Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:44:33.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New combinations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Arie Rip
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By looking at science as a search process, disciplinary demarcations become secondary, and new combinations—which occur all the time—can be better recognized. The practices of natural science contain social science components (to discipline the world) and humanities components (telling of stories), and the quality of these components can be enhanced. The search perspective unifies science and scholarship; the important differences are not between natural science, social science and humanities, but between ‘grammar’, ‘(hi)story’ and ‘nomology’, three ideal–typical approaches in search processes. Existing scientific/scholarly developments and new combinations can be located on this map. An integrated science policy should create a stimulating environment for new combinations.

Information

Type
FOCUS—Science and Technology Assessment
Information
European Review , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1995, pp. 83 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Ginzburg, C. (1979) Clues. Roots of a scientific paradigm. Theory and Society 7, 273–288.Google Scholar
2.Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In Kroes, P. and Bakker, M. (Eds) Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age, pp. 231–270. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kuhn, Th. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second enlarged edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
4.Kuhn, Th. S. (1977) The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Mulkay, M. J. (1977) Sociology of the Scientific Research Community. In Spiegel-Rösing, I. and de Solla Price, D. J. (Eds) Science, Technology and Society. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, pp. 93–148. Sage Publications, London and Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
6.Porter, A. L. and Rossini, F. A. (1984) Interdisciplinary research redefined: multi-skill, problem-focused research in the STRAP framework. R&D Management 14(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
7.Rossini, F. A. and Porter, A. L. (1985) Interdisciplinary research without disciplines. In Mar, B. W., Newell, W. T. and Saxberg, B. O. (Eds) Managing High Technology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 201–207. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
8.Rip, A.. (1981) A cognitive approach to science policy. Research Policy 10, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Elzinga, A. (1985) Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. In Wittrock, B. and Elzinga, A. (Eds) The University Research System. The Public Policies of the Home of the Scientists, pp. 191–220. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm.Google Scholar
10.Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C. and Hoffman, E. (1992) Expertise as a network: a case study of the controversies over environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. In Stehr, N. and Richardson, R. V. (Eds) The Culture and Power of Knowledge. Inquiries into Contemporary Societies, pp. 341–361. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
11.Rip, A. (1982) The development of restrictedness in the sciences. In Elias, N., Martins, H. and Whitley, R. D. (Eds) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, pp. 219–238. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Latour, B. (1983) Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Knorr-Cetina, K. and Mulkay, M. J. (Eds) Science Observed, pp. 141–170. Sage, London and Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
13.Medawar, P. B. (1969) The Art of the Soluble. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p. 170.Google Scholar
14.Saris, F. W. (1981) [Text of inaugural lecture, based on his diary as a physicist], De Gids.Google Scholar
15.Ziman, J. (1968) Public Knowledge. The Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
16.Ziman, J. (1978) Reliable Knowledge. An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
17.Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policy Makers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
18.Rip, A. (1985) Experts in public arenas. In Otway, H. and Peltu, M. (Eds) Regulating Industrial Risks. Science, Hazards and Public Protection, pp. 94–110. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
19.Rip, A. (1992) Experts and pragmatic rationality. In Stehr, N., Ericson, R. V. (Eds) The Culture and Power of Knowledge. Inquiries into Contemporary Societies, pp. 363–379. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
20.Ezrahi, Y. (1980) Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: the political context of scientific advice. Minerva 18(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Medawar, P. B. (1969) The Art of the Soluble. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p. 170.Google Scholar
22.van Lente, H. (1993) Promising Technology. Eburon, Delft.Google Scholar
23.Markus, G. (1987) Why is there no hermeneutics of natural sciences? Some preliminary theses. Science in Context 1(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Rip, A. (1994) Science and technology studies and constructive technology assessment. EASST Newsletter, 13(3), 11–16; (09 1994) Keynote speech, Conference of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, Budapest, 28–31 August 1994.Google Scholar
25.Ziman, J. (1994) An ironic reflection. EASST Newsletter, 13(3), 17–18; (09 1994).Google Scholar
26.Zilsel, E. (1976) Die sozialen Ursprung der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
27.Mason, S. F. (1962) A History of the Sciences, new revised edition. Collier Books, New York, p. 290.Google Scholar
28.Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
29.McCormmach, R. (1982) Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1979) La Nouvelle Alliance. Métamorphose de la Science, éd. Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
31.Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. (1989) Die Gesellschaft als Labor. Risikotransformation und Risikokonstitution durch moderne Forschung. In Halfman, J., Japp, K. P. (Hrsg.) Riskante Entscheidungen und Katastrophenpotentiale—Elemente einer soziologischen Risikoforschung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
32.Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. (1994) Society as a laboratory: the social risk, of experimental research. Science and Public Policy 21(3), 173–183.Google Scholar