Academic researchers as 'agents' of science policy

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 359-370

  Morris, Norma ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; POLICY ANALYSIS; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0242636648     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154303781780326     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Balmer, B (1993), "Mutations in the research system? The Human Genome Project as science policy", D Phil thesis, University of Sussex.
2. Balmer, B (1996), "Managing mapping in the Human Genome Project", Social Studies of Science, 26, pages 531-573.
3. Balmer, B, R Davidson and N Morris (1998), "Funding research through directed programmes: AIDS and the Human Genome Project in the UK", Science and Public Policy, 25(3), June, pages 185-194.
4. BBSRC, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (1999), Strategic Plan 1999-2004 (BBSRC, Swindon, UK).
5. Braun, D (1993), "Who governs intermediary agencies? principal-agent relations in research policy-making", Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), pages 135-162.
6. Braun, D (1998), "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science", Research Policy, 27, pages 807-821.
7. Braun, D, F-X Merrien (editors) (1999), Towards a New Model of Governance in Universities? A Comparative View (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London).
8. Bush, V (1945), Science: The Endless Frontier (United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC).
9. Calvert, J (2001), "Goodbye blue skies? The concept of 'basic research' and its role in a changing funding environment", D Phil Thesis, University of Sussex.
10. Caswill, C (1998), "Social science policy: challenges, interactions, principals and agents", Science and Public Policy, 25(5), pages 286-296.
11. Coleman, J S (1990), Foundations of Social Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA) page 514.
12. DoH, Department of Health (2001), Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (DoH, London).
13. DTI, Department of Trade and Industry (2000), The Government Response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report: Science and Society (DTI, London).
14. Elzinga, A (1997), "The science-society contract in historical transformation: with special reference to 'epistemic drift", Social Science Information, 36(3), pages 411-445.
15. Etzkowitz, H (1998), "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages", Research Policy, 27, pages 823-833.
16. Friedman A, and S Miles (2002), "Developing stakeholder theory", Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1 January, pages 1-21.
17. Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Nowotny, S Schwartzman, P Scott and M Trow (1994), The New Production of Knowledge (Sage, London).
18. Gieryn, T F (1983), "Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists, American Sociological Review, 48(6), pages 781-795.
19. Guston, D (1996), "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy", Science and Public Policy, 23(4), August, pages 229-240.
20. Guston, D (2000), Between Politics and Science: assuring the integrity and productivity of research (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
21. Latour, B, and S Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life: the social construction of scientific facts (Sage, Beverly Hills CA).
22. Morris, N (2000), "Science policy in action: policy and the researcher", Minerva, 38, pages 425-451.
23. Morris, N (2002a), "The developing role of departments", Research Policy, 31(5), pages 817-833.
24. Morris, N (2002b), "Tower power: academics' commitment to the wealth creation mission", Industry and Higher Education, 16(6), pages 337-348.
25. MRC, Medical Research Council (2001), MRC Research Funding: Strategy and Priorities 2001-2004 (MRC, London).
26. Mulkay, M (1979), Science and the Sociology of Knowledge (Allen and Unwin, London) page 71.
27. OST, Office of Science and Technology (1993), Realising our Potential: a strategy for science, engineering and technology, presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cn 2250 (HMSO, London).
28. Rip, A (1997), "A cognitive approach to relevance of science", Social Science Information, 36(4), pages 615-640.
29. Shankman, N (1999), "Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm", Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4 , pages 319-334.
30. Star, S, and J Griesemer (1989), "Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects - amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39", Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pages 387-420.
31. Stokes, D E (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant (Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC).
32. Turner, S (1990), "Forms of patronage", in S Cozzens and T Gieryn (editors), Theories of Science in Society (Indiana University Press, Indiana) pages 185-211.
33. van der Meulen, B (1998), "Science policies as principal-agent games: institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science", Research Policy, 27(4), pages 397-414.
34. Weinberg, A (1963), "Criteria for scientific choice", Minerva, 1(2), pages 159-171.
35. Westfall, R (1985), "Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope", Isis, 76, pages 311-330, quoted in Turner (1990).
36. Wright, P, A Mukherji and M J Kroll (2001), "A reexamination of agency theory assumptions: extensions and extrapolations", Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(5), pages 413-429.
37. Ziman, J (1994), Prometheus Bound: science in a dynamic steady state (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).