Диссертация (1148051), страница 35
Текст из файла (страница 35)
Crosland M. From Prizes to Grants in the Support of Scientific Research inFrance in the Nineteenth Century: the Montyon Legacy // Minerva. 1979.Vol.17. № 3. P. 355 – 380.115. Crosland M. Science under Control: The French Academy of Sciences, 1795 –1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.116. Crosland M., Galvez S. The Emergence of Research Grants within the PrizeSystem of the French Academy of Sciences, 1795-1914 // Social Studies ofSciences.
1989. Vol. 19. № 1. P.71 – 100.117. Cumming J., Kiesler S. Collaborative Research across Disciplinary andOrganizational Boundaries // Social Studies of Science. 2005. Vol. 35. №. 5.118. Daza S.L. Complicity as Infiltration: the (Im)possibilities of Research with/inNSF Engineering Grants in the Age of Neoliberal Scientism // QualitativeInquiry. 2012.
Vol.18 (9). P.773 – 786.119. Dezhina I., Graham L. Science Foundations: A Novelty in Russian Science //Science. 2005. Vol. 310. URL: http://sciencemag.org. Дата обращения:20.12.2013.120. DFG. Funding Atlas 2012. Key Indicators for Publicly Funded Research inGermany. Weinheim: WILEY – VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., 2013.121. DFG. Guidelines for the written reviews. Bonn: DFG, 2014.122. European Foundation Centre. Understanding European Research Foundations.Findings from the FOREMAP Project. London: Alliance Publishing Trust,2009.123.
Feinberg J.G. Academic grants foster waste and antagonism, not scholarship //ChroniclesofHigherEducation.2010.URL:188http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Grants-Foster-Waste/124920/.Датаобращения: 10.06.2013.124. Feinberg R., Price G. The Funding of Economic Research: Does Social CapitalMatter for Success at the National Science Foundation? // The Review ofEconomics and Statistics. 2004. Vol. 86. № 1. P. 245 – 252.125. Freeman R., Weinstein E., Marincola E., Rosenbaum J., Solomon F.Competition and carriers in bioscience // Science.
2001. Vol. 294. P. 2293 –2294.126. Friekel S., Moore K. The New Political Sociology of Science. Wisconsin:University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.127. Fuller S. On the motives for the new sociology of science // History of theHuman Sciences. 1995. Vol. 8. № 2. P. 117 – 124.128. Furner J. Little Book, Big Book: Before and After Little Science, Big Science:a Review Article, Part I and II // Journal of Librarianship and InformationScience. 2003. Vol. 35 (2). P.115 – 125.129. Garcia C.E., Menendez L.S. Competition for Funding as an Indicator ofResearch Competiveness: The Spanish R&D Government Funding. WorkingPaper 04-15.
Unidad de Politicas Comparadas (CSIC). 2004.130. Gemelli G. (Ed.) The Ford Foundation and Europe (1950s – 1970s). Crossfertilization of Learning in Social Science and Management. Brussels:European Interuniversity Press, 1998.131. Gillet R. Pitfalls in Assessing Research Performance by Grant Income //Scientometrics. 1999. Vol. 22. P. 253 – 263.132.
Goodstein D. Scientific Misconduct // Academe. 2002. Vol. 88. P. 28 – 31.133. Graham L. Science in Russia and Soviet Union. A Short History. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993.134. Graham L., Dezhina I. Science in the New Russia: Crisis, Aim, Reform.Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.135. Greenberg D. Science for Sale. The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of CampusCapitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007.189136. Gudler J., Reinhardt A. Gender Equality in DFG Research Funding – Facts andAssessment // DFG Infobrief. 2007.
№ 1. P. 1 – 9.137. Hagstrom W. The Scientific Community. NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1965.138. Hargens L., Felmlee D. Structural Determinants of the Stratification in Science// American Sociological Review. 1984. Vol. 49. № 5. P. 685 – 697.139. Haupmann E. From Opposition to Accommodation: How RockefellerFoundation Grants Redefined Relations between Political Theory and SocialScience in the 1950s // American Political Science Review. 2006. Vol. 100. №4. P.643 – 649.140. Horsch H., Oliveri M.
Indicators of Successful Submissions to the Law andSocial Science Program of the National Science Foundation // Law & SocietyReview. 1998. Vol. 32. № 2. P. 515 – 526.141. Hottenrott H. The Role of Research Orientation for Attracting CompetitiveResearch Funding. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2011.142.
Imohl I. Temporary Positions for Principal Investigators: A DFG FundingInstrument in the Mirror of Statistics // DFG Infobrief. № 1.11. P. 1 – 5.143. Jablecka J. Changes in the Management and Finance of the Research Systemin Poland: a Survey of the Opinion of Grant Applicants // Social Studies ofScience. 1995. Vol. 25. P. 727 – 753.144. Jacob B., Lefgren L. The Impact of Research Grants on Scientific Productivity.NBER Working Paper № 13519.
2007.145. Jahn R. Peer Reviewing for Public Funding Bodies – A Reviewer‘s View //Science between Evaluation and Innovation: A Conference on Peer Review.Munchen: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2003. P. 87 – 100.146. Kaulisch M., Enders J. Careers in Overlapping Institutional Contexts. The Caseof Academe // Career Development International. 2005. Vol. 10.
№ 2. P.130 –140.147. Kennedy D., Austin J., Urquhart L., Taylor C. Supply without Demand //Science. 2004. Vol. 303. P. 1105.190148. Kneen P. Science in Shock: Russian Science Policy in Transition // Europe –Asia Studies. 1995. Vol. 47. № 2. P. 281 – 303.149. Knorr Cetina K. The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on theConstructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1981.150. Kohler R.E.
A New Policy for the Patronage of Scientific Research: theReorganization of the Rockefeller Foundation, 1921 – 1930 // Minerva. 1976.№ 14. P.279 – 306.151. Latour B. A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans. Following Daedalus‘sLabirynth // Pandora‘s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
P. 174 – 215.152. Laudel G. ‗The Quality Myth‘: Promoting and Hindering Conditions forAcquiring Research Funds // Higher Education. 2006. Vol. 52. P. 375 – 403.153. Lenoir R. Scientific Habitus. Pierre Bourdieu and the Collective Intellectual //Theory, Culture and Society. 2006. Vol. 23(6).
P. 25 – 43.154. Macleod R.M. The Royal Society and the Government Grant: Notes onAdministration of Scientific Research, 1849 – 1901 // The Historical Journal.1971. Vol. 14. № 2. P. 323 – 358.155. Mazuzan G. ―Good Science Gets Funded…‖: the Historical Evolution of GrantMaking at the National Science Foundation // Science Communication. 1994.Vol. 14. P.
63 – 90.156. McClellan J.E. Science Reorganized: Scientific Societies in the EighteenthCentury. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.157. McCullough J. The Role and Influence of the US National ScienceFoundation‘s Program Officers in Reviewing and Awarding Grants // HigherEducation. 1994.
№ 28. P.85 – 94.158. Merton R. Insider and Outsiders: a Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge //American Journal of Sociology. 1972. Vol.78. № 1. P. 9 – 47.159. Merton R. Manifest and Latent Functions. Towards the Codification ofFunctionalAnalysisinSociology.1952.URL:191https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Merton,_Manifest_and_Latent_Functions.pdf. Дата обращения: 15.06.2013.160. Merton R.
Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery // Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society. 1961. № 5. P. 470 – 486.161. Merton R. Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations /Edited by Storer N. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.162. Merton R.
The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and theSymbolism of Intellectual Property // ISIS. 1988. Vol.79. P. 606 – 623.163. Merton R. The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir // The Sociology ofScience in Europe / Ed. by R. Merton and J. Gaston. Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1977. P.
3 – 144.164. Miller S., Fredericks M. Some comments on the inability of sociology ofscience to explain science // Philosophy and Social Criticism. 1994. Vol. 20. №1/2. P. 73 – 86.165. Morse J. A Review‘s Committee‘s Guide for Evaluating Qualitative Proposal //Qualitative Health research. 2003.
Vol. 13. P. 833 – 851.166. Mulkay M. Sociology of Science: a Sociological Pilgrimage. Berkshire: OpenUniversity Press, 1991.167. Musambira G., Collins S., Brown T., Voss K. From ‗Publish or Perish‘ to‗Grant or Perish‘: Examining Grantmanship in Communication and thePressures on Communication Faculty to Procure Funding for Research //Journalism and Mass Communication Educator. 2012.
Vol. 67. № 3. P.234 –251.168. National Science Foundation. FY 2013 Performance and Financial Highlights.2014.URL:http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14003/nsf14003.pdf.Датаобращения: 15.02.2014.169. Nulty D. The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys: WhatCan Be Done? // Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2008.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
