●Discussion Leif Ove Larsen
Atle Moen suggests that the Department of Information and Media Sciences poses a danger to science, writes Leif Ove Larsen in his response to his UiB colleague. But the explanation is incomplete.
Fellow at UiBProfessor Atlee Moen writes in an article in Khrono about the dark side of social capital. Pointing to ongoing instances of neutrality in Norwegian politics and cultural life, Professor Moen warns of similar trends in science. New types of researcher networks facilitate “closed allocations of research funds, narrowing the exchange of opinions, favoring friends and acquaintances, and weighting arguments regarding network affiliation….” These new closed research networks contribute to corruption and nepotism in science.
When Moen will clarify Just how bad it could get is highlighted by the University of Bergen’s collections strategy. For almost a decade, it has been a strategic tool for developing collaboration between research environments at UiB and different sectors of society, ranging from deep sea, aquaculture, medieval research, health, media and IT.
Of course he says Møen is free to criticize UiB’s strategic path choice. We must of course critically discuss concepts such as research-based innovation and the organization of research programs in the Research Council. When Moen wants to identify what is wrong with UiB’s group strategy, he uses Media City Bergen and the Department of Information and Media Sciences as examples. Moen writes:
“Media City An example of this cluster is in Bergen, where the Department of Information and Media Studies is a center in the network, and in this way this department has become the largest ever among other social science subjects at the University of Bergen. There are no internal academic reasons for this growth of this institute, but rather external reasons related to the formation of the network and the formation of knowledge clusters (sic!) along with the magic formula of “innovation”.
“there is nobody The internal professional reasons for this growth of this institute.” This is a strong claim that needs justification. As head of department in “this department” in the period 2012-2021, I wonder what Moen knows about the development of the professional environment in research and teaching, and the role of the department in the media city of Bergen, which I do not know or understand him. Therefore, I allow myself a few points which I hope will be clarifying.
measuring: Moen claims that the department became the largest in the college because of Bergen Media City. This is a mistake. The department is the largest because it is the result of the merger of two departments in 2004, and it is the only multidisciplinary department in the college. In addition to specialized programs in information sciences, media and communications, the Institute runs professional education in journalism, television and media technology, which was founded in 2005.
The institute was like this The largest department in the college long before the launch of Media City Bergen. The fact that it has grown in the last decade is partly due to the significant (and welcome) growth in the number of students in study programs in Information Sciences, Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Sciences, and partly to the fact that professional societies, through Several research projects have been approved by the NFR and the European Union in recent years.
It was the institute It has been involved in the Media City project since 2011. It has created the foundation for increasing the attractiveness and quality of our study programmes, and has strengthened our research in the field of media technology, in particular through the creation of MediaFutures SFI. The fact that the institute hosts the SFI, which won the competition with leading technology environments in regions of strategic importance at the national level, certainly does not impress Moon. But this research center, which publishes in recognized international journals and journals, as well as the Center for Investigative Journalism, are true children of the media group, of which there is every reason to be proud.
Media City had it Positive ripple effects for the Institute in several ways. But participation in the group is not an explanation for why the department is the largest of its kind in the college.
Media City Bergen: Moyn writes that the institute is “a center in a network” with institutional roots in a “political, administrative, and economic cluster.” What Møen means by “axis” is unclear. But since the group is an example of a “closed research network,” there must be a plausible explanation that the institute represents a threat to the broad and global “community of researchers” within the public scientific sphere. Not only is Moyn suggesting that the growth of the Institute is illegitimate, that is, for things other than good science, but that the Institute, through its participation in a body of knowledge, poses a danger to science. Nothing less.
Moyn appears to have done just that Minimal knowledge of the institute next to them as well as Media City Bergen and the activities of the institute there. There is a lot to worry about in academia. As you know, development does not always go as one would like. But it is important to adhere to an academic principle, namely, to know actual circumstances before making strong claims and flowery conclusions about how the world relates to each other. Moyn’s one-factor explanation fails.
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”