Ethos of science and the approach to promotion in science

Open access

Abstract

The quality of research is the most important feature in the world of science. A researcher who achieves an excellence in science has a chance to win recognition and gain authority in her scientific field. In order to succeed in science, a researcher ought to undertake effective personal marketing efforts. The aim of personal marketing is to create and maintain a desirable attitude and/or behavior of others towards a scientist and build a positive scientific image of herself. A scientist who engages in self-promotion may, however, take on herself the odium of the academic community. Hence, the researcher's perception of the importance of personal marketing engagement for success in science determines her activity in this domain. The approach to the issue may vary depending on the system of values and norms recognized as valid in science. The purpose of the study is to examine the differences in perceptions of the importance of personal marketing engagement between researchers who identify themselves with different scientific ethoses. In order to achieve the objective of the study, I created two research scales and classified surveyed scientists into four groups. Three of these groups professed the ethos of academic, industrial and post-academic science respectively, and the fourth group did not identify with any of the value systems above. Then, I examined how the members of distinguished groups perceive the importance of three potential success factors in science, i.e.: popularization of research results, recognition in the scientific community and recognition outside the scientific community. The analyses were performed on data obtained from 800 scientists who participated in a nationwide CAPI study conducted by National Information Processing Institute at the turn of 2015 and 2016. According to the surveyed scientists, the most attention should be paid to the popularization of research results, and the least attention should be given to the activities that ensure recognition outside the scientific community. Researchers who identify themselves with the ethos of post-academic science, that is based on values of both academic and industrial sciences, rate the importance of all three aspects of self-promotion relatively high. Scientists who acknowledge the Merton's ethos of academic science are at the opposite extreme. They rate extremely low the importance of striving for recognition in the non-scientific community.

In accordance with intuition, researchers who incorporate the values of Ziman's industrial science

appreciate recognition in the scientific community less than other respondents. It is safe to say that the greatest marketing awareness is characteristic for scientists who accept the ethos of post academic science, and the poorest - for those who identify themselves with the ethos of academic science.

1. Armstrong, G., Kotler, P. (2012). Marketing: wprowadzenie. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

2. Bauer, H. H. (2013). Three Stages of Modern Science. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27 (3), 505-513.

3. Boardman, P.C., Ponomariov, B.L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29 (2), 142-53.

4. Bourliaguet, B. (2016). A Weberian Approach to the Ethos of Science. Theory of Science, 38, 113-128.

5. Bucchi, M. (2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15 (3), 233-252.

6. Dabic, M., González-Loureiro, M., Daim, T.U. (2015). Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities. Technology in Society, 42, 167-178.

7. Enebakk, V. (2007). The Three Merton Theses. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 221-238.

8. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-33.

9. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, Ch., Terra, B.R.C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313-330.

10. Ferris, G.R., Perrewe, P.L., Anthony, W.P., Gilmore, D.C. (2000). Political Skill at Work. Organizational Dynamics, 28 (4), 25-37.

11. Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Perrewe, P.L., Brouer, R.L., Douglas, C., Lux, S. (2007). Political Skill in Organizations. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 290-320.

12. Goodell, R. (1977). The Visible Scientists. Boston: Little Brown.

13. Heller, M., Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698-701.

14. Huff, T.E. (2007). Some Historical Roots of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 193-210.

15. Instytut Zachodni (2012). Badanie potrzeb wielkopolskich przedsiębiorców w zakresie współpracy ze sferą B+R. Poznań: Instytut Zachodni.

16. Issitt, M. (2016). Personal branding. Salem Press Encyclopedia.

17. Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38, 922-935.

18. Kalleberg, R. (2007). A Reconstruction of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 137-160.

19. Kaymaz, K., Eryigit, K. Y. (2011). Determining Factors Hindering University-Industry Collaboration: An Analysis from the Perspective of Academicians in the Context of Entrepreneurial Science Paradigm. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 4 (1), 185-213.

20. Knuuttila, T. (2012). Contradiction of Commercialization: Revealing the Norms of Science? Philosophy of Science, 79, 833-844.

21. Kohring, M., Marcinkowski, F., Linder, Ch., Karis, S. (2013). Media orientation of German university decision makers and the executive influence of public relations. Public Relations Review, 39, 171-177.

22. Krimsky, Sh. (2006). Autonomy, Disinterest, and Entrepreneurial Science. Society, May/June, 22-29.

23. Kwiek, M. (2015a). Młoda kadra: różnice międzypokoleniowe w pracy naukowej i produktywności badawczej. Czym Polska różni się od Europy Zachodniej? Center for Public Policy Studies, Research Papers Series (CPP RPS), 87, 1-46.

24. Kwiek, M. (2015b). Słowo wstępne: W obliczu nadchodzącej fali reform szkolnictwa wyższego w Polsce. Argumentacja i wizja wspierająca najważniejsze kierunki zmian. Nauka i szkolnictwo wyższe, 2 (46), 7-16.

25. Lam, A. (2010). From 'ivory tower traditionalists' to 'entrepreneurial scientists'?: Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307-340.

26. Maiväli, Ü. (2015). Interpreting Biomedical Science: Experiment, Evidence, and Belief. Amsterdam-Boston-Heidelberg-London-New York-Oxford-Paris-San Diego-San Francisco-Singapore-Sydney-Tokyo: Academic Press.

27. Mauss, M. (1990). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London- New York: Routledge.

28. Merton, R.K. (1942). A Note on Science and Democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126.

29. Merton, R.K. (1974). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.

30. Merton, R.K. (2002). Teoria socjologiczna i struktura społeczna. Warszawa: PWN.

31. Mittelstrass, J. (2012). Science and values: on values and credibility in science and scholarship. Rendiconti Lincei, 23 (suppl. 1), 29-33.

32. Niedzicki, W. (2017). Jak prezentować naukę. In: N. Osica, W. Niedzicki, Sztuka promocji nauki. Praktyczny poradnik dla naukowców (67-181). Warszawa: OPI PIB.

33. Nowotny, H. (2006). Real science is excellent science - how to interpret post-academic science, Mode 2 and the ERC. Comment. Journal of Science Communication, 5 (4), 1-3.

34. OPI PIB, Millward Brown (2014). Ewaluacja instrumentów wsparcia B+R w ramach perspektywy finansowej 2007-2013. Raport końcowy z badania ewaluacyjnego opracowany dla Ministerstwa Infrastruktury i Rozwoju. Warszawa: OPI PIB, Millward Brown.

35. Osica, N. (2017). Jak promować naukę. In: N. Osica, W. Niedzicki, Sztuka promocji nauki. Praktyczny poradnik dla naukowców (7-66). Warszawa: OPI PIB.

36. Poznańska, K., Zarzecki, M., Matuszewski, P., Rudowski, A. (2012). Innowacyjność przedsiębiorstw na Mazowszu oraz współpraca ze szkołami wyższymi. Warszawa: Politechnika Warszawska.

37. Radder, H. (2010). Mertonian Values, Scientific Norms, and the Commodification of Academic Research. In: H. Radder (ed.), The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University (231-258). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

38. Reunes, G. (2013). Branding yourself: a necessity? An analysis of the perceptions of young professionals towards the concept of „personal branding”. Gandawa: Universiteit Gent.

39. Rodriguez, V. (2007). Merton and Ziman's modes of science; the case of biological and similar material transfer agreements. Science and Public Policy, 34 (5), 355-363.

40. Shepherd, I.D.H. (2005). From Cattle and Coke to Charlie: Meeting the Challenge of Self Marketing and Personal Branding. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 589-606.

41. Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879.

42. Ziman, J.M. (1996a). Postacademic Science: Constructing Knowledge with Networks an Norms. Science Studies, 1, 67-80.

43. Ziman, J. (1996b). Is Science Losing Its Objectivity? Nature, 382, 751-754.

44. Ziman, J.M. (2000). Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 87 87 5
PDF Downloads 66 66 6