Abstract
Do theories that describe how science and technology policy works accurately characterize programs that aim to contribute to societal benefit? How can the research performed by federal mission agencies contribute to improved decision making? The US Department of Agriculture, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology each have goals of performing research that meets the needs of specific user groups. This analysis examines how institutional factors such as problem definitions, decision-making structures, quality-control mechanisms, distribution of participants, and social accountability guide the production of useful information. This empirical exploration of knowledge production theories fosters an evaluation of existing models of knowledge production, including the linear model, use-inspired basic research, well-ordered science, post-normal science, and Mode 2 science. The ensuing discussion of results concludes that such ideas are either too broad in their prescriptions or not accurately descriptive enough to guide formation of federal research programs that can contribute to usable science and technology products.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abels, G., & Bora, A. (2006). Public Participation, stakeholders and expertise: Multi-actor spaces in the governance of biotechnology. Bielefeld: Policies for Research and Innovation in the Move towards the European Research Area.
Brown, G. (1992). Guest comment: The objectivity crisis. American Journal of Physics, 60, 779–781.
Brown, M. H. (2004). The political philosophy of science policy. Minerva, 42, 77–95.
Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cash, D. W. (2001). “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 431–453.
Clinton, W. J., & Gore, A. (1993). Technology for America’s economic growth. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the revolution: Authority in a good society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
David, P. A. (1995). Science reorganized? Post-modern visions of research and the curse of success.
DOD. (2004). Financial management regulation, DOD 7000.14-R, Vol. 2B, Chap. 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense.
Foltz, F. (1999). Five arguments for increasing public participation in making science policy. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 19(2), 117–127.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735–755.
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81–C84.
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.
Holton, G. (1993). Science and anti-science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jeffrey, W. (2007). Personal interview with William Jeffrey, NIST Director, on 6/07/07, Gaithersburg.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kitcher, P. (2003). What kinds of science should be done? In A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz, & C. Dresser (Eds.), Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery (pp. 201–224). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Konisky, D. M., & Beierle, T. C. (2001). Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: Examples from the Great Lakes Region. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 815–826.
Logar, N. (2008). Federally funded science for user benefit: Policy mechanisms for mission-oriented research, University of Colorado.
Logar, N. (2009). Towards a culture of application: science and decision making at the National Institute of Standards & Technology. Minerva, 47, 345–366.
Logar, N., & Conant, R. (2007). Reconciling the supply and demand for carbon cycle science in the U.S. agricultural sector. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 75–84.
Logar, N., & Pollack, L. K. (2005). Transgenic fish: Is a new policy framework necessary for new technology? Environmental Science & Policy, 8(1), 17–27.
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Assessment of department of defense basic research. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden: Blackwell.
Nowotny, N., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 51, 42–46.
Renn, O., Webber, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189–214.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: SAGE Publications.
Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5–16.
Shapley, D., & Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift. ISI Press, Philadelphia.
Shinn, T. (2003). The ‘Triple Helix’ and ‘New production of knowledge’ as socio-cognitive fields. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead (pp. 103–116). Boston: Kluwer.
Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Reources, 14, 239–249.
Stokes, D. E. (1994). Completing the Bush model: Pasteur’s quadrant. Talk given at conference “Science: The endless frontier 1945–1995”, pp. 1–13.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Weinberg, A. W. (1971). The axiology of science. American Scientist, 58, 612–617.
Weingart, P. (1997). From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36, 591–613.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Logar, N. Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies. Policy Sci 44, 249–266 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9136-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9136-4