IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i1p71-80..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research funding’s ‘endorsement effect’ on scientific boundary work and research production: Government legitimization of alternative medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan Whalen

Abstract

This article demonstrates how science and technology policy can have an ‘endorsement effect’ that legitimizes and increases the salience of scientific research areas. The validation and increased attention provided by state funding policies can support the discursive boundary work of interested parties as they seek to situate research fields within mainstream science. Increased validity and attention can subsequently lead to increased research activity, above and beyond that funded by the state. This article demonstrates the endorsement effect by examining how the founding of the NIH’s Office of Alternative Medicine affected both the discourse surrounding the legitimacy of alternative medicine, and the production of alternative medicine-related patents. The existence of this endorsement effect suggests that policymakers should consider both the direct effects that innovation policy might have on researchers’ incentives as well as the endorsement effects it can have on the research system.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan Whalen, 2019. "Research funding’s ‘endorsement effect’ on scientific boundary work and research production: Government legitimization of alternative medicine," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 71-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:1:p:71-80.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy038
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:1:p:71-80.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.