Beyond the Linear Model: Constructing Basic and Applied Knowledge by Russian Scientists (the Case of Biologists)
https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-2-109-131
Abstract
The article analyzes the perception of the difference between fundamental and applied scientific knowledge using the case of a particular group of Russian scientists. The sample consisted mainly of researchers who work in university laboratories, research centers and research groups specializing in biology and biosafety. Using a qualitative analysis of interviews with representatives of this group, the authors examine the ways of constructing a border between theoretical and applied research. The interpretation of the results is carried out using the scales of Boltanski and Thйvenot’s concept of “worlds of justification”. The conceptual model for separating fundamental and applied knowledge was Donald Stokes’ model of the relationship between science and technology, the socalled “Pasteur’s Quadrant.” The research demonstrates that Russian scientists prefer to engage in fundamental science, less often choosing applied projects. They use strategies to “fence off” from applied tasks or simulate the applied nature of their research. The boundaries between the categories of fundamental and applied are flexible and reassembled in each research project depending on the context, financial conditions, and applied competencies of the participants involved. When solving applied problems becomes inevitable, scientists prefer to refer to this as engaging in “non-genuine” science. The authors conclude that the traditional division into fundamental and applied research does not correspond to the daily practices of research activities.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR and FRLC, project No. 20-511- 23001
About the Authors
O. V. Bychkova
European University at St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Bychkova – PhD (Public Policy), Candidate of Sciences (Sociology), Dean of the Department of Sociology, Head of the STS Center
6/1, A, Gagarinskaya str., St. Petersburg 191187
ResearcherID: V-5970-2018
I. N. Pupysheva
Tyumen State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina N. Pupysheva – Candidate of Sciences (Philosophy), Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy
6, Volodarskogo St., Tyumen, 625003
References
1. Calvert, J. (2006). What’s Special about Basic Research? Science, Technology & Human Values. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199-220, doi: 10.1177/0162243905283642
2. Godin, B. (2006). The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework. Science, Technology & Human Values. Vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 639–667, doi: 10.1177/0162243906291865
3. Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., Orsenigo, L. (2010). In Defence of the Linear Model. Research Policy. Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.013
4. Konnov, V.I., Talagaeva, D.A. (2003). The Concept of “Innovation” as a Political Tool: From a Linear Innovation Model to a “Triangle Of Knowledge”. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya = Polis. Political Studies. No 5, pp. 29-44, doi: 10.17976/jpps/2023.05.03 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).
5. Stephan, A. (1996). The Economics of Science. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association. Vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1199-1235, doi: 10.1007/BF02696298
6. Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 199 p. ISBN-10: 0815781776. ISBN-13: 978-0815781776.
7. Bush, V. (2020). Science, the Endless Frontier. Princeton University Press. 192 p. ISBN-10: 0691186626. ISBN-13: 978-0691186627.
8. Funtowicz, S.O. Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures.Vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 739-755, doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
9. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1995). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Contemporary Sociology. Vol. 24, no. 6, doi: 10.2307/2076669
10. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Oxford. 288 p. ISBN: 978-0-745-62607-9.
11. Unger, M., Polt, W. (2017). The Knowledge Triangle Between Research, Education and Innovation – A Conceptual Discussion. Foresight and STI Governance.Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 10-26, doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.10.26
12. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation In Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information. Vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 293-337, doi: 10.1177/05390184030423002
13. Kuhlmann, S., Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 448-454, doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy011
14. Jacob, J., Lamari, M. (2012). Factors Influencing Research Performance in Higher Education: An Empirical Investigation. Foresight-Russia. Vol. 6 , no. 3, pp. 40-49. Available at: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2013/09/23/1279019442/04-Lamari-40-50.pdf (accessed 05.11.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
15. Laudel, G. (2006). The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to Their Funding Conditions. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 489-504, doi: 10.3152/147154306781778777
16. Bentley, P.J., Gulbrandsen, M., Kyvik, S. (2015). The Relationship Between Basic and Applied Research in Universities. High Education, No. 70, pp. 689-709, doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9861-2
17. Fuller, S. (2012). The Art of Being Human: A Project for General Philosophy of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. No. 43, pp. 113-123, doi: 10.1177/0048393117740824
18. Pickering, A. (1984). Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neutral Current. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 85-117, doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(84)90001-3
19. Lomnitz, L.A., Cházaro. L. (1999). Basic, Applied and Technological Research: Computer Science and Applied Mathematics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 113-134, doi: 10.1177/030631299029001005
20. Bychkova, O., Gladarev, B., Kharkhordin, O., Tsinman, Zh. (2019). Fantasticheskie miry rossiiskogo khai-teka [Fantastic Worlds of Russian Hi-Tech]. Saint Petersburg: Publ. house of The European University at Saint Petersburg. ISBN: 978-5-94380-264-5. (In Russ.).
21. Bychkova, О. (2022). Creativity vs Commercialization: Russian Engineers, Their Inspiration and Innovation Process. Engineering Studies. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 34-55, doi: 10.1080/19378629.2022.2042002
22. Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard, 496 p. ISBN: 9782070722549. (Russian Translation: Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L. Kritika i obosnovanie spravedlivosti. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 2013. 576 p. ISBN: 978-5-4448- 0079-9.).
23. Creswell, J., Cheryl, N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Sage. 488 p. ISBN-10: 1506330207. ISBN-13: 978-1506330204.
24. Shmatko, N., Volkova, G. (2017). Service or Devotion? Motivation Patterns of Russian Researchers. Foresight and STI Governance, Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 54-66, doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2017.1.54.66
25. Krause, I. (2019). Coworking Spaces: Windows to the Future of Work? Changes in the Organizational Model of Work and the Attitudes of the Younger Generation. Foresight-Russia. 2019. Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 52-60, doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2019.2.52.60
26. Hoffman, S. (2015). Thinking Science with Thinking Machines: The Multiple Realities of Basic and Applied Knowledge in a Research Border Zone. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 45, no. 2, pp 242-269, doi: 10.1177/0306312714564912
27. National Academy of Sciences (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press. 592 p. DOI: 10.17226/11463
28. Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review. Vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 781-795, doi: 10.2307/2095325
29. Edgerton, D. (2004). The Linear Model’ Did Not Exist: Reflections on the History and Historiography of Science and Research in Industry in the Twentieth Century. In: Karl Grandin and Nina Wormbs (Eds.). The Science-Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications. New York, Wats. Pp. 31-57. Available at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shapin/files/shapin-industrial_scientist_2004.pdf (accessed 05.11.2023).
30. Bychkova, O. (2016). Innovation by Coercion: Emerging Institutionalization of University– Industry Collaborations in Russia. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 511-535, doi: 10.1177/0306312716654768
31. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. 274 p. ISBN: 0674792912, 9780674792913.
Review
Views:
320
Email this article 