Interior Proposes New Rules for Fracking on U.S. Land – NYTimes.com.
Key fact: public comment open for 30 days.
This is an opportunity for some public philosophy. I believe even our scholarly philosophical work can be made relevant to this situation.
Academics: bring your own identity | Amber at Warwick: academic technology.
Good post here on academic identity that ties in with much of our own thinking on altmetrics and owning accountability.
The #1 reason listed by the University of Southern California: it pays.
Now, I won’t go so far as to call this fact trivial. Rhetorically, given that we value everything in terms of money (so that value just means monetary value), this may be a good strategy. But, really, what this graph shows is that we should all be majoring in computer science — assuming that money is the highest value.
But this data may well be of use to the academic philosophers in Florida, who are facing the prospect of differential costs for majors (charging more for humanities and less for STEM majors, on the grounds that STEM majors will make more money).
Discussing the term ‘impact’ — something we did at this workshop, and elsewhere.
Essential reading:
What Representative Lamar Smith Is Really Trying to Do at NSF – ScienceInsider.
The real question is whether an ‘extra layer’ of accountability is necessary. Before adding more government red tape, it would be better to ask NSF to monitor the revised Merit Review Process, especially the use of the Broader Impacts Criterion.
Aside from the inherent interest of all things having to do with NSF merit review … what, that’s not just us CSID folks, is it? … anyway, there’s also some really interesting stuff about what motivates scientists in this article.
Not Safe for Funding: The N.S.F. and the Economics of Science : The New Yorker.
Academics talking amongst themselves?
Dr. Andrew J. Taggart, Philosophical Counselor, considers the role of the public philosopher and gives a shout out to our efforts here at CSID.
On April 1, 2010, the professional philosopher Jonathan Dancy, who happens to be the father-in-law of Claire Danes, appeared on the Late Late Show to speak with Craig Ferguson about moral philosophy in general and about moral particularism more specifically.
Francis Remedios offers his review of Steve Fuller’s Humanity 2.0.
Book Review: Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future | LSE Review of Books.
I’m very pleased to be attending the upcoming workshop at Arizona State on “Communities of Integration” at the invitation of Erik Fisher of STIR fame.
You can get a sneak peak at the developing website, including our contribution on Field Philosophy, here:
Feminist researchers are motivated to undertake impact activities because of their feminism. We want to change, as well as observe, the world.
This is a must read.
Developing nations should avoid ‘slow science’ – SciDev.Net.
Worth reading, even if you disagree.
CSID Director Bob Frodeman has some suggestions about the interconnection of research & society in post-austerity world.
Now that we’ve been driven off the “fiscal cliff,” perhaps we should look around and assess the results. It turns out that sequestration is raising interesting questions about the relation between science and ethics—in particular, on whether the pursuit of scientific knowledge can ever be usefully separated from the question of larger societal concerns.
Fascinating.
Before MOOCs, ‘Colleges of the Air’ – The Conversation – The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Well, no, no it isn’t. Here’s why:
Some good ideas here. Interesting to compare with our description of field philosophy.
8 steps to making your research punch above its weight | Impact of Social Sciences.
Links on NSF Merit Review hearing:
http://science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-reviews-nsf-budget-explores-ways-improve-grant-approval-process
http://science.house.gov/hearing/research-subcommittee-hearing-overview-national-science-foundation-budget-fiscal-year-2014
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2013/RS041713.wvx
John Holdren to Science House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
“I think it’s a dangerous thing for Congress, or anybody else, to be trying to specify in detail what types of fundamental research NSF should be funding.”
NSF Peer Review Under Scrutiny by House Science Panel – ScienceInsider.
We agree! And we’ve said as much repeatedly.
@alicebell has something to say to us academics:
Fellow academics, if you really want to stand up for your special forms of freedoms you need to recognise the role you already play in the systems that curtail them and reflect deeply upon which of these constraints you do and do not approve of, and why. Stand up for yourself, against your boss as well as policymakers or the media. And trying talking to the public, you might even find they are an ally in your liberation.
Academics don’t let themselves be free – Opinion – Al Jazeera English.
The Social Epistemology Review and Reply collective is now hosting preprints:
Yes! Adam and I are #1!
This article is worth a read regarding the current state of the academic job market, as well as the current climate within the Academy generally: