Relating Democratic and Scientific Ethos in Academic Self-Governance
Governing Science Through Peer Review and the Democratizing Potential of Lotteries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130745Keywords:
scientific ethos, democratic ethos, peer review, governance, lotteriesAbstract
Robert K. Merton envisions science as embedded in a social order and explicitly links the ethos of science and the ethos of democracy. This contribution argues that the Mertonian norms are best seen as a set of procedural norms. Thus, the normative integration of science and society is to be conceived by means of the procedures that form the "in-between" of academia and democratically governed societies. We elaborate how peer review can be understood as a central mechanism of self-government in science. We analyze to what extent the governance of science through peer review aligns with the Mertonian democratic ethos. We investigate to what extent lotteries as a procedural element may hold the potential for new linkages between science and (democratic) social order. In conclusion, we summarize the benefits of conceiving of Merton’s norms as procedural norms with regard to the ethos as well as the autonomy of science considering the integration of scientific and social order.
References
Avin, Shahar (2015) Funding Science by Lottery, in: Uskali Maki, Ioannis Votsis, Stéphanie Ruphy, and Gerhard Schurz (Eds.) Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki, European Studies in Philosophy of Science. Basel: Springer International Publishing, 111–126.
Avin, Shahar (2018) Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds. Research Pol-icy: Insights from Social Epistemology 6(1). https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/8626.
Bedessem, Baptiste (2020) Should We Fund Research Randomly? An Epistemological Criticism of the Lottery Model as an Alternative to Peer Review for the Funding of Science. Research Evalua-tion 29(2): 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz034.
Bogusz, Tanja (2018) Experimentalismus und Soziologie: von der Krisen- zur Erfahrungswissen-schaft. Frankfurt: Campus.
Brezis, Elise S. (2007) Focal Randomisation: An Optimal Mechanism for the Evaluation of R&D Pro-jects. Science and Public Policy 34(10): 691–698. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X265394.
Buchstein, Hubertus (2009) Bausteine zu einer aleatorischen Demokratietheorie. Leviathan, 37: 327–352. https://doi.org/10/c257f2.
Buchstein, Hubertus (2013) Lostrommel und Wahlurne – Losverfahren in der Parlamentarischen Demokratie. Zeitschrift Für Parlamentsfragen 44(2): 384–403. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Buchstein, Hubertus (2016) Typen moderner Demokratietheorien. Essentials. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13331-3.
Cheneval, Francis (2015) Demokratietheorien. Zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
Crouch, Colin (2004) Post-democracy. Themes for the 21st century. Malden: Polity.
Dahl, Robert A. (1997) Procedural Democracy, in: Robert A. Dahl (Ed.) Toward Democracy: A Jour-ney, Reflections: 1940-1997, Vol. 1, 57–91. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison (2010) Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Dryzek, John S. (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford Political Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Fang, Ferric C., and Arturo Casadevall (2016) Research Funding: The Case for a Modified Lottery. MBio 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00422-16.
Forsberg, Eva, Lars Geschwind, Sara Levander, and Wieland Wermke (2022) Peer review in an Era of Evaluation. Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7.
Gillies, Donald (2014) Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2(1): 1-14.
Habermas, Jürgen (2005) Eine politische Verfassung für die pluralistische Weltgesellschaft? in: Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion: Philosophische Aufsätze, 224–265. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Hardin, Garrett (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724745.
Hendriks, Carolyn M. (2005) Consensus Conferences and Planning Cells: Lay Citizen Deliberations, in: The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, 80–110. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hesselmann, Felicitas, Cornelia Schendzielorz, and Anne K. Krüger (2021) Sichtbarkeitskonstella-tionen im Journal Peer Review – Konsequenzen von In/Transparenz in wissenschaftlichen Bewertungsverfahren, in: Oliver Berli, Stefan Nicolae, and Hilmar Schäfer (Eds.) Soziologie des Wertens und Bewertens, 71–92. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Jasanoff, Sheila, and Hilton R. Simmet (2017) No Funeral Bells: Public Reason in a ‘Post-Truth’ Age. Social Studies of Science 47(5): 751–770. https://doi.org/10/gb4vqh.
Joerges, Christian (2002) ‘Deliberative Supranationalism’ – Two Defences. European Law Journal, 8(1): 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00145.
Krüger, Anne K. & Reinhart, Martin (2016) Wert, Werte und (Be)Wertungen. Eine erste begriffs- und prozesstheoretische Sondierung der aktuellen Soziologie der Bewertung. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 26: 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11609-017-0330-x.
Liu, Mengyao, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, and Lucy Pomeroy (2020) The Acceptability of Using a Lottery to Allocate Research Funding: A Survey of Applicants. Re-search Integrity and Peer Review 5(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z.
Luhmann, Niklas (2013) Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Merton, Robert K. (1938a) Science and the Social Order, in: Robert K. Merton, Philosophy of Science, 5(3): 321–337. https://doi.org/10/b2gtpc.
Merton, Robert K. (1938b) Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England, Osiris, 4: 360–632.
Merton, Robert K. (1973) The Normative Structure of Science, in: Robert K. Merton (Ed.) The Soci-ology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mulkay, Michael J. (1976). Norms and Ideology in Science. Social Science Information 15(4–5): 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847601500406.
Osterloh, Margit, and Bruno S. Frey (2019). Dealing with Randomness. Management Revue 30(4): 331–345. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2019-4-331.
Philipps, Axel (2021). Science Rules! A Qualitative Study of Scientists’ Approaches to Grant Lottery. Research Evaluation 30(1): 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa027.
Reinhart, Martin (2012) Soziologie und Epistemologie des Peer Review. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Reinhart, Martin and Cornelia Schendzielorz (2020) The Lottery in Babylon—On the Role of Chance in Scientific Success. Journal of Responsible Innovation 7(sup2): 25–29. https://doi.org/
1080/23299460.2020.1806429.
Reinhart, Martin and Cornelia Schendzielorz (2021a) Trends in Peer Review. SocArXiv. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/nzsp5.
Reinhart, Martin and Cornelia Schendzielorz (2021b) Peer Review Procedures as Practice, Decision, and Governance – Preliminaries to Theories of Peer Review. SocArXiv. Preprint. https://doi.org/
31235/osf.io/ybp25.
Röcke, Anja (2005) Losverfahren und Demokratie. Historische und demokratietheoretische Perspektiven, LIT Verlag.
Roumbanis, Lambros (2019). Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-Making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(6): 994–1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918822744.
Schendzielorz, Cornelia and Martin Reinhart (2020) Die Regierung der Wissenschaft im Peer Review. Der moderne Staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 13(1): 100–123. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v13i1.10.
Sismondo, Sergio (2017) “Post-Truth?” Social Studies of Science 47(1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Sunstein, Cass R., and Edna Ullmann‐Margalit (1999) Second‐Order Decisions. Ethics, 110(1): 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/233202.
Weber, Max (2016) Gesamtausgabe, Band 18, 123–493. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck.
Weingart, Peter (2015) Norms in Science, in: James Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 17: 11–14. Elsevier.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Cornelia Schendzielorz, Martin Reinhart
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
CC-BY-NC-ND
