Tom contextualizes the science reform movement in relation to Ziman’s (2000) concept of “post-academic research,” which is research done for instrumental reasons (e.g., to solve a local problem) rather than for its own sake.
Tom argues that “a focus on methodology and producing transferable, reproducible knowledge is more amenable to a post-academic ethos focused on providing specialist technical solutions to specific local ‘problems.’”
In my view, Tom’s analysis also helps to explain why replication failures are more troubling in a post-academic context.
In traditional academic research, replication failures are a feature, not a bug. In contrast, in post-academic research, replication failures threaten the usefulness of potential solutions to local problems, and so there’s a pressure to eliminate them.
Anyway, Tom’s article is a fascinating read that relates changes in science to broader changes in academia.
And before you go, here’s another of Tom’s recent contributions you might find interesting: “The Invisible Workload of Open Research”: https://doi.org/10.36850/mr5
Add comment