Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies

Policy Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 249-266

  Logar, Nathaniel ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Federal institutions; Innovation; Knowledge production; Science policy; Use inspired research

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; DECISION MAKING; INNOVATION; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; KNOWLEDGE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 80055034786     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-011-9136-4     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abels, G., & Bora, A. (2006). Public Participation, stakeholders and expertise: Multi-actor spaces in the governance of biotechnology. Bielefeld: Policies for Research and Innovation in the Move towards the European Research Area.
2. Brown, G. (1992). Guest comment: The objectivity crisis. American Journal of Physics, 60, 779-781.
3. Brown, M. H. (2004). The political philosophy of science policy. Minerva, 42, 77-95.
4. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
5. Cash, D. W. (2001). "In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information": Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 431-453.
6. Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. (1993). Technology for America's economic growth. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
7. Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the revolution: Authority in a good society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
8. David, P. A. (1995). Science reorganized? Post-modern visions of research and the curse of success.
9. DOD. (2004). Financial management regulation, DOD 7000. 14-R, Vol. 2B, Chap. 5. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Defense.
10. Foltz, F. (1999). Five arguments for increasing public participation in making science policy. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 19(2), 117-127.
11. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735-755.
12. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81-C84.
13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.
14. Holton, G. (1993). Science and anti-science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15. Jeffrey, W. (2007). Personal interview with William Jeffrey, NIST Director, on 6/07/07, Gaithersburg.
16. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Kitcher, P. (2003). What kinds of science should be done? In A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz, & C. Dresser (Eds.), Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery (pp. 201-224). Washington, DC: Island Press.
18. Konisky, D. M., & Beierle, T. C. (2001). Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: Examples from the Great Lakes Region. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 815-826.
19. Logar, N. (2008). Federally funded science for user benefit: Policy mechanisms for mission-oriented research, University of Colorado.
20. Logar, N. (2009). Towards a culture of application: science and decision making at the National Institute of Standards & Technology. Minerva, 47, 345-366.
21. Logar, N., & Conant, R. (2007). Reconciling the supply and demand for carbon cycle science in the U. S. agricultural sector. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 75-84.
22. Logar, N., & Pollack, L. K. (2005). Transgenic fish: Is a new policy framework necessary for new technology? Environmental Science & Policy, 8(1), 17-27.
23. National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Assessment of department of defense basic research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
24. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden: Blackwell.
25. Nowotny, N., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: Mode 2' revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179-194.
26. Pielke, R. A., Jr., & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 51, 42-46.
27. Renn, O., Webber, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189-214.
28. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: SAGE Publications.
29. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5-16.
30. Shapley, D., & Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the Frontier: U. S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift. ISI Press, Philadelphia.
31. Shinn, T. (2003). The 'Triple Helix' and 'New production of knowledge' as socio-cognitive fields. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead (pp. 103-116). Boston: Kluwer.
32. Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Reources, 14, 239-249.
33. Stokes, D. E. (1994). Completing the Bush model: Pasteur's quadrant. Talk given at conference "Science: The endless frontier 1945-1995", pp. 1-13.
34. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35. Weinberg, A. W. (1971). The axiology of science. American Scientist, 58, 612-617.
36. Weingart, P. (1997). From "Finalization" to "Mode 2": Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36, 591-613.
37. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.