preview

Grand Narrative Analysis

Decent Essays

One source of support for the legitimacy of science follows from the so-called “grand narrative” which presents a view of science as an objective, autonomous, self-regulating and self-correcting process. Jerry Francis identifies three (3) underpinnings to the legitimacy of science but then notes that scientific misconduct does occur. Based upon these three (3) mechanisms, briefly explain how or where the “grand narrative” is likely to be at least partially naïve or idealistic.

Francis (1989) identifies three structures that underpin the legitimacy of the scientific “grand narrative”. However, the dichotomy between the scientist’s personal goals, and collective scientific goals means that these structures are fundamentally flawed. There are three specific instances in which the ideology of the “grand narrative” is flawed by human nature.
Firstly, rewards are not just internal. The “grand narrative” exists in a universe where everyone doing research is solely motivated to produce research without any pressure from anything outside of their desire to produce high quality research. However, this is idealistic. The reality is that researchers have multiple sources of pressure to conduct and publish beyond their desire to do so. This shifts the dynamics of grand narrative and …show more content…

Due to the siloed, specialist nature of research, papers are likely to be reviewed by their direct competitors who have incentive to discredit contrary results. Additionally, researchers face incentives geared towards quantity not quality of papers produced. Finally, the top schools have an “uneven playing field” are likely given the benefit of the doubt when being reviewed for top tier journals. This is compounded by the fact that those reviewing are most likely from top universities themselves and therefore potentially more lenient towards their

Get Access