4 found
Order:
  1.  1
    Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups.Sarah de Rijcke, Thomas Franssen & Alexander Rushforth - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 44 (2):209-236.
    How are “interesting” research problems identified and made durable by academic researchers, particularly in situations defined by multiple evaluation principles? Building on two case studies of research groups working on rare diseases in academic biomedicine, we explore how group leaders arrange their groups to encompass research problems that latch onto distinct evaluation principles by dividing and combining work into “basic-oriented” and “clinical-oriented” spheres of inquiry. Following recent developments in the sociology of valuation comparing academics to capitalist entrepreneurs in pursuit of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2.  9
    Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures.Laurens K. Hessels, Thomas Franssen, Wout Scholten & Sarah de Rijcke - 2019 - Minerva 57 (2):127-149.
    This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3.  17
    The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding.Thomas Franssen, Wout Scholten, Laurens K. Hessels & Sarah de Rijcke - 2018 - Minerva 56 (1):11-33.
    Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  1
    Katherine E. Smith, Justyna Bandola-Gill, Nasar Meer, Ellen Stewart and Richard Watermeyer, The Impact Agenda: Controversies, Consequences and Challenges.Thomas Franssen - 2022 - Minerva 60 (2):325-328.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark