Premium
Preconceptions and reconceptions in the administration of science
Author(s) -
Gordon Gerald
Publication year - 1971
Publication title -
randd management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.253
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1467-9310
pISSN - 0033-6807
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9310.1971.tb00092.x
Subject(s) - speculation , dichotomy , epistemology , administration (probate law) , value (mathematics) , predictability , sociology of scientific knowledge , action (physics) , psychology , sociology , political science , law , computer science , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , machine learning , economics , macroeconomics
. Despite the rise in the importance of science as a daily concern of modern man, until recently factors affecting the conduct of scientific research have not been objectively studied. We found that over 80% of the publications from 1950 to 1961 dealing with the administration of research were based on speculation rather than on objective evidence. These speculative publications, for the most part, tended to reinforce, rather than to critically examine, prevalent conceptions of science and its administration. One of the most entrenched of these conceptions is the importance ascribed to the differences between basic and applied research. It is my contention that the dichotomy, basic and applied (and such related dichotomies as limited and fundamental, theoretical and action, etc.), hinders rather than advances our knowledge of the relationship between organizational structure and scientific accomplishment. The distinction between basic and applied research is not directly related to the research process and therefore can only be of limited value in research administration. Further, the mystique around the terms ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ appears to have led to patterns of research administration based on misconceptions rather than on knowledge. Two other distinctions, urgency and predictability of the research, are suggested as more viable distinctions than the basic‐applied dichotomy. Using recent research findings from small group research and the sociology of science, we have attempted to show how these distinctions can serve as guidelines in the administration of science.