Minerva

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 441–463

The Typology of the Game that American, British, and Danish Crop and Plant Scientists Play

Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Drawing from contemporary social science studies on the shifting regime of research governance, this paper extends the literature by utilizing a metaphoric image—research is a game—observed in a field engagement with 82 American, British, and Danish crop and plant scientists. It theorizes respondents’ thinking and practices by placing the rules of the research “game” in dynamic and interactive tension between the scientific, social, and political-economic contingencies that generate opportunities or setbacks. Scientists who play the game exploit opportunities and surmount setbacks by adopting strategies and reinventing tactics in order to maximize their winnings and to minimize their losses. Winners become superstars who decree what is open, closed, or doable science for the majority of the scientific community.

Keywords

Typology of the game of research Game metaphor Metaphorical theorization Public university researchers Online and popular games 

References

  1. Barnes, Barry. 2007. Catching up with Robert Merton: Scientific collectives as status groups. Journal of Classical Sociology 1: 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloor, David. 1997. Wittgenstein, rules and institutions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The ‘indefinite discipline’ of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47: 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvert, Jane. 2004. The idea of ‘basic research’ in language and practice. Minerva 42: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvert, Jane. 2006. What′s special about basic research? Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (2): 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colyvas, Jeannette A. 2007. Factory, hazard, and contamination: The use of metaphor in the commercialization of recombinant DNA. Minerva 45: 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crust, Lee. 2009. Sports psychology: Mental toughness. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sports-psychology-mental-toughness-14. Accessed 06 November 2009.
  8. Crust, Lee, and Ian Lawrence. 2006. A review of leadership in sports: Implications for football management. Athletic Insight 8 (4): 28–48.Google Scholar
  9. Cumming, Dennis. 2009. Examining the future of sports journalism. July 02, 2009 07:00 am. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sports/2009/july/Examining-the-Future-of-Sports-Journalism.html. Accessed 06 November 2009.
  10. DeJager, Timothy. 1993. Pure science and practical interests: The origins of the agricultural research council, 1930–1937. Minerva 31 (2): 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dweck, Carol. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode-2” to a triple helix of university—industry—government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Godin, Benoit. 1998. Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28 (3): 483–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gozzi, Raymond. 1999. The power of metaphor in the age of electronic media. Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  16. Hogler, Raymond, Michael A. Gross, Jackie L. Hartman, and Ann L. Cunliffe. 2008. Meaning in organizational communication: Why Metaphor is the Cake, not the Icing. Management Communication Quarterly 21 (3): 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Refiguring life: Metaphors of the twentieth-century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kline, Ronald. 1995. Construing ‘technology’ as ‘applied science’: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. ISIS 86 (2): 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knudsen, Susanne. 2005. Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code. Public Understanding of Science 14: 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koch, Susan, and Stanley Deetz. 1981. Metaphor analysis of social reality in organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research 9 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 1995. Metaphors—messengers of meaning: A contribution to an evolutionary sociology of science. Science Communication 17: 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2000. Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Malaby, Thomas M. 2007. Beyond play. A new approach to games. Games & Culture 2 (2): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, Robert. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159: 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merton, Robert. 1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In: The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert Merton, 254–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Morris, Norma. 2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva 38: 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris, Norma. 2003. University researchers as ‘agents’ of science. Science and Public Policy 30 (5): 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicholson, Yvonne Grinam. 2009. The publicist who keeps Usain Bolt on track. Jamaica Observer. Business section. Wednesday, October 21, 2009. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20091020T2000000500_162214_OBS_THE_PUBLICIST_WHO_KEEPS_USAIN_BOLT_ON_TRACK.asp. Accessed 06 November 2009.
  30. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  31. Palladino, Paolo. 1990. The political economy of applied research: Plant breeding in great Britain, 1910–1940. Minerva 28 (4): 446–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pestre, Dominique, and Peter Weingart. 2009. Governance of and through science and numbers: Categories, tools and technologies-preface. Minerva 47: 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polanyi, Michael. 2000. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 38 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pryor, Robert George Leslie, and Jim E.H. Bright. 2009. Game as a career metaphor: A chaos theory career counselling application. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 37 (1): 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shinn, Terry. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32: 599–614.Google Scholar
  38. Steinkuehler, Constance. 2006. The mangle of play. Games & Culture 1 (3): 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vallas, Steven Peter and Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2008. Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy. The confluence of university and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review 6 (2): 283–311. doi:10.1093/ser/mw1035.Google Scholar
  40. Zagal, Jose P., Rick Jochen, and Idris Hsi. 2006. Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming 37 (24): 34–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication, Business and Information TechnologiesRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations