Kwartalnik ZARZĄDZANIE PUBLICZNE

Normativisation and its processes as seen from the neo-functional perspective:
Towards science governance

Normatywizacja i procesy z nią związane z perspektywy neo-funkcjonalnej. W kierunku zarządzania nauką

do pobrania/download PDF

Dorota Jedlikowska

Jagiellonian University
Institute of Sociology
ul. Grodzka 52
31-044 Kraków
Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.

doi: 10.15678/ZP.2016.38.4.01

SŁOWA KLUCZOWE

normatiwizacja, sytuacyjny n ormatywizm, nowy funkcjonalizm, socjologia nauki, zarządzanie nauką

KEYWORDS

normativisation, situational normativity, neo-functionalism, sociology of science, science governance

STRESZCZENIE

Autorka analizuje pojęcie normatywności, które relatywnie rzadko pojawia się w literaturze z zakresu socjologii nauki. Koncepcję normatywności przedstawia w perspektywie neofunkcjonalnej, by głębiej wniknąć w powiązania omawianego zagadnienia z socjologią nauki i poddać nowe ścieżki analizy – w tym przypadku – w obrębie problemu rozumienia nauki. Naświetla relacje między typami normatywizacji a neofunkcjonalną teorią w socjologii, zwłaszcza dorobkiem Gunthera Teubnera. W ostatniej części artykułu autorka zwraca się w stronę zarządzania nauką, tematu wymagającego jednak dodatkowych studiów z uwzględnieniem szczegółowych kontekstów.

ABSTRACT

The paper scrutinises the notion of normativisation as a concept met with only relatively rarely in the sphere of the sociology of science. The normativisation concept is here embodied in the neo-functional perspective, with a view to its relationship with the sociology of science being elaborated more deeply, and new analytical paths provided, in this case in regard to the understanding of science. The work underpinning this paper has sought to help make good the lack of relevant studies in the field of the sociology of science. The material presented comes from literature-based research, while the main axis is put on the highlighting of theoretical relationships between types of normativisation and sociological neo-functional theory in order for the inputs of Gunther Teubner in particular to be better grasped. As is signaled at the end, this paper is ultimately targeted at science governance, though this is in itself a notion requiring additional studies if it is to be viewed in particular contexts.

LITERATURA / REFERENCES

  1. Bora, A. (2010). Technoscientific normativity and the “iron cage” of law. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35 (1), 3–28.
  2. Braun, K., Kropp, C. (2010). Introduction: Beyond speaking truth? Institutional responses to uncertainty in scientific governance. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35 (6), 771–782.
  3. Brennan, A., Malpas, J. (2010). Who legislates the truth? Science, organizational governance and democratic decision making. Public Affairs Quarterly, 24 (1), 79–97.
  4. Brożek, B. (2013). Pojęcie normatywności. In: A. Brożek, B. Brożek, J. Stelmach (eds.), Fenomen normatywności (p. 19 – 44). Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.
  5. Brożek, B. (2013). Normatywność znaczenia. In: A. Brożek, B. Brożek, J. Stelmach (eds.), Fenomen normatywności (p. 79 – 102). Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.
  6. Carrier, M., Weingart, P. (2009). The politicization of science: the ESF-ZiF Bielefeld Conference on Science and Values.  Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 40(2), 373–378.
  7. Clarke, A.E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 4, 553–576.
  8. Cuppen, E. (2012). Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: Considerations for design and methods. Policy Science, 45, 23–46.
  9. Daviter, F. (2015). The political use of knowledge in the policy process. Policy Science, 48, 491–505.
  10. Durant, D. (2011). Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science, 41 (5), 691–714.
  11. Edelenbos, J., Schie, N., Gerrits, L. (2010). Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Science, 43, 73–94.
  12. Funtowicz, S., J.R. Ravetz (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
  13. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: Central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Science, 44, 215–230.
  14. Habermans, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon.
  15. Kacperczyk, A. (2007). Badacz i jego poszukiwania w świetle „Analizy Sytuacyjnej” Adele E. Clarke. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 2, 5–32.
  16. Kirschennam, P.P. (1991). Local and normative rationality of science: The ‘content of discovery’ rehabilitated. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 22 (1), 61–72.
  17. Korsgaard, C.M. (1992). The Sources of Normativity. Clare Hall: Cambridge University.
  18. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Kuruvilla, S., Dorstewitz, P. (2010). There is no ‘point’ in decision-making: A model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration. Policy Science, 43, 263–287.
  20. Luhmann, N. (2007). Systemy społeczne: zarys ogólnej teorii [Social systems: the outline of the general theory]. Kraków: Nomos.
  21. Merton, R. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
  22. Nonet, P., Selznick, P. (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper.
  23. Provan, K., Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–252.
  24. Sand, I.J. (2008). The interaction of society, politics and law: the legal and communicative theories of Habermas, Luhmann and Teubner. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 53, 45–75.
  25. Sand, I.J. (2014). Changing forms of governance and the role of law. ARENA Working Papers, 1–70.
  26. Shakun, M. F. (1975). Policy making under discontinuous change: The situational normativism approach. Management Science, 22 (2), 226–235.
  27. Sorensen, E., Torfing, J. (2005). Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27 (2), 197–237.
  28. Stehr, N. (2015). Our changing climate: democracy and knowledge. http://www.socjologia.uj.edu.pl/aktualnosci/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_gOfkiY4dynhc/15033991/105442311 (accessed: June 4, 2016).
  29. Sztompka, P. (2007). Trust in science. Robert K. Merton’s inspirations. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 211–220.
  30. Teubner, G. (1983). Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law & Society Review, 17 (2), 239–286.
  31. Treib, O., Bahr, H., Falkner, G. (2005). Modes of governance: A note towards conceptual clarification. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), 5(2), 1–22.
  32. Wesselink, A., Hoppe, R. (2011). If post-normal science is the solution, what is the problem? The politics.of activist environmental science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36 (3), 389–412.
  33. Zawicki, M. (2015). Critical foundations of governance – a critical review. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 2(32), 15–24.

SUGEROWANE CYTOWANIE / SUGGESTED CITATION

Jedlikowska D. (2016), Normativisation and its processes as seen from the neo-functional perspective: Towards science governance, Zarządzanie Publiczne, nr 4 (38), s. 7-16.
 

 

Back to Top

© Kwartalnik ZARZĄDZANIE PUBLICZNE 2024