Particle physics in public: legitimising curiosity-driven research on the Higgs boson and beyond
Abstract
The publicity surrounding the discovery of the Higgs boson hints at the
enduring status of curiosity-driven research in modern society. However, the
contemporary governance of scientific research emphasises efficiency, impact
and social responsibility. In this context, the value and importance of the Higgs
boson demands justification. This thesis therefore examines the ways in which
members of the particle and high-energy physics community account for
themselves and their scientific contributions at the nexus of science, policy and
society. The qualitative evaluation of the outcome and performance of scientific
research inevitably references researchers’ accounts of their actions. Hence, the
aim of this thesis is to develop an analytic framework that can unravel the
construction of the value of research and examine the characteristics of the
justifications offered.
The methodology of this thesis is inspired by the Analysis of Scientific Discourse
(ASD) proposed by Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay (1984). ASD considers
scientists’ texts and talk as activities in need of explanation rather than resources
for explanation. As a result, I analysed the patterns, discursive strategies and
storylines of the naturally occurring talk I generated from the qualitative interviews
with the UK and European particle physicists, and with the staff members of CERN,
the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Moreover, I compared the
discursive characteristics of the naturally occurring talk with that of the working
documents of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (2006, 2013).
I argue that the discursive pattern presented when justifying the value and
importance of particle and high-energy physics indicates a hierarchy of interests
among the European particle physics community. Despite explaining the impacts
and societal benefits of their research, the data sources (documents and
interviewees) constantly emphasised the curiosity-driven purpose of research.
Moreover, this emphasis on the non-applied purpose of research is justified by the
commonplace narrative arc about the linear impact of ‘basic research’ on
technology, economy and innovation. Nevertheless, the contents of the narrative
arc are seldom supported by the interviewees’ or the authors’ direct experience in
delivering these impacts. When the staff-members of CERN were asked to reflect
on their policy-related practices at CERN, they tended to disagree with particle
physicists about the efficiency and productivity of the non-applied purpose of
research for delivering impacts.
In other words, the linear impact of particle and high-energy physics research is
more of a strategic representation of the research community than a common
reflection of the community members on their practices and experiences. I suggest
that the findings of this thesis can provide an alternative perspective on the
dilemma of evaluating particle physics research as well as other curiosity-driven
research. Based on the constructivist account, I regard value as more than an
objectively evaluated economic variable. That is to say, value results from
continuous social interactions and can therefore be studied as discourse and
action. In the context of this thesis in particular, I have found that pragmatic policy
expectations have become a space that the curiosity-driven particle and high-energy
physics community tend to practise and discourse on when responding to
questions about the value of its research. To date, there has been no systematic
evaluation of the curiosity-driven research community’s discursive response to
policy agendas on impact and social responsibility. Therefore, the findings of this
thesis—that the discursive arrangement of the particle physics community
prioritises its community’s epistemic values over the public interest when
communicating outward—addresses a gap in the Science Policy Studies and
Science and Technology Studies literature.