Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:34:53.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethos of Science and the Perception of the Polish System of Financing Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

Marzena Feldy  and
Barbara Kowalczyk
Marzena Feldy
Affiliation:
National Information Processing Institute, al. Niepodległości 188 b, 00-608Warszawa, Poland. Email: [email protected]
Barbara Kowalczyk
Affiliation:
National Information Processing Institute, al. Niepodległości 188 b, 00-608Warszawa, Poland. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The reforms of the Polish system of science emphasise the importance of research and the international activity of Polish scientists. Optimal allocation of funds, taking into account the needs of researchers, is one of the current key objectives of research policy in Poland. The aim of this article is to discover values that Polish researchers identify with as well as defining their approach to the current system of research financing in Poland. The results presented here come from a nationwide study implemented at the turn of 2016. In total, we surveyed 800 randomly selected researchers. The interviewees had at least a PhD degree and were employed in Polish research institutions. The results of the study confirm that the researchers who identify with different ethoses of science have varied approaches to the Polish system of research financing. The scientists who take the least favourable view of the system are those who identify with the academic tradition. Compared with the scientists with deeply-rooted academic values, those in favour of a post-academic ethos more appreciate the available funding opportunities as well as the features of competition-based research funding. They also more often claim that the rules of financing research institutions in Poland have a positive impact on the development of science.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 599 - 616
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aghion, P, Dewatripont, M, Hoxby, C, Mas-Colell, A and Sapir, A (2007) Why reform Europe’s universities. Bruegel Policy Brief 4, 1–8.Google Scholar
Altbach, PhG (2007) Tradition and Transition: The International Imperative in Higher Education. Chestnut Hill, MA: CIHE Boston College.Google Scholar
Auranen, O and Nieminen, M (2010) University research funding and publication performance: An international comparison. Research Policy 39(6), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/-j.respol.2010.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, HH (2013) Three stages of modern science. Journal of Scientific Exploration 27(3), 505–513,Google Scholar
Becher, T and Kogan, M (1992) Process and Structure in Higher Education, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolli, T and Somogyi, F (2011) Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy 40, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourliaguet, B (2016) A Weberian approach to the ethos of science. Theory of Science 38, 113–128.Google Scholar
Butler, L (2003) Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation 12, 9–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzkowitz, H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy 27, 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzkowitz, H (2017) Innovation lodestar: the entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 123, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.026 Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H, Webster, A, Gebhardt, C and Terra, BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29, 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, G and Whitchurch, C (2007) Managing human resources in higher education: the implications of a diversifying workforce. Higher Education Management and Policy 19(2), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gornitzka, A and Maassen, P (2007) An instrument for national political agendas: the hierarchical vision. In Maassen, P and Olsen, JP (eds), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordercht: Springer, pp. 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M and Eisenberg, R (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280, 698–701. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698 Google ScholarPubMed
Huff, TE (2007) Some historical roots of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology 7(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078037 Google Scholar
Jain, S, George, G and Maltarich, M (2009) Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38, 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalar, B and Antoncic, B (2015) The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation 36–37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalleberg, R (2007) A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology 7(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S (2006) Autonomy, disinterest, and entrepreneurial science. Society, May/June, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwiek, M (2003) The social functions of the university in the context of changing state/market relations. In De Groof, J and Lauwers, G (eds), Globalisation and Competition in Education. Antwerpen: Wolf Legal Publisher, pp. 118–131.Google Scholar
Kwiek, M (2015a) Umiędzynarodowienie badań naukowych – polska kadra akademicka z perspektywy europejskiej. Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe 1(45), 39–74. https://doi.org/10.14746/nsw.2015.1.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwiek, M (2015b) Uniwersytet w dobie przemian. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B-Å and Borrás, S (2005) Science, technology and innovation policy. In Fageberger, J and Mowery, DC (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 599–631.Google Scholar
Mauss, M (1990) The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merton, RK (2002) Teoria socjologiczna i struktura społeczna. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Messeni Petruzzelli, A (2011) The impact of technological relatedness, priorities, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis. Technovation 31(7), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelstrass, J (2012) Science and values: on values and credibility in science and scholarship. Rendiconti Lincei 23 (suppl. 1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0201-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moed, HF (2008) UK research assessment exercises: informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics 74(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H (2006) Real science is excellent science – how to interpret post-academic science, Mode 2 and the ERC. Comment. Journal of Science Communication 5(4), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.05040304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, H (2010) Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research. In Radder, H (ed.), The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 231–258.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, E, Moen, Ø and Gulbrandsen, M (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26(4), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/-j.technovation.2004.11.005 Google Scholar
Sadowski, I and Mach, BW (2014) Parametryzacja i kategoryzacja jednostek naukowych w roku 2013 jako praktyka ewaluacyjna i proces instytucjonalny – przypadek nauk humanistycznych i społecznych. Nauka 2(14), 67–103.Google Scholar
Van Dalen, R, Mehmood, S, Verstraten, P and van der Wiell, K (2014) Public Funding of Science. An International Comparison. Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
Ziman, JM (1996) Postacademic science: constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1, 67–80.Google Scholar
Ziman, JM (2000) Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar