Social technology transfer? Movement of social science knowledge beyond the academy

Theory & Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 148-161

  Stöckelová, Tereza ^a  

^a CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

impact; knowledge transfer; Roma expertise; social sciences; social technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858710064     PISSN: 09593543     EISSN: 14617447     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0959354311433235     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Beck U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage.
2. Beck U. Giddens A. Lash S. (1994). Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
3. Bessen J. Meurer M.J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Biagoli M. (2003). Rights or rewards? Changing frameworks of scientific authorship. In Biagoli M. Galison P. (Eds.), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (pp. 253–280). New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Biagoli M. Galison P. (Eds.). (2003). Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. New York, NY: Routledge.
6. Bijker W.E. Hughes T.P. Pinch T.J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Čunek J. (2008, January). Systémová pomoc socialně vyloučeným občanům [Systematic assistance to socially excluded citizens]. Power Point presentation at KDU-ČSL [Christian and Democratic Union Czechoslovak People's Party] conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
8. Derksen M. Vikkelsø S. Beaulieu A. (2012). Social technologies: Cross-disciplinary reflections on technologies in and from the social sciences. Theory & Psychology, 22, 139–147.
9. Funtowicz S. Ravetz J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
10. Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
11. Hirt T. (2008).Výhledy a útrapy aplikované antropologie v ČR: Příspěvek k debatě o výzkumu jedné sporné problematiky [Perspectives and hardships of applied anthropology in the Czech Republic: Contribution to the discussion on research of a controversial issue]. Biograf, 46, 23 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=46
12. Hirt T. Jakoubek M. (2007, June 26). Když si moralisté nevidí do huby [The moral poverty of moralists]. Lidové noviny. Retrieved from http://www.lidovky.cz/kdyz-si-moraliste-nevidi-do-huby-dod-/ln_noviny.asp?c=A070626_000045_ln_noviny_sko&klic=220059&mes=070626_0
13. Jakoubek M. (2008). Nezbývá než zopakovat Lípu [Remembering what Lípa once said]. Biograf, 47, 16 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=47
14. Jakoubek M. Budilová L. (2008). Mandel poznámek k současnému stavu výzkumu Cikánů/Romů v ČR [A handful of notes on the current social science research of Gypsies/Roma people in the Czech Republic]. Biograf, 45, 25 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=45
15. Kobes T. (2008). Několik poznámek k hypertrofii závěrů sociálně-vědného výzkumu romské problematiky do politického diskurzu [Several notes about hypertrophy of research results in Romani issues to the political discourse]. Biograf, 45, 10 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=45
16. Kolář P. (2008, January 12). Je zřejmé, proč to dělá [It is obvious why he does it]. Lidové noviny. Retrieved from http://www.lidovky.cz/je-zrejme-proc-to-dela-0tw/ln_noviny.asp?c=A080112_000008_ln_noviny_sko&klic=223358&mes=080112_0
17. Latour B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18. Latour B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Matheson A. (2008). Corporate science and the husbandry of scientific and medical knowledge by the pharmaceutical industry. BioSocieties, 3, 355–382.
20. Matoušek P. (2008). Rozvažování nad etickými otázkami sociálně-vědného výzkumu [Reflections on some ethical issues in social science research]. Biograf, 47, 18 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=47
21. Mesny A. (1998a). Sociology for whom? The role of sociology in reflexive modernity. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 23, 159–178.
22. Mesny A. (1998b). The appropriation of social science knowledge by “lay people”: The development of lay sociological imagination? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.
23. Power M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24. Sismondo S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39, 171–197.
25. Slačálek O. (2008). Kam stát nevidí, nasadí vědce: S Yasarem Abu Ghoshem o Čunkovi, Romech a antropolozích [The state plants an anthropologist where it cannot see itself: On Čunek, Roma and anthropologists with Yasar Abu Ghosh]. A2, 11. Retrieved from http://www.advojka.cz/archiv/2008/11/kam-stat-nevidi-nasadi-vedce
26. Star S.L. Griesemer J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
27. Steiner J. (2004). Ekonomie sociálního vyloučení [The economy of social exclusion]. In Jakoubek M. Hirt T. (Eds.), Romové: Kulturologické etudy [Roma: The art of cultural studies] (pp. 218–229). Plzeň, Czech Republic: Aleš Čeněk.
28. Stilgoe J. (2009). Citizen scientists reconnecting science with civil society (Demos report). Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Citizen_Scientists_-_web.pdf?1243869835
29. Stöckelová T. Grygar J. (2008). Hrátky s čerty? Politické souvislosti a přesahy sociálně-vědního výzkumu [Dancing with the devil? Political contexts and implications of social science research]. Biograf, 46, 43 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=46
30. Strathern M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London, UK: Routledge.
31. Strathern M. (2006). Knowledge on its travels: Dispersal and divergence in the makeup of communities. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 31, 149–162.
32. Synková H. (2008). “Romská problematika”–česká antropologie ve službách státu a nevládních organizací [“Romani issue”–Czech anthropology in service of the state and non-governmental organizations]. Biograf, 45, 20 para. Retrieved from http://www.biograf.org/index_e.php?aktivni=cisla&filtr_cislo=45
33. Valášková M. (2008, January 14). Český vědec: Čunek mi opsal projev [A Czech scientist: Čunek plagiarized my speech]. Lidové noviny. Retrieved from http://www.lidovky.cz/cesky-vedec-cunek-mi-opsal-projev-dq2-/ln_domov.asp?c=A080114_184020_ln_domov_svo