Suchergebnisse

I contrast my picture of the relationship between the science and policy of animal sentience with that of Marian Stamp Dawkins, who thinks "the science of animal sentience and the politics of animal welfare should be kept separate" because they involve irreconcilably different standards of evidence. On my alternative picture, (i) the science of animal sentience, like any other empirical science, delivers evidence but not certainty; (ii) this evidence allows us to make better practical decisions, both within and outside science and (iii) the quality standards we apply to the evidence should be high in all contexts, including the formulation of public policy.

Social sciences between knowledge and ideologies: need for philosophy -- Part I. Social and cognitive roots for reflexivity upon the research process -- Social sciences, what for? On the manifold directions of social research -- Vitenskapsteori-- - what, how and why? -- Culture or Biology? If this sounds interesting, you might be confused -- Conditional Objectivism: A Strategy for Connecting the Social Sciences and Practical Decision-Making -- Towards Reflexivity in Science: Anthropological Reflections on Science and Society -- Part II. Philosophies of explanation in the social sciences -- Explanation: guidance for social scientists -- From causality to catalysis in the social sciences -- How to identify and how to conduct research that is informative and reproducible -- Explaining social phenomena: Emergence and Levels of Explanation -- Part III. Social normativity in social sciences -- Normativity in psychology and the social sciences: Questions of universality -- The crisis in psychological science, and the need for a person-oriented approach -- Open access, a remedy to the crisis in scientific inquiry? -- Part IV. Social processes in particular sciences: challenges to interdisciplinarity -- Fragmented and Critical? Some challenges for a social organization of Norwegian sociology, and implications for innovation -- How do economists think? -- Part V.General Conclusion -- What can social science practitioners learn from philosophies of science? -- Index.

Originally published in 1927, this book was written as a reaction to the First World War, hoping to try and analyse the causes leading up to it. The author states in the Preface that he puts this forward as an unsystematic contribution to what he is conscious is a very great subject, and he adds since Aristotle, an almost untouched one. He starts by looking at the nature, methods and uses of history, considered from a political point of view. He goes on to look at the possibility of a political science; the place of politics among the social sciences, and the process of politics. In conclusion he considers the relation of politics and ethics.

This dissertation is the result of a PhD project entitled The Making of Citizen Science – Network Alliances between Science Shops and CSOs Engaging in Science and Air Pollution. The PhD project was carried out at Department of Management Engineering, Section for Innovation and Sustainability, at the Technical University of Denmark. The project's aim is to understand how Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), through alliance building and network constructions with Science Shops and similar community-based research units, engage with scientists in order to impact air pollution problems. The PhD project's agenda is inspired by the institutionalization of more democratic and participatory approaches to knowledge making, which is reflected in several EU-funded research projects, including one of the sponsors of this project, the EU-funded ACCENT Network of Excellence. The ACCENT Network wished to meet the EU requirement of communication with the general public by investigating how Science Shops interact with CSOs. The analytical approach of this PhD project is inspired by Science and Technology Studies (STS) in general, more specifically by Irwin & Michael's (2003) concept of Ethno-Epistemic Assemblages, and by the Actor-Network Theory and Callon's (1986a) sociology of translations. A version of these approaches is used to study nine cases of network alliances between Science Shops and similar organizations and CSOs. The application of Callon's sociology of translation to the case studies contributes to understanding why and how the actors sought to stabilize controversies, as well as the mechanisms contributing to the networks' success in affecting the problems experienced by the CSOs. It is concluded that network alliances between CSOs, Science Shops and scientists can cause two types of effects: effects on the CSOs' original problems, and/or other forms of effects. It is interesting to note that these other forms of effects can result in both cases that affected the CSOs' original problems as well as cases that failed to do so. It can be concluded that CSOs can influence such actors as industry and local authorities and their practices through alliances with Science Shops and scientists. It is further concluded that the Science Shops' role can have decisive impact on whether networks succeed in influencing the problems experienced by the CSOs. When the Science Shops apply an impact-seeking approach, the networks are more likely to succeed in affecting the CSOs' original problems than when the Science Shops apply the mediation approach. It is also concluded that scientific documentation in itself is not sufficient to solve a problem but can be used to open discussions related to the problem. What is important is that the scientists in the Science Shop, or at a university department co-operating with a Science Shop, are willing to assume other roles than just being producers of knowledge without any obligation to bring the produced knowledge into a context, and without being willing to discuss the premises for the produced knowledge. The case studies indicate that in order to understand the effects of networks like these, we need to broaden ANT's analytical term 'stabilization'. It should be understood as something that strengthens rather than merely something that is taken-for-granted or black-boxed. It is also argued that the project's Callon-inspired analysis of network alliances can be seen as an elaboration of one of the concepts in Sociological studies of Science-Public relations, namely Irwin & Michael's (2003) concept of Ethno-Epistemic Assemblages (EEAs). The project elaborates the EEA concept through a more detailed empirical understanding of 1) how knowledge is comprised of a mixture of both 'lay and expert' knowledge; 2) how this blurring of knowledge may take place; and 3) how CSOs and scientists, through this mixture of knowledge, try to cause effects like political influence and/or new research interests. Finally, it is concluded that despite the gloomy prospects for the 'old' Science Shops, there may be openings in relation to establishing new Science Shops in other countries. Such possibilities can be seen in both the recently finished EU-financed TRAMS project (Training and Mentoring of Science Shops) and in the coming EU-financed project PERARES (Public Engagement with Research and Research Engagement with Society).

ABSTRACT
Written as a short personal reflection, this article explores the development of political science as an organized professional discipline in the United States. At its inception, political science in the United States was principally concerned with political thought and constitutionalism, and it was taught with the public-spirited purpose of educating for citizenship in a constitutional democracy. Twentieth-century methodological trends at one time threatened to remove political thought and constitutionalism from the curriculum of political science, but recent disciplinary trends suggest that American political thought does have a place in twenty-first-century political science.

"This book is concerned with cheating in Science and the harm that it does, concentrating on three disasters in cell culture, which caused international concern and personal tragedy for the perpetrators. There is an overview of plant, animal and human cheating, providing a background to the focus on Science. This demands a special form of truth in that claims need to be substantiated by repetition in independent laboratories to confirm that the claims work. The nature of originality is examined in art and Science. An attempt has been made to determine the background and motives for cheating in Science in the certain knowledge that it will be unmasked leading to scandal. Advice is given to the young Scientist and suggestions have been made as to how fraud in Science could be reduced by more regulated supervision. There is a need to revise the regulations and assessment of claims of originality and the whole review process of journals to avoid publishing fake data. This text is unusual in focusing on three well-documented cases. The data should not have been published in high impact journals if more rigorous review had been made. Journals should require independent repetition of claims that seem to be "too good to be true". This little book should be of considerable interest to young scientists, historians of science and editors of scientific journals. The general reader might find it fascinating to learn how science works or does not work"--

Hearings held in Washington Nov. 18-22, Dec. 11-12, 1963, and Jan. 22, 1964. ; Mode of access: Internet.