Desig esignin ing Too Tools f for or Ser Serendip ipit ity J. Britt Holbrook School of Public Policy Britt.Holbrook@pubpolicy.gatech.edu February 19, 2015
Designing Tools for Serendipity 1. Brief professional autobiography 2. Peer review as a tool for accountability & autonomy 3. Designing tools for serendipity 2
Brief professional autobiography • Professional training in the history of philosophy • 100% teaching positions at GSU and Emory • 100% research position at UNT • Assistant Director, CSID (50/50 research/admin) • Visiting Assistant Professor, Georgia Tech 3
The science-society relation Linear Model Basic Reservoir of Applied Societal $ Development Technology Application Research Knowledge Research Benefits Peer Review Pielke & Byerly (1998) “Beyond Basic and Applied” 4
Accountability in the science-society relation Science Accountability Societal metrics Peer review (national needs) 5
Peer review – a tool designed for what? NSF Merit Review Criteria (1997-2012) • What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 6
2010 Ocean Sciences Meeting 24 February Portland, Oregon, USA
2010 Ocean Sciences Meeting 24 February Portland, Oregon, USA
2010 Ocean Sciences Meeting 24 February Portland, Oregon, USA
CSID Impacts, 2008-2011 Activities and Results CSID Activity Result Aug ‘07: Holbrook/Frodeman--$25k NSF grant: Fall ’09: Special issue of Social Epistemology : “Making Sense of the ‘Broader Impacts’ of US National Science Foundation’s Broader Science” Impacts Criterion (Holbrook, ed.) October ‘08: Frodeman/Holbrook--$394k NSF grant: “Comparative Assessment of Peer Review” April ‘10: Frodeman and Holbrook briefing April ‘10: NSB Merit Review Task Force buys 25 with NSF Staff writing report to Congress on copies of Social Epistemology Special Issue Broader Impacts Criterion Aug ‘10: Report on America COMPETES April ‘10: Meeting with John Veysey, Asst. to Reauthorization Act uses CSID Rep. Lipinski (D-IL) recommendations. Dec ‘10: Tornow attends Brussels EC July, ’10: Meeting with NSB Merit Review Task workshop on “Peer Review & Broader Force Exec. Sec. Tornow Impacts” Research Evaluation (‘11) article compares NSF and EC on use of impact criteria; Dec, ‘11 NSB/MR 11-22: “NSF’s Merit Review Science Progress article June 27 and letter in Criteria: Review and Revisions,” ‘national Science, July 8 argue against ‘national goals’ goals’ list dropped list
Autonomy & Accountability Scientists NSF Congress Merit Review 12
Directions for future research 1. Metrics 13
Altmetrics 14
Designing tools for serendipity 1. Tools 2. Conviviality 3. Basic research 4. Serendipity – sagacity, accident, phronesis, usefulness 15
Designing tools for serendipity 1. Tools 2. Conviviality 3. Basic research 4. Serendipity – sagacity, accident, phronesis, usefulness 16
Designing tools for serendipity 1. Tools 2. Conviviality 3. Basic research 4. Serendipity – sagacity, accident, phronesis, usefulness 17
Designing tools for serendipity • Illich (1973) Tools for Conviviality • Basic vs. applied research – intrinsic vs. instrumental value • Peer review vs. metrics – academic vs. societal impact • Autonomy vs. accountability • Serendipity – sagacity regarding opportunity • Thanks! 18
Recommend
More recommend
