Scholar's Award Proposal for Investigating the Origins and Evolution of the 'Basic Research' as a Political Symbol

探究“基础研究”作为政治象征的起源与演变的学者获奖提案

• 批准号: 0830224
• 负责人: Roger Pielke
• 金额: $ 4.14万
• 依托单位: University of Colorado at Boulder
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2008-09-15 至 2011-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0830224&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Scholar; Award; Proposal; Investigating; Origins

Understanding symbols in political discourse is important because symbols shape how policy problems and options are framed. This project focuses on understanding the origins, evolution, and dynamics of the concept of "basic research" in science policy discourse. The exact phrase can be seen as a political symbol representing a concept that has otherwise been characterized as pure research, fundamental research, and transformative research, among other terms. The term "basic research" did not exist prior to the 1920s and currently appears to be falling out of favor. The topic is of current interest because science policy discussions in Europe and the United States are now characterized by changing language and symbols, and the concept of "basic research" appears to be a causality of this change. In Europe the phrase "fundamental research" has gained some traction whereas in the United States, particularly in the NSF, the phrase "transformational research" has some traction. Broader Impacts: The broader impacts of the proposed research are varied. The origins of the concept of "basic research" will be of interest to scholars of science and science policy, but will also inform understandings of the evolution of science policies and contemporary debates. An obvious example of the practical implications of such understandings is how R&D budgets are accounted for in the United States. For many years these budgets have been categorized based on a framework where projects are categorized according to the concepts of basic and applied research. If the language of science policy changes to disfavor "basic research" as an important concept, is this change merely cosmetic? Or are there substantive implications for how we organize and think about the domains of science and innovation policy? These questions cut to the core of organization and policy in the National Science Foundation, but also other agencies of government that support R&D, including science agencies in countries across the world. The research will be broadly disseminated and prepared in such a manner so as to contribute to education and contemporary policy discussions.

理解政治话语中的符号很重要，因为符号塑造了政策问题和选择的框架。该项目的重点是了解科学政策话语中“基础研究”概念的起源，演变和动态。 确切的短语可以被视为一个政治符号，代表一个概念，否则被描述为纯研究，基础研究和变革性研究等术语。 “基础研究”一词在20世纪20年代之前并不存在，目前似乎正在失宠。 这一主题之所以引起当前的兴趣，是因为欧洲和美国的科学政策讨论现在的特点是不断变化的语言和符号，而“基础研究”的概念似乎是这种变化的原因。 在欧洲，“基础研究”一词已经获得了一些牵引力，而在美国，特别是在NSF，“转型研究”一词有一些牵引力。 更广泛的影响：拟议研究的更广泛的影响是多种多样的。 “基础研究”概念的起源将引起科学和科学政策学者的兴趣，但也将为理解科学政策的演变和当代辩论提供信息。 这种理解的实际影响的一个明显的例子是美国的研发预算是如何核算的。 多年来，这些预算一直根据一个框架进行分类，该框架根据基础研究和应用研究的概念对项目进行分类。 如果科学政策的语言改变，不赞成“基础研究”作为一个重要的概念，这种变化仅仅是表面上的吗？ 或者，对于我们如何组织和思考科学和创新政策领域，是否有实质性的影响？这些问题不仅涉及到美国国家科学基金会的组织和政策的核心，也涉及到支持研发的其他政府机构，包括世界各国的科学机构。 将广泛传播和编写研究报告，以促进教育和当代政策讨论。