Applied Science as a Political Construction: Contested Meanings at NSF

Abstract

Applied science is a ubiquitous term in fields ranging from history of science to innovation studies to science policy, yet its meaning remains elusive. While some historians suggest that its definition was stabilized in the early 20th century as part of the “linear model” of science, examples from the history of the US National Science Foundation show its meaning continued to be contested through the latter half of the 20th century. I argue that the term’s fluidity stems from its inherently political nature: the meaning of applied science changes to fit contemporary agendas. This essay identifies five criteria that have provided historical actors with a flexible set of discursive resources for constructing policy-relevant definitions of pure and applied science. This set of criteria provides historians with a way to systematically compare changing and competing definitions, and it exposes logical inconsistencies that point to applied science as a persuasive, rather than simply descriptive, term. I provide two case studies that illustrate how this works in practice: in the late 1960s NSF redefined applied science as “science that solves social problems,” while in the 1980s it promoted a meaning of “basic science that enhances economic competitiveness.” These redefinitions responded to contemporary political concerns, but far from being merely rhetorical, they shaped specific NSF programs and the types of science that were supported.