Between the Pure and Applied: The Search for the Elusive Middle Ground

Abstract

The distinction between pure and applied science is frequently invoked as a way of distinguishing epistemic goals from those that are more practically oriented. Although the distinction itself is sometimes difficult to apply in a precise way there are, nevertheless, clear examples in each category. More recently Carrier (2004) has introduced a more subtle way of thinking about the relationship between pure and applied science by formulating a distinct category called “application dominated research” (ADR). ADR qualifies as applied science because it is driven by technological interests directed toward practical goals but its methods involve more than just the application of basic principles – it typically produces new theoretical knowledge. While this is an intuitively attractive proposal, explicating the structure of ADR is more difficult than one might think. Not only must one be able to articulate methodological practices specific to ADR as a middle ground between pure and applied science, but it isn’t immediately clear how answers to “application questions” are able to generate new knowledge in a way that is different from ordinary theoretical investigation. In order to address these issues and examine the possibilities for ADR I consider the case of superconductivity, a case where both the theory and methodology involved in its development were closely linked with theoretical as well as application-related questions. As we shall see however, the ability to differentiate practices or knowledge that qualifies as “application dominated” proves to be a daunting task.