I’d characterize the other linear model more as a cousin than a subset, mainly because one model is dealing with knowledge generation, and the other with policy decision making (I also think the linear policy model is not as relevant outside of “science for policy” issues, which are only part of science and technology policy).

The key assumption in linking the models is that science policy decisions can (and should) be decided just like scientific research questions. Even if you agree with that assumption (which I do not), you can still criticize the linear models as being simplistic and broadly ignorant about much of the process of developing and codifying scientific knowledge.

STS scholars have dealt with both linear models. For work countering or criticizing the linear model of research, look at any work studying the development of research fields, especially in engineering. Anthropological or ethnographic work like Latour’s Laboratory Life also deal with the linear research model. Roger is right to point out that the criticisms of the linear research model have been well established within STS. The field has done a lousy job of communicating with other fields, much less those outside academe, to communicate their work.

For STS work dealing with the linear model of science policy development (get the science settled first, then you can deal with policy) look at scholars involved in boundary work. In STS this is usually focused on the boundary between science and pseudoscience (folk medicine, ufology, etc.), but it is applicable to the science/policy boundary danced around on this site. Some of David Guston’s work focuses on this boundary.

Thanks for your comments. A few replies:

1. Of course basic research has value. I would simply argue, as many scholars have, that the linear model is not a particularly effective basis for science policy decision making.

2. You are right that I use the linear model in 2 ways, but I view one as a subset/cousin of the other.

3. Have a look at this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R.A., and R. Byerly, Jr., 1998: Beyond Basic and Applied. Physics Today, 51(2), 42-46.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-166-1998.12.pdf

4. You ask, “Are you criticising your fellow STS-ers for not mounting a more vigorous defense of your area? If that’s not it, who are you criticizing?”

I see your point. But I am criticizing both STSers for not speaking out more authoritatively, but also I am criticizing people who advocate theories of science policy without actually taking the time to determine if those theories are in fact accurate. I can imagine that I’d be pretty well taken to task if I wrote an op-ed in which I suggested a theory of climate change simply grounded in my suppositions!

Thanks!

You seem to use “linear model” in two ways … one situation is when people argue that getting the science right on an issue will compel a certain policy outcome. We can both agree that’s bunkum.

The other quite different situation is described in this post. On this point, we might disagree, since I tend to believe that basic research does have value to society. Are you arguing that nothing of value ever results from basic research, or just that there’s a more efficient way to achieve benefits to society than basic research?

Finally, your last statement:
Scientists often get quite worked up when scientific knowledge is mispresented in the media, and rightly so. However, it seems that the bar is set quite a bit lower when it comes to the (mis)representation of knowledge from science studies.
is somewhat ambiguous. Are you criticising your fellow STS-ers for not mounting a more vigorous defense of your area? If that’s not it, who are you criticizing?

Regards.

Regards.