FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W226095469> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W226095469 startingPage "3" @default.
• W226095469 abstract "Drawing upon archival material and primary texts, the paper argues that American regional science after early growth and success during the 1950s and 1960s waned because of an unwillingness to change its position in response to new circumstances. It was unwilling to entertain change because it believed it was a science with an unimpeachable method. In contrast, the paper argues that the early success of regional science had less to do with its scientific method than the local social and cultural context in which it was embedded. At first, regional science was able to forge tight connections to that local context, and consequently burgeoned. But as that context changed in the 1970s, American regional science failed to keep up, and instead continued to espouse what it thought were unchanging universal scientific nostrums. The result, though, was not growth and vibrancy, but a slow trajectory of decline and fall. The theoretical framework informing this critical history derives from science studies, and in particular the work of Bruno Latour. En utilisant du materiel des archives et des textes originaux, le raisonnement est presente que la science regionale americaine, apres avoir connu une croissance initiale et un succes certain au cours des annees 1950 et 1960, a perdu son elan a cause d'un manque de volonte pour modifier sa position par rapport aux nouvelles circonstances. Elle ne voulait pas contempler le changement parce qu'elle pensait qu'elle etait une science avec une methode sans faille. En contraste, dans cet article nous raisonnons que le succes initial de cette science regionale etait moins le resultat de sa methode scientifique que le resultat du contexte social e culturel local dans lequel elle fut enracinee. Au depart, la science regionale etait capable de batir des relations tres etroites a ce contexte local et par consequent elle a connu une floraison remarquable. Mais au fur et a mesure que ce contexte a change, la science regionale americaine n'a pas reussi a maintenir sa position, et, au contraire, a continue a s'allier ce qu'elle pensait etre les imperatifs scientifiques universels et constants. Le resultat, neanmoins, n'etait pas la croissance et une ambiance vibrant, mais plutot un trajectoire lent de declin et de demise. Le schema theorique qui a informe cette histoire critique decoule des etudes de la science, particulierement le travail de Bruno Latour. ********** What's Wrong with American Regional Science? A View from Science Studies My first academic conference, and as a first year graduate student, was at the North American Regional Science Association held at the Ambassador Hotel, Chicago, November 1978. It was exhilarating but disarming as well. For the first time, saw what professors did in their off hours. There seemed such a gap between the graceful and purified abstractions of the regional scientists who spoke, their vocabulary couched in mathematical equations or serried rows of numbers or tidily drawn flow charts presented as a series of overheads, and the behaviour of some of them once they left the lectern. There was drunkenness, a fistfight between a disgruntled author and recalcitrant editor, bets and bravado at a singles bar, imbibing of illegal substances, and cursing and sexual innuendo. was shocked, but it didn't stop me from joining in. Of course, realise now from both becoming a professor and reading the science studies literature on which will draw in this paper, that there is no disjuncture. Academic inquiry even of the most purified kind is thoroughly muddied by a wider social context, local cultural practices, and bodily acts and responses, and which can include even drunkenness, fistfights, and barroom bets and bravado. As Steven Shapin (1998: 23) puts it, I have never seen a 'disembodied idea,' nor, suspect, have those who say they study such things. What and they have seen is embodied people portraying their disembodiment and that of the knowledge they produce. …" @default.
• W226095469 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W226095469 creator A5090440167 @default.
• W226095469 date "2003-03-22" @default.
• W226095469 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W226095469 title "What's Wrong with American Regional Science? A View from Science Studies *, **" @default.
• W226095469 cites W1489934178 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1528040748 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1608524968 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1949940354 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1963629529 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1964011578 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1965624054 @default.
• W226095469 cites W1990112223 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2017157913 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2043148945 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2050359507 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2053347727 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2063974705 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2072326761 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2077322891 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2085366436 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2131340364 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2165812767 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2327521297 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2332693214 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2476464990 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2487590998 @default.
• W226095469 cites W3021014967 @default.
• W226095469 cites W342803928 @default.
• W226095469 cites W625976302 @default.
• W226095469 cites W2508661721 @default.
• W226095469 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W226095469 type Work @default.
• W226095469 sameAs 226095469 @default.
• W226095469 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W226095469 countsByYear W2260954692012 @default.
• W226095469 countsByYear W2260954692013 @default.
• W226095469 countsByYear W2260954692022 @default.
• W226095469 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W226095469 hasAuthorship W226095469A5090440167 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C2549261 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W226095469 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C111472728 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C138885662 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C144024400 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C15708023 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C166957645 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C2549261 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C2779343474 @default.
• W226095469 hasConceptScore W226095469C95457728 @default.
• W226095469 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W226095469 hasLocation W2260954691 @default.
• W226095469 hasOpenAccess W226095469 @default.
• W226095469 hasPrimaryLocation W2260954691 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2012189545 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2034049126 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2037422936 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2038243767 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2049584450 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2058474916 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2063974705 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2064830585 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2072326761 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2089250353 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2134569104 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2143055265 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2148020945 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2165812767 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2487590998 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2597934390 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2743130901 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W294691467 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W625976302 @default.
• W226095469 hasRelatedWork W2143434597 @default.
• W226095469 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W226095469 isParatext "false" @default.
• W226095469 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W226095469 magId "226095469" @default.
• W226095469 workType "article" @default.