Exploring a New Paradigm for Appraising Science Awards: A Discussion on the Convergence of Universalism and Social Constructivism

Abstract

This paper proposes a discussion on the evolution of appraisal paradigms for science awards, focusing on the convergence of universalism and social constructivism. Science awards play a crucial role in recognizing and incentivizing scientific excellence, but the criteria and processes for evaluating award candidates have been subject to debate and evolution over time. Drawing upon principles from both universalism, which emphasizes objective criteria and merit-based evaluation, and social constructivism, which highlights the contextual and socially constructed nature of scientific knowledge and achievement, this paper examines how a synthesis of these perspectives can enrich the appraisal process for science awards. Through a critical analysis of existing award frameworks, evaluation criteria, and selection processes, this discussion explores how incorporating elements of both universalism and social constructivism can enhance the fairness, transparency, and inclusivity of science award appraisal. By fostering dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders representing diverse perspectives and interests, this paper advocates for a more holistic and nuanced approach to appraising science awards, one that acknowledges the inherent complexities and socio-cultural dimensions of scientific achievement while upholding principles of excellence, integrity, and equity.