Best Books of the Month Shop Men's Shoes Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums All-New Amazon Fire TV Grocery Amazon Gift Card Offer jrscwrld jrscwrld jrscwrld  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Fall Arrivals in Amazon Outdoor Clothing Learn more

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars1
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$23.42+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item
Share your thoughts with other customers

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful
on March 14, 2004
This is a terrific book. The argument goes roughly like this: there has been a change from mode 1 to mode 2 science (explained in their previous book) involving greater interdisciplinarity, more goal directed research, and a diversification of sources of research funding. This book now argues that there has also been a concomitant change in the public sphere. Perhaps the easiest way to describe it is that in the 19th century we had mass primary education; in the first half of the 20th mass secondary education; and in the last 50 years mass university education. As a result, expert decisions cannot be taken by only a few: there are too many civil servants, think tank employees, consultants, and other members of the general public who are able to understand and criticize. Scientific and technical decisions, especially relating to science policy, simply cannot be taken behind closed doors. What we get instead is a more complex and more democratic process, where the aim is socially robust knowledge - a compromise that the enlarged body of decision makers can agree upon. It may be called socially distributed expertise. The authors pursue this using the term agora, the Greek equivalent of the Latin forum. They are attuned to the many interesting changes that has come with this new setting, such as the challenge to the peer review system.
The book is written in the genre of the grand, unspecific sweep. There are few references and few concrete examples. The crude before-and-after discourse is heuristically useful but of course in many ways misleading. These stylistic choices are not everyone's cup of tea, but they do help making the above argument.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Customers who viewed this also viewed

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.