• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Curiosity and commercialization: Faculty perspectives on sponsored research, academic science and research agendas.
【24h】

Curiosity and commercialization: Faculty perspectives on sponsored research, academic science and research agendas.

机译：好奇心和商业化：教师对赞助研究，学术科学和研究议程的看法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Given the need to compete for sponsored research funding, do university faculty believe they retain the freedom to research what is of most interest to them? The higher education literature frequently asserts that faculty research agendas are being subjugated to the demands of sponsors. An alternate perspective, from the science studies literature, posits that academic science itself is changing as some research faculty adapt to a transformed environment for knowledge production that involves new working relationships with sponsors.;However, this transformation produces an altered conception of academic science that moves away from traditional normative systems such as those proposed by Robert Merton. The literature shows that academic scientists can deviate from traditional norms of research practice, but it is not known to what value systems they are gravitating. This question requires conceptualizing academic science as a social activity, understanding that faculty adaptation involves the construction of new organizing frameworks for science as they integrate conflicting values and experience ambivalence regarding their research demands.;Based on an original survey collecting data from more than 1200 faculty at doctoral/research universities, the study has two areas of foci concerning academic science. The primary question addresses concerns that, owing to the need to locate extramural sponsorship for research, university faculty are losing the ability to determine their own research agendas. Following analysis of multiple conceptions, levels of perceived control in different contexts reveal complex patterns of adaptation and negotiation in relation to external circumstances. A more nuanced understanding of control emerges.;The second question examines the value systems present in academic science--- such as those proposed by Merton's norms---in relation to alternate views to determine whether faculty would view different academic values as legitimate or even necessary to perform research. The findings reject the notion of conventional values being predominant, and discrete types within the typology being tested were not supported. The findings indicate that faculty move among multiple value systems when conducting academic science.
机译：鉴于有必要竞争获得赞助研究经费的需要，大学教师是否认为他们保留研究自由的权利？高等教育文献经常断言，教师研究议程正在服从赞助者的要求。从科学研究文献中得出的另一种观点认为，随着一些研究教师适应知识生产的转变环境（涉及与赞助者建立新的工作关系），学术科学本身也在发生变化;然而，这种转变产生了一种学术科学观念的变化，即摆脱了罗伯特·默顿（Robert Merton）提出的传统规范体系。文献表明，学术科学家可以偏离传统的研究实践规范，但是尚不清楚他们采用哪种价值体系。这个问题需要将学术科学概念化为一种社会活动，要认识到教师适应性需要构建新的科学组织框架，因为它们融合了相互矛盾的价值观并在研究需求上存在矛盾情绪;基于原始调查收集了1200多个教师的数据在博士/研究型大学中，这项研究有两个与学术科学有关的领域。主要问题解决了以下担忧：由于需要寻找校外赞助进行研究，大学教师正在失去确定自己研究计划的能力。在分析了多个概念之后，在不同情况下感知控制的水平揭示了与外部环境相关的适应和谈判的复杂模式。出现了对控制的更细微的理解。第二个问题考察了学术科学中存在的价值体系（例如默顿准则提出的价值体系）与替代观点的关系，以确定教师是否会认为不同的学术价值观是合法的还是合法的。甚至需要进行研究。该发现拒绝了以常规值为主的概念，并且不支持所测试类型学中的离散类型。研究结果表明，教师在进行学术研究时会在多种价值体系之间转移。

著录项

  • 作者

    Perorazio, Thomas E.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Michigan.;

  • 授予单位 University of Michigan.;
  • 学科 Education Finance.;History of Science.;Education Higher.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 284 p.
  • 总页数 284
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号