How does the science reform movement align with broader changes in the academic landscape? Tom Hostler tackles this question in a new article on “Scientific reform, post-academic research, and academic identity”: https://markrubin.substack.com/p/scientific-reform-post-academic-research
🧵👇
#OpenScience
#MetaScience
#MetaResearch
#ReplicationCrisis
#SociologyofScience
#ScienceofScience
#STS
@stsing
Tom contextualizes the science reform movement in relation to Ziman’s (2000) concept of “post-academic research,” which is research done for instrumental reasons (e.g., to solve a local problem) rather than for its own sake.
Post-academic research has been slowly taking over academia, with the push for industry collaboration a key sign (see also https://markrubin.substack.com/p/the-industrialisation-of-science). But how does science reform align with post-academic research?
In my view, Tom’s analysis also helps to explain why replication failures are more troubling in a post-academic context.
In traditional academic research, replication failures are a feature, not a bug. In contrast, in post-academic research, replication failures threaten the usefulness of potential solutions to local problems, and so there’s a pressure to eliminate them.
Anyway, Tom’s article is a fascinating read that relates changes in science to broader changes in academia.
And before you go, here’s another of Tom’s recent contributions you might find interesting: “The Invisible Workload of Open Research”: https://doi.org/10.36850/mr5
Interesting perspective! I need to read Ziman's book. I use the labels artisanal vs. industrial science for his academic/post-academic. And I see Open Science as the next phase, distinct from industrial in many ways. But there is indeed a neoliberal interpretation where open is just about efficiency.
That reminds me of @sabinaleonelli 's recent book and in particular her distinction of focusing on products vs. processes.
Mark Rubin
Konrad Hinsen