Search results

Joan Procter, Dragon Doctor describes the life of Joan Beauchamp Procter, renowned herpetologist, zoologist, Curator of Reptiles at the British Museum and designer of the London Zoo Reptile House. In this lesson, students reframe initial viewpoints of scientists that are not representative of a broad understanding of who scientists are and what being a scientist means. Exploring understandings and expanding their view of science to include varied areas of social sciences provokes deep discussions among students as they prepare to teach others. Using content area skills, artwork, writing, literacy and technology, students explore diverse people and fields of the sciences.

Students engage in collaborative efforts with peers to involve themselves with content knowledge and skills in the social studies, as they integrate other areas of the curriculum including science, art, writing, literacy, literature, technology, critical thinking, research skills and inquiry-based learning. Findings include students participating in meaningful learning individually and collectively through inquiry. As students learn with and from one another, they conceptualize their own ideas through their own work in exploring relevant resources. Students plan action to move learning outside the classroom in generating changes in museums and monuments to showcase broader cultural representation of scientists in their communities.

Students engage in inquiry learning using Joan Procter, Dragon Doctor as a key text. Students explore the text and related resources, while learning with one another about scientists. Students expand their content knowledge and apply critical thinking skills, noting similarities and differences in scientists, ultimately acknowledging that what scientists do through inquiry and exploration helps them identify as scientists. Varied fields and backgrounds of scientists are explored, and students examine cultural representation in museums commemorating scientists and scientific contributions. Students create action plans to consult with museums about these issues and curate exhibits, like Joan Procter, to share with others.

This lesson provides students multiple avenues to deepen learning while conceptualizing and formulating their own understandings. Further, students are required to use multiple skills in conveying their ideas for social change to reflect their new broader conceptualization of scientists and the many fields that science includes. Additionally, they have to understand the topics discussed fully in order to convey their research findings to another audience in their school or community as they create museum exhibits. Finally, while students learn, they begin to see themselves represented in fields through evident, inclusive demonstrations of contributions by diverse scientists.

We extend the literature on scientific discovery and commercialization by examining entrepreneurial action by university-based scientists. Specifically, we investigate the decision process and the paths to commercialize academic technologies. University-based technology transfer involves multiple stakeholders with competing interests; hence, we believe researchers should apply a multilevel theoretical lens, which starts with the disclosure of discoveries made by scientists in their labs. We build a multilevel framework that views the scientists’ choice to first disclose viable discoveries to pursue entrepreneurial action as a function of three factors: (i) a scientist's rent orientation, (ii) a university's rent doctrine, and (iii) the rent doctrine of the scientific field in which the scientist conducts research. We suggest that commercial disclosure most often occurs when there is alignment between these three factors. Lastly, we advance an agenda for future empirical research by developing specific propositions about the key constructs and relationships concerning university-based entrepreneurial action.

In this paper, we present and apply a new framework – the Poles of Production for Producers/Poles of Production for Users (PFP/PFU) model – to empirically study how one particular group of academic scientists has responded to neoliberal changes in science policy and funding in Canada. The data we use are from a qualitative case study of 20 basic health scientists affiliated with a research-intensive university in a large Canadian city. We use the PFP/PFU model to explore the symbolic strategies (the vision of scientific quality) and practical strategies (the acquisition of funding and production of knowledge outputs) scientists adopt to maintain or advance their own position of power in the scientific field. We also compare similarities and differences among scientists trained before and after the rise of neoliberal policy. The PFP/PFU model allows us to see how these individual strategies cumulatively contribute to the construction of dominant and alternate modes of knowledge production. We argue that the alignments and misalignments between quality vision and practice that scientists in this study experienced reflect the symbolic struggles that are occurring among scientists, and between the scientific and political field, over two competing logics and reward systems (PFP/PFU).

In this chapter, the authors assert that traditional advanced degree programs underserve young scientists, and train them primarily for a career in academia pursuing basic research. Data drawn from the Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) from 1996 to 2006 show that only one fourth of all scientists are engaged in basic academic research. The majority of young scientists pursue alternative career paths in applied and in industrial research settings. Several such career options are highlighted, and the conclusion is drawn that graduate education should be broadened to provide students with complementary business and entrepreneurship knowledge, skills and attitudes required for success in each option. Four examples of innovative programs that address this need at the University of Illinois are discussed, including a Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Management (CEM) for Life Scientists, a Certificate in Business Administration (CIB) for Nonbusiness Majors, the Illinois Professional Science Master's (PSM), and various nondegree, experiential opportunities.

Purpose – University–industry relationships raise concerns about the influence of commercial interests on academic science. In this paper, we investigate how academic scientists who collaborate with industry understand their professional identity in relation to their research money and the notion of scientific “independence.”

Design/Methodology/Approach – We conducted in-depth interviews with 84 scientists and 65 administrators from 9 U.S. universities. The scientists do research in the field of agricultural biotechnology and collaborate with industry. The administrators have oversight responsibility for academic research, university–industry collaborations, and technology transfer.

Findings – We find that our respondents are wary of industry funding but believe that it has an appropriate place in academic research. Typically, industry money is treated either as seed money for preliminary research or as flexible funding that supplements the core, essential competitive grants academic scientists obtain from public agencies. We find that academic scientists talk about the mix of public and private funds in their research funding portfolios in ways that aim to construct an “independent” investigator professional identity.

Originality/Value – Our study is a case of how money is inscribed with meanings in institutional settings. It contributes to scholarship in economic sociology of work by revealing how money is used by academic scientists to signal their alignment with institutionally sanctioned professional norms and by administrators to evaluate scientists' work.

Academic knowledge can be put to use in a commercial environment in several ways. One such mechanism to transfer knowledge to the market place is the start of a new, separate company, termed an academic spin-off company, with the aim to commercially develop and exploit the knowledge generated in the university (Fontes, 2003). In 1999, the Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs published a paper stating that the number of high-tech start-ups in the Netherlands lags behind compared to other EU countries and the United States. Subsequently, initiatives were started to stimulate commercial exploitation of knowledge generated within universities. A specific initiative by the Dutch government in the area of the Life Sciences was the so-called Biopartner programme. This was started in 2000 with the objective to enhance the business climate for start-ups in the Life Sciences and to realize 75 start-ups within 5 years (Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, 1999). Actions were directed toward increasing awareness, stimulating starters, establishing facilities like a seed fund and academic incubators, and promoting the commercialization of academic knowledge within universities. A few years later, the Technopartner program and the Valorization Grant were implemented with similar instruments aiming at scientists in universities (Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2003).

This research explored the literature regarding successful leadership practices and how these practices form the organizational context that leads to success in the biotechnology industry. Dominate themes emerged in general leadership strategies, leading research and development scientists, moving ideas from research to the consumer and the culture of research versus practice. Themes include leaders must be adaptable and able to lead effectively in a dynamic environment. Leaders need to consistently articulate the vision throughout the organization. Leaders need to be strategic decision-makers and flexible enough to allow the vision to adjust to the culture and the environment. Leaders need to communicate effectively and create an organization where communication flows efficiently at all levels. Leaders need to recognize clear cultural differences between functional groups, and they need to empower employees at all levels to make strategic decisions. Leaders need to know which decisions must be retained as his or her sole responsibility.

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology, to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life, from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science, in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory also would be exacting, in its own right.¹

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.¹