Scientific Reviews as legitimizing ressource for emerging research fields. The role of scientific reviews as strategic medium in the legitimation process between science and society. The case of Synthetic Biology.

科学评论作为新兴研究领域的合法资源。

• 批准号: 242154197
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Martin Reinhart
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Robert-K.-Merton-Zentrum für Wissenschaftsforschung (RMZ)
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Priority Programmes
• 财政年份: 2013
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2012-12-31 至 2015-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/242154197?language=en
• 关键词: Scientific; Reviews; legitimizing; ressource; emerging

In the debate on interdependencies between media, science and society, journalists are often blamed to be responsible for biases in the transformation of scientific knowledge into societal arenas. In contrast, scientists are presumed to be more or less disinterested (Merton 1985). What is overlooked in that case, is that scientists are more and more dependent on press coverage and public awareness in order to justify the relevance of their research (Weingart & Pansegrau 1998; Gilbert & Mulkay 1985). Therefore, it becomes more important to address scientific results and programs to extrascientific audiences (Weingart 2001). Emerging research fields in the life sciences have a particular need for legitimization which requires particular communicative strategies to scientific and non-scientific actors (Jasanoff 2005). How does this need for legitimization affect publication practices, particularly for the choice of scientific genre forms? The assumption of this proposal is that the genre scientific review article offers particular choices to address societal expectations that can be taken up by the media or other societal actors that are used especially in the formation phase of an emerging research fields. Therefore we propose to study the role of the genre scientific review in the context of the establishment of such a field. The Genre scientific review shall be analyzed in the interplay between scientists, editors of scientific journals and science officials. Does the role of the scientific review change in these contexts? Which non-scientific goals are addressed in these publications? How do they refer to societal expectations? The proposal builds upon research based on Charles Bazermans Genre Analyses of scientific formats (Bazerman 1988) and extends these to address non- scientific audiences. For this reason, the concept of Expectations in Science and Technology will be applied on the subject of this proposal (Borup et al. 2006). The research project aims to understand the strategies of scientific actors that are situated in the intersection between scientific community and specific audiences. Particular emphasis will be given to the editioral context in which the placement of review articles is embedded. Furthermore, the use of scientific review articles by non-scientific actors will be analyzed. This shall be achieved by coupling scientometric investigations with document analysis and expert interviews.

在关于媒体、科学和社会之间相互依存关系的辩论中，记者往往被指责为在将科学知识转化为社会领域方面存在偏见。相反，科学家被认为或多或少是无私的（默顿1985）。在这种情况下，科学家们越来越依赖新闻报道和公众意识来证明他们的研究的相关性（Weingart & Pansegrau 1998;吉尔伯特& Mulkay 1985）。因此，将科学成果和计划介绍给科学以外的受众变得更加重要（Weingart 2001）。生命科学中的新兴研究领域特别需要合法化，这需要科学和非科学行为者的特定沟通策略（Jasanoff 2005）。这种合法化的需要如何影响出版实践，特别是对科学体裁形式的选择？这一建议的假设是，体裁科学评论文章提供了特定的选择，以满足媒体或其他社会行为者的社会期望，特别是在新兴研究领域的形成阶段。因此，我们建议在建立这样一个领域的背景下研究体裁科学评论的作用。从科学家、科技期刊编辑和科技官员之间的互动关系来分析体裁科技评论。在这些背景下，科学审查的作用是否发生了变化？这些出版物中涉及哪些非科学目标？如何看待社会期望？该提案建立在查尔斯·巴泽曼对科学格式的体裁分析（Bazerman 1988）的基础上，并将其扩展到非科学受众。因此，本提案的主题将适用科学和技术期望的概念（Borup等人，2006年）。该研究项目旨在了解科学界和特定受众之间的科学行为者的战略。特别强调的是editioral的背景下，其中的评论文章的位置是嵌入式的。此外，将分析非科学行为者对科学评论文章的使用。为此，应将科学计量调查与文件分析和专家访谈结合起来。