Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures, and institutions in science, higher education, and research. It is equally focused on historical as well as present practices and on local as well as global issues. Moreover, the journal does not represent one single school of thought, but rather welcomes diversity within the rules of rational discourse.

Esha Shah, Who is the Scientist-Subject? Affective History of the Gene

Stress-Testing Europe: Normalizing the Post-Fukushima Crisis Abstract The Fukushima accident was a crisis in Japan, and a crisis elsewhere. In Europe, the aftermath of Fukushima was a period of intense questioning, about how to ensure the safety of nuclear reactors, and how, at the same time, ensure the ability of the European Union to act as a consistent political actor in the face of potentially catastrophic risks. Using empirical material related to the post-Fukushima stress tests and the subsequent discussions about the European regulatory framework for nuclear safety, this paper shows that stress tests have provided a peculiar form of European intervention, restabilizing regulatory boundaries while extending the European gaze. It describes the overall operation thereby performed as the "normalization of the crisis" whereby the exceptional situation enters the realm of the normal functioning of the public administrations, and where the actions undertaken take the form of the legal norm.

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures Abstract This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found significant differences in the manifestation of the six main resources that are part of the cycle, the mechanisms of conversion between these resources, the overall structure and the average speed of the credibility cycle. The different ways in which the groups use data and produce arguments affect the whole cycle of accumulating credibility. In some cultures, journal publications are the main source of recognition, but in others one can earn significant amounts of recognition for conference contributions or service to the academic community. Moreover, the collaboration practices in the respective fields strongly influence the connection between arguments and publications. In cultures where teams of researchers collaboratively produce arguments, it is more strongly embedded in the process of writing publications. We conclude that the credibility cycle can only be used as an analytical tool to explain the behavior of researchers or research groups when taking differences across epistemic cultures into account.

The Ethos of Science in Contemporary Poland Abstract Modern science is moving away from Michael Polanyi's vision of 'the Republic of Science' and gradually becoming subordinate to political and economic social institutions. This process is accompanied by changes in the normative structure of science. Poland provides an interesting case for empirical study of the scientific ethos mostly because in a relatively short time it experienced a significant reform of the science system, especially in terms of evaluating and financing scientific work. In this paper we examine whether different sets of values and norms are embedded into the normative structure of science in contemporary Poland. The results of a representative survey conducted among 801 researchers were examined with the use of confirmatory factor analysis and fuzzy clustering. The statistical analysis revealed a great complexity in the normative structure of science that goes beyond the expectations formulated on the basis of the theories reviewed. We identified three distinctive groups of researchers, guided by different sets of values and norms in their professional conduct (academic science, post-academic science and the industrial science) and a cluster of researchers with an unidentified system of principles. We argue that the complexity of the normative structure of science should be taken into account in the decision-making regarding any future reforms of the science system.

What are Clinician Scientists Expected to do? The Undefined Space for Professionalizable Work in Translational Biomedicine Abstract Clinician scientists have gained institutional support in the era of translational research, as the key solution to closing the 'translational gap' between biomedical research and medical practice. However, clinician scientists remain an 'endangered species' in search of a secure niche, while new grants and training programs attempt to counteract their measurable decline in numbers over the past decades. Our study asks how an occupational space for clinician scientists is currently situated between the politics of translation, professional dynamics, and the specialization of academic disciplines. We interviewed clinician scientists, their adjacent professions—clinicians and biomedical researchers—, and contrast their views with expectations from the discourse on clinician scientists in the biomedical and policy literature. We identify professionalizable work and tasks that relate to, first, being able to speak the two languages of both clinic and research, second, translating patients' needs and clinical experience for further research, and third, counteracting the trends towards specialization by providing an inclusive point of view. We find that clinician scientists are overburdened with fulfilling a hybrid role of simultaneously being clinicians and scientists. Based on these findings, we suggest a path for the future professional development of clinician scientists towards the role of a translator.

The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains Abstract We extend previous research by systematically investigating whether perceptions of scientific authorship vary between domains. Employing regulations for authorship of scientific journals as well as the Scientists Survey 2016 conducted by the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), we provide a comprehensive picture of perceptions of scientific authorship across domains from the perspective of the supply side (journals) as well as the demand side (researchers). We find considerable differences in the perception of authorship across disciplines on both sides. Hence, not only domain-specific "formal norms," but also domain-specific statements about ideals can be observed with regard to scientific authorship. The results have important implications: in order to avoid that researchers in disciplines with much narrower definitions of authorship are disadvantaged when compared to their colleagues from disciplines that rely on broader authorship definitions, domain-specific perceptions of authorship should be taken into account when allocating funding and jobs.

Symbolic Violence in Academic Life: A Study on How Junior Scholars are Educated in the Art of Getting Funded Abstract It is widely recognized that universities all around Europe have taken on a more market-oriented approach that has changed the core of academic work life. This has led to a precarious situation for many junior scholars, who have to seek research funding to cover their own wages in an increasingly fierce competition over scarce resources. Thus, at present, research funding is a Gordian knot that must be cut by each individual researcher. As a response to this situation, some Swedish universities provide guidance to junior scholars on how to navigate in an increasingly entrepreneurial academia through open lectures by senior and successful professors. In this paper, I study these lectures as socialization processes and the role of symbolic violence in the justification of a competitive academic work ethos as well as a pragmatic acceptance of the prevailing funding conditions. The aim is to explore the role of a subtle form of power wielding that is not immediately understood or recognized as power, but that nonetheless reproduces a market-like behavior and legitimizes a career system marked by uncertainty, shortcomings and contradictions.

Enhancing Socio-technical Governance: Targeting Inequality in Innovation Through Inclusivity Mainstreaming Abstract Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies and science policy studies. Recent calls for midstream modulation direct attention to a more complicated model of innovation, and a new place for social scientists to intervene in research, design and development. This paper develops and expands this earlier work to demonstrate how a suite of concepts from science and technology studies and innovation studies can be used as a heuristic tool to conduct real-time evaluation and reflection during the process of innovation – upstream, midstream, and downstream. The result of this new protocol is inclusivity mainstreaming: determining if and how marginalized peoples and perspectives are being maximally incorporated into the model of innovation, while highlighting common problems of inequality that need to be addressed.

The Rationalization of Korean Universities Abstract The expansion of the higher education system and the rationalization of universities in South Korea, while broadly following the global patterns, reflect the characteristics of the national political system. We show the rapid growth of universities and document core organizational changes among universities: the elaboration of faculty performance evaluation rules, the expansion and differentiation of central administrations, and the emergence of engagement in vision statements. These changes, constructing universities as organizational actors, parallel the changes in higher education systems elsewhere. However, the uniqueness of the Korean experience lies with the role of the state as a catalyst guiding the overall direction and the structure and strategy of universities. We discuss the implications of our research for the rationalization of universities in a highly centralized system.

Re-disciplining Academic Careers? Interdisciplinary Practice and Career Development in a Swedish Environmental Sciences Research Center Abstract Interdisciplinarity is often framed as crucial for addressing the complex problems of contemporary society and for achieving new levels of innovation. But while science policy and institutions have provided a variety of incentives for stimulating interdisciplinary work throughout Europe, there is also growing evidence that some aspects of the academic system do not necessarily reward interdisciplinary work. In this study, we explore how mid-career researchers in an environmental science research center in Sweden relate to and handle the distinct forms of uncertainty that arise from conflicting institutional and policy impulses. Our material suggests that interdisciplinary academics are often confronted with and at times themselves operate with a surprisingly dichotomous, value-laden view of their research practice. Disciplinarity is primarily associated with the ideals of scientific rigor, while interdisciplinarity becomes conflated with application-oriented work and a lack of 'theory.' We also draw attention to the underlying practical dynamics that reproduce this tension and entangle it with the very process of academic socialization. Specifically, we analyze the ambivalent consequences of the various work-arounds that researchers rely on to carve out opportunities for ongoing interdisciplinary research within heterogeneous funding landscapes. These tactics turn out to be undermined by the overriding normative power of formal career incentives at universities, which continue to emphasize the ideals of the individual high-performing academic who publishes in disciplinary journals and attracts the most selective grants. Under such circumstances, the work-arounds themselves become an insidious mechanism that allows researchers to stay in academia but systematically marginalizes their voices and epistemic ambitions in the process.

ianakis
Anapafseos 5 . Agios Nikolaos
Crete.Greece.72100
2841026182

6948891480

alsfakia@gmail.com