IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i5p781-790..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working with curiosity: Knowledge transfer practitioners’ ambivalence at CERN
[Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Policy Knowledge]

Author

Listed:
  • Chih-wei Yeh

Abstract

Current science-policy trends emphasise efficiency, application orientation, and accountability. This article is inspired by the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012; the author studies how the knowledge transfer practitioners at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), the birthplace of the Higgs boson, account for their experiences at CERN. In the body of the Science Policy Studies literature, the knowledge transfer practitioners’ perspective on the wider impacts of particle and high-energy physics research is relatively understudied. The data are generated from qualitative interviews. Constructivist discourse analysis, which is introduced from Science and Technology Studies, is applied to the data; namely, this research focuses on the practitioners’ worldview and their perceived situation at CERN. As a result, there is a repetitive sense of ambivalence towards knowledge transfer in the discourse. Practical suggestions are provided in response to this ambivalence.

Suggested Citation

  • Chih-wei Yeh, 2022. "Working with curiosity: Knowledge transfer practitioners’ ambivalence at CERN [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Policy Knowledge]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 781-790.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:5:p:781-790.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac029
    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:49:y:2022:i:5:p:781-790.. 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.