Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Typology of the Game that American, British, and Danish Crop and Plant Scientists Play

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing from contemporary social science studies on the shifting regime of research governance, this paper extends the literature by utilizing a metaphoric image—research is a game—observed in a field engagement with 82 American, British, and Danish crop and plant scientists. It theorizes respondents’ thinking and practices by placing the rules of the research “game” in dynamic and interactive tension between the scientific, social, and political-economic contingencies that generate opportunities or setbacks. Scientists who play the game exploit opportunities and surmount setbacks by adopting strategies and reinventing tactics in order to maximize their winnings and to minimize their losses. Winners become superstars who decree what is open, closed, or doable science for the majority of the scientific community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnes, Barry. 2007. Catching up with Robert Merton: Scientific collectives as status groups. Journal of Classical Sociology 1: 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, David. 1997. Wittgenstein, rules and institutions. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The ‘indefinite discipline’ of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47: 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, Jane. 2004. The idea of ‘basic research’ in language and practice. Minerva 42: 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, Jane. 2006. What′s special about basic research? Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (2): 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, Jeannette A. 2007. Factory, hazard, and contamination: The use of metaphor in the commercialization of recombinant DNA. Minerva 45: 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crust, Lee. 2009. Sports psychology: Mental toughness. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sports-psychology-mental-toughness-14. Accessed 06 November 2009.

  • Crust, Lee, and Ian Lawrence. 2006. A review of leadership in sports: Implications for football management. Athletic Insight 8 (4): 28–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, Dennis. 2009. Examining the future of sports journalism. July 02, 2009 07:00 am. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/sports/2009/july/Examining-the-Future-of-Sports-Journalism.html. Accessed 06 November 2009.

  • DeJager, Timothy. 1993. Pure science and practical interests: The origins of the agricultural research council, 1930–1937. Minerva 31 (2): 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, Carol. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode-2” to a triple helix of university—industry—government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoit. 1998. Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28 (3): 483–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gozzi, Raymond. 1999. The power of metaphor in the age of electronic media. Cresskill: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogler, Raymond, Michael A. Gross, Jackie L. Hartman, and Ann L. Cunliffe. 2008. Meaning in organizational communication: Why Metaphor is the Cake, not the Icing. Management Communication Quarterly 21 (3): 393–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Refiguring life: Metaphors of the twentieth-century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, Ronald. 1995. Construing ‘technology’ as ‘applied science’: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. ISIS 86 (2): 194–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, Susanne. 2005. Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code. Public Understanding of Science 14: 373–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Susan, and Stanley Deetz. 1981. Metaphor analysis of social reality in organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research 9 (1): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 1995. Metaphors—messengers of meaning: A contribution to an evolutionary sociology of science. Science Communication 17: 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2000. Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaby, Thomas M. 2007. Beyond play. A new approach to games. Games & Culture 2 (2): 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159: 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert. 1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In: The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert Merton, 254–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Morris, Norma. 2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva 38: 425–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Norma. 2003. University researchers as ‘agents’ of science. Science and Public Policy 30 (5): 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, Yvonne Grinam. 2009. The publicist who keeps Usain Bolt on track. Jamaica Observer. Business section. Wednesday, October 21, 2009. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/Business/html/20091020T2000000500_162214_OBS_THE_PUBLICIST_WHO_KEEPS_USAIN_BOLT_ON_TRACK.asp. Accessed 06 November 2009.

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, Paolo. 1990. The political economy of applied research: Plant breeding in great Britain, 1910–1940. Minerva 28 (4): 446–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41: 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique, and Peter Weingart. 2009. Governance of and through science and numbers: Categories, tools and technologies-preface. Minerva 47: 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 2000. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 38 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, Robert George Leslie, and Jim E.H. Bright. 2009. Game as a career metaphor: A chaos theory career counselling application. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 37 (1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, Terry. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32: 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, Constance. 2006. The mangle of play. Games & Culture 1 (3): 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallas, Steven Peter and Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2008. Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy. The confluence of university and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review 6 (2): 283–311. doi:10.1093/ser/mw1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagal, Jose P., Rick Jochen, and Idris Hsi. 2006. Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming 37 (24): 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by a grant from [the Danish Social Science Research Council] Forskningsraadet for Samfund og Erhverv (FSE); grant no. 275-06-0335 (Science Policy Imaginations and Expectations—Scientists’ Experiences and Perspectives). Thanks to FSE for this support. The author is greatly indebted to interviewees for their openness, time, and their thoughts. Thanks to Arne Thing Mortensen, Claus Emmeche, and Brian Wynne for their invaluable support and comments. The author would like to thank the three anonymous referees for their invaluable comments and suggestions, and the editors for their invaluable comments, guidance and support. The British data was collected by the author between August 2005 and January 2006 as part of the “Plant Genomics and Commercialization” Project at ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGen), Lancaster University, UK. Thanks to Brian Wynne, Claire Waterton, Jane Taylor and Katrina Stengel for enrolling me in this project and for their comments. Of course, any problems or errors remain the responsibility of the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Business and Information Technologies, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Mercy W. Kamara

Authors
  1. Mercy W. Kamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mercy W. Kamara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kamara, M.W. The Typology of the Game that American, British, and Danish Crop and Plant Scientists Play. Minerva 47, 441–463 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9135-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9135-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation