Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2427–2441 | Cite as

Eco-Driven Chemical Research in the Boundary Between Academia and Industry

PhD Students’ Views on Science and Society
  • Jesper Sjöström
Article

Abstract

This paper examines and discusses the views on science and society held among PhD students working in two different industrially and environmentally driven research programmes in the broad area of green chemistry. It is based on thirteen in-depth interviews. The analysis shows three main ways of handling the situation as “post-academic” PhD student: (1) the student sees the PhD work mainly as a job and does not reflect about his/her research or the research funding, (2) the student is satisfied with the post-academic situation, accepts the established innovation policy discourse and is sceptical to traditional academic research, and (3) the student sees collaborative research programmes as a way to get funding, which can be used for secretly done basic research. Most PhD students either emphasise usefulness—in line with the dominating research policy discourse—or they adopt the positivistic view of science as objective and independent of the surrounding society. However, there are only a few signs of “double problematisation”, that is a critical view where both disciplinary-oriented and industry-dependent research are problematised.

Keywords

Critical Thinking Academic Freedom Financial Type Ecological Modernisation Industry Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Valuable comments from the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, Mikael Klintman and Mats Benner at the Research Policy Institute, Lund University and Lena Hansson at Kristianstad University are acknowledged for valuable comments on previous drafts of the manuscript. Financial support from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. (1997). Exploring ideologies: STS and HPS. Paper presented at the “HPS, STS, and the goals of school science” symposium at the History & Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching conference, Calgary, Canada, 21–24 June 1997.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life—Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böschen, S., Lenoir, D., & Scheringer, M. (2003). Sustainable chemistry: Starting points and prospects. Naturwissenschaften, 90(3), 93–102.Google Scholar
  5. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems—Twenty-first-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiang, K.-H. (2011). A typology of research training in university–industry collaboration—The case of life science in Finland. Industry & Higher Education, 25(2), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clavert, J. (2000). Is there a role for’basic research’ in Mode 2? VEST: tidskrift för vetenskaps- och teknikstudier, 13(3–4), 35–51.Google Scholar
  9. Coppola, B. P. (2001). The technology transfer dilemma. HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7, 155–167.Google Scholar
  10. Cotton, D. R. E., Warren, M. F., Maiboroda, O., & Bailey, I. (2007). Sustainable development, higher education and pedagogy: A study of lecturers’ beliefs and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 13(5), 579–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crespo, M., & Dridi, H. (2007). Intensification of university-industry relationships and its impact on academic research. Higher Education, 54, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and transformation of academic work. Higher Education, 49, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller, S. (2002). Knowledge management foundations. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge—The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation—The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(6), 639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodson, D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Invitation text for the conference: “Scientific Advice: The difficult partnership of environmental politics and science”. (2003). Held in Oslo, Norway, 28–30 November 2003. Among the speakers were Fuller, S., & Elzinga A. http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/forskning/seminarer/vitenskapsteori/gamle-sider/2003-h/Advice.html. Accessed February 27, 2006.
  20. Jamison, A. (2001). Science, technology and the quest for sustainable development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovac, J. (2001). Gifts and commodities in chemistry. HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7, 141–153.Google Scholar
  22. Kovac, J. (2007). Moral rules, moral ideas, and use-inspired research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lozano-García, F. J., Gándara, G., Perrni, O., Manzano, M., Hernández, D. E., & Huisingh, D. (2008). Capacity building: A course on sustainable development to educate the educators. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: Theorising the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95, 601–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sjöström, J. (2006). Green chemistry in perspective—Models for GC activities and GC policy and knowledge areas. Green Chemistry, 8(2), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sjöström, J. (2007). The discourse of chemistry (and beyond). HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 13(2), 83–97.Google Scholar
  28. Sjöström, J. (2011). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-011-9401-0. Published online: October 25, 2011.
  29. Sörlin, S. (2005). Stärkt konkurrenskraft? In S. Sörlin (Ed.), “I den absoluta frontlinjen”—En bok om forskningsstiftelserna, konkurrenskraften och politikens möjligheter. Sweden: Bokförlaget Nya Doxa. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  30. Stenmark, M. (2004). How to relate science and religion—A multidimensional model. Cambridge: Wiliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  31. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant—Basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  32. Thomas, I. (2009). Critical thinking, transformative learning, sustainable education, and problem-based learning in universities. Journal of Transformative Education, 7(3), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thune, T. (2010). The training of ‘Triple Helix Workers’? Doctoral students in university–industry–government collaborations. Minerva, 48, 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vásquez-Levy, D. (2002). Bildung-centred Didaktik: A framework for examining the educational potential of subject matter. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wallgren, L., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2007). Industrial doctoral students as brokers between industry and academia: Factors affecting their trajectories, learning at the boundaries and identity development. Industry & Higher Education, 21(3), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ziman, J. (1994). Prometheus bound—Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ziman, J. (1996). ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67–80.Google Scholar
  39. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science—What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Sciences, Environment and Society, Faculty of Education and SocietyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations