IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v23y1996i6p343-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The post-modern research system

Author

Listed:
  • Arie Rip
  • Barend J R van der Meulen

Abstract

The landscape of science is changing radically. In particular, there is increasing heterogeneity of actors, research sites, knowledge and networks. Science policy-makers have to respond to these changes, but heterogeneity makes it more difficult to impose own goals on the research system. Yet, if the dynamics in and of the system are understood, other policy approaches become possible. Here two important systemic aspects of research systems — ‘steering’ (the extent to which the system is sensitive to attempts of a principal, generally the state, to implement own objectives) and ‘aggregation’ (the organisation of processes of agenda-building within the system) are introduced. It is argued that, because of the changes in science, a post-modern research system is both possible and desirable in which aggregation is favoured over steering. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Arie Rip & Barend J R van der Meulen, 1996. "The post-modern research system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(6), pages 343-352, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:23:y:1996:i:6:p:343-352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/spp/23.6.343
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van der Meulen, Barend, 1998. "Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 397-414, August.
    2. Guangchao Charles Feng, 2020. "Research Performance Evaluation in China: A Big Data Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    3. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    4. Chung-Souk Han, 2011. "On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 845-865, December.
    5. van der Meulen, Barend & Rip, Arie, 1998. "Mediation in the Dutch science system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 757-769, December.
    6. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    7. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    8. Karaulova, Maria & Shackleton, Oliver & Liu, Weishu & Gök, Abdullah & Shapira, Philip, 2017. "Institutional change and innovation system transformation: A tale of two academies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 196-207.
    9. Jonkers, Koen, 2011. "A functionalist framework to compare research systems applied to an analysis of the transformation of the Chinese research system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1295-1306.
    10. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    11. Mosoniné Fried, Judit & Szunyogh, Zsuzsanna, 2008. "Kutatás és fejlesztés a közszférában [Research and development in the public sphere]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 60-79.
    12. Laurens Hessels & John Grin & Smits, 2010. "Stakeholder interactions in Dutch animal sciences," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 10-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2010.
    13. Heimeriks, Gaston & van den Besselaar, Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2008. "Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and 'Mode 2' knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1602-1615, October.
    14. Morris, Norma, 2002. "The developing role of departments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 817-833, July.
    15. Watkins, Andrew & Papaioannou, Theo & Mugwagwa, Julius & Kale, Dinar, 2015. "National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: A critical review of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1407-1418.
    16. Sjoerd Hardeman, 2013. "Organization level research in scientometrics: a plea for an explicit pragmatic approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1175-1194, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:23:y:1996:i:6:p:343-352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.