Carolina Cañibano
This paper addresses the different interpretations of scientific mobility that derive from two very different sets of economic assumptions: evolutionary economic assumptions and neoclassical economic assumptions. The neoclassical model builds on an understanding of embodied scientific knowledge as ‘human capital’ which underpins a conceptualization of scientific mobility as a knowledge (re)allocation mechanism and therefore as a ‘drain-gain’ dynamics. In contrast, evolutionary economic assumptions lead to a conception of the value of embodied scientific knowledge as necessarily networked, and to understanding scientific mobility as a reconfiguration process transforming economic and science systems in uncertain ways that need to be specifically investigated.
Additional data
Year of publication | 2017 |
---|---|
Journal | Journal Science as Culture |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1363173 |
Reference | Carolina Cañibano (), . Journal Science as Culture, 26, p. 505 |