Research framework conditions and scientific principles

Discussion ● Rasmus E Benstad

Do we have enough scientific discussions where different perceptions and interpretations conflict with each other? Rasmus E. Benstadt asks.

The question we have to ask from time to time is whether the research follows the principles of science in a good way. according to SNL

It is a science of “systematic, systematic, and critical investigation, study, or research,” but it also requires a social framework that includes a research environment with colleagues.

the reason I ask because I wonder if we have enough scholarly discussions where different opinions and interpretations contradict each other. More often than not, I think there is a bit of a sluggish activity when it comes to critical discussions about research methodology and findings in professional circles.

in climate researchFor example, the lack of deep professional discussions contrasts with the urgent need to address climate change. The green transition is urgent, and must be based on solid science. We often don’t have time to delve deeper into clarifying questions or to understand each other when we meet physically at conferences or seminars.

I wonder aboutAnd whether my opinion is shared with my colleagues. And if that’s the case, why not have comprehensive career discussions?

is that possible That research, loyalty to the organization/employer and politics are mixed to a great extent? You have to be brave if you’re young and criticizing routines or deeply held beliefs. or criticizing colleagues. But we need a critical mass in terms of new critical perspectives, specialist knowledge, and intellectual engagement to ensure that all relevant interpretations are considered.

Maybe we don’t Is she good enough at professional and critical debates, without getting too emotional? Our mission is not to enjoy ourselves together or have a good time, but to gain the best possible knowledge.

Social dimension However very important. Scientific research requires collaboration, but the daily lives of researchers are marked by fierce competition for projects. We need some kind of large-scale Manhattan Project to solve the climate crisis. But if competition for project funds becomes too intense, it often gets in the way of trust, security, and team collaboration.

her research projects Preferably to a limited extent, depending

SNL. And when they only include a small group of the professional community, we run the risk of not properly capturing or understanding all the knowledge. Thus the best solutions are at risk of being ignored. Not all researchers are the same or have the same knowledge.

Our project focus The day is short-lived and unpredictable. It can prevent professional communities from gaining depth and permanence and from becoming true experts in their subjects. Applying for project funding is like participating in the lottery, because it is difficult to evaluate and classify different applications. We have clear evidence that the same work can be judged very differently by peer assessment associated with scientific publications, as different anonymous peers often give opposite assessments.

Another question Is whether there is a lasting impact of projects. Are we able to use them as building blocks to build science in the long term? The current framework only funds attempts to make new discoveries, but not validation or quality assurance of results. Nor is there a script to learn from mistakes. This narrow focus also undermines the basis for comprehensive academic discussions.

Of course it happens Some scientific discussion is during conferences, but they often have strict time frames, and there is seldom time for discussion outside of coffee breaks and social gatherings after the work day. It is also common that we often mingle with colleagues from our organizations and projects, which can get in the way of contact with outside environments and ideas. Another common observation is that the audience during conferences often read emails. How will they then be able to keep up?

Of course it works With limited scholarly debate regarding peer review of manuscripts being submitted to scholarly journals. We may also publish articles that are critical of other published results. But it is a long and slow process. This is also important, but we may also need faster, more lively discussions and discussions.

What can we So do to get better? We can try to get more scientific discussion through socialization. One question is whether researchers are too busy with projects and competition for funding. In other words, should we researchers hone?

Maybe we need to Less focus on project financing? Anyway, I think we need less New Public Administration (NPM) and more trust in researchers. It can create more lively professional environments. We must highlight the value of knowledge and manage it in a good way. Try to bring the research more in line with scientific principles and make it less of the sense of pure investigation.

There are more Sustainable with local and regional professional networks of collaboration with colleagues in distant countries. But we love to travel the world in international collaborations, while at the same time we don’t have time to meet colleagues who live nearby – with whom we’d like to compete for the same research funding.

there is hope. Tekna’s professional networks, such as Tekna Klima, offer professional and social events that provide a meeting place and a common platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge. Another thing that helps is internal discussions over a cup of coffee in the workplace.