“Basic research” is often used in science policy. It is commonly thought to refer to research that is directed solely toward acquiring new knowledge rather than any more practical objective. Recently, there has been considerable concern about the future of basic research because of purported changes in the nature of knowledge production and increasing pressures on scientists to demonstrate the social and economic benefits of their work. But is there really something special about basic research? The author argues here that “basic research” is a flexible and ambiguous concept that is drawn on by scientists to acquire prestige and resources. She shows that it is used for boundary work and gives examples of the work it does in different situations by drawing on interviews with scientists and policy makers on the category of basic research and the changes they have seen in it over time.
Arrow, K. J.1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity, ed. Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, 609-626. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Barnes, B., D. Bloor, and J. Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
3.
Bourdieu, P.1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information14 (6):19-47.
4.
Brunsson, N.1994. The organization of hypocrisy. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
5.
Bush, V. [1945] 1960. Science—The endless frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
6.
Callon, M.1994. Is science a public good?Science, Technology, and Human Values19 (4):395-424.
7.
Callon, M.2001. From science as an economic activity to socio-economics of scientific research: The dynamics of emergent and consolidated techno-economic networks. In Science bought and sold: The new economics of science, ed. P. Mirowski and E. Sent, 277-317. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Calvert, J. 2002. Goodbye blue skies? The concept of “basic research” and its role in a changing funding environment. DPhil thesis, University of Sussex.
9.
Elzinga, A.1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation. Social Science Information36 (3): 411-445.
10.
Elzinga, A., and A. Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 572-597. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Forman, P.1997. Recent science: Late-modern and post-modern. In The historiography of contemporary science and technology, ed. T. Soderqvist, 179-213. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
12.
Geertz, C.1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
14.
Gieryn, T. F.1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48:781-795.
15.
Gieryn, T. F.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Gieryn, T. F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Guston, D. H., and K. Keniston, eds. 1994. The fragile contract: University science and the federal government. London: MIT Press.
18.
Kline, R.1995. Constructing technology as applied science: Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880-1945. Isis86:194-221.
19.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Merton, R. K.1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. N. W. Storer 1973, 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Mulkay, M.1976. Norms and ideology. Reprinted in Mulkay, M. 1991. Sociology of science: A sociological pilgrimage, 62-78. Milton Keynes, UK: OUP Press.
22.
Nelson, D.1959. The simple economics of basic research. Journal of Political Economy6:297-306.
23.
Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development. 1993. The measurement of scientific and technical activities 1993: Standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. Paris: Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development.
24.
Polanyi, M.1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva1:54-73.
25.
Reingold, N.1991. American indifference to basic research: A reappraisal. In Science, American style, 54-75. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
26.
Rothschild, L.1971. A framework for government research and development [Cm 4814]. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
27.
Slaughter, S.1993. Beyond basic science: Research university president’s narratives of science policy. Science, Technology, and Human Values18:278-302.
28.
Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialisation of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values21 (3): 303-339.
29.
Stokes, D. E.1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
Weinberg, A. M.1963. Criteria for scientific choice. Minerva1 (2): 159-171.
