post academic science.docx

8/10/2019 post academic science.docx

1/9

POST ACADEMIC SCIENCE

The writings of Robert K. Merton have had a broad and lasting effect on how

both historians and policy-makers understand the relation between scientific

practice and institutional structures. As a sociologist, Merton tended to startwith a few fundamental observations into practice which he then connected

strongly to social theory. For example, in examining how scientists were

rewarded for their research, he saw that reward came primarily in the form of

recognition rather than money, an insight that helps account for the importance

scientists place upon citation as a reward system. None of Mertons writings on

science has had more influence than The Normative Structure ofScience.This

short essay attempts to define the ethos of science by reference to four norms

or institutional imperatives, which he calls universalism, communism,

disinterestedness, and organized skepticism .

Academic science

Academic science emerged in France and Germany in the first half of the 19th

century. As the name suggests, it is typically associated with higher education,

but is also found in a number of other institutional settings, especially under

governmental patronage. It does not have any system of over all control

although its practices and principles are remarkably uniform. In 1942, Robert

Merton suggested that academic science was governed by an ethos

embodying a set of functional norms.

Elements of scientific ethos

The norm of communalism requires that the fruits of academic science should

be regarded as public knowledge. It thus covers the multitude of practices

involved in the communication of research results to other scientists, to

students, and to society at large. Academic science is closely associated with

the higher education. In effect it enjoins the pooling of personal knowledge

gained from individual experience.

The norm universality requires that contributions to science should not be

excluded because of nationality , religion, social status or other irrelevant

criteria. In practice, this multicultural ideal is achieved very imperfectly. It

however imply that scientific propositions should be general enough to apply

in any cultural context.

The norm of disinterestedness seems to contradict all our experience of the

research world. What it means is that in presenting their work publicily they


2/9

must repress their natural enthusiasm for their own ideas, and adopt a neutral,

impersonal stance. Many academic scientists do not have to boost them selves

because they hold permanent posts as university teachers, and undertake pure

research with out commercial applications.

The norm of originalityenergizes the scientific enterprise. Academic scientists

are not always inspired by the curiosity, but they are expected to be self-

winding in their choice of research problems and techniques. Their most

cherished traditions celebrate and sustain this aspect of academic freedom.

This is the norm that keeps academic science progressive , and open to novelty.

Skepticism is the normative basis for many academic practices, such as

carefully controlled critical controversy and peer review. This norm is not alicence for systematic philosophical doubt , nor for total sociological relativism.

It merely stresses the constructive role of refutation as the natural partner of

conjucture in the production of reliable knowledge.

CUDOS institutionalized

Academic science could not function without some sort of internal social

structure. This structure is provided by subject specialization academic science

divided into disciplines each of which is recognized teaching and research . it is

practically impossible to be an academic scientist without locating oneself

initially in an established discipline, specialization does not stop there .The sub-

division of discipline into very narrow research specialties seems to be an

unavoidable feature of academic science ,most academic scientists can also

satisfy the norms of originality and skepticism by concentrating for years on

what is known what is conjectured and what might be feasible in a limited

problem area mertonian norms combine into the acronym CUDOS that is

acclaim or prestige the argument is that academic scientist s undertaken

research , and make public their finding ,in exchange for recognization by

their peer. Research is personal vocation ,rater than gainful employment.

Academic scientist are often deeply committed to their work academic science

is developed as an activity engaged in principally by Academic whose

official employment is to teach rather than to do research .university teachers

owe their proven research competence , and earn further promotion by their

research achievements .The existence of academic science as a distinctive

culture form thus depends on the willingness of universities and other


3/9

institutions to provide personal time and other resources for an activity from

which they do not directly profit and which they do not directly control .this

applies particularly to bodies that support full time researchers, regardless of

whether they perform other services ,or even whether their contribution to

knowledge are of any great significance . the key point is that academic science

relies on public and private patronage .it whole ethos of is based upon the belief

that the pursuit of knowledge is of value in itself

NEW MODE OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

Academic science is changing so rapidly some of these changes simply reflect

scientific and technological progress ,the dedication of science to originality is

drawing it into quite novel modes of activity . individual achievement is beingmerged into the collective action of multi disciplinary teams .communication is

being speeded up electronically ,until it becomes instantly global . the

governments that mainly fund academic research are putting strict financial

ceilings on their patronage, and are trying to get better value for their money.

They are insisting that researchers should become much more accountable,

more responsive to societal needs, more directly concerned six very

distinguished meta scientists called them as GLNSST group, for short have

boldly presented a credible scenario for the future of science, in some, theyargue that the academic mode of knowledge production is being replaced by a

very different activity, which they call Mode 2.

Mode 2 is not just a new mode of

knowledge production . it is a formula for a possible new research culture . the

GLNSST group note that Mode 2 as evolve out side academia, and will not

necessarily super cede Mode 1 in its traditional settings.

NETWORKING INTELLECTUAL PROPETY

community was the key note of academic science, network has become the

token of post academic science. In both cases science is visualized as a

communication system, where information obtained at certain nodes is

transmitted to other nodes, whether these be individual researchers , research

groups, specialist communities, corporate bodies, are the general public.

Mode 2 networks are typically very heterogeneous. Academic scientists areregularly teamed up with researchers who are not bound by the norm of


4/9

communalism, and are not professionally dependent on their contributions to

public knowledge . Mode 2 knowledge is proprietary . research results which

an academic scientists would have published as soon as possible are now

defined as intellectual property.

PROBLEMS SOLVING IN LOCAL CONTEXT

Mode 2 fully satisfies the norm of universalism. The network of

communication and collaboration are global. It is not necessary for a researcher

to move bodily to an established research centre to do good science.

Researchers located in industrial firms, government laboratories, charitable

foundations and universities may work together in the same team. Post

academic science may not favor meta physical universalism . Mode 2 evolveoutside academia, as a technique for applying science to practical matters. It

follows that the knowledge that is actually produced in intrinsically local rather

than universal. What counts as good sciencein Mode 2 may be technical skill

at problem solving rather than advancement of our understanding of the natural

world. The main feature of Mode 2 is that it draws on , and generates ,

problems, techniques and research results from all parts of the conventional

R&D spectrum. Basic research and technological development already inter

penetrated one another: in the long run they will become inseparable. Instead ofunification of post academic science favors finalization. But it indicates the

way that research in a particular area may become more mature , until it is

guided by unchallenged theoretical paradigm. Research programmes are

formulated with in a stable frame work of concepts and techniques, and

directed towards specific ends.

Finalized research is not free of uncertainty, and its objectives are not

necessarily utilitarian. The orientation of the Mode 2 towards specific problems

actually permits a looser. Finalization favors interdisciplinary research. But post

academic science will probably not be driven by reductionism as the

metaphysical ideal. A striving for local understanding with out pre conceived

notions of what might require explaining or be acceptable as an explanation.

INCORPORATING INTRESTS IN TO KNOWLDEGE

The norm of disinterestedness was always difficult to sustain. Even

university teachers engage in pure research have strong professional interests, and are not completely shielded from economic and political pressures. In


5/9

Mode 2 , knowledge is produced by teams of researchers networked across a

wide range of organizations. Those who are on short term contracts of

employment are not in a strong position to show independency of mind. Those

who are employees of industrial firms must always be aware of the potential

commercial value of what they produce. Post academic science will surely be

too deeply entangled in networks of practice to be considered free from such

influences. The essence of the academic ethos is that it defines a culture

designed to keep them as far as possible under control. Academic science does

often manage to live almost up to its ideals. Mode 2 , by contrast does not just

produce knowledge ; it is a culture where knowledge is constructed in accord

with the commercial , political are other social interests of the bodies that

underwrite its production.

Academic science works on the assumption that researchers

are freewith in reasonable limits- to set their own problems. In mode 2 , by

contrast , researchers work together on problems which they have not posed

personally, and which they may not even have chosen collectively as a team.

Post academic science will not be given over completely to commissioned

research. But Mode2 tends to define the highest form of scientific creativity-

the construction of soluble research problems-as a group phenomena. Academic

science has always worked on Darwinian principles. Scientists undertakeresearch and offer results on innumerable different problems. Post academic

science will also try to eliminate waste by ensuring that all the research projects

are well- designed, and directed towards well-posed problems.

Mode 2 replaces peer review of research outcome by quality control of people

projects and performance but this usually embodies a much broader notion of

excellence than good science

This expertise may be just an ability to enter a temporary research teamsmoothly and make a useful contribution the research quality of a team may be

confused with its success in getting funding.

Paradoxically , post academic science could become so obsessed with

accountability performance monitoring contractual scrutiny and other forms of

quality control . Mode 2 research does not promote the establishment of

groups of practitioners I stable positions of intellectual authority .Mode 2

downplays the role of systematic intellectual criticism which is the key to the

validity of academic sciences in contexts of applications practical utility musteventually be effected as a selection mechanism even if only in pragmatic terms


6/9

In the context of application all problems require a multidisciplinary approach

In mode 2 specialists from different disciplines work together as a team ideally

their different approaches to the problem fuse together into a coherent attack

with comprehensive solution .In traditional academics one would say that a

new specialty as emerging and expect to see institutionalized as a regular

discipline but 2 mode is not geared for such a development there is no

organizational or intellectual structure on to which a research team can

crystallize on to exploit its trans disciplinary capabilities .

The word where research is to be applied is already highly structured that is the

problems to be tackled will normally be set and funded by their organizational

owners such as industrial firms government departments health services etc .

The new mode of knowledge production described by GLNSST is a very

different culture for MODE 1 the systematic use of research to solve

practical problems is at least as old as academic sciences medicine

,engineering ,agriculture ,mining and particularly manufacturing industry have

all nurtured applied sciences.

Applied sciences has expanded so rapidly diffuses that it now greatly exceeds

academic sciences in scope and scale it is distributed in pockets throughout

society and in each pocket it is shaped to fit local practices clinical medicine

for example is a very different profession from engineering , and organizes its

research activities very different.

The standard form of industrial science was proprietary local authoritarian

commissioned and expert( PLACE).

A post industrial era characterized by multinational firm decentralized

managerially into small specialized service units devolving much work to sub-

contractors coordinated globally by information technology etc..

Mode 2 is essentially the post industrial version of applied science . The

different between mode 1 and mode 2 are not just sign of recent changes from

an old to a new method of knowledge production they have their roots in the

historical production between pure and applied research a distinction that was

embodied institutionally in the gap between academic sciences carried out

industrial laboratories cultural difference between two social systems were

always closely connected and dependent on one another . Cognitive

development such as the finalization of many sub-disciplines are blurring the

distinctions between basic and applied research Economic conditions such as

the transition to steady state funding and forcing the two cultures into the same

organizational mould.


7/9

The organizational prescripts of PLACE will ALMOST certainly prevail over

the communal norms of CUDOS in other words mode2 will largely suppressed

mode1 throughout the world of sciences .

Scientist will still construct knowledge on the basic of a firm belief in the

existence of an external world whose behaviour is intelligibly regular and not

disjoint they will go continue to resist firmly the philosophical skepticism

sociological relativism ethical nihilism projected on to science by some of its

wilder critics

In post academic form science will have shed some of the doctrines of

modernism has now give way to postmodernism.

Features of mode 2 in the first place mode 2 is not activated by the version of a

unified universal scientific rather world pictures and does not try to reduce

everybody of the knowledge to one fundamental .Postmodern philosophers

renounce the age old attempt to put human understanding on absolutely firm

foundation .Post academic sciences will no longer promote the intellectual

imperialism of scientific monism.

Mode 2 focuses on the religion around specific problems the dense

communication network and trans disciplinary openness of post academics

science will encourage throughout exploration of limited areas and of the path

ways between them research will start with concrete problems and open out in

direction of grater generally.

But as postmodern philosophers point out the construction of a reliable

representation of a local language the more elaboration this representation the

more difficult it is to uncouple such a language from its context and use it is in

representing the realities of other problem areas as a consequences post

academic maps of knowledge will still be divided up into specialized domains

characterized by mutually incomprehensive technical languages indeed these

domains will always be in a state flux and often overleap one Another novel

solution will be found for long standing problems novel problems will arise in

new contexts of application.

POST ACADEMIC SCIENCE

The post war patronage structure was designed to create a designated space for

the pursuit of academic science outside the norms of industrial science. Post

war science policy assumed that scientific knowledge flowed in a single

directionfrom basic science to technology. For them, knowledge was created


8/9

in the academic laboratory and then developed industrially. for several decades

after the war, academic science was assisted by government patronage to

operate separately from industrial science. The term post-academic science

suggests that science now fits neither the academic nor the industrial model. For

example, the academic science model of knowledge production assumed that

knowledge began in the laboratory or other academic setting and moved out in

the direction of application or technology. By contrast, post-academic science

acknowledges that technological changes may drive basic research: knowledge

moves in both directions and may be created at the point of application

Post-Academic Science Multiplies the Sites of Knowledge Production

The science of the single lab is slowly being replaced by networks of scientific

actors collaborating among multiple sites, even internationally, while retaining

their own host operations. In post-academic science, collaborations among

scientists are increasingly possible where the scientists have never met in

person. These collaborations we might call them virtual labs may last

only as long as the experiment, after which each person or group will go its

way. Moreover, in post-academic science different kinds of institutions are

prone to collaboration. A post-academic project may begin in a university but

branch out to include consultants, technicians, and researchers from industry

and government.

Post-Academic Science Makes Scientific Knowledge more Open to Public

Scrutiny

Scientific information more widely distributed and disseminated. Scientific

journal article itself, which in academic science publishing was confined to the

boundaries of the IMRAD format. In recent years, scientific journals have

started to publish complete data sets , print articles grow smaller even

information becomes unlimited. long-running print journals established an

internet presence and journals based entirely on the web practice such openness

as a matter of course. If the page charge system of traditional print journals is

emblematic of patronage under the academic model, the growth of open

access scientific journals represents a real threat to that model.

Post-Academic Science Privatizes Academic Knowledge

A paradox of knowledge creation in post-academic science is that privatization

seems inseparable from increased distribution and dissemination. Knowledge in

post-academic science tends to cluster at specific sites, and these sites may be

controlled by private interests. The privatization of scientific knowledge in


9/9

post-academic science means that some data, data analysis tools, and materials

may be restricted; moreover, the data, tools, and materials that are available will

be subject to development by private interests.

Post-Academic Science Facilitates Interdisciplinary Inquiry

Disciplinary research is conducted within academic departments and separated

into distinct compartments; it is, in a word, departmentalized. But post-

academic science creates networks not only between academic departments but

also among departments, technologies, corporations, and people. The

multiplication of knowledge sites, the increased availability of technology,

increased visibility of data all point toward new, hybrid forms of

interdisciplinary inquiry.

References

Toward a post academic science policy:Scientific communication and

the collapse of Mertonian norms.---David kellogg

Post academic science: constructing knowledge with networks and

normsjohn ziman

post academic science.docx

Documents

Transcript of post academic science.docx