It was a very inspiring workshop. The concept of "social technology" still offers a lot of possibilities when it comes to the framing of the study the practices and impact of social sciences and humanities with an STS perspective.
Watch out for comments on the workshop by Bus van Heur and Paul Wouters
http://socialtechnology.wordpress.com/
Showing posts with label workshop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workshop. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Enacting social sciences and humanities within contemporary science policy landscape
Report
Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic; May 21–22, 2009
We observe – and experience – today science policies intervening intimately into scientific lives. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. The aim of the workshop was to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines.
Following on previous workshops aimed at studying social sciences and humanities (SSH) from STS perspective we focused at treatment of social sciences and humanities (SSH) within science policies in different contexts. This dimension emerged as important for understating the contemporary enactments of SSH. The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in.
It was obvious from all the presentations that SSH have a highly ambiguous position within contemporary science policy strategies. On one hand they are rather invisible as science policies, modelled very strongly in accordance to the socio-epistemic patterns of natural science and technical disciplines, are most often presented as universally applicable to any scientific disciplines. On the other hand, however, they are highly visible as they do not easily fit this seemingly universal framework (SSH researchers protesting to science policies; partial adjustments for SSH in research assessment criteria) and they are also subject to policy measures in some countries and on the EU level in the form of special programmes (e.g. “2007 Year of Humanities” in Germany).
Abstracts of presentations:
1. Claire Donovan (Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University):
The Governance of Social Science and Humanities Research in Australia
At the turn of the 19th century, due to the centrality of progressive social planning in driving its public policy, Australia was dubbed the ‘world’s social laboratory’. In the 21st century this is but a dim and distant memory. The rise of technocratic forms of governance has relegated the social sciences and humanities (SSH) to the periphery of Australia’s public policy planning, and to the outer margins of its government’s science and innovation portfolio. This paper is concerned with the contingent ‘otherness’ of SSH research in contemporary Australian public policy and science governance, and the place of interpretive SSH research in particular.
One case study is presented: direct ministerial intervention in the award of Australian Research Council (ARC) grants to SSH researchers. Narratives of this dilemma are used to reveal competing traditions of science governance, and underlying beliefs about the legitimacy and relevance of SSH research. These traditions provide a backdrop to examine the creation of Australia’s National Research Priorities, and the construction of science and innovation policies aimed at evaluating research ‘quality’ and ‘impact’. The paper examines the ‘otherness’ of SSH within these policy processes. It also reflects on the success and failure of various strategies designed by the SSH community to promote the value of its research to government, particularly ‘non-scientific’ ways of knowing
2. Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
The concept of academic and societal impact in the Czech science policy
The paper discusses science policy for SSH in the Czech Republic with the focus on the concept of “impact” inscribed into the criteria of research evaluation. I look first at the development of the system of research evaluation since it was introduced in 2004, changes in values ascribed to different types of scientific outputs and the position of SSH within the system. I discuss the culmination of the effort in creation of a special “National reference frame of excellence” into which some of the SSH disciplines were assigned, while others remained to be evaluated according to the same criteria as natural and technical sciences. I discuss argumentation for this exemption of some but not all of the SSH disciplines. I argue that the introduction of this kind of classification reinforces the hegemony of conceiving impact in terms of internationality, commercialization and technologization (the hegemony by which some of the SSH disciplines are granted an exception) rather than opening up imagination for other, more diverse modes of thinking about it.
3. Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna)
Relevance and Impact of SSH in the Austrian Context
This contribution attempts to shed a different perspective on Austrian policy discourses related to programs focusing on SSH, which were recently established: There is a program for SSH run by the Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), there are attempts to foster SSH research in the biggest Austrian research foundation for basic research (Austrian Science Fund, FWF) and there are other founding institutions, like the research funding body of the City of Vienna (Vienna Science and Technology Fund, WWTF), which occasionally run programs dedicated to SSH. We intend to read and analyse related documents in search for rhetorics of impact and relevance assigned to SSH. Our main interest is to find out what perceptions of societal relevance and economic, social or academic impact of SSH are inscribed in these initiatives.
Furthermore we ask: how are concepts of impact and relevance of SSH to Austrian society shaped by qualitative and quantitative criteria? Does a turn to quantitative criteria constitute circumvention of missing concepts of quality? But we assume that in such attempts of quantitative commodification nevertheless certain perceptions of “quality” are inscribed, but not necessarily made explicit.
We argue on the basis of the following documents, which give an overview on the main institutions of Austrian science policy: 1) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research, Programme on SSH; 2) SSH Calls of The Vienna Science and Technology Fund WWTF; 3) “Discussion Paper concerning The Situation and Problems of SSH” of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF); 4) “Structure of SSH in Austria”, Report on behalf of the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE).
4. Alice Červinková (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic):
In my presentation I will focus on analysing a part of the document National politics of Research, Development and Innovations, specifically on the part devoted to social sciences and humanities titled “Priorities for the development of Czech society”, which is now undergoing the comment and approval procedure.
The document suggests five areas of concern: 1. Governance and administration; 2. Human potential of the CR, its reproduction and development; 3. Competitiveness of Czech society; 4. Czech identity and surrounding world; and finally 5. Technologies and methods. Whereas the fourth priority concerning Czech identity is indicated to be a more separate area of concern (of the humanities), the other areas are indicated to be interlinked in a synergic way and come under the concern of social sciences.
I raise two concerns in my presentation. First, I will look into the anticipated synergies between the priorities: How are the synergies constructed in the document? What are the expectations placed on social sciences in this respect? How should they contribute to the construction of these synergies? I will also look into the separation of the priority Czech identity and surrounding world and will be concerned with the question what arguments have been developed to detach this area from the other priorities.
The document introduces the concept of evidence based-policies into the area of social sciences and humanities? Evidence-based policies constitute not only a methodological approach but also have an important impact on the enactment of the relationship between social scientists, policy makers and society. My second concern is related to this: What are the expectations and assumptions behind this introduction? What kind of social science approaches will be prioritised and regarded as useful and what approaches might be marginalised?
Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic; May 21–22, 2009
We observe – and experience – today science policies intervening intimately into scientific lives. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. The aim of the workshop was to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines.
Following on previous workshops aimed at studying social sciences and humanities (SSH) from STS perspective we focused at treatment of social sciences and humanities (SSH) within science policies in different contexts. This dimension emerged as important for understating the contemporary enactments of SSH. The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in.
It was obvious from all the presentations that SSH have a highly ambiguous position within contemporary science policy strategies. On one hand they are rather invisible as science policies, modelled very strongly in accordance to the socio-epistemic patterns of natural science and technical disciplines, are most often presented as universally applicable to any scientific disciplines. On the other hand, however, they are highly visible as they do not easily fit this seemingly universal framework (SSH researchers protesting to science policies; partial adjustments for SSH in research assessment criteria) and they are also subject to policy measures in some countries and on the EU level in the form of special programmes (e.g. “2007 Year of Humanities” in Germany).
Abstracts of presentations:
1. Claire Donovan (Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University):
The Governance of Social Science and Humanities Research in Australia
At the turn of the 19th century, due to the centrality of progressive social planning in driving its public policy, Australia was dubbed the ‘world’s social laboratory’. In the 21st century this is but a dim and distant memory. The rise of technocratic forms of governance has relegated the social sciences and humanities (SSH) to the periphery of Australia’s public policy planning, and to the outer margins of its government’s science and innovation portfolio. This paper is concerned with the contingent ‘otherness’ of SSH research in contemporary Australian public policy and science governance, and the place of interpretive SSH research in particular.
One case study is presented: direct ministerial intervention in the award of Australian Research Council (ARC) grants to SSH researchers. Narratives of this dilemma are used to reveal competing traditions of science governance, and underlying beliefs about the legitimacy and relevance of SSH research. These traditions provide a backdrop to examine the creation of Australia’s National Research Priorities, and the construction of science and innovation policies aimed at evaluating research ‘quality’ and ‘impact’. The paper examines the ‘otherness’ of SSH within these policy processes. It also reflects on the success and failure of various strategies designed by the SSH community to promote the value of its research to government, particularly ‘non-scientific’ ways of knowing
2. Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
The concept of academic and societal impact in the Czech science policy
The paper discusses science policy for SSH in the Czech Republic with the focus on the concept of “impact” inscribed into the criteria of research evaluation. I look first at the development of the system of research evaluation since it was introduced in 2004, changes in values ascribed to different types of scientific outputs and the position of SSH within the system. I discuss the culmination of the effort in creation of a special “National reference frame of excellence” into which some of the SSH disciplines were assigned, while others remained to be evaluated according to the same criteria as natural and technical sciences. I discuss argumentation for this exemption of some but not all of the SSH disciplines. I argue that the introduction of this kind of classification reinforces the hegemony of conceiving impact in terms of internationality, commercialization and technologization (the hegemony by which some of the SSH disciplines are granted an exception) rather than opening up imagination for other, more diverse modes of thinking about it.
3. Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna)
Relevance and Impact of SSH in the Austrian Context
This contribution attempts to shed a different perspective on Austrian policy discourses related to programs focusing on SSH, which were recently established: There is a program for SSH run by the Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF), there are attempts to foster SSH research in the biggest Austrian research foundation for basic research (Austrian Science Fund, FWF) and there are other founding institutions, like the research funding body of the City of Vienna (Vienna Science and Technology Fund, WWTF), which occasionally run programs dedicated to SSH. We intend to read and analyse related documents in search for rhetorics of impact and relevance assigned to SSH. Our main interest is to find out what perceptions of societal relevance and economic, social or academic impact of SSH are inscribed in these initiatives.
Furthermore we ask: how are concepts of impact and relevance of SSH to Austrian society shaped by qualitative and quantitative criteria? Does a turn to quantitative criteria constitute circumvention of missing concepts of quality? But we assume that in such attempts of quantitative commodification nevertheless certain perceptions of “quality” are inscribed, but not necessarily made explicit.
We argue on the basis of the following documents, which give an overview on the main institutions of Austrian science policy: 1) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research, Programme on SSH; 2) SSH Calls of The Vienna Science and Technology Fund WWTF; 3) “Discussion Paper concerning The Situation and Problems of SSH” of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF); 4) “Structure of SSH in Austria”, Report on behalf of the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE).
4. Alice Červinková (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic):
In my presentation I will focus on analysing a part of the document National politics of Research, Development and Innovations, specifically on the part devoted to social sciences and humanities titled “Priorities for the development of Czech society”, which is now undergoing the comment and approval procedure.
The document suggests five areas of concern: 1. Governance and administration; 2. Human potential of the CR, its reproduction and development; 3. Competitiveness of Czech society; 4. Czech identity and surrounding world; and finally 5. Technologies and methods. Whereas the fourth priority concerning Czech identity is indicated to be a more separate area of concern (of the humanities), the other areas are indicated to be interlinked in a synergic way and come under the concern of social sciences.
I raise two concerns in my presentation. First, I will look into the anticipated synergies between the priorities: How are the synergies constructed in the document? What are the expectations placed on social sciences in this respect? How should they contribute to the construction of these synergies? I will also look into the separation of the priority Czech identity and surrounding world and will be concerned with the question what arguments have been developed to detach this area from the other priorities.
The document introduces the concept of evidence based-policies into the area of social sciences and humanities? Evidence-based policies constitute not only a methodological approach but also have an important impact on the enactment of the relationship between social scientists, policy makers and society. My second concern is related to this: What are the expectations and assumptions behind this introduction? What kind of social science approaches will be prioritised and regarded as useful and what approaches might be marginalised?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Workshop Social Technology
Amsterdam, 2 October 2009
Sponsored by The Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and
Modern Culture (WTMC)
Call for participants
This one-day workshop will be held in Amsterdam, 2 October 2009. Papers
will be pre-circulated and a respondent assigned for each contribution.
If you are interested in submitting a paper, please send an abstract,
400 – 600 words, before 30 May 2009, to
Topic
In this workshop, we seek to address two deeply ingrained aspects of
current Science and Technology Studies: the focus on material
technology, and the idea that all technology is social. Devices,
machines, artifacts take central place in STS, in keeping with the
common sense meaning of the word ‘technology’. Combined with STS's
traditional focus on natural science and medicine, this has resulted in
a relative neglect of technologies that stem from the social sciences,
in which material devices are less prominent. Moreover, through the
influence of actor-network theory in particular, the idea has taken
root that material technology forms the glue of our society (the
'missing masses'), as well as being its main source of change. Material
technology is considered to be at the heart of society, and the
dichotomy of the social and the technological is rejected: all
technology is social, and society is technological through and through.
We wish first of all to redress the imbalance inherent in the material
view of technology. The social sciences produce great numbers of
graduates each year, skilled in technologies that are to a large extent
intangible: psychotherapy, focus groups, various types of interview,
techniques of human resource management, and many others. Such
practices have of course been the subject of historical and
sociological study, often from a Foucauldian perspective. However,
applying the conceptual resources of STS may bring into better view the
socio-material construction processes involved in practical social
science, its particular affordances and trade-offs, and embeddedness in
technoscientific networks.
Secondly, we want to problematize the popular 'dissolution of the
social': the widely accepted proposition that the category of 'the
social' is at best increasingly irrelevant, and at worst a fundamental
mistake. Rethinking old dichotomies such as that of nature and culture,
or the material and the social, has been of tremendous importance in
reflecting on our current ways of living. However, the fact that it is
no longer acceptable as a theoretical resource, does not make the
social any less interesting as an empirical phenomenon. The
distinctiveness of people and their interactions is still invoked,
produced, repressed, and utilized in many technological assemblages,
not only those stemming from the social sciences.
We propose the term 'social technology' to cover these issues, and
intend to bring together a number of scholars from Science and
Technology Studies and the Social Sciences to discuss them.
The workshop will be the occasion to address the following questions,
through theoretical and conceptual reflections and empirically-oriented
contributions: What is the current scope of technology studies and to
what extent can it embrace social technologies? Which social
technologies are especially prominent in contemporary culture, and how
can we study these? Does a reframing of ‘technology’ enable STS to
better explore the workings of social science and humanities? How can
the term social technology allow a study of human qualities, without
assuming a priori a human essence?
Papers that compare the role of predominantly material technologies in
building and stabilizing 'collectives' with the role of social
technologies are also welcome, as are papers that address social
technologies as (1) technologies from the social sciences, (2)
technologies that consist entirely or predominantly of human action
(polling, rhetoric, and psychotherapy are examples of social technology
in this sense) or (3) technologies for the creation and maintenance of
groups.
Costs
Thanks to generous support from WTMC, there is no registration fee.
Some funding is available to cover travel to the workshop.
Location
The workshop will be hosted by the Virtual Knowledge Studio for the
Humanities and Social Sciences, Amsterdam.
Organisers
Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) –
m.derksen@rug.nl Signe Vikkelsø (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark) –
ssv.ioa@cbs.dk Anne Beaulieu (Virtual Knowledge Studio, The
Netherlands) – anne.beaulieu@vks.knaw.nl
Timeline
Deadline for submissions: 30 May 2009
Announcement of paper acceptance: end of June 2009
Deadline for full papers: 22 August 2009
Workshop: 2 October 2009
Sponsored by The Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and
Modern Culture (WTMC)
Call for participants
This one-day workshop will be held in Amsterdam, 2 October 2009. Papers
will be pre-circulated and a respondent assigned for each contribution.
If you are interested in submitting a paper, please send an abstract,
400 – 600 words, before 30 May 2009, to
Topic
In this workshop, we seek to address two deeply ingrained aspects of
current Science and Technology Studies: the focus on material
technology, and the idea that all technology is social. Devices,
machines, artifacts take central place in STS, in keeping with the
common sense meaning of the word ‘technology’. Combined with STS's
traditional focus on natural science and medicine, this has resulted in
a relative neglect of technologies that stem from the social sciences,
in which material devices are less prominent. Moreover, through the
influence of actor-network theory in particular, the idea has taken
root that material technology forms the glue of our society (the
'missing masses'), as well as being its main source of change. Material
technology is considered to be at the heart of society, and the
dichotomy of the social and the technological is rejected: all
technology is social, and society is technological through and through.
We wish first of all to redress the imbalance inherent in the material
view of technology. The social sciences produce great numbers of
graduates each year, skilled in technologies that are to a large extent
intangible: psychotherapy, focus groups, various types of interview,
techniques of human resource management, and many others. Such
practices have of course been the subject of historical and
sociological study, often from a Foucauldian perspective. However,
applying the conceptual resources of STS may bring into better view the
socio-material construction processes involved in practical social
science, its particular affordances and trade-offs, and embeddedness in
technoscientific networks.
Secondly, we want to problematize the popular 'dissolution of the
social': the widely accepted proposition that the category of 'the
social' is at best increasingly irrelevant, and at worst a fundamental
mistake. Rethinking old dichotomies such as that of nature and culture,
or the material and the social, has been of tremendous importance in
reflecting on our current ways of living. However, the fact that it is
no longer acceptable as a theoretical resource, does not make the
social any less interesting as an empirical phenomenon. The
distinctiveness of people and their interactions is still invoked,
produced, repressed, and utilized in many technological assemblages,
not only those stemming from the social sciences.
We propose the term 'social technology' to cover these issues, and
intend to bring together a number of scholars from Science and
Technology Studies and the Social Sciences to discuss them.
The workshop will be the occasion to address the following questions,
through theoretical and conceptual reflections and empirically-oriented
contributions: What is the current scope of technology studies and to
what extent can it embrace social technologies? Which social
technologies are especially prominent in contemporary culture, and how
can we study these? Does a reframing of ‘technology’ enable STS to
better explore the workings of social science and humanities? How can
the term social technology allow a study of human qualities, without
assuming a priori a human essence?
Papers that compare the role of predominantly material technologies in
building and stabilizing 'collectives' with the role of social
technologies are also welcome, as are papers that address social
technologies as (1) technologies from the social sciences, (2)
technologies that consist entirely or predominantly of human action
(polling, rhetoric, and psychotherapy are examples of social technology
in this sense) or (3) technologies for the creation and maintenance of
groups.
Costs
Thanks to generous support from WTMC, there is no registration fee.
Some funding is available to cover travel to the workshop.
Location
The workshop will be hosted by the Virtual Knowledge Studio for the
Humanities and Social Sciences, Amsterdam.
Organisers
Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) –
m.derksen@rug.nl Signe Vikkelsø (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark) –
ssv.ioa@cbs.dk Anne Beaulieu (Virtual Knowledge Studio, The
Netherlands) – anne.beaulieu@vks.knaw.nl
Timeline
Deadline for submissions: 30 May 2009
Announcement of paper acceptance: end of June 2009
Deadline for full papers: 22 August 2009
Workshop: 2 October 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
WORKSHOP May 2009 CFP
Enacting social sciences and humanities within contemporary science policy landscape
CALL FOR PAPERS
Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.
http://www.sshstudies.net
Science has always been entangled with politics. Since WWII the political influence on science has been taking a form of an ever stronger policy intervention. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. We would like to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines. We want to take up the double marginality of social sciences and humanities (SSH) – with regard to the modern objectivist pretension to exact and causal knowledge on one hand and the neoliberal pretension to instrumental and marketable knowledge on the other – as a standpoint from which we could analyse the dominant science imaginaries and practices.
The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in. We want to focus specifically on two dimensions of science policies. First, we want to analyse the concept of “impact”, both academic and societal, implied in science policies and the possibilities of assessing it. To give an example, in the Czech Republic only technological outputs count as a legitimate form of societal (non-academic) impact of science which has implications for SSH as its articulations in society take different forms. Second, we want to look into research priorities – how they are constructed and legitimated, and to what sort of society SSH are encouraged to contribute. We invite papers based on empirical study including auto-ethnography.
We would like to arrange a meeting of collective in situ thinking. In order to keep the space for discussions during the workshop, we ask participants to send in advance a paper (5-10 pages) including a brief sketch of science policies in their countries concerning SSH with a focus on “impact” and “research priorities” and a short “case study” discussing one issue in greater detail. Participants from the same country can coordinate a partially shared paper or one of them can look at EU policy. Abstracts containing contact address should be sent to policies@sshstudies.net to the organisers of the workshop Alice Červinková and Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic), Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna, Austria) who are associated in http://www.sshstudies.net .
We would like to prepare a special issue with contributions of participants including collective conclusions (may we arrive at them).
Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.
http://www.sshstudies.net
Science has always been entangled with politics. Since WWII the political influence on science has been taking a form of an ever stronger policy intervention. While the timing and scope differ for countries the general tendency is clear: science policies strive to measure impact and effectiveness of research, enhance and channel mobility of researchers, stimulate collaborations and knowledge transfer between the academy and industry. Like other neoliberal policies science policy pretends to be apolitical and care solely about “excellence” and “effectiveness”. We would like to disclose and analyse the politics - of knowledge and social order - implicated in the policy interventions by starting from the observation that while the measure and quality criteria employed are most often formulated as universal for science as a whole many of them prioritise the model of knowledge production and career in (certain) natural sciences and technical disciplines. We want to take up the double marginality of social sciences and humanities (SSH) – with regard to the modern objectivist pretension to exact and causal knowledge on one hand and the neoliberal pretension to instrumental and marketable knowledge on the other – as a standpoint from which we could analyse the dominant science imaginaries and practices.
The goal of the workshop is to map the diversity – or uniformity – of policy treatments of SSH in different countries; to investigate some of the implications these polices have for knowledge production and research careers in SSH; and to think about implications current polices have for so called “knowledge society” we are living in. We want to focus specifically on two dimensions of science policies. First, we want to analyse the concept of “impact”, both academic and societal, implied in science policies and the possibilities of assessing it. To give an example, in the Czech Republic only technological outputs count as a legitimate form of societal (non-academic) impact of science which has implications for SSH as its articulations in society take different forms. Second, we want to look into research priorities – how they are constructed and legitimated, and to what sort of society SSH are encouraged to contribute. We invite papers based on empirical study including auto-ethnography.
We would like to arrange a meeting of collective in situ thinking. In order to keep the space for discussions during the workshop, we ask participants to send in advance a paper (5-10 pages) including a brief sketch of science policies in their countries concerning SSH with a focus on “impact” and “research priorities” and a short “case study” discussing one issue in greater detail. Participants from the same country can coordinate a partially shared paper or one of them can look at EU policy. Abstracts containing contact address should be sent to policies@sshstudies.net to the organisers of the workshop Alice Červinková and Tereza Stöckelová (Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic), Katja Mayer and Veronika Wöhrer (University of Vienna, Austria) who are associated in http://www.sshstudies.net .
We would like to prepare a special issue with contributions of participants including collective conclusions (may we arrive at them).
Venue: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 22–23, 2009
Deadline for applications and abstracts: April 10, 2009
Deadline for papers: May 15, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)