Scientification of politics or politicization of science? Traditionalist science-policy discourse and its quarrels with mode 2 epistemology

Social Epistemology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 69-77

  Hellstrom, Tomas ^a   Jacob, Merle ^a  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011125904     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720050199315     Document Type: Note

References (24)

1. Alpert, H. 1954, The National Science Foundation and social science research, American Sociological Review, 19,208-211.
2. Alpert, H. 1955,‘The social sciences and The National Science Foundation 1945-1955’, AmericanSociological Review, 20, 653-661.
3. Böhme, G., Van Den Daele, W. and Krohn, W. 1973, Die Finalisier ung der Wissenschaft, Zeitschrift für Sozidogie, 2,128-144.
4. Elzinga, A. 1997, The science-society contract in historical transformation: With special reference to ‘epistemic drift ’, Social Science Information, 36, 411-446.
5. Fisher, D. 1993, Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6. Fuller, S., 1997, Science (Buckingham, UK: Open University Press).
7. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz J. 1992, Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science, in S. Krimsky and D. Golding(eds) Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CO: Praeger), pp. 251-274.
8. 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 Publications).
9. Gramsci, A. 1992, Prison Notebooks, Vol. I (New York: Columbia University Press), p. 231.
10. Hawkesworth, M. 1989, Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth, Signs: J ournalof Women in Culture and Society, 14, 533-547.
11. Krohn, W. 1997, ‘Wissenschaftsfcrtschritt und Dezentrierung - Piagets Modell der Evolutionären Epistemologie und die Dekonstruktionistischen Angriffe auf die Objektivität und Universalität von Erkenntnis (Bielefeld: IWT Paper 9), p. 21, in Weingart, P. 1997, p. 609.
12. Platt, J. 1996, Has funding made a difference to research methods? Sociological Research Online, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/5.html (03/98).
13. Rappert, B. 1995, Shifting notion of accountability in public- and private-sector research in the UK, Science and Public Policy, 383-390.
14. Rappert, B. 1997, Users and social science research: policy, problems and possibilities, Sociological Research Online, 2; http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/10.html (03/98).
15. Ravetz, J. 1971, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
16. Riecken, H. W. 1983, The National Science Foundation and the Social Sciences, Items 37, 39-42.
17. Rip, A. and Van Der Meulen, B. J. 1996, The post-modern research system, Science and Public Policy, 23, 343-352.
18. Schäffer, W. (ed.) 1983, FinalizationinScience: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress (Dordrecht: Reidel).
19. Shapin, S. 1994, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
20. Shils, E. 1992, The service of society and the advancement of learning in the twenty-first century, Minerva, 30,243-268.
21. Slaughter, S. and Leslie L. 1997, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
22. Weinberg, A. 1972, Science and trans-science, Minerva, 10, 209-222.
23. Weingart, P. 1997, From ‘finalization’ to ‘Mode 2 ’: old wine in new bottles?’, Social ScienceInformation, 36, 591-613.
24. Ziman, J. 1996, ‘Postacademic science’: constructing knowledge with networks and norms, Science Studies, 9, 67-80.