Publication Type: Paper/Poster Proposal
Abstract: This paper has two goals: first, to present new findings on workweek differences among a particularly interesting segment of the U.S. labor force, doctoral scientists and engineers; and, second, to provide a critical review of the methodological literature on measuring the number of hours that individuals devote to work. The data analyzed are drawn from the 2003 Survey of Doctorate Recipients, a biennial panel survey of doctoral scientists and engineers in the U.S. sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Descriptive findings show substantial differences within the doctoral labor force along the lines of employment sector, time since doctorate and (for those employed in academe) tenure status, marital status, and number of children. The methodological review argues that while self-reports to standard survey questions about hours worked per week may well be problematic for some segments of the labor force, they are likely to provide valid and reliable data for professional workers with established work routines. This criterion is met by the vast majority of doctoral-level workers and, while we are not able to directly validate them, the self-reports are likely to prove valid and reliable.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: While our understanding of the mobilization strategies used by transnational non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is growing due to a burgeoning body of literature on this topic, very little of this literature addresses the strategies used by NGOs in highly technical issue areas. This paper begins to fill this gap in the literature by examining the mobilization strategies used by scientific and grassroots advocacy NGOs in five technically complex transnational environmental cases: chemical weapons disposal, nuclear weapons disposal, genetically modified organisms, invasive species and climate change. Some NGOs in the cases have relied on traditional mobilization strategies that include emphasizing the threats associated with the technologies or policies that they oppose, and generating information regarding them. However, the data reveal that some of the NGOs in these five cases have also used a new type of strategy that has not previously been identified by scholars. This new strategy is what I term “translational” politics or “the deliberate distillation of scientific information to a point where it can be understood by the general public and used by grassroots advocacy groups to mobilize around an issue.” The concept of “translational” politics differs from previous research that examines the role of scientists as technical consultants to advocacy organizations. Translational organizations do more than simply provide advocacy groups with scientific data. They act as brokers between scientists and advocates. While science and technology policy scholars have debated since the early 1960s whether scientists are “apolitical elites” in science and technology policy (Gilpin and Wright, 1964) or whether they are political by nature, these five cases demonstrate that this dichotomy is not so stark and that in fact a symbiotic relationship has emerged between many advocacy groups and highly scientific organizations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In a wide array of policy issue areas, scientists are called upon to interpret less-than-certain scientific findings and inform policy makers' choices. Two particularly difficult policy cases concern global climate change and low-dose radiation protection. We use data from a unique multi-nation survey of scientists to analyze the ways in which scientists’ views about what is scientifically correct are translated into judgments about appropriate policy. The surveys asked scientists, randomly drawn from subscribers to the journal Science, to indicate the “most likely” relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and average global temperatures and between radiation dose and incidence of cancer in humans. Follow-up questions asked for their judgments about appropriate policy targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission and safety standards for radiation exposure. The surveys were administered in four languages (English, German, Italian and French), and obtained response rates of 34% in the US and 36% in the EU. (A summary of the survey implementation and results are available at http://bush.tamu.edu/pubman/nsp/). The data permit analysis of the effects of variations in levels of scientific certainty on policy judgments, and on the degree to which scientists reach precautionary policy conclusions. Moreover, we look at the systematic differences in such views and judgments across the US and EU countries. The implications for the role of scientists in the policy process are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Contemporary social scientific literature maintains that academics across the disciplinary spectrum have come to a consensus on the socially-constructed nature of race. In contrast, the American public is portrayed as mired in traditional biologistic understandings of racial difference. This juxtaposition raises the question of why such a gap might exist, which the author addresses through a broad project investigating key stages in the spread of social constructionism. The present paper focuses on scientific production of race-related knowledge, and reports on interviews conducted with 41 professors of anthropology and biology in the United States. Through the interviews, two types of boundary-marking emerge as important in shaping faculty conceptualizations of race. On one hand are the “credibility contests” where academics vie for recognition as “scientific” and thus objective, logical, etc. (Gieryn 1999) On the other, it is also important to position one’s self in the moral domain, and in particular as an opponent of racism. Regardless of their location along the essentialist-constructionist spectrum, academics seek to claim both stances. Thus despite claims that advances in the science of genetics structure ongoing debate about the nature of human differences, this research suggests that academic conceptualizations of race cannot be understood without reference to the shifting subtexts of moral boundary-marking that serve as guideposts for the many scientists unsure of which camp to support.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The image of the mad scientist is embedded in our culture. It is called on and used frequently in politics and popular culture. In contrast, scientists consistently rate high in prestige in social surveys. This research examines the nature of images of scientists in movies during the period 1990-1994 and compares them to survey data about scientists and the effect of scientific work. Movies represent scientists and their work as problematic and often ineffective, but surveys show a majority of people see the results of science as generally beneficial. Contrasting these two images allows a first examination of the connection between these two representations and wider societal conflicts over the role of expert knowledge and modernity.