首页> 外文期刊>Minerva >Re-disciplining Academic Careers? Interdisciplinary Practice and Career Development in a Swedish Environmental Sciences Research Center
【24h】

Re-disciplining Academic Careers? Interdisciplinary Practice and Career Development in a Swedish Environmental Sciences Research Center

机译:重新划分学术职业?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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.
机译:跨学科性通常被认为对解决当代社会的复杂问题和实现创新的新水平至关重要。但是,尽管科学政策和机构为激励整个欧洲的跨学科工作提供了各种激励措施,但越来越多的证据表明,学术系统的某些方面不一定奖励跨学科工作。在这项研究中,我们探讨了瑞典环境科学研究中心的职业中期研究人员如何与因制度和政策冲动而引起的不确定性的不同形式联系起来并加以处理。我们的材料表明,跨学科的学者经常面临着挑战,有时他们自己对他们的研究实践有着令人惊讶的二分法,有价值的观点。学科性主要与科学严谨的理想有关,而学科间性则与面向应用的工作和缺乏“理论”混为一谈。我们还提请注意潜在的实践动力,这种动力再现了这种张力并将其与学术社会化的整个过程纠缠在一起。具体而言,我们分析了研究人员在异构供资环境中开展跨学科研究机会时所依赖的各种变通方法所产生的矛盾结果。事实证明,这些策略被大学正式职业激励的压倒一切的规范力量所破坏,这些规范力量继续强调那些在学科期刊上发表论文并吸引最多选择性资助的个人高绩效学者的理想。在这种情况下,变通方法本身成为一种阴险的机制,使研究人员可以留在学术界,但会在过程中系统地边缘化他们的声音和认知野心。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Minerva》 |2019年第4期|479-499|共21页
  • 作者单位

    Tech Univ Munich Munich Ctr Technol Soc Augustenstr 44-46 D-80333 Munich Germany|Tech Univ Munich Sch Management Augustenstr 44-46 D-80333 Munich Germany;

    Leiden Univ Ctr Sci & Technol Studies POB 905 NL-2300 AX Leiden Netherlands;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Interdisciplinarity; Science funding; Academic career; Sweden;

    机译:跨学科;科学资助;学术生涯;瑞典;

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