University Research Centres, Scientific Freedom, and the Jester’s Paradox

Author:

Noe Egon BjørnshaveORCID,Alrøe Hugo F.

Abstract

AbstractThe key norm of good science is research integrity, which includes the freedom to inquire as an independent, self-organising system, and the responsibility to identify, frame, and engage in the problems of society, in a scientific manner. This paper investigates the challenges to scientific integrity experienced by university research centres. Research centres are organised around specific problematic fields in society and are expected to have specific societal impacts. Therefore, they are born with the paradox of being restricted in terms of scientific freedom yet required to meet science standards. As an example, we analyse the Danish Centre for Rural Research (CLF) which, like many other institutions of science and research centres, has become increasingly dependent on various external funding over the past decades. In social systems theoretical terms, research centres are hybrid organisations that operate simultaneously in the function systems of science, politics, and economy. The question is whether it is possible for research centres to uphold the requisite research integrity to provide society with truthful and critical knowledge – i.e. to uphold the necessary autopoiesis of the science function system, operating in the medium of truth – and at the same time be able to navigate in the structures of power that the centre is faced with, in terms of funding, outside control, and expectations of expectations. The medieval court jester, who was able to speak unwelcome truths to the all-mighty king without getting his head cut off, was a solution to this kind of paradox. The question is how we can handle this paradox in contemporary sciences, increasingly depending on external funding.

Funder

University Library of Southern Denmark

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management

Reference16 articles.

1. AAAS (2017) AAAS Statement on Scientific Freedom & Responsibility. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/programs/scientific-responsibility-human-rights-law/aaas-statement-scientific-freedom. Accessed 8/11/2022

2. Alrøe HF, Noe E (2012) Observing environments. Constructivist Foundations 8(1):39–52

3. Alrøe HF, Noe E (2014) Second-order science of interdisciplinary research: a polyocular framework for wicked problems. Constructivist Found 10(1):65–76

4. Fondenes Videnscenter (2023) Oversigt over de 100 mest bevilgende fonde. Fondenes Videnscenter. Available at: https://fondenesvidenscenter.dk/fonde-i-tal/oversigt-over-de-100-mest-bevilgende-fonde/. Accessed 21 April 2023

5. Horkheimer M (1972) Critical theory: selected essays (trans: O’Connell MJ). Seabury Press, New York

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3