Higher forms of nonsense

European Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 467-485

  Rip, Arie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010637286     PISSN: 10627987     EISSN: 14740575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1062798700005032     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Biagioli M. (1993) Galileo, Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
2. Brook R. (1998) Policy making and peer review in the UK Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, in Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), The Future of the Peer Review System (The Hague: NWO, 1998), 7–25.
3. Brooks H. (1971) Science, Growth and Society. A New Perspective (Paris: OECD). Report of a working party chaired by Harvey Brooks.
4. Bush V. (1990) Science – The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research (Washington, DC: 07 1945). Reprinted, with Appendices and a Foreword by Daniel J. Kevles, by the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
5. Chubin D. E. and Hackett E. J. (1990) Peerless Science. Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
6. Crozier M. and Friedberg E. (1980) Actors & Systems. The Politics of Collective Action (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
7. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., and Trow M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage).
8. Greenberg D. S. (1969) The Politics of American Science (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
9. Healy S. (1999) Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics. Futures, 31, 655–669.
10. Irvine J. and Martin B. R. (1984) Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners (London: Frances Pinter).
11. Kersten A. E. (1996) Een organisatie van en voor onderzoekers. ZWO 1947–1988 (Assen: Van Gorcum).
12. McCullough J. (1989) First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 14(1), 78–88.
13. Myers G. (1985) The social construction of two biologists' proposals, Written Communication 2(3). 219–245.
14. Picard J.-F. (1990) La République des Savants. La Recherche française ET le CNRS (Paris: Flammarion).
15. Rafts J. R. (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky S. and Golding D. (eds), Social Theories of Risk (Westport: Praeger), pp. 251–274.
16. Rip A. (1994) The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education, 28, 3–23.
17. Rip A. (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance of science. Social Science Information 36(4), 615–640.
18. Rip A. (1998) Higher forms of nonsense. In Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), The Future of the Peer Review System (The Hague: NWO), pp. 27–51.
19. Rip A. (2000) Aggregation machines – a political science of science approach to the future of the peer review system. In Policy Studies Annual Review 1999, forthcoming 2000.
20. Roy R. (1985) Funding science: the real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10(3), 73–81.
21. Shove E. (1996) Researchers, Users and Window Frames (Lancaster University, Centre for Science Studies). Report of the First Economic and Social Research Council Workshop on Researchers and Users as Mediators and Translators; Abingdon, 9–10 12 1996.
22. Shove E. (1998) Researchers, Users and Parachutes (Lancaster University, Centre for Science Studies). Report of the Second Economic and Social Research Council Workshop on Researchers and Users as Mediators and Translators; Abingdon 12–13 12 1998.
23. Spaapen J. and Sylvain C. (1994) Societal Quality of Research. Toward a Method for the Assessment of the Potential Value of Research for Society (London: Science Policy Support Group). SPSG Concept Paper No. 13.
24. Travis G. D. L., and Collins H. M. (1991) New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(3), 322–341.
25. Van der Meulen B. J. R. and Rip A. (1997) Indications and Indicators of Societal Quality of Research (Enschede: University of Twente). Study commissioned by the Consultative Committee of the Advisory Councils on Research.
26. Van der Meulen B., and Rip A. (2000) Evaluation of outcomes of public sector research in the Netherlands and the idea of societal quality of research. Research Evaluation, 9(1), 11–25.
27. Webster A. (1994) University-corporate research ties and the construction of research agendas. Sociology, 28, 123–142.
28. Wood F. Q. (1997) The Peer Review Process (Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Research Council). Commissioned Report No. 54.
29. Ziman J. (1978) Reliable Knowledge. An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
30. Ziman J. (1983) The collectivization of science. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B219, pp. 1–19. J.D. Bernal Lecture.
31. Ziman J. (1987) Knowing Everything about Nothing. Specialization and Change in Scientific Careers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
32. Ziman J. (1994) Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).