Critically evaluating collaborative research: Why is it difficult to extend truth tests to reality tests?

Social Science Information

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 374-402

  Smith, Simon ^a   Ward, Vicky ^b   Kabele, Jiří ^c  

^a INSTITUTE OF CHEMISTRY   (Slovakia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Boundary object; Boundary negotiating artefact; Collaborative research; Constructivism; Critical evaluation; Intermediary; Mediator; Pragmatic sociology; Reality test; Truth test

Indexed keywords

EID: 84910071731     PISSN: 05390184     EISSN: 14617412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0539018414525292     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Akrich, M.Les Formes de la médiation technique.Réseaux. 1993a;60:87-98
2. Akrich, M.Les Objets techniques et leurs utilisateurs, de la conception à l’action.Raisons pratiques. 1993b;4:35-57
3. Black, MModels and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1962:
4. Boltanski, LBoltanski, LL’Amour et la justice comme compétences: Trois essais de sociologie de l’action. Paris: Métaillié; 1990:255-366.
5. Boltanski, LDe la critique: précis de sociologie de l’émancipation. Paris: Gallimard; 2009:
6. Boltanski, LEnigmes et complots: une enquête à propos d’enquêtes. Paris: Gallimard; 2012:
7. Boltanski, L,Thévenot, LDe la justification. Paris: Gallimard; 1991:
8. Callon, M,Lascoumes, P,Barthe, YAgir dans un monde incertain. Paris: Seuil; 2001:
9. Chateauraynaud, F.L’Epreuve du tangible: expériences de l’enquête et surgissements de la preuve.Raisons pratiques. 2004;15:167-194
10. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Connell, JKubisch, ASchorr, LWeiss, C, ed. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute; 1995:
11. Cook, S,Brown, J.Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing.Organization Science. 1999;10 (4): 381-400
12. Cooksey, DA Review of UK Health Research Funding. Norwich: HMSO; 2006:
13. Dodier, N.Les Appuis conventionnels de l’action: éléments de pragmatique sociologique.Réseaux. 1993;62:63-85
14. Friedland, R,Alford, RThe New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Powell, WDiMaggio, P, ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1991:2320-2363.
15. Goffman, EThe Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre, monograph no; 1956:2.
16. Gray, B.Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2004;14 (3): 166-176
17. Guggenheim, M,Potthast, J.Symmetrical twins: On the relationship between Actor–Network theory and the sociology of critical capacities.European Journal of Social Theory. 2012;15 (2): 157-178
18. Jouvenet, M.Boundary work between research communities: Culture and power in a French nanosciences and nanotechnology hub.Social Science Information. 2013;52 (1): 134-158
19. Kabele, JZ kapitalismu do socialismu a zpět: teoretické vyšetřování přerodů Československa a České republiky. Prague: Karolinum; 2005:
20. Kabele, J.The agency/structure dilemma: A coordination solution.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2010;40 (3): 314-338
21. Knorr Cetina, KEpistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:
22. Labatut, J,Aggeri, F,Girard, N.Discipline and change: How technologies and organizational routines interact in new practice creation.Organization Studies. 2012;33 (1): 39-69
23. Latour, BChanger de société, refaire de la sociologie. Paris: La Découverte; 2007:
24. Lee, C.Boundary negotiating artefacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work.Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2007;16:307-339
25. Marcovich, A,Shinn, T.Where is disciplinarity going? Meeting on the borderland.Social Science Information. 2011;50 (3–4): 582-606
26. Messner, M,Clegg, S,Kornberger, M.Critical practices in organizations.Journal of Management Inquiry. 2008;17 (2): 68-82
27. Nonaka, I,Takeuchi, HThe Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995:
28. Owen, JMProgram Evaluation: Forms and approaches. New York/London: The Guilford Press; 2007:
29. Pawson, R,Tilley, NRealistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997:
30. Périlleux, T.Le Déni de l’évaluation.Travailler. 2005;13 (1): 113-134
31. Rapoport, A,Chammah, APrisoner’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1965:
32. Rennes, J,Susen, S.La Fragilité de la réalité: entretien avec Luc Boltanski.Mouvements. 2010;64 (4): 149-164
33. Ricoeur, P.La Métaphore et le problème central de l’herméneutique.Revue Philosophique de Louvain. 1972;70 (5): 93-112
34. Schmidt, K,Wagner, I.Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning.Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2005;13:349-408
35. Schumpeter, JCapitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers; 1942:
36. Shinn, T.New sources of radical innovation: Research-technologies, transversality and distributed learning in a post-industrial order.Social Science Information. 2005;44 (4): 731-764
37. Star, S.The ethnography of infrastructure.American Behavioral Scientist. 1999;43 (3): 377-391
38. Star, S,Griesemer, J.Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19 (3): 387-420
39. Thévenot, LThe Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Knorr-Cetina, KSchatzki, TSavigny, E, ed. London: Routledge; 2001:56-73.
40. Treasury Board of Canada (2012) Theory-Based Approaches to Evaluation: Concepts and practices. Available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca (accessed 2 May 2013).