Excelencia científica: la construcción de la ciencia a través de su evaluación. La Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC), Uruguay

Amílcar  Davyt; Léa  Velho

doi:10.48160/18517072re13.870

Authors

Amílcar Davyt Universidad Estadual de Campinas
Léa Velho Universidad Estadual de Campinas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re13.870

Keywords:

Scientific Excellence, evaluation, Uruguay

Abstract

This article studies the social process of the construction of scientific excellence. It takes as its starting point the analysis of evaluation processes in projects undertaken in the Sectorial Commission for Scientific Research in Uruguay. The processes involved in the construction of consensus are examined with particular emphasis on the influence of the criterion of social relevance on the definition of excellence. The work is based on a frame of reference supplied by a constructivist orientation in the sociology of science and technology.

References

• Abrams, P. (1991), “The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation”, Social Studies of Science, 21, pp. 111-132.

• Abt, H. (1992), “Publication Practices in various Sciences”, Scientometrics, 24 (3), pp. 441-447.

• Argenti, G., Filgueira, C. y Sutz, J. (1987), Ciencia y Tecnología: Un diagnóstico de oportunidades, Montevideo, CIESU.

• Barreiro, A. y Velho, L. (1997), “The Uruguayan Basic Scientists Migration and their Academic Articulations Around the PEDECIBA”, Science, Technology and Society, 2, pp. 261-284.

• Boden, M. (1990), “Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, From the Working Group on Peer Review”, Londres.

• Bonilla, M., Herrera, R., Rius, J. y Yacamán, M. (1995), “Sistema de evaluación por pares en los proyectos de investigación y de fortalecimiento de la infraestructura científica y tecnológica”, Ciencia y Desarrollo, 122, pp. 8-17.

• Bortagaray, I. y Sutz, J. (1996), Una aproximación primaria al Sistema Nacional de Investigación en Uruguay, Montevideo, Trilce.

• Burgueño, G. y Mujica, A. (1996), “Relacionamiento entre la universidad y los sectores productivos: una experiencia reciente”, en Albornoz, M., Kreimer, P. y Glavich, E. (comps.), Ciencia y Sociedad en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, pp. 221-231.

• Chubin, D. y Hackett, E. (1990), Peerless Science. Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy, Albany, University of New York Press.

• Cicchetti, D. (1982), “We have Met the Enemy and He is Us”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, p. 255.

• Cogan, D. (1986), Scientific Research Grants Review 1977/8-1981/2: A Theoretical Review and Statistical Analysis, Dublin, National Board for Science and Technology.

• Cole, S., Cole, J. y Simon, G. (1981), “Chance and Consensus in Peer Review”, Science 214, pp. 881-886.

• Cole, S., Rubin, L. y Cole, J. (1977), “Peer Review in the NSF and the Support of Science”, Scientific American 237 (4), pp. 34-41.

• Cozzens, S. (1990), “Options for the Future of Research Evaluation”, en Cozzens, S., Healey, P., Rip, A. y Ziman, J. (eds.), The Research System in Transition, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 281-294.

• Crane, D. (1967), “The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals”, The American Sociologist, noviembre, pp. 195-201.

• Davyt, A. y Yarzábal, L. (1991), “Programas centrales de apoyo a la investigación. Un decidido impulso a la creación científica”, Gaceta Universitaria (Universidad de la República), V (2), pp. 28-31.

• Fölster, S. (1995), “The perils of peer review in economics and other sciences”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 5, pp. 43-57.

• Gillespie, G., Chubin, D. y Kurzon, G. (1985), “Experience With NIH Peer Review: Researchers Cynicism and Desire for Change”, Science, Technology and Human Values 10 (3), pp. 44-53.

• Hackett, E. (1987), “Funding and Academic Research in the Life Sciences: Results of an Exploratory Study”, Science and Technology Studies 5 (3/4), pp. 134-147.

• Hensler, D. (1976), “Perceptions of the National Science Foundation Peer Review Process: A Report on a Survey of NSF Reviewers and Applicants”, preparado para el Committee on Peer Review, National Science Board, y el Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., NSF, pp. 77-33.

• Herrera, A. (1973), “Social Determinants of Science Policy in Latin America”, en Cooper, C. (ed.), Science, Tecnology and Development, Londres, Frank Cass, pp. 19-37.

• Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

• Latour, B. y Woolgar, S. (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Londres, Sage.

• Latour, B. (1983), “Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World”, en Knorr-Cetina, K. y Mulkay, M., Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Londres, Sage, pp. 141-170.

• Law, L. y Williams, R. (1982), “Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion”, Social Studies of Science, 12 (4), pp. 535-558.

• Lindsey, D. (1978), The Scientific Publication System in Social Science, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

• Loría, A. y Loría, E. (1996), “Reflexiones en torno a la revisión por pares en revistas científicas”, Ciencia y Desarrollo, 127, pp. 63-73.

• Lynch, M. (1982), Art and Artifacts in Laboratory Science, Londres, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

• Mahoney, M. (1977), “Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System”, Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 (2), pp. 161-175.

• McCullough, J. (1989), “First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns About Proposal Review”, Science, Technology and Human Values 14 (1), pp. 78-88.

• Merton, R. (1973 [1960]), “Recognition and Excellence: Instructive Ambiguities”, en Merton, R., The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 419-438.

• Mujica, A. (1997), “El fomento a la investigación: encuentros y desencuentros entre las políticas y sus resultados”, Educación Superior y Sociedad (CRESALC/UNESCO), vol. 8, No. 2.

• Nicoletti, L. (1985), “Participação da Comunidade Científica na Política de CyT: o CNPq”, Texto 16, Brasilia, CNPq.

• NIH Grants Peer Review Study Team (1976), “Grants Peer Review: Report to the Director, NIH Phase I”, Washington, D.C.

• Peters, D. y Ceci, S. (1982), “Peer-Review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, pp. 187-205.

• Pinch, T. y Bijker, W. (1990), “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other”, Social Studies of Science, 14, pp. 399-441.

• Price, D. J. S. (1969), “The Structures of Publication in Science and Technology”, en Gruber, W. y Marquis, D. (eds.), Factors in the Transfer of Technology, Cambridge Massachussets, MIT Press, pp. 91-104.

• Prpic, K. (1994), “The Socio-cognitive Frameworks of Scientific Productivity”, Scientometrics 31 (3), pp. 293-310.

• Rip, A. (1994), “The Republic of Science in the 1990s”, Higher Education, 28 (1), pp. 3-23.

• Sábato, J. y Botana, N. (1968), “La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina”, Revista de la Integración, 3.

• Saráchaga, D. (1997), Ciencia y tecnología en Uruguay: una agenda hacia el futuro, Montevideo, CONICYT/Trilce.

• Sirilli, G. y Meliciani, V. (1994), “Research Evaluation at the National Research Council in Italy: a survey of decision-makers”, Research Evaluation 4 (2), pp. 75-88.

• Sonnert, G. (1995), “What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists”, Social Studies of Science 25, pp. 35-55.

• Stolte-Heiskanen, V. (1986), “Evaluation of Scientific Performance on the Periphery”, Science and Public Policy 13 (2), pp. 83-88.

• Varsavsky, O. (1969), Ciencia, política y cientificismo, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.

• Weinberg, A. (1964), “Criteria for Scientific Choice II: the Two Cultures”, Minerva, III (1), pp. 3-14.

• Weinberg, A. (1963), “Criteria for Scientific Choice”, Minerva, I (2), pp. 159-171.

• Zenzen, M. y Restivo, S. (1980), “The Mysterious Morphology of Immiscible Liquids: A Study of Scientific Practice”, Social Science Information 21 (3), pp. 447-473.

• Ziman, J. (1994), Prometheus Bound: Science in a dynamic steady state, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

• Zuckerman, H. y Merton, R. (1973 [1971]), “Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science”, en Merton, R., The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 460-496.

• Zuckerman, H. (1987), “Foreword”, en Jackson, D. y Rushton, J., Scientific Excellence. Origins and Assesment, California, Sage, pp. 7-11.