Assessment criteria for evaluation of research projects: strategies of experts and applicants
There seem to be no easy ways to form standardized assessment criteria for new technologies given their novelty both in terms of science and technology and in terms of commercialization. The needs of the knowledge-making and the market agents are not easily reconciled. Given the ambiguity of the situation, negotiation and communication skills of the applicants come to the forefront as well as their ability to stand up for their innovation and create a sort of 'material-semiotic protection'. This research addresses the attempts at 'construction of entities', i.e. attempts of applicants to create the network, and the ways the experts from funds responsible for proposal assessment are devising to counteract the attempts. We have interviewed people involved in the application process in Tomsk universities and research institutes, both applicants and experts, and analyzed the discourses used by applicants to substantiate their innovations and gain the support of influential actants for protecting the innovation and substantiating its benefits, as well as methods used by the experts to minimize the impact of the practices in decision-making processes. Such a view of the problem is reminiscent of a broader approach when we analyze both internal and external agents involved in development of science and scientific knowledge. The approach is intrinsic to constructivist (interpretivist) scientific views originated from studies of scientific laboratories which later brought about a new discipline, Science and Technologies Studies, which demonstrates that science is pre-determined by the environment, locality and culture and involves complex socio-technical systems, including non-human actors.
Keywords
научные проекты,
оценщики,
заявители,
scientific projects,
proposersAuthors
| Popova Evgenia V. | Tomsk State University | pevgen@eu.spb.ru |
| Kamenschikova Alyona M. | Tomsk State University | alena.kamenschikowa@yandex.ru |
| Shadrina Galina N. | Tomsk State University | shadrina.galina92@gmail.com |
Всего: 3
References
Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-network theory. Oxford; New York, Oxford: University Press, 2005.
Mirowski P. The Effortless Economy of Science? In Durham. NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
Kitcher P. The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Gaudilliere J.-P., Lowy I. (eds.). The Invisible Industrialist. London: Macmillan. 1998.
Shapin S. Ivory Trade, in London Review of Books, 2003.
Latour B., Woolgar S. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986 (1979).
Lynch M. Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.
Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. New York, 1999.
The handbook of science and technology studies / Edward J.Hackett.. [et al.], editors. - 3rd ed. 2007.
Pickering A. Science as practice and culture. University Of Chicago Press, 1992.
Schatzki Tr., Knorr-Cetina K., Von Savigny E. The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge. London, 2001.
Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, 2005.
Guston D., Keniston K. The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government. MIT Press, 1994.
Callon M. (ed.). The Laws of Markets. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Mirowski P., Sent E.-M. The Commercialization of Science and the Response of STS // Handbook of Science, Technology and Society Studies, 3rd ed. Hackett E.J. (ed.) Et al. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007.
Mirowski P., Sent E.-M. (eds.) Science Bought and Sold. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002.
Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987.
Garforth L., Stockelova T. Science Policy and STS from Other Epistemic Places // Science, Technology & Human Values. 2012. Vol. 37, 2. Р. 226-240.
Strathern M. (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge, 2000.
Velody I. Knowledge for What? The Intellectual Consequences of the Research Assessment Exercise // History of the Human Sciences. 1999. Vol. 12. Р. 111-146.
Brew A., Lucas L. (eds.) Academic Research and Researchers. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University Press, 2009.
Shore C. Audit Culture and Illiberal Governance: Universities and the Politics of Accountability // Anthropological Theory. 2008. Vol. 8. Р. 278-298.
Stockelova T. Immutable Mobiles Derailed: STS, Geopolitics, and Research Assessment // Science, Technology & Human Values, 2012. Vol. 37, 2. Р. 286-311.
Webster A. Crossing boundaries social science in the policy room // Science, Technology & Human Values. 2007. Vol. 32(4). Р. 458-478.
Clark A.M.New Civic Epistemologies of Quantification: Making Sense of Local and Global Indicators of Sustainability // Science, Technology & Human Values. 2005. Vol. 30(3). Р. 403-432.
Kearnes M. & Macnaghten, P.Introduction: (Re)Imagining Nanotechnology, introduction to a special issue // Science as Culture. 2006. Vol. 15(4). Р. 279-290.
Roco M.C. аnd Bainbridge W.S. (eds.) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and the Cognitive Science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2002.
Slaughter S., Leslie L. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Gottweis H., Braun K., Haila Y., Hajer M., Loeber A., Metzler I., Reynolds L., Schultz S., Szer-szynski B. Participation and the new governance of life // Biosocieties, 2008. Vol. 3(3). Р. 265-286.
Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.
