Heuristic appraisal (HA) is the evaluation of the promise and expected fertility of a theory, research program, proposal, instrument, or technique, its ability to handle difficulties blocking progress and to generate interesting new questions for research. HA is critical to understanding the behavior of scientific researchers at all stages of research, from initial problem-finding to the post-acceptance assessment of a theory as a basis for further research. To working scientists the future prospects of a theory under consideration as a locus of research- -its problem-solving potential--is often more important than its track record of empirical success. HA informs funding decisions and, in a larger context, technology assessment, public-policy decisions, and future studies. HA is fundamental to the "economy of research" in all senses of that phrase and hence should be a central topic for methodologies of science, engineering, and technology. Yet philosophers of science have largely ignored the topic. How are heuristic assessments made? What are the dimensions and criteria of assessment? How might these differ in weight at different stages of research? How does HA relate to epistemic appraisal? Dr. Nickles' project will address these questions, answer philosophical objections to a full-scale study of HA, critique the few extant treatments, and locate and explore sources of documentary evidence of HA within working science (e.g., recent research proposals and peer commentaries). This study promises to be of great value both for philosophy of science and for science policy.
