IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2309.09202.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Examining psychology of science as a potential contributor to science policy

Author

Listed:
  • Arash Mousavi
  • Reza Hafezi
  • Hasan Ahmadi

Abstract

The psychology of science is the least developed member of the family of science studies. It is growing, however, increasingly into a promising discipline. After a very brief review of this emerging sub-field of psychology, we call for it to be invited into the collection of social sciences that constitute the interdisciplinary field of science policy. Discussing the classic issue of resource allocation, this paper tries to indicate how prolific a new psychological conceptualization of this problem would be. Further, from a psychological perspective, this research will argue in favor of a more realistic conception of science which would be a complement to the existing one in science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Arash Mousavi & Reza Hafezi & Hasan Ahmadi, 2023. "Examining psychology of science as a potential contributor to science policy," Papers 2309.09202, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2309.09202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.09202
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith Pavitt & w.e.steinmueller@sussex.ac.uk & Jane Calvert & Ben Martin, 2000. "International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences: 3 Papers," SPRU Working Paper Series 44, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    3. Jan Fagerberg & Bart Verspagen, 2006. "Innovation studies-an emerging discipline (or what)? A study of the global network of innovation scholars," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20060911, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    4. Branco Ponomariov & Craig Boardman, 2016. "What is co-authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1939-1963, December.
    5. Daniele Archibugi, 2001. "Pavitt'S Taxonomy Sixteen Years On: A Review Article," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 415-425.
    6. Mirowski, Philip & Sent, Esther-Mirjam (ed.), 2002. "Science Bought and Sold," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226538563.
    7. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    3. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    4. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    5. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    6. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    7. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    8. Uwe Cantner & Philip Doerr & Maximilian Goethner & Matthias Huegel & Martin Kalthaus, 2021. "A procedural perspective on academic spin-off creation: The changing relevance of academic and commercial logics," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-020, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo, 2014. "“Little Science” and “Big Science”: The institution of “Open Science” as a cause of scientific and economic inequalities among countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 42-56.
    10. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2004. "Academic Research, Social Interactions And Economic Growth," Working Papers 10_2004, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    11. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    12. Qiang Zhi & Tianguang Meng, 2016. "Funding allocation, inequality, and scientific research output: an empirical study based on the life science sector of Natural Science Foundation of China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 603-628, February.
    13. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 2001. "Publicly Funded Science and the Productivity of the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Buenstorf Guido & Geissler Matthias, 2014. "Like Doktorvater, like Son? Tracing Role Model Learning in the Evolution of German Laser Research," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 158-184, April.
    15. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    16. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    17. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    18. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    19. Paul A. David, 2001. "From Keeping 'Nature's Secrets' to the Institutionalization of 'Open Science'," Working Papers 01006, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    20. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2309.09202. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.