Abstract
AbstractGradually since 1990 a growing number of critical analyses from within science have been published of how science was organized as a system and discussing its problems, despite, or paradoxically because the growing size of its endeavour and its growing yearly output. Because of lack of openness with regards to sharing results of research, such as publications and data but in fact of all sorts of other products, science is felt by many to be disappointing with respect to its societal impact, its contribution to the major problems humanity is facing in the current times. With the financial crisis, in analogy, also the crisis of the academic system as described in Chap. 10.1007/978-94-024-2115-6_3 was exposed and it seemed that similar systemic neoliberal economic mechanisms operated in these at first sight seemingly different industries. Most of these critiques appeared with increasing frequency since 2014 in formal scientific magazines, social media and with impact reached the leadership of universities, government and funders. This raised awareness and support for the development of new ways of doing science, mostly intuitively and implicitly, but sometimes explicitly motivated by pragmatism aiming for societal progress and contribution to the good life.To get to this next level we need the critical reflection on the practice of science as done in previous chapters in order to make systemic changes to several critical parts of the knowledge production chain. I will discuss the different analyses of interactions between science and society, in the social and political contexts with publics and politics that show where and how we could improve. The opening up of science and academia in matters of problem choice, data sharing and evaluation of research together with stakeholders from outside academia will help to increase the impact of science on society. It ideally should promote equality, inclusion and diversity of the research agendas. This, I will argue requires an Open Society with Deweyan democracy and safe spaces for deliberations where a diversity of publics and their problems can be heard. In this transition we have to pay close and continuous attention to the many effects of power executed by agents in society and science that we know can distort these ‘ideal deliberations’ and undermine the ethics of these communications and possibly threaten the autonomy and freedom of research.
Reference62 articles.
1. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Polity Press.
2. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press.
3. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Polity.
4. Brown, M. B. (2004). The political philosophy of science policy. Minerva, 42(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MINE.0000017701.73799.42
5. Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: expertise, institutions, and representation (pp. 1 online resource (xvi, 354 pages)).