What's special about basic research?

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 199-220

  Calvert, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Basic research; Boundary work; Science policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645746908     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: 15528251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243905283642     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Arrow, K. J. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, ed. Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, 609-626. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Barnes, B., D. Bloor, and J. Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
3. Bourdieu, P. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14 (6). 19-47.
4. Brunsson, N. 1994. The organization of hypocrisy. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
5. Bush, V. [1945] 1960. Science - The endless frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
6. Callon, M. 1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology, and Human Values 19 (4). 395-424.
7. Callon, M. 2001. From science as an economic activity to socio-economics of scientific research: The dynamics of emergent and consolidated techno-economic networks. In Science bought and sold: The new economics of science, ed. P. Mirowski and E. Sent, 277-317. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Calvert, J. 2002. Goodbye blue skies? The concept of "basic research" and its role in a changing funding environment. DPhil thesis, University of Sussex.
9. Elzinga, A. 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation. Social Science Information 36 (3). 411-445.
10. Elzinga, A., and A. Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 572-597. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Forman, P. 1997. Recent science: Late-modern and post-modern. In The historiography of contemporary science and technology, ed. T. Soderqvist, 179-213. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
12. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
13. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
14. Gieryn, T. F. 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781-795.
15. Gieryn, T. F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Gieryn, T. F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Guston, D. H., and K. Keniston, eds. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. London: MIT Press.
18. Kline, R. 1995. Constructing technology as applied science: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880-1945. Isis 86: 194-221.
19. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Merton, R. K. 1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. N. W. Storer 1973, 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Mulkay, M. 1976. Norms and ideology. Reprinted in Mulkay, M. 1991. Sociology of science: A sociological pilgrimage, 62-78. Milton Keynes, UK: OUP Press.
22. Nelson, D. 1959. The simple economics of basic research. Journal of Political Economy 6: 297-306.
23. Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development. 1993. The measurement of scientific and technical activities 1993: Standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. Paris: Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development.
24. Polanyi, M. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54-73.
25. Reingold, N. 1991. American indifference to basic research: A reappraisal. In Science, American style, 54-75. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
26. Rothschild, L. 1971. A framework for government research and development [Cm 4814]. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
27. Slaughter, S. 1993. Beyond basic science: Research university president's narratives of science policy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 18: 278-302.
28. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialisation of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values 21 (3). 303-339.
29. Stokes, D. E. 1997. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30. Weinberg, A. M. 1963. Criteria for scientific choice. Minerva 1 (2). 159-171.