The Crisis of Collegiality in Scientific Organization, and the Scientific Policy

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 57 (3):6-22 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The article substantiates that science, thanks to the latest media in the dissemination of scientific communication (especially computer word processing, big data accumulation, mega-science installations, the latest international networking platforms and collaborations), has gone beyond all institutional, organizational, regional, national and partly disciplinary borders. Science as a supranational communication system has reached a complexity that is incompatible with the standards for evaluating scientific work and scientific achievements, which are traditionally carried out in the form of scientific committees, individual examinations and other collegial forms of scientific communication. The collegiality of making the most important decisions regarding the examination of the scientific product itself, the thematic agenda, professional competencies and the resulting distribution of remuneration, reputation, ranks, degrees, grants has exhausted its capabilities to a certain extent. As a result, science turns out to be opaque both for the regulator, who is trying to exercise control over scientific institutions, and for science itself, which in the form of scientific self-government and philosophical reflection of science carries out the function of self-observation and self-description. A working hypothesis is proposed, which states that in response to this crisis of collegiality, reflection and control, new media of communicative success and new organizational forms of scientific communication crystallize in science, which can restore the ability of a scientific system to process its internal and external complexity. These media are represented by a new, social-networked form of scientific expertise and partly scientific work, which will be able to compensate for the lack of self-reflection, both at the organizational level of research institutes and at the level of global control over science as a whole.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,197

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Philosophy of science for science communication in twenty-two questions.Gregor Betz & David Lanius - 2020 - In Annette Leßmöllmann, Marcelo Dascal & Thomas Gloning (eds.), Science Communication. pp. 3-28.
Does Scientific Realism Matter?Carl Alan Matheson - 1986 - Dissertation, Syracuse University
A theory of scientific study.Robert W. P. Luk - 2017 - Foundations of Science 22 (1):11-38.
Levin and Ghins on the “no miracle” argument and naturalism.Mario Alai - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):85-110.
Science and Ethical Value.Viera Bilasová - 2013 - Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe) 3 (3-4):111-116.
Civil expertise of scientific knowledge in the digital era.Natalia V. Grishechkina & Sofia V. Tikhonova - 2018 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 55 (2):123-138.
Scientific Realism.Anjan Chakravartty - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Understanding and Trusting Science.Matthew H. Slater, Joanna K. Huxster & Julia E. Bresticker - 2019 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 50 (2):247-261.
Introduction to the philosophy of science.Anthony O'Hear - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Using science, making policy: what should we worry about?Eleonora Montuschi - 2017 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7 (1):57-78.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-08-17

Downloads
8 (#1,322,157)

6 months
5 (#647,370)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references