Les relations entre les centres de recherche ou groupes de réflexion et leurs bailleurs de fonds sont importantes dans les théories et les discours publics abordant la question de l'orientation politique de la recherche sur les politiques publiques. Pourtant, très peu d'études examinent systématiquement ces relations à travers un ensemble de cas. Cet article, avec des méthodes comparatives et relationnelles, teste les théories élitiste, pluraliste et de terrain, en analysant des données portant sur le financement et l'orientation politique de 30 groupes de réflexion de 2000 à 2011. Les résultats démontrent que les dons provenant de l'étranger contribuent à soutenir certains groupes de réflexions conservateurs, mais ce financement demeure tout de même marginal dans l'ensemble. Au niveau national, les groupes de réflexion sont financés de manière contrastée: les groupes conservateurs sont financés principalement par des donateurs privés, alors que les groupes de réflexion centristes sont financés principalement par l'état. Depuis 2005, les liens entre l'ensemble des groupes de réflexion conservateurs, financés par des donateurs privés, sont devenus plus serrés. En revanche, les liens entre l'ensemble des groupes de réflexion centristes se sont relâchés et leur financement dépend de plus en plus de leurs propres revenus et des intérêts de leurs investissements. Ces résultats laissent planer un certain doute sur les prédictions qui découlent des théories élitiste et pluraliste et confirment en partie les suppositions de la théorie de terrain. The relationships between think tanks and their funders are central to theory and public discourse about the politics of policy knowledge, yet very little research systematically examines these relationships across cases. This article evaluates elite, pluralist, and field theories by analyzing original data on funding and politics for 30 think tanks from 2000 to 2011 with comparative and relational methods. I find that foreign donations help support some conservative think tanks, but that it is a small amount of money relative to other funding sources. Domestically, think tank funding is structured by an opposition between donor‐funded conservatives and state‐funded centrists. Since 2005, the cluster of conservative think tanks funded by private donors has become tighter, while the cluster of think tanks supported by the state has become looser and more reliant on self‐generated revenue and interest and investments. These findings cast doubt on predictions derived from elite and pluralist theories, and offer some support for field theory.
Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one's position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact-positive or negative-on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication.
How has English Canadian sociology changed from 1966 to 2014? Has it become more intellectually fragmented or cohesive over time? We answer these questions by analyzing cocitation networks extracted from 7,141 sociology articles published in 169 journals. We show how the most central early specialties developed largely in response to John Porter's The Vertical Mosaic. In later decades, the discipline diversified, fragmented, and then reorganized around a new set of specialties knit together by the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The discipline was most intellectually fragmented in periods where multiple specialties were emerging or declining concurrently (i.e., 1975 to 1984 and 1995 to 2004), and was more structurally cohesive from 2005 to 2014 than in any previous period. Comment est-ce que la sociologie canadienne-anglaise a-t-elle changé entre 1966 et 2014? Est-elle devenue plus intellectuellement fragmentée ou cohérente avec le temps? Nous répondons à ces questions en analysant des réseaux de co-citation qui ont été déduits de 7,141 articles publiés par 169 journaux. Nous démontrons les spécialités primordiales se sont développées en réponse de The Vertical Mosaic de John Porter. Durant les décennies suivantes, la discipline s'est diversifiée, fragmentée et puis s'est réorganisée autour d'une nouvelle série de spécialités liées ensemble par le travail de Pierre Bourdieu. La discipline était la plus intellectuellement fragmentée durant les périodes où plusieurs spécialités émergeaient ou déclinaient concurremment (par exemple de 1975 à 1985 et de 1995 à 2004). Par contre, elle était plus cohérente que tous les autres périodes entre 2005 et 2014.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.