David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Spontaneous Generations 5 (1):58-74 (2011)
This article explores how researchers in a scientific research lab co-operate with each other and value these co-operations, using a case study of a life sciences lab as an illustrative example. It explores how researchers within the lab co-operate in three main ways: through their ideas, methods and resources. A core contention of this article is that the values researchers attach to these different ways of co-operating can be assessed on two dimensions: goals and ways of understanding. The goals dimension moves from group goals, manifested in the vision of the lab defined by its principal investigator, to the goals of individual researchers within the lab, often achieved through work on individual projects. Individual goals were more highly valued by researchers in this case study. The ways of understanding dimension moves from theory-based and theory-building research activities, to craft-based activities related to the research lab’s experiments. Theoretical ways of understanding are more highly valued by researchers in this case study. Combined, these two dimensions mean that researchers will value co-operations that support individual goals and theoretical ways of understanding more highly. Idea-based collaborations, individualistic and theoretical in nature, were the most highly valued. Collaborations based on resources, communal and craft-centered, were the least valued in this case study
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel C. Dennett (1991). Two Contrasts: Folk Craft Vs Folk Science and Belief Vs Opinion. In John D. Greenwood (ed.), The Future of Folk Psychology. Cambridge University Press. 135--148.
Felice J. Levine & Joyce M. Iutcovich (2003). Challenges in Studying the Effects of Scientific Societies on Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):257-268.
Mario Coccia (2009). Bureaucratization in Public Research Institutions. Minerva 47 (1):31-50.
Carl Mitcham (2003). Co-Responsibility for Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.
Margot Iverson, Mark S. Frankel & Sanyin Siang (2003). Scientific Societies and Research Integrity: What Are They Doing and How Well Are They Doing It? Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):141-158.
Uljana Feest & Friedrich Steinle (eds.) (2012). Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. de Gruyter.
Louise K. Wilson (1999). Stories From the Research Labs. Angelaki 4 (2):95 – 98.
Ragnar Fjelland (1991). The Theory-Ladenness of Observations, the Role of Scientific Instruments, and the Kantian a Priori. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5 (3):269 – 280.
Donnie J. Self (1989). The Use of Animals in Medical Education and Research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 10 (1).
Thomas Andreas Meyer, Willem Adrian Labuschagne & Johannes Heidema (2000). Infobase Change: A First Approximation. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):353-377.
Mircea Flonta (1996). Does the Scientific Paper Accurately Mirror the Very Grounds of Scientific Assessment? Theoria 11 (3):19-31.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-10-18
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?