Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions.
That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships").
Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized.
In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives?
Best,
Steve Fiore
-------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61.
Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.
[cid:aed294d4-eaa9-45df-8496-1106492ce7dd]
Why transdisciplinary research needs scaffolding is discussed by Rod Lawrence in his blog post at https://i2insights.org/2020/09/01/scaffolding-transdisciplinary-contributio…. Includes: to identify where facilitation is needed, to select appropriate methods & tools, to build bridges between people with different perceptions & values, to support collective thinking & co-action of a diverse group of participants and to promote personal empowerment, mobilize creativity & create common-ground.
===================================================
Professor Gabriele Bammer
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health
Research School of Population Health
ANU College of Health and Medicine
The Australian National University
62 Mills Road
Acton ACT 2601
+61 2 6125 0716
Gabriele.Bammer(a)anu.edu.au<mailto:Gabriele.Bammer@anu.edu.au>
@GabrieleBammer
http://i2s.anu.edu.au<http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn>
http://I2Insights.org
CRICOS Provider # 00120C
===================================================
Great topic. At the risk of self-promotion I am pointing to recent piece on incentives I posted in my blog https://www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor/2020/06/11/more-better-science/ so far no one has taken us up on our recommendations. The Open Research Funders Group is also part of a NASEM roundtable that is looking at how to align academic incentives and reward structures with the practices of open scholarship. In reality – this re-alignment is about culture and what it is that is valued –
https://www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/projectview.aspx?key=51293#:~:text=In…
Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.
President, James S. McDonnell Foundation
Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jsmf.org_clothing-2…> www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor
SMF blog <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.scientificphilanthr…> www.scientificphilanthropy.com
From: A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 9:29 AM
To: scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org
Cc: Fiore, Steve <sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu>; ADVANCE Program <advanceprogram(a)umass.edu>
Subject: Message: Re: Message: Revisiting Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition...
Hi Steve,
Thanks for this! One approach to 'doing something' that we've been working on is providing incentives for collaboration, particularly because academic competition in the narrow sense often ignores the disadvantages that scientists from marginalized identities face--and that the playing field is very uneven. At UMass we've been drawing on work of folks like you and others on this list who have studied collaboration and team science for our NSF ADVANCE -IT grant (Collaboration and Equity). We propose that providing more Resources, Relationships, and Recognition (the '3 Rs') for collaboration in an equitable way will advance women faculty, including BIPOC women faculty. We are in the midst of this project and still learning, but based on our research so far have started to come up with some 'tools' for best practices in creating equitable and inclusive faculty communities <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> , equitable research collaborations <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> , and ways of recognizing that the effects of Covid-19 are having disparate impacts <https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…> on faculty careers. These are 'living' documents that we continue to update, and welcome feedback. I am always interested to see the other links and practices as well as findings that are reported on this list, hope others find our links useful as well.
Sincerely,
Laurel
Laurel Smith-Doerr, Professor of Sociology
Director and PI of <https://www.umass.edu/advance/home> UMass Amherst NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation program
Chair of the Science, Knowledge, and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003, USA
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:13 PM A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists@sciencelistserv.org> > wrote:
Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions.
That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships").
Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized.
In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives?
Best,
Steve Fiore
-------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu <mailto:sfiore@ist.ucf.edu>
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61.
Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.
_______________________________________________
Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists@sciencelistserv.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org <mailto:scientists-leave@sciencelistserv.org>
Hi Steve,
Thanks for this! One approach to 'doing something' that we've been working
on is providing incentives for collaboration, particularly because academic
competition in the narrow sense often ignores the disadvantages that
scientists from marginalized identities face--and that the playing field is
very uneven. At UMass we've been drawing on work of folks like you and
others on this list who have studied collaboration and team science for our
NSF ADVANCE -IT grant (Collaboration and Equity). We propose that providing
more Resources, Relationships, and Recognition (the '3 Rs') for
collaboration in an equitable way will advance women faculty, including
BIPOC women faculty. We are in the midst of this project and still
learning, but based on our research so far have started to come up with
some 'tools' for best practices in creating equitable and inclusive faculty
communities
<https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…>,
equitable research collaborations
<https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…>,
and ways of recognizing that the effects of Covid-19 are having disparate
impacts
<https://www.umass.edu/advance/sites/default/files/inline-files/UMass%20ADVA…>
on faculty careers. These are 'living' documents that we continue to
update, and welcome feedback. I am always interested to see the other links
and practices as well as findings that are reported on this list, hope
others find our links useful as well.
Sincerely,
Laurel
Laurel Smith-Doerr, Professor of Sociology
Director and PI of UMass Amherst NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation
program <https://www.umass.edu/advance/home>
Chair of the Science, Knowledge, and Technology Section of the American
Sociological Association
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003, USA
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 4:13 PM A public forum for scientists. <
scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> wrote:
> Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was
> circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and
> hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific
> progress and increase unethical actions.
>
> That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse
> incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of
> Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a
> summary and some additional insights (
> https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…)
> and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (
> https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When
> looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that
> similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse
> Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships").
>
> Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've
> cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful
> in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with
> this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete
> solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any
> solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing
> normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not
> seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are
> still emphasized.
>
> In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems,
> I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the
> list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding
> institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even
> better, study implementations of different incentives?
>
> Best,
> Steve Fiore
>
> -------
> Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
> Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
> Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation &
> Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
> University of Central Florida
> sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu
>
>
> *Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007).
> The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships.
> Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.*
> Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among
> other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science.
> Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom
> considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career
> scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition
> in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to
> strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of
> information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work,
> interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and
> careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive,
> such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of
> science.
>
>
> *Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st
> Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse
> Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1),
> 51-61. *
> Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists
> have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research
> funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a
> changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased
> discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a
> hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH,
> CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding
> from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased
> funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a
> critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is
> possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently
> corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating
> consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better
> support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical
> outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org
>
I suspect Table 1 is seriously wrong. My conjecture is that the "intended effects" actually occur in the main, while the so-called "actual effects" are downside behaviors which also sometimes occur.
The abstract point is that every policy has its downsides, so their existence does not render the policy a bad one. This is important, as a very common fallacy is to argue that relatively rare bad behaviors render a good policy bad. Bad aspects are a necessary condition for a policy to be a bad one, but they are not a sufficient condition.
As a minimum the authors would have to show that the intended effects they list only seldom occur, which I think is highly unlIkely.
David Wojick
Issue analyst
On Aug 29, 2020, at 5:12 PM, A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone - A few years ago, this paper on incentives in academia was circulating. In brief, the authors take a critical view of incentives and hypercompetition to describe how these can actually reduce scientific progress and increase unethical actions.
That article got a bit of attention because it described them as "perverse incentives" (titled "Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition"). Here is a blog that provided a summary and some additional insights (https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-wors…) and a follow-up to that blog because it struck a chord (https://svpow.com/2017/03/22/why-do-we-manage-academia-so-badly/) When looking more into this topic, I also found another article (attached) that similarly covered this issue but did so over a decade ago ("The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships").
Given the continuing focus on metrics/incentives, it is worth a skim (I've cut-and-pasted a telling table below). On the one hand, these are helpful in that they map out the problem space of the challenges associated with this issue. On the other hand, they don't really offer any concrete solutions. Further, they note that it is difficult to envision any solutions. There are some high level abstractions like emphasizing normative ethical behavior. Although that is always helpful, it does not seem to get at the core of a broader system where perverse incentives are still emphasized.
In sum, although we can find articles describing these kinds of problems, I have yet to see any that offer concrete solutions. My question to the list is whether anyone knows if any universities and/or funding institutions have looked into this to try different incentives, or, even better, study implementations of different incentives?
Best,
Steve Fiore
-------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
University of Central Florida
sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437-461.
Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others’ ability to use one’s work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
Edwards, M.A., & Siddhartha, R. (2017). Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61.
Over the last 50 years, we argue that incentives for academic scientists have become increasingly perverse in terms of competition for research funding, development of quantitative metrics to measure performance, and a changing business model for higher education itself. Furthermore, decreased discretionary funding at the federal and state level is creating a hypercompetitive environment between government agencies (e.g., EPA, NIH, CDC), for scientists in these agencies, and for academics seeking funding from all sources—the combination of perverse incentives and decreased funding increases pressures that can lead to unethical behavior. If a critical mass of scientists become untrustworthy, a tipping point is possible in which the scientific enterprise itself becomes inherently corrupt and public trust is lost, risking a new dark age with devastating consequences to humanity. Academia and federal agencies should better support science as a public good, and incentivize altruistic and ethical outcomes, while de-emphasizing output.
<Outlook-b3dno2ik.png>
<The_Perverse_Effect_of_Competition_on_Scientists'_.pdf>
<Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.pdf>
_______________________________________________
Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org
To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org
Being highly prolific in academic science: characteristics of
individuals and their departments
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343835321_Being_highly_prolific_in…>
*(Link)*
M. F. Fox and I. Nikivincze
/Higher Education/ (August 2020)
The prolific (exceptionally high producers of scholarly publications)
are strategic to the study of academic science. The highly prolific
have been drivers of research activity and impact and are a window into
the stratification that exists. For these reasons, we address key
characteristics associated with being highly prolific. Doing this, we
take a social-organizational approach and use distinctive survey data of
both social characteristics of scientists and features of their
departments, reported by US faculty in computer science, engineering,
and sciences within eight US research universities. The findings point
to a telling constellation of hierarchical advantages: rank,
collaborative span, and favorable work climate. Notably, once we take
rank into account, gender is not associated with being prolific. These
findings have implications for understanding being prolific, systems of
stratification, and practices and policies in higher education.
Key ways research centres fulfil an interdisciplinary mission are discussed by Paul Bolger in his blog post at https://i2insights.org/2020/08/25/interdisciplinary-research-institutes/. They include: enabling researchers to work with colleagues outside their disciplines, esp across natural - social sciences boundary; enabling opportunities not available in home departments to tackle challenges requiring interdisciplinarity; facilitating research, providing seed funding & fostering an open & visibly collaborative environment. What's your experience been?
===================================================
Professor Gabriele Bammer
National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health
Research School of Population Health
ANU College of Health and Medicine
The Australian National University
62 Mills Road
Acton ACT 2601
+61 2 6125 0716
Gabriele.Bammer(a)anu.edu.au<mailto:Gabriele.Bammer@anu.edu.au>
@GabrieleBammer
http://i2s.anu.edu.au<http://www.anu.edu.au/iisn>
http://I2Insights.org
CRICOS Provider # 00120C
===================================================
Check on this with:
Ismael Rafols i.rafols(a)cwts.leidenuniv.nl
<mailto:i.rafols@cwts.leidenuniv.nl>
Regards, -Mary
On 8/21/2020 8:49 PM, A public forum for scientists. wrote:
> Thank you - can you let us know what time zone this will be in for the
> 1500-1800? Also, does it have to be run in Teams? When using Teams,
> I have yet to have a webinar, teleconference, or conference that did
> not have problems relative to Zoom.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> --------
>
> *Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.*
>
> Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
>
> Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation &
> Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
>
> University of Central Florida
>
> sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 4:45 PM
> *To:* scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org>
> *Subject:* Message: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special
> Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies
>
>
> Webinar: Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff and Presentation of Special
> Issue of Quantitative Science Studies
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mon 7 Sep 2020 | 15:00 - 18:00
> Online
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> event20200907
>
> The new journal /Quantitative Science Studies/ (QSS) has recently
> released a new special issue (see below) exploring the relation of QSS
> with neighboring fields, with contributions by renowned scholars
> working at the boundaries of QSS. This webinar will explore some of
> the issues raised in the special issue and will look ahead to the
> future of the field.
>
> We also thought that this would be an ideal occasion to offer a
> tribute to Loet Leydesdorff for his contributions to various fields of
> science studies over almost 50 years, from his initial work on Dutch
> /science shops/ in the 1970s to the /Triple Helix /dynamics, across a
> myriad of strangely beautiful scientometric blossoms. We warmly invite
> friends of STS, scientometrics and innovation studies and beyond to
> participate in this celebration!
>
>
> 15:00-16:30 Session 1. Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide
> between qualitative and quantitative science studies
> <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_e_00061>’
>
> Join webinar here
> <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…>
>
>
> Chair
>
> Ismael Rafols (Leiden University)
>
>
> Welcome
>
> by Ludo Waltman (editor of QSS, Leiden University)
>
>
> Introduction to the special issue
>
> Staša Milojević (Indiana University)
> Loet Leysdesdorff (University of Amsterdam)
>
>
> Panel debate: “Which directions might Quantitative Science
> Studies take in the future?”
>
> Geoffrey C. Bowker (University of California, Irving)
> James Evans (University of Chicago)
> Koen Frenken (Utrecht University)
>
>
> 17:00-18:00 Session 2. Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Join webinar here
> <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…>
>
>
> Chair
>
> Sally Wyatt (Maastricht University)
>
> Speakers
> Cassidy R. Sugimoto (President of the International Society for
> Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI)
> Diana Lucio Arias (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá)
> Lutz Bornmann (Max Planck Institute, Munich)
> Caroline Wagner (Ohio State University)
> Paul Wouters (Leiden University)
>
>
> Table of contents of the Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide
> between qualitative and quantitative science studies’
> <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/qss/1/3>
>
>
> Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols, & Staša Milojević, (Eds.), “Bridging
> the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00061>
>
>
> Describing and questioning a divide
>
> * Geoffrey C. Bowker, “Numbers and no numbers in science studies.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00054>
> * Donghyun Kang
> <https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Kang%2C+Donghyun> &
> James Evans, “Against method: Exploding the boundary between
> qualitative and quantitative studies of science.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00056>
> * Harriet Zuckerman, “Is ‘the time ripe’ for quantitative research
> on misconduct in science?” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065>
>
> Using numbers in decision making
>
> * Yong Zhao, Jian Du, & Yishan Wu, “Impact of J.D. Bernal’s
> thoughts in the science of science upon China: Implications for
> today’s quantitative studies of science.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064>
> * Diana Hicks & Kimberly Isett, “Powerful numbers: Exemplary
> quantitative studies of science that had policy impact.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00060>
> * Thomas Heinze & Arlette Jappe, “Quantitative science studies
> should be framed with middle-range theories and concepts from
> the social sciences.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00059>
>
> Perspectives and bridges
>
> * Christine L. Borgman, “Whose text, whose mining, and to whose
> benefit.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00053>
> * Mary Frank Fox, “Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues
> and approaches.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057>
> * Koen Frenken, “Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity
> approach.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00058>
>
> Future directions
>
> * Alberto Cambrosio, Jean-Philippe Cointet, & Alexandre H. Abdo,
> “Beyond networks: Aligning qualitative and computational science
> studies.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00055>
> * Henry Small, “Past as prologue: Approaches to the study of
> confirmation in science.” <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00063>
> * Noortje Marres & Sarah de Rijcke, “From indicators to indicating
> interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for
> research communities in-the-making.”
> <https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00062>
>
> We are grateful to the Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) -
> Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology
> <https://www.tib.eu/en/> for financial support to the special issue.
>
> 6
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Listserv For Scientists mailing list -- scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to scientists-leave(a)sciencelistserv.org
>
Thank you - can you let us know what time zone this will be in for the 1500-1800? Also, does it have to be run in Teams? When using Teams, I have yet to have a webinar, teleconference, or conference that did not have problems relative to Zoom.
Best,
Steve
--------
Stephen M. Fiore, Ph.D.
Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Department of Philosophy
<http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134>
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Institute for Simulation & Training (http://csl.ist.ucf.edu/)
<http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134>
<http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=134>
University of Central Florida
sfiore(a)ist.ucf.edu
________________________________
From: A public forum for scientists. <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:45 PM
To: scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org <scientists(a)sciencelistserv.org>
Subject: Message: Webinar: Tribute to L. Leydesdorff - and Special Issue of Quantitative Sci Studies
Webinar: Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff and Presentation of Special Issue of Quantitative Science Studies
________________________________
Mon 7 Sep 2020 | 15:00 - 18:00
Online
________________________________
[event20200907]
The new journal Quantitative Science Studies (QSS) has recently released a new special issue (see below) exploring the relation of QSS with neighboring fields, with contributions by renowned scholars working at the boundaries of QSS. This webinar will explore some of the issues raised in the special issue and will look ahead to the future of the field.
We also thought that this would be an ideal occasion to offer a tribute to Loet Leydesdorff for his contributions to various fields of science studies over almost 50 years, from his initial work on Dutch science shops in the 1970s to the Triple Helix dynamics, across a myriad of strangely beautiful scientometric blossoms. We warmly invite friends of STS, scientometrics and innovation studies and beyond to participate in this celebration!
15:00-16:30 Session 1. Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_e_00061>’
Join webinar here<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…>
Chair
Ismael Rafols (Leiden University)
Welcome
by Ludo Waltman (editor of QSS, Leiden University)
Introduction to the special issue
Staša Milojević (Indiana University)
Loet Leysdesdorff (University of Amsterdam)
Panel debate: “Which directions might Quantitative Science Studies take in the future?”
Geoffrey C. Bowker (University of California, Irving)
James Evans (University of Chicago)
Koen Frenken (Utrecht University)
17:00-18:00 Session 2. Tribute to Loet Leydesdorff
Join webinar here<https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_NjllMjg3NDEtZDY2YS00…>
Chair
Sally Wyatt (Maastricht University)
Speakers
Cassidy R. Sugimoto (President of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI)
Diana Lucio Arias (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá)
Lutz Bornmann (Max Planck Institute, Munich)
Caroline Wagner (Ohio State University)
Paul Wouters (Leiden University)
Table of contents of the Special Issue on ‘Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies’<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/qss/1/3>
Loet Leydesdorff, Ismael Rafols, & Staša Milojević, (Eds.), “Bridging the divide between qualitative and quantitative science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_e_00061>
Describing and questioning a divide
* Geoffrey C. Bowker, “Numbers and no numbers in science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00054>
* Donghyun Kang<https://www.mitpressjournals.org/author/Kang%2C+Donghyun> & James Evans, “Against method: Exploding the boundary between qualitative and quantitative studies of science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00056>
* Harriet Zuckerman, “Is ‘the time ripe’ for quantitative research on misconduct in science?”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065>
Using numbers in decision making
* Yong Zhao, Jian Du, & Yishan Wu, “Impact of J.D. Bernal’s thoughts in the science of science upon China: Implications for today’s quantitative studies of science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064>
* Diana Hicks & Kimberly Isett, “Powerful numbers: Exemplary quantitative studies of science that had policy impact.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00060>
* Thomas Heinze & Arlette Jappe, “Quantitative science studies should be framed with middle-range theories and concepts from the social sciences.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00059>
Perspectives and bridges
* Christine L. Borgman, “Whose text, whose mining, and to whose benefit.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00053>
* Mary Frank Fox, “Gender, science, and academic rank: Key issues and approaches.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00057>
* Koen Frenken, “Geography of scientific knowledge: A proximity approach.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00058>
Future directions
* Alberto Cambrosio, Jean-Philippe Cointet, & Alexandre H. Abdo, “Beyond networks: Aligning qualitative and computational science studies.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00055>
* Henry Small, “Past as prologue: Approaches to the study of confirmation in science.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00063>
* Noortje Marres & Sarah de Rijcke, “From indicators to indicating interdisciplinarity: A participatory mapping methodology for research communities in-the-making.”<https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00062>
We are grateful to the Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) - Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology<https://www.tib.eu/en/> for financial support to the special issue.
6