English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

When thinking about this contribution, an homage to John Ziman, one question occurred to me repeatedly: what would John have made of the Europe an Research Council? Here is a newly established institution with the sole objective to fund ‘fronti er research’ at EU level, based exclusively on scie ntif c excellence and subject to pan-European competition of the best researchers. Would he have interpreted it as a vindication of academic science as a culture, a d liberate turning away from ‘post-academic scien ce’ or even of overcoming it? Or, would he have seen it as the establishment of a small niche, to be recognized (and praised) for its respect for the no rms of academic science, whose wider impact still h as to be seen? A third possibility would have been to suspect that the ERC is merely another clever move to compensate for, or to ‘beautify’ a research landsca pe that increasingly comes to resemble what he call d the ‘scientific coal face’ – a vast and growing are a of research, propelled by the search for utility and guided by the ubiquitous pragmatism that has taken over, asking specific questions instead of followin g the curiosity of the individual researcher. Not that John was overtly combative in opposing wha t he called “post-academic science”. He was a realist in accepting it, albeit with much regret fo r what seemed to him irrevocably lost. He was inter ested as many others were, including my collaborators and myself, to probe the ongoing deep transformation that the science system was undergoing over the pas t fifteen years or so. “Real science” for him also meant to embed science in realistic circumstances. H therefore accepted developments that evidently were happening, seeking to analyze and interpret th em. But he deliberately went one step further than most of us, in subjecting the changes in institutio nal and scientific practices not only to academic scrutiny, but in probing their likely impact on wha t he saw as the inalienable bedrock of ‘real scienc e’. He wanted to offer an overall naturalistic account of “what science is and does”. In effect, he introd uced a sociological dimension, not to replace the tradit ional philosophical dimension, but to enlarge it. F or him, ideas were cultural elements as well as cognitive entities. Individual acts of observation and explanation gain their scientific meaning from collective processes of communication and public criticism. The notion of scientific method is thus extended outside the laboratory to a whole range of  social practices. 1

Real science is excellent science – how to interpret post-academic science, Mode 2 and the ERC