Investigating the Potential Role of Psychology of Science in the Interdisciplinary field of Science Policy

Document Type : review paper

Author

Assistant Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy

Abstract

Science and technology policy is naturally recognized as an interdisciplinary field of study: like a crossroad of different social sciences. However, it seems that some disciplines within the family of social sciences have had more opportunity to show their potential capacities in this interdisciplinary field and prove their abilities within this area. The psychology of science is the least developed member of the family of science studies. It is growing, however, increasingly into a promising discipline. After a very brief review of this emerging sub-field of psychology, I call for it to be invited into the collection of social sciences which constitute the interdisciplinary field of science policy. Discussing the classic issue of resource allocation, I try to indicate how prolific a new psychological conceptualization of this problem would be. Further, from a psychological perspective, I will argue in favor of a more realistic conception of science which would be complement to the existing one in science policy. The management of aggregate scientific behavior of a nation, including quantity and quality of scientific production, can be improved by adding to the knowledge base of managers a systematic comprehension of biological, developmental, cognitive, personality, and social variables that influence scientific behavior. The introspective and participation methods in psychology can add to the statistical and objective investigations of science the possibility of understanding and interpreting the internal environment of science as it is. This equips policy makers with some sort of conservatism which may be useful against periodical waves of radical change.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1-46). New York City: Penguin Random House LLC.
Archibugi, D. (2001). Pavitt's taxonomy sixteen years on: A review article. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10 (5), 415-425. DOI: 10.1080/10438590100000016
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In National Bureau of Economic Research (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: National Bureau of Economic Research (pp. 609-626). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11 (2), 169-183.
Brewer, W. F., & Mishra, P. (1998). Science. In W. Bechtel, & G. Graham (Eds.), A Companion to Cognitive Science (pp. 744-749). Oxford: Blackwell. 
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. R. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory (pp. 519-542). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Fagerberg, J. & Verspagen, B. (2006 September 11-13). Innovation studies – an emerging discipline (or what)? A study of the global network of innovation scholars [Paper presentation]. In SPRU 40th anniversary conference, the future of science, technology and innovation policy SPRU, 20060911, Brighton and Hove, England.
Feist, G. J. & Gorman, M. E. (1998). Psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2 (1), 3-47. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.1.3
Feist, G. J. (2006a). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 163-182. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.163
Feist, G. J. (2006b). The past and future of the psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10 (2), 92-97. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.92
Feist, G. J. (2006c). Why the studies of science need a psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10 (2), 183-187. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.183
Feist, G. J. (2008). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lundvall, B. & Borras, S. (2004). Science, technology, and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 599-631). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 9780199286805.003.0022
Matarazzo, J. D. (1987). Relationships of health psychology to other segments of psychology. In G. C. Stone, S. M. Weiss, J. D. Matarazzo, N. E. Miller, J. Rodin, C. D. Belar, M. J. Follick, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Health psychology: A discipline and a profession (pp. 41-59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mirowski, P. & Sent, E. (2002), Science: Bought and Sold. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 
Mullins, N. (1973), Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), 297-306. DOI: 10.1086/258177
Pavitt, K., Steinmueller, W. E., Calvert, J., & Martin, B. (2000). Economics of science. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences: 3 Papers, SPRU Working Paper Series 44. Falmer: University of Sussex Business School. 
Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (3), 1199-1235.
Thagard, P. (1988), Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics