The article addresses the issue of dynamics of science, in particular of new sciences born in twentieth century and developed after the Second World War (information science, materials science, life science). The article develops the notion of search regime as an abstract characterization of dynamic patterns, based on three dimensions: the rate of growth, the degree of internal diversity of science and the associated dynamics (convergent vs. proliferating), and the nature of complementarity. The article offers a conceptual discussion for the (...) argument that new sciences follow a different pattern than established sciences and presents preliminary evidence drawn from original data in particle physics, computer science and nanoscience. (shrink)

New sciences born or developed in the 20th century (information, materials, life science) are based on forms of complementarity that differ from the past. The paper discusses cognitive, or disciplinary, institutional, and technical complementarity. It argues that new sciences apply a reductionist explanatory strategy to complex multi-layered systems. In doing so the reductionist promise is falsified, generating the need for multi-level kinds of explanation (e.g. in post-genomic molecular biology), new forms of complementarity between scientific and non-scientific organizations, and new forms (...) of experimental and informational facilities. The paper develops the argument in theoretical terms, comparing it with the STS literature, and offers preliminary evidence based on the experience of Networks of Excellence. (shrink)

In the last decades of the twentieth century universities in Europe and other OECD countries have undergone a profound transformation. They have evolved from mainly élite institutions for teaching and research to large (public and private) organisations responsible for mass higher education and the production and distribution of new knowledge. Increasingly, new knowledge is produced by universities not only for its own sake but also for potential economic gains.

The first urgent question for any scholar willing to study the Open Source (OS) movement has been clearly put by Glass (1999, 104): I don’t know who these crazy people are who want to write, read and even revise all that code without being paid anything for it at all. A growing body of economic literature has been addressing the motivations at the basis of the participation in the OS movement since when the new paradigm has become successful and triggered (...) the entrance on the market of firms offering Open Source based products and services (Open Source firms). However, most of the empirical analyses focus on individual developers and neglect companies that adopt Open Source business models. This paper contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the incentives of the firms that engage in OS activities. Findings on firms’ motivations are compared. (shrink)

This book examines very important issues in research evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities. It is based on recent experiences carried out in Italy in the fields of research assessment, peer review, journal classification, and construction of indicators, and presents a systematic review of theoretical issues influencing the evaluation of Social Sciences and Humanities. Several chapters analyse original data made available through research assessment exercises. Other chapters are the result of dedicated and independent research carried out in 2014-2015 aimed (...) at addressing some of the debated and open issues, for example in the evaluation of books, the use of Library Catalog Analysis or Google Scholar, the definition of research quality criteria on internationalization, as well as opening the way to innovative indicators. The book is therefore a timely and important contribution to the international debate. (shrink)

This paper reports on an experiment concerning the social construction of statistical definitions, where the first census of Higher Education Institutions in Europe has been developed. It conceptualizes the construction of indicators as a social process of definitions and boundaries’ negotiation, involving value judgments, social and political opinions, as well as practical interests and power strategies of actors. The paper exemplifies this process on three issues, namely the social demand for establishing a census, the controversy concerning the definition of a (...) perimeter as well as the selection of indicators, and the nature of comparability judgments. We first conclude that the socio-political dimension has to be explicitly taken into account when designing statistical systems; second, that social scientists involved in this process need to openly recognize the conflicts around the definition of indicators; third, that the objectified and taken for granted status of indicators makes them a powerful instrument to influence policy decisions and, that indicator designers need to make their own value judgments and interests fully transparent. (shrink)