Using the methodology of scientific research programmes for the evaluation of scientific research activities

Authors

  • prof. PhDr. František Ochrana, DrSc. Institut sociologických studií, Fakulta sociálních věd, Univerzita Karlova v Praze
  • PhDr. Vilém Novotný, PhD. Institut sociologických studií, Fakulta sociálních věd, Univerzita Karlova v Praze

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61357/sehs.v13i1.37

Keywords:

Lakatos, scientific research programme, evaluation of outputs and results of scientific research programme, efficiency of science policy

Abstract

The article examines the Lakatos methodology of scientific research programmes. This methodology is also inspiring to evaluate the effects of scientific research programmes. The scientific research programme is a production unit. The production unit (e.g. scientist, research team) produces outputs and results. The proposed system model shows the ways and forms in which it is possible to detect the effects of scientific research programmes and how to carry out their ex post evaluation. The proposed procedure can thus help to make science policy more effective.

References

KUHN, S.T. (1997) Struktura vědeckých revolucí. Praha: Oikoymenh. ISBN 80-86005-54-2.

LAKATOS, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes, Philosophical Papers, Volume I. Edited by John Worrall a Gregory Currie. Cambridge - London-New York-Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 1978. ISBN 0-521-28031-1.

LAKATOS, I. (2008). Mathematics, science and epistemology, Philosophical Papers, Volume II. Edited by John Worrall a Gregory Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-21769-5

LAKATOS, I. (2015). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107534056.

OCHRANA, F., PŮČEK, M.J., DOUŠA, P., SOBOTKOVÁ, J., NOVÁK, P. a PLAČEK, M. (2019). Metodologie a řízení výzkumu v muzeu. Praha: Národní zemědělské muzeum. ISBN 9798-80-88270-11-9.

BALSINGER, P. W (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures, 36(4), p. 407– 421. ISSN 0016-3287.

CALLAGHAN, CH. W. (2019). Lakatos revisited: Innovation and _ Novel facts? as a foundational logic for the social sciences in an era of „Post-truth? and pseudosience. Cogent Business and Management, 6 (1). Article Number: 1672489. Published Sep. 25 2019. ISSN 2331-1975.

CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (2009). Simplicity and reality in computational modeling of politics. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 15 (1), p. 26–46. ISSN 1381-298X.

CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (2010). A Methodology for Complex Social Simulations. The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13 (1). Article Number: 7 Published: ‏ JAN 2010. ISSN 1460-7425.

CHALL, C. (2020). Model-groups as scientific research programmes. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 10 (1). Article Number: 6. ISSN 18794912.

CHANG, S. N. and CHIU, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socio-scientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (13), p. 1753-1773. ISSN 0950-0693.

CHERNILO, D. (2002). The theorization of social co-ordinations in differentiated societies: the theory of generalized symbolic media in Parsons, Luhmann and Habermas Conference: 5th Conference of the European-Sociological-Association Location: ‏ HELSINKI, FINLAND Date: ‏ AUG 28-SEP 01, 2001. British Journal of Sociology, ‏ 53 (3), p. 431-449. ISSN 1468-4446.

DA SILVA, E.D. and DA COSTA, R.S. (2019). An Epistemological Reflection on the Scientific Status of Administration Under the View of the Scientific Demarcation Criteria of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos. Revista Ciencias Administrativas. 25 (3). DOI: 10.5020/2318-0722.2019.9660. ISSN 1870-9427.

DUMITRU, A.C. (2020).Should constitutional economists' attention be turned to political philosophy? an argument for epistemic imperialism. Romanian Journal of Political Science, 20 (1), p. 58-87. ISSN 1582-456X.

EDWARDS, R.T. (2001). Paradigms and research programmes: Is it time to move from health care economics to health economics? Health Economics, 10 (7), p. 635-649. DOI: 10.1002/hec.610. Print ISSN: 1057-9230. Online ISSN: 1099-1050.

ELMAN, C. and ELMAN, MF. (2002). How not to be Lakatos intolerant: Appraising progress in IR research. International Studies Quarterly, 46 (2), p. 231-262. ISSN 0020-8833 (print); 1468-2478 (web).

ELMAN, C. and ELMAN, M.F. (1997). Lakatos and neorealism: A reply. American Political Science Review, 91(4), p. 923-926. DOI: 10.2307/2952175. ISSN 0003-0554 (print); 1537-5943 (web).

ERDIN, H.O. (2020). Appraisal of certain methodologies in cognitive science based on Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02612-4. ISSN 0039-7857 (print) ; 1573-0964 (web).

FELDBACHER-ESCAMILLA, C.J. (2019). Newton's Methodology: A Critique of Duhem, Feyerabend and Lakatos. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie,101 (4), p. 584–615, eISSN 1613-0650, ISSN 0003-9101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-4004. ISSN 003-9101 (print); 1613-0650 (web).

GOLD, S. (2014). Supply chain management as Lakatosian research program. Supply Chain Management- an International Journal, 19 (1), p. 1-9. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-05-2013-0168. ISSN 1359-8546.

GONZALEZ, W.J. (2001). Lakatos's approach on prediction and novel facts. Theoria-revista de teoria historia y fundamentos de la ciencia, ‏ 16 (3), p. 499-518. ISSN 0495-4548.

HAN, H. (2014). Analysing theoretical frameworks of moral education through Lakatos's philosophy of science. Journal of Moral Education, 43 (1), p. ‏ 32-53. ISSN 0305-7240.

HEISE, A. and THIEME, S. (2016). The Short Rise and Long Fall of Heterodox Economics in Germany After the 1970s: Explorations in a Scientific Field of Power and Struggle. Journal of Economic Issues, 50 (4), p. 1105-1130. DOI: 10.1080/00213624.2016.1249752. ISSN 00213624.

HERNE, K and SETALA, M. (2004). A response to the critique of rational choice theory: Lakatos' and Laudan's conceptions applied. Inquiry-an Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 47 (1), p. 67-85. ISSN 0020-174X (print); 1502-3923 (web).

HONNELAND, G. (1999). Interaction of research programmes in social science studies of the commons. Acta Sociologica, 42 (3), p. 193-205. ISSN 0001-6993 (print); 1502-3869 (web). 26 HO, D. (2018). Why construing theories of depression as lakatos' research programs might spell trouble for their proponents. Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology, 25 /4), Special Issue, p. 305-307. ISSN 1071-6076 (print) 1086-3303 (web).

INGLIS, M. and FOSTER, C. (2018). Five Decades of Mathematics Education Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49 (4), p. ‏ 462-500. ISSN 0021-8251.

KARABA, M. (2017). The Application of Some Scientific Methodologies to the Questions of Religious Knowledge. Filozofia, 72 (3), p. 192-203. ISSN 0046-385X.

KILDUFF, M, TSAI, W. and HANKE, R. (2006). A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31 (4), p. 1031-1048. ISSN 0363-7425.

KUUKKANEN, J.-M. (2017). Lakatosian Rational Reconstruction Updated. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ‏ 31 (1), p. 83-102. ISSN 0269-8595.

LORRIMAR, V. (2017). Are Scientific Research Programmes Applicable to Theology? On Philip Hefner's Use of Lakatos. Theology and Science, 15 (2), p. 188-202. DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2017.1299376. ISSN 1474-6700.

LORRIMAR, V. (2017). The scientific character of philip hefner's "created co-creator". ZYGON, 52 (3), p. 726-746. ISSN 1467-9744.

LUSTICK, I.S. (1997). Lijphart, Lakatos, and consociationalism. World Politics, ‏ 50 (1), p. 88- 117. ISSN 0043-8871.

MARČEK, V. and URBÁNEK, T. (2011). Philosophical and scientific concept of paradigm in psychology. Československa psychologie, 55 (3), p. 222-233. ISSN 0009-062X.

MENARD, C. (2018). Research frontiers of new institutional economics. RAUSP Management Journal, ‏ 53 (1), p. 3-10. ISSN 2531-0488.

MURPHY, N. (1999). Theology and science within a Lakatosian program. ZYGON, 34 (4), p. 629-642. ISSN 0591-2385.

NIAZ, M. (1995). Cognitive conflict as a teaching strategy in solving chemistry problems - a dialectic-constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, ‏ 32 (9), p. 959-970. ISSN 1098-2736.

NIAZ, M. (2008). A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, ‏ 42 (2), p. 287-305. ISSN 0309-8249.

PETERSON, G.R. (2002). The intelligent-design movement: Science or ideology? ZYGON, ‏ 37 (1), p. 7-23. ISSN 0591-2385.

POLYVYANNYY, D. I. (2018). From syncretism to Christianization: Historiography approaches to the religiosity of the early medieval Bulgars. Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 24 (2), p. 197-206. ISSN 1995-848X.

RENNER, J. E. and PESSOA, O. Jr. (2016). Evaluation of technological processes from the perspective of Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes. Revista tecnologia e sociedade, ‏ 12 (24), p. 1-26. ISSN 1809-0044.

SILVA, S. T. (2009). On evolutionary technological change and economic growth: Lakatos as a starting point for appraisal. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19 (1), p. 111-135. ISSN: 0936-9937.

THOMASON, N. (1992). Could Lakatos, even with Zahar criterion for novel fact, evaluate the Copernican research-program. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, ‏ 43 (2), p. 161-200. ISSN 0007-0882.

TOGATI, T. D. (2019). How can we restore the generality of the General Theory? Making Keynes's 'implicit theorising' explicit. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 43 (5), p. 1397-1415. ISSN 0309-166X.

TURNER, S. and SULLENGER, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science Technology & Human Values, 24 (1), p. 5-30. ISSN 0162-2439.

VANNONI, M. (2015). What Are Case Studies Good for? Nesting Comparative Case Study Research Into the Lakatosian Research Program. Cross-Cultural Research, ‏ 49 (4), p. ‏ 331-357. ISSN 1069-3971.

VASQUEZ,J.A.(1997). The realist paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programs: An appraisal of neotraditional research on Waltz's balancing proposition. American Political Science Review, ‏ 91(4), p. 899-912. ISSN 003-0554.

VOAS, D. (2020). Is the secularization research programme progressing? Debate on Jorg Stolz's article on Secularization theories in the 21st century: ideas, evidence, and problems. Social Compass, ‏ 67 (2), Special Issue, p. 323-329. ISSN 0037-7686.

WALKER, T.C. (2010). The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper. Perspectives on Politics. 8 (2), p. 433-45. ISSN 1537-5927.

WALT, S. M. (1997). The progressive power of realism. American Political Science Review, 91 (4), p. 931-935. ISSN 0003-0554.

WALTZ, K. N. (1997). Evaluating theories. American Political Science Review, 91 (4), p. 913-917. ISSN 0003-0554.

WETTERSTEN, J. (2004). Searching for the holy in the ascent of Imre Lakatos. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34 (1), p. 84-150. ISSN 0048-3931.

YDESEN, CH. (2016). The Hayek-Sraffa controversy in 1932-a philosophy of science perspective. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23 (5), p. 814-834. ISSN 0967-2567.

ZWEYNERT, J. (2014). 'Developed Socialism' and Soviet Economic Thought in the 1970s and Early '80s. Russian History-Histoire Russe, ‏ 41 (3), p. 354-372. ISSN 0094-288X.

Downloads

Published

2021-08-08

How to Cite

Ochrana, F., & Novotný, V. (2021). Using the methodology of scientific research programmes for the evaluation of scientific research activities. Socio-Economic and Humanities Studies, 13(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.61357/sehs.v13i1.37

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 1 (2021): Socio-Economic and Humanities Studies

Section

Submissions

License

For all articles published in SEHS, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free.