The Written Debate between the Reviewer and the Author Regarding the Direction of Research and Ideological Research

Document Type : Opinion

Authors

1 PhD candidate, Department of Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Is research governable? If the answer is positive, these questions are raised: Does governance of research mean injecting ideology into it and ordering it? The researcher's freedom to seek the truth is limited by what kind of mechanisms? what is the place of the norms of the scientific community, the expectations of external authorities, including the government and society, the demands of customers such as industry in these constraints, and in what process does the researcher become accountable? The purpose of this article is to discuss about these questions and similar topics. This article is a written debate between the author of an article entitled " Governance of Research: A Theoretical Framework" (Mojtaba Javadi) and its reviewer (Narges Naraghi), which was published in the same issue of the Science and Technology Quarterly. The author of the mentioned article is send a letter to the editor of the journal in protest of the reasons for its rejection by the reviewer and entered into a debate with the reviewer at his discretion. Through the mediation of the editor, several correspondences were made between the author and the reviewer, whose contents are presented in this article without any interference. In short, by referring to the use of some sentences in the article, the reviewer has argued that the author is seeking to defend ideological science and the necessity of injecting values into research, and this defense is also a result of a misunderstanding of the approach of recent social science paradigms about the presence of values in the research and thus the article has been rejected. By presenting the sources of the sentences, the author has argued that the reviewer's understanding was not sympathetic and whether the research is ideological or not, is not the subject of this article, and then by proposing four binary concepts, that is, "Science/Research", "Direction/Ideological", "The position of the researcher/ The position of government and science policy actors" and "description/prescription", the theoretical position of the article and the nature of research governance have been described

Keywords

References

] Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,105-117.
[2] Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 191-215.
[3] Chalmers, A.F. (2011). What is this thing called science? an assessment of the nature and stotus of scienee and its methods (Saeed Zibakalam, trans.), Qom: Yaran. {in Persian}.
[4] Blaikie, N.W. H (2017) Designing social researich: the logic of anticipation (Translated by: Hassan Chavoshian,), Tehran: Ney. {in Persian}.
[5] Danaeifard, H., Alvani, M., Azar, A. (2008). Methodology of Qualitative Research in Management: A Comprehensive Perspective, Tehran: Saffar-Eshraghi, . {in Persian}.
[6] Mohammadpour, A. (2010). Anti-Method: Logic and Design in Qualitative Methodology, Tehran: Sociologists. {in Persian}.
[7] Root, M. (2010). Philosophy of social science : the methods, ideals, and Policies of social Research (Mohammad Shojaeian, Trans.), Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural and Social Studies. {in Persian}.
[8] Neuman, W.L. (2013). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (Hassan Danaeifard, Seyed Hossein Kazemi, Trans.) Tehran: Mehraban. {in Persian}.
[9] Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc
[10] Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (Hassan Danaeifard and Hossein Kazemi, Trans.), Tehran: Saffar-Ishraqi.{in Persian}.
[11] Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in society: An introduction to social studies of science. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203299739
[12] Bloor, D. ( 1991). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[13] Fine, A. (1996). Science made up: Constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge. In The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, Edited by: Galison, P. and Stump, D. 231–54. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
[14] Sherratt, Y. (2016). Continental philosophy of social science: hermeneutics, genealogy, critical theory (Hadi Jalili, Trans.), Tehran: Ney. {in Persian}.
[15] Knorr-Cetina, K.D. )1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-09537-3
[16] Fay B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science : a multicultural approach. Blackwell.
[17] Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press.
[18] Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[19] Glaser, J. (2010). From Governance to Authority Relations? In Whitley, R., Gläser, J., Engwall, L. (2010). Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590193.003.0012 
[20] Glaser J & Laudel G (2016) Governing Science. European Journal Of Sociology, 57, 117-168. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003975616000047
[21] Glaser, J. ( 2019). How can governance change research content? Linking science policy studies to the sociology of science, In Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00033
[22]Glaser, Jo, Ash Mitchell, Bunstorf Guido, Hopf David, Hubenschmid Lara, Janßen Melike, Laudel Grit, Schimank Uwe, Stoll Marlene, Wilholt Torsten, Zechlin Lothar, Lieb Klaus(2022). The Independence of Research—A Review of Disciplinary Perspectives and Outline of Interdisciplinary Prospects. Minerva,60(1), 105–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09451-8
[23] Suzanchi Kashani, I. (2021): Scientific life, of engagement with society and theorizing in social sciences. Tehran: Rasa. {in Persian}.
[24] Zibakalam, S(2017) Tranquilizing Myths, Tehran: Esm. {in Persian}.
[25] Laurence, E., Lynn, Jr. (2010). Governance. Foundations of Public Administration.
[26] Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Planning Education and Research, 39(1) 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
[27] Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics