Ethos of science and the approach to promotion in science

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

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

3. Boardman, P.C., Ponomariov, B.L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29 (2), 142-53.10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008Search in Google Scholar

4. Bourliaguet, B. (2016). A Weberian Approach to the Ethos of Science. Theory of Science, 38, 113-128.10.46938/tv.2016.330Search in Google Scholar

5. Bucchi, M. (2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15 (3), 233-252.10.1177/1468795X14558766Search in Google Scholar

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, 167-178.10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.007Search in Google Scholar

7. Enebakk, V. (2007). The Three Merton Theses. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 221-238.10.1177/1468795X07078040Search in Google Scholar

8. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-33.10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6Search in Google Scholar

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, 313-330.10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4Search in Google Scholar

10. Ferris, G.R., Perrewe, P.L., Anthony, W.P., Gilmore, D.C. (2000). Political Skill at Work. Organizational Dynamics, 28 (4), 25-37.10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00007-3Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

12. Goodell, R. (1977). The Visible Scientists. Boston: Little Brown.Search in Google Scholar

13. Heller, M., Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698-701.10.1126/science.280.5364.698Search in Google Scholar

14. Huff, T.E. (2007). Some Historical Roots of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 193-210.10.1177/1468795X07078037Search in Google Scholar

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

16. Issitt, M. (2016). Personal branding. Salem Press Encyclopedia.Search in Google Scholar

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, 922-935.10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007Search in Google Scholar

18. Kalleberg, R. (2007). A Reconstruction of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7 (2), 137-160.10.1177/1468795X07078033Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

20. Knuuttila, T. (2012). Contradiction of Commercialization: Revealing the Norms of Science? Philosophy of Science, 79, 833-844.10.1086/667844Search in Google Scholar

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, 171-177.10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.01.002Search in Google Scholar

22. Krimsky, Sh. (2006). Autonomy, Disinterest, and Entrepreneurial Science. Society, May/June, 22-29.10.1007/BF02687531Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

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), 7-16.10.14746/nsw.2015.2.0Search in Google Scholar

25. Lam, A. (2010). From 'ivory tower traditionalists' to 'entrepreneurial scientists'?: Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307-340.10.1177/0306312709349963Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

31. Mittelstrass, J. (2012). Science and values: on values and credibility in science and scholarship. Rendiconti Lincei, 23 (suppl. 1), 29-33.10.1007/s12210-012-0201-5Search in Google Scholar

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

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), 1-3.10.22323/2.05040304Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

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

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

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.Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

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), 355-363.10.3152/030234207X228575Search in Google Scholar

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, 589-606.10.1362/0267257054307381Search in Google Scholar

41. Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879.10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00096-1Search in Google Scholar

42. Ziman, J.M. (1996a). Postacademic Science: Constructing Knowledge with Networks an Norms. Science Studies, 1, 67-80.10.23987/sts.55095Search in Google Scholar

43. Ziman, J. (1996b). Is Science Losing Its Objectivity? Nature, 382, 751-754.10.1038/382751a0Search in Google Scholar

44. Ziman, J.M. (2000). Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511541391Search in Google Scholar