The debate about revitalization of the finalization theory was documented in 1997 in Social Science Information. It hinted at a worthwhile methodological idea that could be useful in current debates on science—society relationships.
Finalization theory asked whether a field's cognitive state constrains research policy attempts to direct the field toward applications. Since the difficulties faced in answering this question are at least partly due to the level of analysis, this article proposes refocusing finalization theory on the micro-level of research processes and research trails. On the basis of an empirical analysis, the cognitive links between basic research and contexts of applications are explored. Five types of basic research can be distinguished by their various cognitive links to contexts of application. Scientists' opportunities to change the links between their basic research and applications are discussed. Analysis on the micro-level enables conclusions to be drawn about (1) the scope of hypotheses about changes in knowledge-production and (2) constraints on institutional pressure for basic research to contribute to societal welfare.
Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT) (1993) Bundesbericht Forschung. Bonn: BMFT.
2.
Chubin, D.E. and Connolly, T. (1982) “Research Trails and Science Policies”, in N. Elias, H. Martins and R. Whitley (eds) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. IV, pp. 293-311. Dordrecht: Reidel.
3.
De Marchi, M. and Napolitano, G. (1993) “Some Revised Definitions of Applied Research and Experimental Development”, Science and Public Policy20: 281-284.
4.
Elzinga, A. (1995) “Shaping Worldwide Consensus: The Orchestration of Global Climate Change Research”, in A. Elzinga and C. Landström (eds) Internationalism and Science, pp. 223-255. London: Taylor Graham.
5.
Elzinga, A. (1997) “The Science-Society Contract in Historical Transformation: With Special Reference to `Epistemic Drift' ”, Social Science Information36: 411-445.
6.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998) “The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University-Industry Linkages”, Research Policy27: 823-833.
7.
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1993) “The Emergence of Post-Normal Science”, in R. von Schomberg (ed.) Science, Politics, and Morality. Scientific Uncertain and Decision Making, pp. 85-123. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. and Nowotny, H.et al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
9.
Gläser, J. (1998) “Kognitive Neuorientierung der ostdeutschen außeruniversitären Grundlagenforschung als Folge des Institutionentransfers”, discussion paper, P98-402. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
10.
Gläser, J. (2000) “Institutional Change and the Cognitive Dynamics of Basic Research”, manuscript submitted to Social Studies of Science.
11.
Gläser, J. and Meske, W. (1996) Anwendungsorientierung von Grundlagenforschung? Erfahrungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
12.
Irvine, J. and Martin, B. (1984) Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners. London: Pinter.
13.
Jansen, D. (1995) “Convergence of Basic and Applied Research? Research Orientations in German High-Temperature Superconductor Research”, Science, Technology & Human Values29: 197-233.
14.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995) “Laboratory Studies”, in S. Jasanoff (ed.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 140-166. London: Sage.
15.
Kröber, G. (1991) “Wissenschaft im Spiegel von Chaos”, in K. Meier and K. H. Strech (eds) Tohuwabohu. Chaos und Schöpfung, pp. 179-213. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag.
16.
Leeming, W. (1997) “Revisiting Finalization”, Social Science Information36: 387-410.
17.
Mayntz, R. (1994a) “Academy of Sciences in Crisis: A Case Study of a Fruitless Struggle for Survival”, in U. Schimank and A. Stucke (eds) Coping with Trouble: How Science Reacts to Political Disturbances of Research Conditions, pp. 163-188. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
18.
Mayntz, R. (1994b) Deutsche Forschung im Einigungsprozeß. Die Transformation der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 1989 bis 1992. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.
19.
Mayntz, R. (1997) “Forschung als Dienstleistung? Zur gesellschaftlichen Einbettung der Wissenschaft”, in Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berichte und Abhandlungen, Band 3, pp. 135-154. Berlin: Akademieverlag.
20.
Mayntz, R. (1998a) “Die Folgen der Politik für die Wissenschaft der DDR”, in R. Mayntz and J. Kocka (eds) Wissenschaft und Wiedervereinigung. Disziplinen im Umbruch, pp. 461-483. Berlin: Akademieverlag.
21.
Mayntz, R. (1998b) “Socialist Academies of Sciences: the Enforced Orientation of Basic Research at User Needs”, Research Policy27: 781-791.
22.
Mayntz, R. and Schimank, U. (1998) “Linking Theory and Practice: Introduction”, Research Policy27: 747-755.
23.
Meske, W. (1993) “The Restructuring of the East German Research System - A Provisional Appraisal”, Science and Public Policy20: 298-312.
24.
Mittelstraß, J. (1992) Leonardo-Welt. Über Wissenschaft, Forschung und Verant-wortung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
25.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1993) The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities (Frascati Manual). Paris: OECD.
26.
Rip, A. (1997) “A Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science”, Social Science Information36: 615-640.
27.
Sakakura, S. and Kobayashi, M. (1991) “R&D Management in Japanese Research Institutes”, Research Policy20: 531-558.
28.
Shinn, T. (1999) “Change or Mutation? Reflections on the Foundations of Contemporary Science”, Social Science Information38: 149-176.
29.
Shinn, T. and Benguigui, G. (1997) “Physicists and Intellectual Mobility”, Social Science Information36: 293-309.
30.
Weingart, P. (1997) “From `Finalization' to `Mode 2': Old Wine in New Bottles?”, Social Science Information36: 591-613.
31.
Weingart, P. (1998) “Science and the Media”, Research Policy27: 869-879.
32.
Whitley, R. (1974) “Cognitive and Social Institutionalization of Scientific Specialities and Research Areas”, in R. Whitley (ed.) Social Processes of Scientific Development, pp. 69-95. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
33.
Wissenschaftsrat (1994) “Empfehlungen zu einer Prospektion für die Forschung”, Document 1645/94. Berlin: Wissenschaftsrat.
34.
Wolf, H.G. (1995) “An Academy in Transition: Organizational Success and Failure in the Process of German Unification”, Social Studies of Science25: 829-852.
35.
Ziman, J. (1987) Knowing Everything about Nothing: Specialization and Change in Scientific Careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
