To assess progress in the social sciences, we should study knowledge cumulation, not disruptiveness
Publikation: Arbeits- oder Diskussionspapiere und Berichte › Arbeits- oder Diskussionspapiere
Standard
SSRN Social Science Research Network, 2023. S. 1-4.
Publikation: Arbeits- oder Diskussionspapiere und Berichte › Arbeits- oder Diskussionspapiere
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
T1 - To assess progress in the social sciences, we should study knowledge cumulation, not disruptiveness
AU - Newig, Jens
AU - Rose, Michael
AU - Aksoy, Zühre
AU - Beaudoin, Simon
AU - Bolognesi, Thomas
AU - Fritsch, Oliver
AU - Hofmann, Benjamin
AU - Jager, Nicolas Wilhelm
AU - Kellner, Elke
AU - Leipold, Sina
AU - Persson, Asa
AU - Runhaar, Hens A. C.
AU - Webb, Robert
PY - 2023/5
Y1 - 2023/5
N2 - Park, Leahey and Funk – PLF – present a thought-provoking contribution to tracking scientific progress by studying the ‘disruptiveness’ of academic publications and patents in a large-N analysis. Their effort – published in Nature 613 (2023) – is timely because the best possible knowledge is needed to effectively address the grand challenges that societies are facing today, including Earth system changes, human well-being, and justice. Even though the authors' findings show consistency across various scientific disciplines, we argue that (1) their measure of disruptiveness lacks plausibility for the social sciences, and (2) the focus on disruptiveness largely neglects the essence of progress, which is knowledge cumulation. While PLF view knowledge cumulation as a precondition to disruption, we argue that it is knowledge cumulation, rather than disruptiveness, that should be the principal criterion for evaluating scientific progress.
AB - Park, Leahey and Funk – PLF – present a thought-provoking contribution to tracking scientific progress by studying the ‘disruptiveness’ of academic publications and patents in a large-N analysis. Their effort – published in Nature 613 (2023) – is timely because the best possible knowledge is needed to effectively address the grand challenges that societies are facing today, including Earth system changes, human well-being, and justice. Even though the authors' findings show consistency across various scientific disciplines, we argue that (1) their measure of disruptiveness lacks plausibility for the social sciences, and (2) the focus on disruptiveness largely neglects the essence of progress, which is knowledge cumulation. While PLF view knowledge cumulation as a precondition to disruption, we argue that it is knowledge cumulation, rather than disruptiveness, that should be the principal criterion for evaluating scientific progress.
U2 - 10.2139/ssrn.4445549
DO - 10.2139/ssrn.4445549
M3 - Working papers
SP - 1
EP - 4
BT - To assess progress in the social sciences, we should study knowledge cumulation, not disruptiveness
PB - SSRN Social Science Research Network
ER -