Sheldon Krimsky: A Peer without Peer
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 47, Heft 4, S. 631-633
ISSN: 1552-8251
22 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 47, Heft 4, S. 631-633
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 47, Heft 4, S. 658-663
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 47, Heft 4, S. 634-635
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 687-694
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 39, Heft 5, S. 635-638
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 3-5
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 37, Heft 5, S. 439-442
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 19, Heft 2, S. 247-252
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 39, Heft 6, S. 875-876
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 131-156
ISSN: 1552-8251
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court made its first major pronouncement on the evaluation of scientific evidence, calling on judges to act as gatekeepers for scientific knowledge and validity, despite lack of scientific training among judges. Daubert offers the science studies community a case study for examining how judges (and scientists acting as experts) engage in boundary-work and construct scientific validity. In constructing scientific validity under Daubert, judges must evaluate the scientific method behind a particular scientific claim, and will look to the parties' experts and the relevant scientific community for assistance. To combat the oft-cited problem of the battle of the experts, judges may be tempted to obtain assistance from court-appointed neutral experts, an inquisitorial (rather than adversarial) system in the civil law tradition of many European countries. The judicial evaluation of scientific evidence, the resulting construction of scientific validity, and the push for a greater use of court-appointed experts reveal judges' desire to segregate "objective" scientific facts from aspects of the legal process that are infused with adversaries' values. Yet the scientific and judicial construction of validity mixes empirical results and research methods with the personal, political, and institutional values of judges and scientists.
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 96-99
ISSN: 1552-8251
World Affairs Online
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 44, Heft 2, S. 179-185
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 42, Heft 3, S. 327-345
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Thesis eleven: critical theory and historical sociology, Band 96, Heft 1, S. 83-108
ISSN: 1461-7455, 0725-5136
Csikszentmihalyi (1999: 314) argues that 'creativity is a process that can be observed only at the intersection where individuals, domains, and fields intersect'. This article discusses the relationship between creativity and interdisciplinarity in science. It is specifically concerned with interdisciplinary collaboration, interrogating the processes that contribute to the collaborative creation of original ideas and the practices that enable creative integration of diverse domains. It draws on results from a novel real-world experiment in which small interdisciplinary groups of graduate students were tasked with producing an innovative scientific research problem and an integrative research proposal. Results show that while bisociative thinking assists in the creation of original research problems, both disciplinary skills and an interdisciplinary disposition are core to the integration of creative research proposals. Extrapolating from the results of this experiment, the article discusses the feasibility of preparing students for such work and the implications for universities and other intellectual centers.