[A critique of the managerial model of research].
Le modèle managérial de la recherche - Critique et alternative.
Journal
Medecine sciences : M/S
ISSN: 1958-5381
Titre abrégé: Med Sci (Paris)
Pays: France
ID NLM: 8710980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Jan 2022
Historique:
entrez:
21
1
2022
pubmed:
22
1
2022
medline:
1
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To be a scientist is to make an implicit ethical commitment: to try to tell the truth about the world. The managerial model of research, which is the ideological foundation of modern political reforms of the research system around the world, stands in direct conflict with this assertion. It consists in identifying the scientist with a homo economicus looking to maximize its own profit, which a bureaucracy is tasked to align with performance objectives. This model is incoherent and destructive. Science is made possible by curiosity, emulation and intellectual ethics. These are the human traits that a rational research organization should try to favor and exploit. Le modèle managérial de la recherche - Critique et alternative. Faire de la science est un engagement moral : s’efforcer de dire le vrai sur le monde. Le modèle managérial de la recherche, fondement idéologique des réformes du système de recherche engagées en France depuis les années 2000, s’y oppose frontalement. Il consiste à identifier le chercheur à un homo economicus cherchant en premier lieu à maximiser son intérêt personnel, qu’une bureaucratie tente d’aligner sur des objectifs de performance chiffrés. Ce modèle est incohérent et destructeur. La science est permise par la curiosité, l’émulation et l’éthique intellectuelle. Ce sont donc ces traits humains qu’une organisation rationnelle de la recherche doit tenter de favoriser et d’exploiter.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(fre)
Le modèle managérial de la recherche - Critique et alternative.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35060892
doi: 10.1051/medsci/2021247
pii: msc200454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
fre
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
84-88Subventions
Organisme : Agence Nationale de la Recherche
ID : ANR-20-CE30-0025-01
Organisme : Fondation Pour l'Audition
ID : FPA RD-2017-2
Informations de copyright
© 2022 médecine/sciences – Inserm.
Références
Hubel DH. The Way Biomedical Research Is Organized Has Dramatically Changed Over the Past Half-Century : Are the Changes for the Better?. Neuron 2009 ; 64 : 161–163.
Monastersky R, van Noorden R. 150 years of Nature : a data graphic charts our evolution. Nature 2019 ; 575 : 22–23.
Gomez Diaz M. Unintended effects of changes in NIH appropriations : Challenges for biomedical research workforce development. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2012.
L’état de l’emploi scientifique en France-Édition 2020. Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation. www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid154848/l-etat-de-l-emploi-scientifique-en-france-edition-2020.html.
Enders J, Musselin C. Back to the future? The academic professions in the 21st century. High Educ To 2008 ; 2030 : 125–150.
Hodgkin A, Huxley A. Action Potentials Recorded from Inside a Nerve Fibre. Nature 1939 ; 144 : 710.
Hodgkin AL, Katz B. The effect of sodium ions on the electrical activity of the giant axon of the squid. J Physiol 1949 ; 108 : 37.
Kaiser D.. The search for clean cash. Nature 2011 ; 472 : 30–31.
Ferlie E, Musselin C, Andresani G. The steering of higher education systems : a public management perspective. High Educ 2008 ; 56 : 325.
La Hibou B.. bureaucratisation du monde à l’ère néolibérale. Paris: La Découverte, 2012.
Gläser J, Laudel G. Governing Science : How Science Policy Shapes Research Content. Eur J Sociol Arch Eur Sociol 2016 ; 57 : 117–168.
Couzin J, Miller G. Boom and Bust. Science 2007 ; 316 : 356–361.
Cook I, Grange S, Eyre-Walker A. Research groups : How big should they be? PeerJ 2015; 3. doi : 10.7717/peerj.989.
Fortin JM, Currie DJ. Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding. PLoS ONE 2013 ; 8.
Mongeon P, Brodeur C, Beaudry C, Lariviere V. Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Res Eval 2016; rvw007.
Wahls WP. The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers. eLife; 7.
Rosser JB, Jr.. A Nobel Prize for Asymmetric Information : The economic contributions of George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz. Rev Polit Econ 2003 ; 15 : 3–21.
Engel P.. Les Vices du savoir : Essai d’éthique intellectuelle. Paris: Agone, 2019.
Csikszentmihalyi M.. Creativity : Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. 1st edition. New York: Harper Perennial, 2013.
Box GEP. Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In: Launer RL, Wilkinson GN, editors. Robustness in Statistics. Academic Press, 1979 ; pp. 201–236.
Hollingsworth JR. Scientific Discoveries : An Institutionalist and Path-Dependent Perspective, 2008. In Caroline Hannaway, ed., Biomedicine in the Twentieth Century: Practices, Policies, and Politics. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2008 pp. 317–353.
Bromham L, Dinnage R, Hua X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 2016 ; 534 : 684–687.
Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P. Funding grant proposals for scientific research : retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ 2011 ; 343 : d4797.
Fang FC, Bowen A, Casadevall A. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. Elife 2016 ; 5 : e13323.
Scheiner SM, Bouchie LM. The predictive power of NSF reviewers and panels. Front Ecol Environ 2013 ; 11 : 406–407.
Gross K, Bergstrom CT. Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions. PLOS Biol 2019 ; 17 : e3000065.
Fang FC, Casadevall A. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery. mBio 2016; 7.
Liu M, Choy V, Clarke P, Barnett A, Blakely T, Pomeroy L. The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding : a survey of applicants. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020; 5 : 3.
Haiech J, Jouault T. Think small! Science disruptive et petites équipes. Med Sci (Paris) 2020; 36 : 651–3.