scholarly journals What Synthetic Biology Aims At: Review Articles as Sites for Constructing and Narrating an Emerging Field

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Blümel

The analysis of scientific communities and collectives are central to STS and the sociology of science. Reviewing practices, that is, practices of ordering, defining or delineating scientific fields can be understood as an often neglected, yet prevailing textual practice of community building, particularly in novel and emerging research fields, such as synthetic biology. In this article, I aim to explore the structure and content of review articles as a dedicated scholarly genre in synthetic biology, focusing on the period between 2002 and 2012. Based on a theoretical framework combining approaches from genre analysis and the sociology of translation, I explore the different types of review articles one finds in the field, how these review articles deal with or order research in the field, and how they present the field as a whole. I found that modes of legitimation and presentation have changed during the studied period. While in the beginning, review articles referred to the histories of other fields and disciplines, in the more recent years I found a more narrative mode of legitimation whereby synthetic biology is presented as an engineering field with its own history. I argue that such narrations can be understood as a specific way of community building in science.

Author(s):  
Clemens Blümel

AbstractThe analysis of scientific communities and collectives are central to STS and sociological studies of science. However, the current emergence of techno-scientific communities, such as synthetic biology, raises the question as to whether novel identities, but also novel ways of community building have developed. In this respect, the emergence of a new publication regime, the ubiquity of citations as a means of governing attention and visibility, and the establishment of multidisciplinary audiences might have changed the ways of scholarly field formation. In this article I propose that formats of scholarly writing have acquired new functions in this process, changing modes of presenting and legitimating novel scientific communities. Hence, I put forward the idea that the evolution of a specific publication format which I term here as `techno-scientific review article’ and the ways of narrating communities are closely intertwined. To elaborate my argument, I draw on linguistic genre analysis of science. I found that review papers in synthetic biology are important for the field: Equipped with specific textual qualities they become central sites for articulating past and the futures of the field.


IMP Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars-Erik Gadde ◽  
Kajsa Hulthén

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse how theories evolve within scientific fields: why they receive attention and why they eventually become less attractive. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a literature review and focusses on the theoretical structure developed by Wroe Alderson. His contributions were highly appreciated and generally considered as “the” marketing theory. However, in few years his broad perspective was more or less neglected within the field where it was developed. At the same time, Alderson’s basic thinking was adopted by the evolving IMP approach. The specific objective of the study is to analyse why researchers in marketing abandoned Alderson, while IMP adopted many of his ideas. Findings The paper illustrates significant aspects of the evolution of theories. First, the paper shows how well-established conceptualisations, like Alderson’s total systems approach, may lose impact when the focus of research shifts. Alderson’s holistic framing was found too broad and all-encompassing to be useful when research attention was directed to specific aspects of marketing management and the socio-behavioural approach to distribution. Second, the paper shows in what respect IMP found support in concepts and models presented by Alderson in the challenging of fragmented mainstream framings of the business landscape. Originality/value This paper relates the rise and fall of Alderson’s concepts and frameworks to the evolution of theories of other schools-of-thought. Furthermore, the study shows how Alderson’s ideas were adapted to other research fields than where it was originally developed.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Peterson

ABSTRACTA central goal of modern science, objectivity, is a concept with adocumented history. Its meaning in any specific setting reflectshistorically-situated understandings of both science and self. Recently,various scientific fields have confronted growing mistrust about thereplicability of findings. Statistical techniques familiar to forensicinvestigations have been deployed to articulate a “crisis of falsepositives.” In response, epistemic activists have invoked a decidedlyeconomic understanding of scientists’ selves. This has prompted a set ofproposed reforms including regulating disclosure of “backstage” researchdetails and enhancing incentives for replication. We argue that, together,these events represent the emergence of a new formulation of objectivity.Forensic objectivity assesses the integrity of research literatures in theresults observed in collections of studies rather than in themethodological details of individual studies and, thus, positionsmeta-analysis as the ultimate arbiter of scientific objectivity. Forensicobjectivity not only presents a challenge to scientific communities butalso raises new questions for the sociology of science.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Zapp

While recent concepts from the sociology of science stress novel sites of knowledge production (e.g. government, industry), they ignore international organizations’ (IOs) growing research capacity. Conversely, prevailing theories of IOs stress their regulative and normative influence in national policymaking, equally neglecting their scientific work. Using bibliometric data for a large sample of 1325 international organizations, this work examines, for the first time, the evolution of scientific output from international intergovernmental research organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations in the period 1950–2015. The analysis finds a striking increase in scientific activity since the late 1980s and particularly since the early 2000s across organizational types, sectors (e.g. law, nutrition), research fields (e.g. life science, social sciences), output formats (e.g. articles, books), and geographic areas. Indeed, some of these organizations are among the most productive science producers worldwide. Additional analyses of IOs’ research collaborations suggest strong cross-organizational diversity reflecting wider trends of scientific internationalization and integration. The article argues that IOs’ scientization requires a thorough revision of theories of institutional change in science and research systems and of theories about the nature and role of IOs. These organizations reflect, and, indeed, spearhead, wider trends of the rationalization of social order and evidence-based global governance.


Author(s):  
Zbigniew Osiński

Purpose/Thesis: The recent decision to join three previously separate disciplines – library and information science, media studies, and cognition and social communication science, into a single discipline of social communication and media sciences prompted the author to investigate if joining of these disciplines according to the compulsory categorization published by the OECD, is supported by an overlap in their fields of research, or by a similarity in their methods of conducting it.Approach/Methods: An analysis of the review articles devoted to the research fields of all three disciplines, and of the information regarding the research interests of the journals affiliated with them, as published on the journals’ websites, allowed the author to establish their thematic scope. The results of this analysis were compared with bibliographic data and sets of keywords found in the affiliated journals. The comparison relied on an analysis of citations, and of coexistence of specialized terms.Results and conclusions: The analysis of the review articles suggested that the basic research fields of library and information science and of the media studies and cognition and social communication science are aligned and complement each other. This conclusion was further supported by the analysis of the guidelines for the potential contributors provided on the websites of the investigated journals. However, the analysis of the bibliographic data and of the keyword sets gave an entirely different idea of the relation between the studied disciplines, indicating that there is no significant thematic overlap between them. Nevertheless, this might be due to the quality of this particular data sample, and to the methods’ susceptibility to data disruption.Originality/Value: The article proves that there is an overlap between library and information science, and the social communication and media sciences. Furthermore, it shows the limits of the citation method and of the specialized terms coexistence method, resulting from the practices of the authors and the editorial teams of some of the journals discussed. The article shows that all quantitative studies of the state of scholarship in a given discipline in Poland must be conducted with great care, and their results should not be the only basis for conclusions.


Bibliosphere ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 25-42
Author(s):  
S. Fortunato ◽  
C. T. Bergstrom ◽  
K. Börner ◽  
J. A. Evans ◽  
D. Helbing ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND. The increasing availability of digital data on scholarly inputs and outputs – from research funding, productivity, and collaboration to paper citations and scientist mobility – offers unprecedented opportunities to explore the structure and evolution of science. The science of science (SciSci) offers a quantitative understanding of the interactions among scientific agents across diverse geographic and temporal scales: It provides insights into the conditions underlying creativity and the genesis of scientific discovery, with the ultimate goal of developing tools and policies that have the potential to accelerate science. In the past decade, SciSci has benefited from an influx of natural, computational, and social scientists who together have developed big data–based capabilities for empirical analysis and generative modeling that capture the unfolding of science, its institutions, and its workforce. The value proposition of SciSci is that with a deeper understanding of the factors that drive successful science, we can more effectively address environmental, societal, and technological problems.ADVANCES. Science can be described as a complex, self-organizing, and evolving network of scholars, projects, papers, and ideas. This representation has unveiled patterns characterizing the emergence of new scientific fields through the study of collaboration networks and the path of impactful discoveries through the study of citation networks. Microscopic models have traced the dynamics of citation accumulation, allowing us to predict the future impact of individual papers. SciSci has revealed choices and trade-offs that scientists face as they advance both their own careers and the scientific horizon. For example, measurements indicate that scholars are risk-averse, preferring to study topics related to their current expertise, which constrains the potential of future discoveries. Those willing to break this pattern engage in riskier careers but become more likely to make major breakthroughs. Overall, the highest-impact science is grounded in conventional combinations of prior work but features unusual combinations. Last, as the locus of research is shifting into teams, SciSci is increasingly focused on the impact of team research, finding that small teams tend to disrupt science and technology with new ideas drawing on older and less prevalent ones. In contrast, large teams tend to develop recent, popular ideas, obtaining high, but often short-lived, impact.OUTLOOK. SciSci offers a deep quantitative understanding of the relational structure between scientists, institutions, and ideas because it facilitates the identification of fundamental mechanisms responsible for scientific discovery. These interdisciplinary data-driven efforts complement contributions from related fields such as scientometrics and the economics and sociology of science. Although SciSci seeks long-standing universal laws and mechanisms that apply across various fields of science, a fundamental challenge going forward is accounting for undeniable differences in culture, habits, and preferences between different fields and countries. This variation makes some cross-domain insights difficult to appreciate and associated science policies difficult to implement. The differences among the questions, data, and skills specific to each discipline suggest that further insights can be gained from domain-specific SciSci studies, which model and identify opportunities adapted to the needs of individual research fields.Abstract. Identifying fundamental drivers of science and developing predictive models to capture its evolution are instrumental for the design of policies that can improve the scientific enterprise – for example, through enhanced career paths for scientists, better performance evaluation for organizations hosting research, discovery of novel effective funding vehicles, and even identification of promising regions along the scientific frontier. The science of science uses large-scale data on the production of science to search for universal and domainspecific patterns. Here, we review recent developments in this transdisciplinary field.


Author(s):  
Katrin Auspurg ◽  
Thomas Hinz

SummarySignificance tests were originally developed to enable more objective evaluations of research results. Yet the strong orientation towards statistical significance encourages biased results, a phenomenon termed “publication bias”. Publication bias occurs whenever the likelihood or time-lag of publication, or the prominence, language, impact factor of journal space or the citation rate of studies depend on the direction and significance of research findings.Although there is much evidence concerning the existence of publication bias in all scientific disciplines and although its detrimental consequences for the progress of the sciences have been known for a long time, all attempts to eliminate the bias have failed. The present article reviews the history and logic of significance testing, the state of research on publication bias, and existing practical recommendations. After demonstrating that more systematical research on the risk factors of publication bias is needed, the paper suggests two new directions for publication bias research. First, a more comprehensive theoretical model based on theories of rational choice and economics as well as on the sociology of science is sketched out. Publication bias is recognized as the outcome of a social dilemma that cannot be overcome by moral pleas alone. Second, detection methods for publication bias going beyond meta-analysis, ones that are more suitable for testing causal hypotheses, are discussed. In particular, the “caliper test” seems well-suited for conducting theoretically motivated comparisons across heterogeneous research fields like sociology. Its potential is demonstrated by testing hypotheses on (a) the relevance of explicitly vs. implicitly stated research propositions and on (b) the relevance of the number of authors on incidence rates of publication bias in 50 papers published in leading German sociology journals.


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (H15) ◽  
pp. 141-141
Author(s):  
Margarida S. Cunha

Chemically peculiar (CP) stars exhibit, simultaneously, a wide variety of physical phenomena, including diffusion, convection, magnetism, and pulsation. Thus, progress in the understanding of these objects requires the input of researchers from a variety of research fields within stellar astrophysics. The General Assembly of the IAU, in Rio de Janeiro, provided an excellent opportunity to discuss challenging new results faced in CP star research and improve the exchange of information and cooperation with experts of neighbouring scientific fields.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-143
Author(s):  
Olga Stoliarova

The article (the publication consists of two parts) presents an analytical and historiographical overview of the problems that are substantively related to the question of the role, meaning and historical fate of metaphysics. The author focuses on the phenomenon of the return of metaphysics to the philosophy of our time. This phenomenon is proposed to be analyzed from the viewpoint of historical ontology, which deals with the ontological presuppositions of knowledge and their historical dynamics. In the first part, the author highlights two directions of the historical development of metaphysical problems, one of which expresses the immediate metaphysical position, and the other represents the criticism of this position. The author associates criticism of metaphysics with the development of science and the philosophy of science. The author shows the difference between the “analytical” and “continental” approaches to metaphysical problems. The consideration of metaphysics as a historical phenomenon is associated with Hegel’s metaphilosophical historicism. The alternative, non-historical, consideration of metaphysics is placed in the context of empiricism and positivism. The concepts of scientific realism are defined as a kind of positivistically restricted analytical metaphysics. The author highlights three points of growth of post-positivist philosophy and pays special attention to the relationship between post-positivist philosophy of science, history of science, metaphilosophical history of ideas, and sociology of science. The author traces the gradual formation of theoretical conditions for the rehabilitation of metaphysics in these research fields. The author demonstrates that the historicization of Kant’s “transcendental subject” creates a specific epistemological perspective that joins historicism with contextualism. Within this perspective, the question of the ontological presuppositions of empirical (primarily scientific) knowledge, their development and change becomes of great importance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document