Science transformed? A comparative analysis of ‘societal relevance’ rhetoric and practices in 14 Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence
<p class="first" id="d274436e78">One of the most hotly debated ideas in science studies is the claim that contemporary science is in the midst of a transformation. While ‘transformationalist’ arguments and concepts vary, their core principle is that...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pluto Journals
2016-05-01
|
| Series: | Prometheus |
| Online Access: | https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/08109028.2017.1280936 |
| Summary: | <p class="first" id="d274436e78">One of the most hotly debated ideas in science studies is the claim that contemporary
science is in the midst of a transformation. While ‘transformationalist’ arguments
and concepts vary, their core principle is that the norms, values and practices that
have enforced the separation of science from society are being challenged by new expectations
that scientists pursue closer connections with industry, government and/or civil society,
and address research questions of immediate value to non-academic partners. While
many major funding agencies have embraced this idea and now pressure scientists to
enhance the ‘societal relevance’ of their work, the impact of these changes on scientific
practices is still unclear. This paper reports findings from a comparative meso-level
analysis of 14 large Canadian research networks funded by an agency with an explicit
transformationalist mandate - the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) programme.
Documents and web communications from these 14 NCEs, as well as from the central programme
administration office, are analysed and compared to key transformationalist concepts,
such as Mode 2 science, post-normal science, the triple helix model, academic capitalism
and strategic science. We find that transformationalist ideas have a strong rhetorical
presence across the 14 NCE projects and the central office, but that a great deal
of inconsistency and confusion exists at the level of implementation and assessment
of outcomes. Easily quantifiable outputs, such as the commercialization of research
findings, are favoured over softer qualitative outcomes, such as public engagement
and knowledge sharing. We conclude by arguing that the NCE programme is having an
observable impact on the rhetoric of science, but any resulting transformations in
practice are incremental rather than radical.
</p> |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0810-9028 1470-1030 |