Research Trails and Science Policies: Local and Extra-Local Negotiation of Scientific Work

  • Daryl E. Chubin
  • Terence Connolly
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences a Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 6)


At any given point in the development of a scientific specialty, there exists some finite set of research topics which are seen as legitimate, interesting, and feasible by the members of the specialty. How do the members of the specialty achieve an allocation of their efforts across these topics? What does the aggregation of these individual decisions imply about the development of the specialty? To what extent are these consequences shaped by the activities of scientific ‘hierarchies’ (i.e., formal and informal organizational structures, policies, and leaders)? And might these consequences be shaped differently (and perhaps more effectively)?


Science Policy Problem Choice Scientific Yield Nobel Laureate Peer Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. W. O. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books, 1965, p. 222.Google Scholar
  2. Derek de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963, pp. 65 f.Google Scholar
  3. R. K. Merton, ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, American Sociological Review 22 (1957) 635–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. R. K. Merton, ‘Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105 (1961) 470–86.Google Scholar
  5. Thomas C. Schelling, Micromotives andMacrobehavior, New York: Norton, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. S. W. Woolgar, ‘The Identification and Definition of Scientific Collectivities’, in Gerard Lemaine etal. (eds.), Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, Chicago: Aldine, 1976, pp. 238–45.Google Scholar
  7. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  8. M. J. Mulkay, G. N. Gilbert and S. Woolgar, ‘Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science’, Sociology 9 (1975) 187–203; also see R. Whitley, ‘Cognitive and Social Institutionalization of Scientific Specialties and Research Areas’, in Richard D. Whitley (ed.), Social Processes of Scientific Development, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, pp. 69–95.Google Scholar
  9. Karin D. Knorr, ‘Producing and Reproducing Knowledge: Descriptive or Constructive?’ Social Science Information 16 (1977) 677. Barry Barnes’ (Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 58) discussion of the scientist as ‘bricoleur’ is relevant to the notion of tinkering as creating opportunism.Google Scholar
  10. P. Bourdieu, ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason’, Social Science Information 14 (1975) 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
  12. Stephen Jay Gould, ‘The Evolutionary Biology of Constraints’, Daedalus 109 (1980)39–52.Google Scholar
  13. See R. K. Merton, ‘The Matthew Effect in Science’, Science 159 (1968) 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Cole, L. Rubin and J. Cole, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study, Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978. For a contrasting viewGoogle Scholar
  15. see I. I. Mitroff and D. E. Chubin, ‘Peer Review at NSF: A Dialectical Policy Analysis’, Social Studies of Science 9 (1979) 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D. E. Chubin, ‘Competence Is Not Enough: Essay Review of Cole etal.’s Peer Review in the National Science Foundation’, Contemporary Sociology 9 (1980) 204–7.Google Scholar
  17. K. D. Knorr and R. Mittermeir, ‘Publication Productivity and Professional Position: Cross-National Evidence on the Role of Organizations’, Scientometrics 2 (1980) 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. T. S. Kuhn, ‘The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research’, in C. W. Taylor and F. Barron (eds.), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, New York: Wiley, 1963.Google Scholar
  19. See M. J. Mulkay, ‘The Mediating Role of the Scientific Elite’, Social Studies of Science 6 (1976) 445–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. J. J. Salomon, ‘Science Policy and Its Myths: The Allocation of Resources’, Public Policy 20 (1972) 1–33.Google Scholar
  21. L. Groeneveld, N. Koller and N. Mullins, ‘The Advisors of the U.S. National Science Foundation’, Social Studies of Science 5 (1975) 343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. H. Zuckerman, ‘Stratification in American Science’, in E. O. Lauman (ed.), Social Stratification: Theory and Research for the 1970s, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970, pp. 235–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daryl E. Chubin
    • 1
  • Terence Connolly
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations