Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences

This open access edited book provides new thinking on scientific identity formation. It thoroughly interrogates the concepts of community and identity, including both historical and contemporaneous analyses of several scientific fields. Chapters examine whether, and how, today’s scientific identities and communities are subject to fundamental changes, reacting to tangible shifts in research funding as well as more intangible transformations in our society’s understanding and expectations of technoscience. Authors: Karen Kastenhofer, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Clemens Blümel, Bettina Bock von Wülfingen, Béatrice Cointe, Carlos Cuevas-Garcia, Sarah R Davies, Alexander Degelsegger-Márquez, Juliane Jarke, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Marianne Noël, Benjamin Raimbault, Andrea Schikowitz, Sarah M. Schönbauer, Inga Ulnicane-Ozolina, Caitlin D. WylieDer vorgelegte Open Access Band befasst sich mit Identität und Gemeinschaft in den TechnoWissenschaften. Er widmet sich wesentlichen soziologischen Konzepten und präsentiert sowohl historische, als auch aktuelle Fallbeispiele, darunter Supramolekulare Chemie, Synthetische Biologie, Nanotechnologie und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. AutorInnen: Karen Kastenhofer, Susan Molyneux-Hodgson, Clemens Blümel, Bettina Bock von Wülfingen, Béatrice Cointe, Carlos Cuevas-Garcia, Sarah R Davies, Alexander Degelsegger-Márquez, Juliane Jarke, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Marianne Noël, Benjamin Raimbault, Andrea Schikowitz, Sarah M. Schönbauer, Inga Ulnicane-Ozolina, Caitlin D. Wyli

Open research data: Report to the Australian National Data Service (ANDS)

Main points Research data are an asset we have been building for decades, through billions of dollars of public investment in research annually. The information and communication technology (ICT) revolution presents an unprecedented opportunity to ‘leverage’ that asset. Given this, there is increasing awareness around the world that there are benefits to be gained from curating and openly sharing research data (Kvalheim and Kvamme 2014). Conservatively, we estimate that the value of data in Australia’s public research to be at least $1.9 billion and possibly up to$6 billion a year at current levels of expenditure and activity. Research data curation and sharing might be worth at least $1.8 billion and possibly up to$5.5 billion a year, of which perhaps $1.4 billion to$4.9 billion annually is yet to be realized. Hence, any policy around publicly-funded research data should aim to realise as much of this unrealised value as practicable. Aims and scope This study offers conservative estimates of the value and benefits to Australia of making publicly-funded research data freely available, and examines the role and contribution of data repositories and associated infrastructure. It also explores the policy settings required to optimise research data sharing, and thereby increase the return on public investment in research. The study’s focus is Australia’s Commonwealth-funded research and agencies. It includes research commissioned or funded by Commonwealth bodies as well as in-house research within research-oriented agencies wholly or largely funded by the Commonwealth. Government data or public sector information is a separate category of publicly-funded data – although there is some overlap at the margins (e.g. Commonwealth Government funding for Geoscience Australia). Main findings For the purposes of estimation, we explore a range of research funding and expenditure from total Australian Government funding support for research to the sum of government and higher education expenditure on research by sector of execution. The lower bound estimates are based on the labour-cost share of research funding and expenditure ($4.3 billion to$6.4 billion per annum), and upper bound estimates on total research funding and expenditure ($8.9 billion to$13.3 billion per annum)

Scientific project, Sciences Po | LIEPP laboratoire interdisciplinaire d'evaluation des politiques publiques or in english, interdisciplinary research center for the evaluation of public policies

Sciences Po develops an interdisciplinary research program for the evaluation of public policies (in French: Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d’évaluation des politiques publiques, LIEPP), based on four founding units: Department of Economics, Centre de Sociologie des Organisations, Centre d’Etudes Européennes and Observatoire Sociologique du Changement. Its aim is to be (1) independent and non-partisan to ensure its credibility, (2) international to learn from experiences in other countries, and finally (3) multidisciplinary in order to achieve thorough and comprehensive knowledge of our environment and its institutional, social, political, legal and economic mechanisms. The project is financed as a through the Excellency Initiative of the French Government (Investissements d'Avenir: LABEX) with a budget of 10 million euros between 2011 to 2020.Public Policy Evaluation, Interdisciplinary Research in Social Sciences

M3 strategic decision-making under uncertainty : modes, models, & momentum

PhD ThesisThe M3 theory contributes to new knowledge through original research and advanced scholarship by introducing a descriptive framework for strategic decision-making in uncertain and changing environments. Aided by the introduction of a Social Realism epistemology into management literature it is differentiated its ability to present complex strategic positions as essentialist (via modes), relative (via models), and dynamic (via momentum) to plot the dynamic trajectory of innovation emergence, change, adaptation and transformation over time. At a fundamental level, the M3 theory identifies a consistent set of rules that decision-makers intentionally or unintentionally engage with or ignore to take strategic positions based on four integrated yet polarized pairs of modes: systematic (+S) vs. responsive (+R) strategies, and conforming (+C), vs. differentiating (+D) strategies. Systematic strategies (+S) is the mode dedicated to increasingly sophisticated rational cognitive processes; these processes plan, purposefully compartmentalize, and regulate emotions. Responsive strategies (+R) conversely, is the mode dedicated to increasingly sensitized intuitive processes; these processes are reflective, associative, action-orientated and emotionally expressive. The second pair of modes intersects with the two aforementioned modes with conforming strategies (+C) moving towards convergence by adapting or conveying socially perceived superior norms; these processes include the exploitation of existing power. In contrast, differentiating strategies (+D) represents the mode dedicated to diverging from traditional norms with empowerment for exploration. These processes include novelty-seeking, sabotage, risk-taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, and higher levels of innovation. Finally, the dynamic (momentum) component informs how strategic modes and models under uncertainty improve and adjust in sophistication under the pressure and demands of the four drives (+L). The M3 theory is informed by three distinct but interrelated and simultaneous empirical streams of data: (i) field data from five ethnographic case studies, with research participant feedback loops; (ii) the mapping of 200+ peer reviewed decision-making models; and (iii) prototyping the principles in the construction of the emergent M3 theory

Scientific Project, SciencesPo-LIEPP Interdisciplinary research center for the evaluation of public policies

Sciences Po develops an interdisciplinary research program for the evaluation of public policies (in French: Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d’évaluation des politiques publiques, LIEPP), based on four founding units: Department of Economics, Centre de Sociologie des Organisations, Centre d’Etudes Européennes and Observatoire Sociologique du Changement. Its aim is to be (1) independent and non-partisan to ensure its credibility, (2) international to learn from experiences in other countries, and finally (3) multidisciplinary in order to achieve thorough and comprehensive knowledge of our environment and its institutional, social, political, legal and economic mechanisms. The project is financed as a through the Excellency Initiative of the French Government (Investissements d'Avenir: LABEX) with a budget of 10 million euros between 2011 to 2020

Community and Identity in Contemporary Technosciences

This open access edited book provides new thinking on scientific identity formation. It thoroughly interrogates the concepts of community and identity, including both historical and contemporaneous analyses of several scientific fields. Chapters examine whether, and how, today’s scientific identities and communities are subject to fundamental changes, reacting to tangible shifts in research funding as well as more intangible transformations in our society’s understanding and expectations of technoscience. In so doing, this book reinvigorates the concept of scientific community. Readers will discover empirical analyses of newly emerging fields such as synthetic biology, systems biology and nanotechnology, and accounts of the evolution of theoretical conceptions of scientific identity and community. With inspiring examples of technoscientific identity work and community constellations, along with thought-provoking hypotheses and discussion, the work has a broad appeal. Those involved in science governance will benefit particularly from this book, and it has much to offer those in scholarly fields including sociology of science, science studies, philosophy of science and history of science, as well as teachers of science and scientists themselves. ; Reinvigorates the concept of scientific community Delineates ongoing changes across a range of epistemic cultures Elaborates on social, cultural and political aspects of contemporary technoscience Traces historical influences on technoscience, including in the European context Provides new thinking on scientific identity formatio

The Hologram and its Antecedents 1891–1965: The Illusory History of a Three–Dimensional Illusion

Since 1962, a photographic invention by Gabriel Lippmann (1845-1921), his Nobel Prize winning interference colour photograph of 1891, has been cited by physicists as the antecedent of the three-dimensional hologram. However, Dennis Gabor (1900-1979) in his original publications on the hologram of 1948 and 1949 did not cite Lippmann’s work. This thesis explores how the hologram that featured in Gabor’s original theory, as an imaging technique to improve the electron-microscope, was significantly different from the hologram for which Gabor was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1971. The citation of Lippmann’s work as the antecedent to the hologram confirmed that the hologram was to be seen as a three-dimensional photograph, and attempted to give the invention a progressive historical lineage that would conform to photography’s existing history. This popular narrative, as demonstrated in this text, could overlook the pursuit of the hologram for Cold War surveillance by researchers at the University of Michigan on behalf of the United States military. This technology was, from 1955, engaged with aerial radar image processing, a significant application that was classified and hidden from the public, and initially from Gabor himself. Two researchers at the University of Michigan, Emmett Leith (1927–) and Juris Upatnieks (1936–) attracted the attention of the popular press for their development of a three-dimensional laser hologram. This thesis reveals the fragmented nature of the new discipline at the peak of holography’s popularity. This analysis explores some of the historical traits between the two Nobel Prize winning inventions, the Lippmann photograph and the hologram, that were exploited to promote a new imaging medium to the public. In presenting these technologies as images the text also reviews devices and papers––some cited within the popular Lippmann-to Gabor historical narrative––by father and son Frederic (1856-1937) and Herbert Ives (1882-1953), that have competed to produce a three-dimensional full-colour image.Funded with a grant from Arts and Humanities Research Board U