Beyond Scientificity: Extensions and Diffractions in Post-Normal Science’s Ethos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130042Nøgleord:
scientific ethos, CUDOS, post-normal science, technology assessment, epistemic communitiesResumé
Sixty years have passed since Merton’s famous publication of “a note on science and democracy,” outlining the scientific ethos via four sets of norms, namely communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (CUDOS). Merton’s rationale was that the implementation of this ethos was instrumental in realizing science’s institutional goal: “the extension of certified knowledge.” Throughout the ensuing decades, Merton’s conception has been at the center of heated debates in the emerging field of science and technology studies. It has also been addressed by empirical studies with a view to determine the scale at which CUDOS was supported by scientists themselves in explicit terms and/or conformed to in their actual practice. Some of these studies also make room for the possibility that CUDOS might have evolved throughout the past decades, incrementally adapting the norm sets. This article contributes to such empirical endeavors. Building on ethnographic work at a technology assessment (TA) institute, I find that a distinct shared ethos is tangible in TA’s post-normal science practices—in collaborations with non-scientists as well as with “pure academics.” A reconstruction of TA’s distinct ethos from my empirical material results in the delineation of a post-normal scientific ethos, comprising “extended communism,” “diffracted universalism,” “diffracted disinterestedness,” “extended organized skepticism,” “diffracted originality,” and “extended relevance.” These “extensions” and “diffractions” have ramifications for the organization of post-normal science and its interaction with academia, publics, and polities.
Referencer
Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond DeVries, and Brian C. Martinson (2010) Extend-ing the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research. The Journal of Higher Education 81: 366–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779057.
Arnold, Markus, and Roland Fischer (Eds.) (2004) Disziplinierungen. Kulturen der Wissenschaft im Vergleich. Wien: Turia + Kant.
Bauer, Anja, and Karen Kastenhofer (2019) Policy advice in technology assessment: shifting roles, principles and boundaries. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 139: 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.023.
Becher, Tony (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of dis-ciplines. Milton Keynes, Bristol: SRHE & Open University Press.
Bieliński, Jacek, and Aldona Tomczyńska (2018) The Ethos of Science in Contemporary Poland. Minerva 57: 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9365-1.
Bray, Dennis, and Hans von Storch (2014) The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Sci Eng Ethics 23: 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1.
Brüggemann, Michael, Ines Lörcher, and Stefanie Walter (2020) Post-normal science communica-tion: exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication 19: A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19030202.
Bucchi, Massimiano (2015) Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology 15: 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/
X14558766.
Mario Bunge (1991) A Critical Examination of the New Sociology of Science, Part 1. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 2(4): 524–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319102100406.
Clark, William C., and Giandomenico Majone (1985) The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications. Science, Technology, & Human Values 10: 6–19. https://doi.org/
1177/016224398501000302.
Cohoon, Johanna, and James Howison (2021) Norms and Open Systems in Open Science. Infor-mation & Culture 56: 115–137. https://doi.org/10.7560/IC56201.
Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm L. Strauss (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Pro-cedures and Techniques. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Etzkowitz, Henry (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy 27: 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6.
Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff (Eds.) (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Econ-omy. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London, Washington: Pinter.
Feibleman, James (1944) The Theory of the Ethos. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 3(1/2): 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1944.tb01406.x.
Ferretti, Federico, and Ângela Guimarães Pereira (2021) A new ethos for science? Exploring emerging DIY science “qualities”. Futures 125: 102653. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.futures.2020.102653.
Fleck, Ludwik (1994[1935]) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache (3rd edition, edited by Lothar Schäfer and Thomas Schnelle). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Forman, Paul (2007) The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology. History and Technology 23(1–2): 1–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510601092191.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz (1993) The emergence of Post-Normal Science, in: Rene von Schomberg (Ed.) Science, politics and morality. Scientific uncertainty and decision making, 85–123. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Giddens, Anthony, and Philip W. Sutton (2013) Sociology. 7. ed. Cambridge [u.a.]: Polity Press.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Con-temporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Grundmann, Reiner (2013) “Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38: 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911432318.
Henkel, Mary (2005) Academic Identity and Autonomy in a Changing Policy Environment. Higher Education 49(1/2): 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2919-1.
Henze, Jennifer (2021) Zur Wissenschaftlichkeit transdisziplinärer Forschung. GAIA 30: 35–43. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.1.8.
Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, and Ruud Smits (2009) In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy 36: 387–401. https://doi.org/
3152/030234209X442034.
Holton, Noel Elyce (2010) A perfect storm: How biorenewables scientists are reading kairos, exer-cising agency, and locating a new scientific ethos that supports public engagement. Graduate Theses and Dissertations 11625, Iowa State University.
Hooker, Cliff (2003) Science: Legendary, Academic – and Post-Academic? (Essay review of Ziman 2000) Minerva 41: 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022253704644.
Kastenhofer, Karen, Leo Capari, Daniela Fuchs, and Walter Peissl (2019) „Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing”? TA und ihre Auftraggeber. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 28(1): 33–38. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.28.1.33.
Kastenhofer, Karen, and Anja Bauer (forthcoming) “Are you a TA practitioner, then?” – Identity constructions in post-normal science. Minerva 61.
Kastenhofer, Karen, Ulrike Bechtold, and Harald Wilfing (2011) Sustaining sustainability science: The role of established inter-disciplines. Ecological Economics 70(4): 835–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.008.
Kim, So Young, and Yoonhoo Kim (2018) The Ethos of Science and Its Correlates: An Empirical Analysis of Scientists’ Endorsement of Mertonian Norms. Science, Technology & Society 23: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721817744438.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. London, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Koehrsen, Jens, Sascha Dickel, Thomas Pfister, Simone Rödder, Stefan Böschen, Björn Wendt, Katharina Block, and Anna Henkel (2020) Climate change in sociology: Still silent or resonating? Current Sociology 68: 738–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120902223.
Kønig, Nicolas, Tom Børsen, and Claus Emmeche (2017) The ethos of post-normal science. Futures 91: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.12.004.
Law, John (1987) On the Social Explanation of Technical Change: The Case of the Portuguese Mari-time Expansion. Technology and Culture 28(2): 227–252. https://doi.org/10.2307/3105566.
Maasen, Sabine, Sascha Dickel, and Christoph Schneider (Eds.) (2020) TechnoScienceSociety: Tech-nological Reconfigurations of Science and Society., Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook Vol. 30, edited by Peter Weingart. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Macfarlane, Bruce (2011) The Morphing of Academic Practice: Unbundling and the Rise of the Para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly 65: 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00467.x.
Macfarlane, Bruce, and Ming Cheng (2008) Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms. Journal of Academic Ethics 6: 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y.
Maxwell, Kate, and Paul Benneworth (2018) The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges. Palgrave Communications 4: 52. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0105-9.
Merton, Robert K. (1942) A Note on Science and Democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociol-ogy 1(1/2): 115–126.
Merton, Robert K. (1996[1938]) Social structure and anomie, in: Robert K. Merton (Ed.) On Social Structure and Science, Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 132-152. [Original edition, Robert K Merton (1938) Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3: 672–682.]
Metlay, Grischa (2006) Reconsidering Renormalization: Stability and Change in 20th-Century Views on University Patents. Social Studies of Science 36: 565–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Meyer, Morgan, and Susan Molyneux-Hodgson (2010) Introduction: the dynamics of epistemic communities. Sociological Research Online 15(2): 14. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2154.
Miettinen, Reijo, Juha Tuunainen, and Terhi Esko (2015) Epistemological, artefactual and interac-tional-institutional foundations of social impact of academic research. Minerva 53: 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9278-1.
Mitchell, Cynthia, Dana Cordell, and Dena Fam (2015) Beginning at the end: The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures 65: 86–96. https://doi.org/
1016/j.futures.2014.10.007.
Nentwich, Michael, and Daniela Fuchs (2021) Three decades of institutionalised TA in Austria. ITA manu:script 21-01.
Nierling, Linda, and Helge Torgersen (Eds.) (2020) Die neutrale Normativität der Technikfolgen-abschätzung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Nordmann, Alfred, Hans Radder, and Gregor Schiemann (Eds.) (2011) Science Transformed? De-bating Claims of an Epochal Break. Pittsburgh/PA: Univ of Pittsburgh Press.
Pielke, Roger A. Jr. (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polanyi, Michael (2000) The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 38: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026591624255.
Schäfer, Martina, Matthias Bergmann, and Lena Theiler (2021) Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation 30(4): 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1093/rese-val/rvab019.
Shapin, Steven (2008) The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sikes, Pat, and Anthony Potts (2008) Researching Education From the Inside: Investigations From Within. London, New York: Routledge.
Snow, Charles Percy (1961) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. The Rede Lecture 1959. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stehr, Nico (1978) The Ethos of Science Revisited. Social and Cognitive Norms. Sociological Inquiry 48(3–4): 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1978.tb00825.x.
Temper, Leah, Dylan McGarry, and Lena Weber (2019) From academic to political rigour: Insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecological Economics 164: 106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379.
Trowler, Paul (2011) Researching your own institution. British educational research association on-line resource. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchersresources/publications/
researching-your-own-institution-higher-education, last accessed 28 Sept 2020.
Turner, Stephen (2007) Merton’s ‘Norms’ in Political and Intellectual Context. Journal of Classical Sociology 7(2): 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078034.
van Est, Rinie, and Frans Brom (2012) Technology Assessment, Analytic and Democratic Practice, in: Ruth Chadwick (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Vol. 4, London, etc.: Elsevier, 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00010-7.
Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining (1999) Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Winter, Richard (2009) Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(2): 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800902825835.
Ziman, John (1983) The Bernal Lecture, 1983: The Collectivization of Science. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 219: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.1983.0055.
Ziman, John (2000) Real science: what it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2022 Karen Kastenhofer
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse – Ikke-kommerciel – Ingen Bearbejdede Værker (by-nc-nd).
CC-BY-NC-ND