates a number of pre-existing narrative scripts. In the case of nanotechnology, especially in its NBIC variant (i.e. the convergence of Nano, Bio, Information technology and the Cognitive sciences), the narrative types include science as transcendence, risk, hype, social accountability, ELSI (Ethical Legal and Social Implications) and Science Fiction. This article draws on a number science studies fields to show how components from each of these narrative types make their appearance in the discourse of nanotechnology, but also how they are ordered and stabilised around a key metaphor: practitioners of nanotechnology as master builders. This metaphor links nanotechnology to Science Fiction as a key site for the construction of alternative worlds, and also to the above-mentioned narrative scripts. In the conclusion, some troubling implications of how nanotechnology is currently legitimated are highlighted.
TL;DR: It is interpreted that, out of the two aspects in Galilei’s view of science, the latter (empirical solution of problems by using technical instruments) dominates the former (systematic theory using mathematics) in Science.
Abstract: “What is science” is not only intellectually interesting but also politically crucial in the proper allocation of budget. As science does not define itself and only philosophy defines everything including science, this paper first sketches the philosophical view of science. Then, hypotheses are presented as to what definition is actually given for science by scientific circles themselves. The hypotheses are tested in a scientometric way by observing the trend in the magazine Science. Unexpected results are obtained. The actual trend in Science does not reflect what has long been considered about science. Specifically, chemistry is at the top in the number of papers, far above physics. More papers are in historical sciences (part of the humanities) than in mathematics, computer science and social science. It is discussed in what respect chemistry is the most scientific, and the humanities is more scientific than the abovementioned three scientific fields. It is interpreted that, out of the two aspects in Galilei’s view of science (metodo compositivo and metodo risolutivo.), the latter (empirical solution of problems by using technical instruments) dominates the former (systematic theory using mathematics) in Science.
Book Chapter•
09 Dec 2008
TL;DR: The authors argue that there is no such thing as science fiction, just an irresolvable series of discursive and material claims made for the genre's existence and nature, drawing on contemporary genre theory and Bruno Latour's science studies model of enrolment.
Abstract: Taking Tom Godwin’s classic – and controversial – sf short story ‘The Cold Equations’ as its starting point, this essay draws on contemporary genre theory and Bruno Latour’s science studies model of enrolment to argue that there is no such thing as science fiction – just an irresolvable series of discursive and material claims made for the genre’s existence and nature.
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore modes of authority and interaction in educational discourses and technologies and explore, through an illustrative analysis of some of the assessment items of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies, the construction of what may be referred to as mathematicoscience.
Abstract: This chapter is concerned with modes of authority and interaction in educational discourses and technologies In particular, it explores, through an illustrative analysis of some of the assessment items of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies, the construction of what may be referred to as mathematicoscience, a technology that may be associated with what may be publicly recognised as legitimate forms of relation to the empirical and legitimate forms of argument; it regulates, in other words, public forms of rationality The globalising of this legitimating discourse through such mechanisms as international comparative studies of schooling performances, effectively privatises real concerns and seduces social criticism with its offer of an appearance on the global stage The chapter also introduces two analytic frames (from Dowling’s broader organisational language) that enable the organisation and constructive description of educational technology and discourse
TL;DR: In this article, the structure of David's Bloor argument for the Strong Programme (SP) in Science Studies is criticised from the philosophical perspective of anti-skeptical, scientific realism.
Abstract: The structure of David’s Bloor argument for the Strong Programme (SP) in Science Studies is criticized from the philosophical perspective of anti-skeptical, scientific realism. The paper transforms the common criticism of SP—that the symmetry principle of SP implies an untenable form of cognitive relativism—into the␣clear philosophical issue of naturalism versus Platonism. It is also argued that the concrete patterns of SP’s interest-explanations and its sociological definition of knowledge involve philosophical skepticism. It is claimed, then, that the most problematic elements of SP reside primarily in philosophical skepticism. It is also claimed that this sort of criticism can be directed against other more radical, versions of constructivism in science and science education studies.
21 Sep 2008
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the case study of converging technologies and argue that the views and values that active scientists attach to their research can deeply differ from that of policy makers.
Abstract: Technoscience is often perceived as an expression of the primacy of utilitarian values that would take over the field of pure and disinterested science . A number of scientists deplore that the age of science for its own sake is coming to an end, that technologyhas overtaken science. This common view expressed by active scientists is shared by cultural historians. In a paper describing technoscience as a cultural phenomenon, Paul Forman comes to a similar conclusion. He argues that technoscience is a reversal of the values attached to science. Whereas modernity was characterized by the high cultural rank of science and scientists, postmodernity is characterized the loss of confidence and tustworthiness of scientists. Modernity, accroding to Forman rested on the primacy of science to and for technology, post-modernity is characterized by the the primacy of technology over science. The modern assumption that scientfic research would bring about not only knowledge but technological applications in addition, has been superseded in the 1980s according to Formann, and basic research is no longer considered as a key source of technologial innovation. Forman also points to this technological turn is the science studies which more and more identified science and technology. I would like to discuss this interpretation from the case study of converging technologies. By converging technologies I first refer to the current research programs launched in various countries. More precisely I refer to the US program entitled Converging technologies for improving human performances launched in 2002 and the European program CTEKS (Converging technologies for the European Society) launched in 2004. They are especially relevant because science is not even mentioned as they seem to focus exclusively on technology. Should we consider these programmes as the confirmation of Forman's claim about the primacy of technology over science ? In a preliminary conceptual analysis I will try to disentangle the notion of technoscience from the vague connotation of utilitarianism. Then I will consider to what extent the views and values attached to converging technologies express a prinacy of technology over science. For this purpose it is useful to distinguish between converging technologies as national research programs and the daily practices of research in which technologies converge. I will argue that the views and values that active scientists attach to their research can deeply differ from that of policy makers. However in no case can technosccience be described as a primacy of technology over science.
01 Mar 2008
TL;DR: In this paper, Dolfsma analyses knowledge development and diffusion as a thoroughly social process, depending on communicative structures to support cooperation, and combines insights from economics and management with perspectives from sociology (network theory), anthropology (gift exchange), social psychology, science studies and information theory (scientometrics).
Abstract: This book makes a strong and coherent contribution to the discussion of the knowledge economy and of innovation, offering a range of theoretical insights from different disciplinary perspectives. The role of knowledge, knowledge development, and knowledge diffusion is discussed at the micro level of individuals and firms, but also at the level of groups of firms and sectors, as well as at the level of the economy at large. Dolfsma analyses knowledge development and diffusion as a thoroughly social process, depending on communicative structures to support cooperation. The author combines insights from economics and management with perspectives from sociology (network theory), anthropology (gift exchange), social psychology, science studies and information theory (scientometrics), using empirical analyses to demonstrate where knowledge impacts the dynamics of an economy.