[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-595310-105":59,"doc-detail-595310-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","aur-feature-research-policy-strategic-policy-for-science","AUR FEATURE-RESEARCH POLICY - Strategic policy for science","","AUR FEATURE-RESEARCH POLICY outlines a strategic framework for science policy by distinguishing two connected resource-allocation processes. The first operates at micro-level within scientific fields, often shaping political standing, information quality, and reputational judgments through peer review. The second allocates at macro-level, where budgets for science and disciplines are contested through power dynamics, reflecting limitations and shifting societal needs.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/aur-feature-research-policy-strategic-policy-for-science/595310/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/aur-feature-research-policy-strategic-policy-for-science/595310.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Blitz","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What are the two main processes described in the policy?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The policy distinguishes a micro-level process that allocates resources within researchers’ fields and a macro-level process that budgets science as a whole and within disciplines.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the document characterize peer review?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Peer review is described as essentially private and consensual, with ongoing scrutiny focused on consistency, favoritism toward established researchers, and limits of quality control.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the document argue that science policy must account for interactions with politics?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Resource allocation is portrayed as shaped by contest and power dynamics, since the rules governing research quality, reputation, and funding are embedded in the broader social system of politics.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},595310,1793118563,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":81,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":39,"preview_page_count":4},24464137899374,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","AUR FEATURE-RESEARCH POLICY  \nStrategic policy for science*  \nRon Johnston,  \nCentre for Technology of Social Change,  \nUniversity of Wollongong  \nThe primary issue of science policy,in  \nof autonomous scientific control from the  \nPiganiol's (1961)sense of \"policy for  \nsecond world of politics can be considered  \nscience\",has been since its inception,the  \nas one of the most remarkable balancingfeats of the institution of science and in a  \nallocation of resources to research.This has  \nbeen managed by two essentially distinct,  \nlarge way responsible for science's  \nthough occasionally inter-related,processes.  \nsignificant political standing(eg.Haberer,  \nThe first of these processes is concerned  \n1969).Senior scientists emerged,qualified  \nwith the allocation of resources between  \nand sanctioned to play the political game  \nresearchers,predominantly within their own  \nwhile the remainder of scientists were free to  \nfields.It operates at the micro-level and is  \npursue their research largely immune from  \npolitical control,or even the need for  \ndeeply embedded in the social system of  \nquality control for science.The same social  \npolitical awareness (see,for example  \nmechanisms which are used to ensure the  \nCockburn and Ellyard,1981).  \nquality of information which is a candidate  \nHowever,the rules of the game are  \nfor the status of knowledge(Ravetz,1971)  \nchanging.Blume(1985)has analysed the  \nare also used to make judgements about the  \ndevelopment of science and technology  \nquality and reputation of a researcher and  \npolicy in terms of three phases of  \nthe likely\"success\"of a proposed project.  \ndevelopment:the 1960s which rested on the  \nThe process which is often referred to as  \nassumption of \"science as the motor of  \npeer ^review,is essentially private and  \nprogress',the 1970s when science became  \nconsensual.  \nprimarily regarded as a problem solver,and  \nThe adequacy of this peer review process  \nthe 1980s,when science becarne the source  \nhas been the subject of close examination  \nof strategic opportunity.With these phases  \nrecently(see,for example,Mitroff and  \ncame new approaches to resource allocation  \nChubin,1979).Criticisms have focused  \nand an increasing pressure on the traditions  \nmainly on issues of lack of consistency,the  \nseparating the worlds of science and politics.  \noperation of a“Matthew effect'favouring  \nZiman has characterised the transtion of  \nestablished researchers,and the restrictions  \nthe research system to one of\"science in a  \nsuch an inherently conservative system  \nsteady state whereby the dynamic of  \nplaces on innovation.There has been litle  \nscience no longer operates with an ever-  \nsuggestion that peer review does not provide  \nexpanding budget,but is forced to operate  \nthe basis for an adequate system of quality  \nwithin a fixed envelope of resources.  \ncontrol.  \nThere are more researchable ideas and  \nThe second process has dealt with  \ncompetent researchers than there are  \nresource allocation at the macro-level,  \nresources of finance and infrastructure tosupport them (Ziman,1987.)  \nconcerning the budget of science as a whole,  \nand that of particular disciplines or  \nThe notion that there are limitations to the  \nspecialities eg.high energy physics or  \nresources that can be committed to research  \nmolecular biology.This realm of decision-  \nis of course not new.Derek de Solla Price,  \nmaking is strongly marked by contest,and is  \nwho could be regarded as the founder of  \nconducted in accord with the familiar  \nscience policy analysis wrote on this subject  \nprocesses of the accretion and exercise of  \nfrom the early 1960s:  \npower that operate in other realms of human  \nthe most immediate internctional problem  \nand social competition viz politics.  \nof science is not that of the under-  \nIn most instances the micro and macro  \ndeveloped nations;but that of the few  \nlevels of resource allocation have relatively  \nover-developed nations;they have to","cbCaijHn8RR8pUTK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijHn8RR8pUTK","pdf",769792,"English","# Strategic allocation between micro and macro levels\n## Micro-level resource allocation and peer review\n## Macro-level budgeting and political contest","[{\"question\":\"What are the two main processes described in the policy?\",\"answer\":\"The policy distinguishes a micro-level process that allocates resources within researchers’ fields and a macro-level process that budgets science as a whole and within disciplines.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the document characterize peer review?\",\"answer\":\"Peer review is described as essentially private and consensual, with ongoing scrutiny focused on consistency, favoritism toward established researchers, and limits of quality control.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the document argue that science policy must account for interactions with politics?\",\"answer\":\"Resource allocation is portrayed as shaped by contest and power dynamics, since the rules governing research quality, reputation, and funding are embedded in the broader social system of politics.\"}]","AUR FEATURE-RESEARCH POLICY - Strategic policy for science | PDF",1792080861]