Abstract
Innovations in science include not only the generation of new ideas, theories, methods, and instruments, but also the diffusion of novel scientific contributions and their institutionalization as new academic fields. We argue that scientific innovations vis-à-vis organizational renewal is contingent upon at least three institutional conditions: investments in exploration, facilitation of meso-level competition, and interdisciplinary research. Regarding one or more of these conditions, each chapter of this edited volume presents new and thought-provoking evidence that improves both our conceptual knowledge and empirical understanding of how new research fields form, how research organizations adapt to scientific innovations, and how research sponsors support new research domains while simultaneously providing continued support to established lines of disciplinary research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Michael Polanyi, Knowing And Being. With an Introduction by Marjorie Grene (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1969), 55.
- 2.
Richard Whitley. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 28.
- 3.
Frank A. Zoller, Eric Zimmerling and Roman Boutellier, “Assessing the Impact of the Funding Environment on Researchers’ Risk Aversion: the Use of Citation Statistics,” Higher Education 68 (2014): 333–345; Christine Musselin, “How Peer Review empowers the Academic Profession and University Managers: Changes in Relationships between the State, Universities and the Professoriate,” Research Policy 42 (2013): 1165–1173; Thed N. van Leeuwen and Henk F. Moed, “Funding Decisions, Peer Review, and Scientific Excellence in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, and Geosciences,” Research Evaluation 21 (2012): 189–198; Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Daniel, “The Manuscript Reviewing Process: Empirical Research on Review Requests, Review Sequences, and Decision Rules in Peer Review,” Library and Information Science Research 32 (2010): 5–12; Grit Laudel, “The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to Their Funding Conditions,” Science and Public Policy 33 (2006): 489–504; Liv Langfeldt, “The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome,” Social Studies of Science 31 (2001): 820–841; Paul Bourke and Linda Butler, “The Efficacy of Different Modes of Funding Research: Perspectives from Australian Data on the Biological Sciences,” Research Policy 28 (1999): 489–499; Daryl E. Chubin and Edward J. Hackett, Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1990); Fiona Wood and Simon Wessely, “Peer Review of Grant Applications,” in Peer Review in Health Science: 2nd Edition, ed. Fiona Godlee and Tom Jefferson (British Medical Association Publications, 2003): 14–44.
- 4.
James G. March, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science 2 (1991): 71.
- 5.
Tertu Luukkonen, “The European Research Council and the European Research Funding Landscape,” Science and Public Policy 41 (2014): 29–43; Thomas Heinze, “How to Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research: A Comparison of Funding Schemes,” Science and Public Policy 35 (2008): 302–318; Patrick J. Prendergast, Sheena H. Brown and J.R. Britton, “Research Programmes that Promote Novel, Ambitious, Unconventional and High-Risk Research: an Analysis,” Industry and Higher Education 22 (2008): 215–221; Jonathan Grant and Liz Allen, “Evaluating High Risk Research: An Assessment of the Wellcome Trust’s Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research,” Research Evaluation 8 (1999): 201–204.
- 6.
Heinze, “Sponsor Ground-Breaking Research”; Grant and Allen, “Evaluating High Risk Research.”
- 7.
Richard Münch, Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence (London/New York: Routledge, 2014); Jerald Hage and Jonathon Mote, “Transformational Organizations and Institutional Change: the Case of the Institut Pasteur and French Science,” Socio-Economic Review 6 (2008): 313–336; J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “A Path-Dependent Perspective on Institutional and Organizational Factors Shaping Major Scientific Discoveries,” in Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change, ed. Jerald Hage and Marius Meeus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 423–442; Robert K. Merton and Elinor G. Barber, The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004).
- 8.
Jan Youtie et al., “Career-based Influences on Scientific Recognition in the United States and Europe: Longitudinal Evidence from Curriculum Vitae Data,” Research Policy 42 (2013): 1341–1355; Thomas Heinze et al., “Organizational and Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research,” Research Policy 38 (2009): 610–623; Richard Whitley, “Changing Governance of the Public Sciences,” in The Changing Governance of the Sciences, ed. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 3–27.
- 9.
Jacob G. Foster, Andrey Rzhetsky and James A. Evans, “Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies,” American Sociological Review 80 (2015): 875–908.
- 10.
Zoller, Zimmerling and Boutellier, “Assessing the Impact”; Laudel, “The Art of Getting Funded”; Sven Hemlin, Carl M. Allwood and Ben R. Martin, Creative Knowledge Environments: The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004); Dietmar Braun, “The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science,” Research Policy 27 (1998): 807–821.
- 11.
Karl R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge, 2002[1963]).
- 12.
Imre Lakatos, “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: New Series 69 (1968/1969): 149–186; Imre Lakatos, “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” in Philosophical Papers: Volume 1, ed. John Worrall and Gregory Currie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
- 13.
Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization; Robert K. Merton, Harriet Zuckerman, “Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science,” in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton and Harriet Zuckerman (Glencoe: Free Press, 1973), 460–496; Jerry Gaston, Originality and Competition in Science (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1973).
- 14.
Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization, 80.
- 15.
Ibid., 97.
- 16.
Joseph Ben-David, The Scientist’s Role in Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971).
- 17.
Ronald E. Doel and Kristine C. Harper, “Prometheus Unleashed. Science as a Diplomatic Weapon in the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration,” Osiris 21 (2006): 66–85; Sheila Jasanoff, “Biotechnology and Empire. The Global Power of Seeds and Science,” Osiris 21(2006): 273–292; Jacob Darwin Hamblin, Oceanographers and the Cold War: Disciples of Marine Science (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005); Ronald E. Doel, “Constituting the Postwar Earth Sciences: The Military’s Influence on the Environmental Sciences in the USA after 1945,” Social Studies of Science 33(2003): 635–666.
- 18.
Benjamin F. Jones, Stefan Wuchty and Brian Uzzi, “Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science,” Science 322 (2008): 1259–1262; Hage and Mote, “Transformational Organizations”; Hollingsworth, “A Path-Dependent Perspective”; J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “Institutionalizing Excellence in Biomedical Research: The Case of The Rockefeller University,” in Creating a Tradition, ed. D.H. Stapleton (New York: Rockefeller University Press, 2004), 17–63.
- 19.
Thomas Kuhn, “The Road Since Structure,” in The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, ed. James Conant and John Haugeland (Chicago & London: Chicago University Press, 2000), 100–101.
- 20.
Kuhn, “The Road Since Structure,” 99.
- 21.
Ibid.
- 22.
Harry M. Collins, Robert Evans and Mike Gorman, “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38 (2007): 657–666; Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1997).
- 23.
Collins, Evans and Gorman, “Trading Zones”, 657.
- 24.
Robert Crease, “Physical Sciences,” in The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thomson Klein, and Carl Mitcham (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 79–102; Julie Thompson Klein, “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity” in The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thomson Klein, and Carl Mitcham (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 15–30; Alan Porter, Ismael Rafols, “Is Science Becoming More Interdisciplinary? Measuring and Mapping Six Research Fields over Time,” Scientometrics 81 (2009): 719–745; Wesley Shrum, Joel Genuth and Ivan Chompalov, Structures of Scientific Collaboration (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007).
- 25.
Joseph Ben-David, The Scientist’s Role.
- 26.
David A. Hounshell and John Kenly Smith, Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R & D 1902–1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); John W. Servos, Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling: The Making of a Science in America (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990).
- 27.
Robert E. Kohler, Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists 1900–1945 (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
- 28.
Hollingsworth, “Institutionalizing Excellence”; Hollingsworth, “A Path-Dependent Perspective”; Jerald Hage, “Organizations and Innovation: Contributions from Organizational Sociology and Administrative Science,” in Innovation and Institutions. A Multidisciplinary Review of the Study of Innovation Systems, ed. Steven Casper and Frans van Waarden (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2005), 71–112; Hage and Mote, “Transformational Organizations.”
References
Ben-David, Joseph. 1971. The scientist’s role in society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2010. The manuscript reviewing process: Empirical research on review requests, review sequences, and decision rules in peer review. Library and Information Science Research 32: 5–12.
Bourke, Paul, and Linda Butler. 1999. The efficacy of different modes of funding research: Perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences. Research Policy 28: 489–499.
Braun, Dietmar. 1998. The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Research Policy 27: 807–821.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Collins, Harry M., Robert Evans, and Mike Gorman. 2007. Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 657–666.
Crease, Robert. 2010. Physical sciences. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 79–102. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Doel, Ronald E. 2003. Constituting the postwar earth sciences: The military’s influence on the environmental sciences in the USA after 1945. Social Studies of Science 33: 635–666.
Doel, Ronald E., and Kristine C. Harper. 2006. Prometheus unleashed. Science as a diplomatic weapon in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Osiris 21: 66–85.
Foster, Jacob G, Andrey Rzhetsky, and James A. Evans. 2015. Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies. American Sociological Review 80: 875–908.
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gaston, Jerry. 1973. Originality and competition in science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Grant, Jonathan, and Liz Allen. 1999. Evaluating high risk research: An assessment of the Wellcome Trust’s Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research. Research Evaluation 8: 201–204.
Hage, Jerald. 2005. Organizations and innovation: Contributions from organizational sociology and administrative science. In Innovation and institutions: A multidisciplinary review of the study of innovation systems, ed. Steven Casper and Frans van Waarden, 71–112. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hage, Jerald, and Jonathon Mote. 2008. Transformational organizations and institutional change: The case of the Institut Pasteur and French science. Socio-Economic Review 6: 313–336.
Hamblin, Jacob Darwin. 2005. Oceanographers and the Cold War: Disciples of marine science. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Heinze, Thomas. 2008. How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy 35: 302–318.
Heinze, Thomas, Philip Shapira, Juan D. Rogers, and Jacqueline M. Senker. 2009. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy 38: 610–623.
Hemlin, Sven, Carl M. Allwood, and Ben R. Martin. 2004. Creative knowledge environments: The influences on creativity in research and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers. 2004. Institutionalizing excellence in biomedical research: The case of The Rockefeller University. In Creating a tradition, ed. D.H. Stapleton, 17–63. New York: Rockefeller University Press.
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers. 2006. A path-dependent perspective on institutional and organizational factors shaping major scientific discoveries. In Innovation, science, and institutional change, ed. Jerald Hage and Marius Meeus, 423–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hounshell, David A., and John Kenly Smith. 1988. Science and corporate strategy: Du Pont R & D 1902–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2006. Biotechnology and empire. The global power of seeds and science. Osiris 21: 273–292.
Jones, Benjamin F., Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322: 1259–1262.
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 15–30. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Kohler, Robert E. 1991. Partners in science: Foundations and natural scientists 1900–1945. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 2000. The road since structure. In The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, ed. James Conant and John Haugeland, 90–104. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
Lakatos, Imre. 1968/1969. Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: New Series 69: 149–186.
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes. In Philosophical papers: Volume 1, ed. John Worrall and Gregory Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langfeldt, Liv. 2001. The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science 31: 820–841.
Laudel, Grit. 2006. The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy 33: 489–504.
Luukkonen, Tertu. 2014. The European Research Council and the European research funding landscape. Science and Public Policy 41: 29–43.
March, James G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.
Merton, Robert K., and Elinor G. Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Merton, Robert K., and Harriet Zuckerman. 1973. Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton and Harriet Zuckerman, 460–496. Glencoe: Free Press.
Münch, Richard. 2014. Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence. London/New York: Routledge.
Musselin, Christine. 2013. How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate. Research Policy 42: 1165–1173.
Polanyi, Michael. 1969. Knowing and being. With an introduction by Marjorie Grene. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Popper, Karl R. 2002[1963]. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Porter, Alan, and Ismael Rafols. 2009. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81: 719–745.
Prendergast, Patrick J., Sheena H. Brown, and J.R. Britton. 2008. Research programmes that promote novel, ambitious, unconventional and high-risk research: An analysis. Industry and Higher Education 22: 215–221.
Servos, John W. 1990. Physical chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling: The making of a science in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shrum, Wesley, Joel Genuth, and Ivan Chompalov. 2007. Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.
van Leeuwen, Thed N., and Henk F. Moed. 2012. Funding decisions, peer review, and scientific excellence in physical sciences, chemistry, and geosciences. Research Evaluation 21: 189–198.
Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitley, Richard. 2007. Changing governance of the public sciences. In The changing governance of the sciences, ed. Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer.
Youtie, Jan, Juan Rogers, Thomas Heinze, Philip Shapira, and Li Tang. 2013. Career-based influences on scientific recognition in the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data. Research Policy 42: 1341–1355.
Zoller, Frank A., Eric Zimmerling, and Roman Boutellier. 2014. Assessing the impact of the funding environment on researchers’ risk aversion: The use of citation statistics. Higher Education 68: 333–345.
Acknowledgments
Several chapters in this volume were presented as papers at the “International Conference on Intellectual and Institutional Innovation in Science,” held at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, September 13–15, 2012. We are very grateful to the conference committee members for reviewing papers; these include (in alphabetical order): Mats Benner, Dietmar Braun, Susan Cozzens, Ronald Doel, James Evans, Jacob Hamblin, Stefan Kuhlmann, Jacques Mairesse, Patrick McCray, Ben Martin, Christine Musselin, Dominique Pestre, Philip Shapira, and Richard Whitley. The conference was sponsored by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) as part of grant 01UZ1001: special thanks to Dietrich Nelle (Head of Section 42, BMBF) and Monika Wächter (PT–DLR). Regarding the edited volume, we are very grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers, and also many thanks to Steffi Heinecke and David Pithan for editing the book manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heinze, T., Münch, R. (2016). Editors’ Introduction: Institutional Conditions for Progress and Renewal in Science. In: Heinze, T., Münch, R. (eds) Innovation in Science and Organizational Renewal. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59420-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59420-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59419-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59420-4
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)