Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:10:28.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Higher forms of nonsense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Arie Rip
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research councils are under pressure and some are responding pro-actively. This has implications for their functioning as ‘aggregation machines’ taking in proposals and churning out judgements and decisions. Five scenarios of possible futures for research councils in the world of strategic science are laid out, with examples

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , October 2000 , pp. 467 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2000

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

Biagioli, M. (1993) Galileo, Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, R. (1998) Policy making and peer review in the UK Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, in Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), The Future of the Peer Review System (The Hague: NWO, 1998), 7–25.Google Scholar
Brooks, H. (1971) Science, Growth and Society. A New Perspective (Paris: OECD). Report of a working party chaired by Harvey Brooks.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1990) Science – The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research (Washington, DC: 07 1945). Reprinted, with Appendices and a Foreword by Daniel J. Kevles, by the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Chubin, D. E. and Hackett, E. J. (1990) Peerless Science. Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. (1980) Actors & Systems. The Politics of Collective Action (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Greenberg, D. S. (1969) The Politics of American Science (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
Healy, S. (1999) Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics. Futures, 31, 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J. and Martin, B. R. (1984) Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners (London: Frances Pinter).Google Scholar
Kersten, A. E. (1996) Een organisatie van en voor onderzoekers. ZWO 1947–1988 (Assen: Van Gorcum).Google Scholar
McCullough, J. (1989) First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14(1), 78–88.Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1985) The social construction of two biologists' proposals, Written Communication 2(3). 219–245.Google Scholar
Picard, J.-F. (1990) La République des Savants. La Recherche française ET le CNRS (Paris: Flammarion).Google Scholar
Rafts, J. R. (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds), Social Theories of Risk (Westport: Praeger), pp. 251–274.Google Scholar
Rip, A. (1994) The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education, 28, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rip, A. (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance of science. Social Science Information 36(4), 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rip, A. (1998) Higher forms of nonsense. In Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), The Future of the Peer Review System (The Hague: NWO), pp. 27–51.Google Scholar
Rip, A. (2000) Aggregation machines – a political science of science approach to the future of the peer review system. In Policy Studies Annual Review 1999, forthcoming 2000.Google Scholar
Roy, R. (1985) Funding science: the real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10(3), 73–81.Google Scholar
Shove, E. (1996) Researchers, Users and Window Frames (Lancaster University, Centre for Science Studies). Report of the First Economic and Social Research Council Workshop on Researchers and Users as Mediators and Translators; Abingdon, 9–1012 1996.Google Scholar
Shove, E. (1998) Researchers, Users and Parachutes (Lancaster University, Centre for Science Studies). Report of the Second Economic and Social Research Council Workshop on Researchers and Users as Mediators and Translators; Abingdon12–1312 1998.Google Scholar
Spaapen, J. and Sylvain, C. (1994) Societal Quality of Research. Toward a Method for the Assessment of the Potential Value of Research for Society (London: Science Policy Support Group). SPSG Concept Paper No. 13.Google Scholar
Travis, G. D. L., and Collins, H. M. (1991) New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Meulen, B. J. R. and Rip, A. (1997) Indications and Indicators of Societal Quality of Research (Enschede: University of Twente). Study commissioned by the Consultative Committee of the Advisory Councils on Research.Google Scholar
Van der Meulen, B., and Rip, A. (2000) Evaluation of outcomes of public sector research in the Netherlands and the idea of societal quality of research. Research Evaluation, 9(1), 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, A. (1994) University-corporate research ties and the construction of research agendas. Sociology, 28, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, F. Q. (1997) The Peer Review Process (Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Research Council). Commissioned Report No. 54.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1978) Reliable Knowledge. An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1983) The collectivization of science. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B219, pp. 1–19. J.D. Bernal Lecture.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1987) Knowing Everything about Nothing. Specialization and Change in Scientific Careers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (1994) Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar