Abstract
Analysis of the growth of radio and X-ray astronomy in the 1960s suggests that future reductions in the size of entering cohorts of new doctorates in astronomy may lengthen the time needed to exploit future innovations, discoveries or breakthroughs. This may well lead to slower rates of advancement in astronomical knowledge. Most scientists making up the early growth of these two problem areas hadrecently earned their Ph. D's, and, it was found, the probability of initiating research in radio or X-ray astronomy declined with the age of the scientist. Since smaller entering cohorts of new scientists would imply an overall aging of the astronomical community, the rate at which scientists will move in to exploit future innovations will probably be slower than during the periods of peak growth in the 1960s.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and References
See, for the classic discussion, D. J. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.
These figures are based on a census of American astronomers taken in the following manner. Scientists were included if (a) they listed astronomy, astrophysics or a closely related field as their principle discipline of research in the 1974 edition ofAmerican Men and Women of Science; or (b) they were listed as members of the American Astronomical Society in its 1975 membership directory. In addition, the included scientist must have at least one publication listed in theAstronomischer Jahresbericht between 1950 and 1975. This procedure introduces one bias that is of relevance for the following analysis: the number of scientists from very recent cohorts (say, 1974 or 75) will be somewhat underestimated since they have had only one or two years in which to produce their first publication.
S. COLE, Age and Scientific Performance,American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1979) 968.
In S. COLE'S words, “It is unlikely that an increase in the mean age of our scientists will in and of itself bring about a meaningful decline in our scientific capacity.” ibid, p. 977. For a comprehensive review of issues related to the age-structure of science, see Harriet ZUCKERMAN and R. K. MERTON, Age, Aging and Age Structure in Science, in MERTON,The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, Chapter 22. Empirical research on age and productivity in science is summarized by Barbara F. RESKIN, Age and Scientific Productivity: A Critical Review, in M. S. McPHERSON (Ed.),The Demand for New Faculty in Science and Engineering, Commission on Human Resources, National Research Council, 1979.
This view of scientific development has been summarized by J. BEN-DAVID and Teresa SULLIVAN, Sociology of Science,Annual Review of Sociology, 1 (1975) 203–22, who conclude: “Thus the demography of the field is linked to its intellectual potential.”. (p. 214) The “model” is also found with incidental variation in: J. YELLIN, A Model for Research Problem Allocation Among Members of a Scientific Community,Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2 (1972) 1–36; Diana CRANE,Invisible Colleges, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972; N. MULLINS, A Social Theory of Scientific Revolutions, in KNORR, STRASSER and ZILLIAN (Eds),Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975. pp. 185–203; D. SULLIVAN et al., The State of a Science: Indicators in the Specialty of Weak Interactions,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 167–200; and M. J. MULKAY, Three Models of Scientific Development,Sociological Review, n.s. 23 (1972) 509–26.
MULKAY, GILBERT and WOOLGAR observe: “research areas which have become wellestablished take a long time to die out altogether. There are always some observations yet to be made, some measurements still to be refined, or some technical developments not yet fully utilized.” M. J. MULKAY, N. GILBERT and S. WOOLGAR, Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science,Sociology, 9 (1975) 187–203. For a case study of the death of a problem area in mathematics, see C. FISHER, The Last Invariant Theorists,European Journal of Sociology, 8 (1967) 216–44.
G. HOLTON, Scientific Research and Scholarship: Notes Toward the Design of Proper Scales,Daedalus, 91 (1962) 362–99.
To be precise, this study focusses on scientists who have made published contributions to two of the 93 subject categories in theAstronomischer Jahresbericht: one is “radio sources” (including pulsars and quasars); the other is “x-ray and gamma ray research,” which for brevity is referred to only as x-ray astronomy. These two problem areas were selected for analysis not only because they were among the most rapidly growing of all astronomical problem areas in the 1960s and 1970s, but also because they represent a sharp departure — especially in terms of techniques of observation — from the way most American astonomy (i.e. optical astronomy) was done before the mid-fifties.
An insignificant number of astronomers delayed their first publication until well after the year they received their highest earned degree. They are included in the appropriate “new doctorates” category.
Corroborative evidence for the positive association between youth and the likelihood of being among the first to exploit emerging breakthroughs comes from two studies. N. MULLINS reports that of the 41 scientists who initiated the phage research in biology between 1945–1966, 41.5% did so before they had finished their doctorates or within three years after finishing the degree. See MULLINS, The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology”Minerva, 10 (1972), 51–82. D. L. HULL et al. find that the average age of those who had accepted Darwin's theory of natural selection by 1859 was 39.6 years, while the average age of those rejecting it at this time was 48.1 years. See HULL et al., Planck's Principle,Science, 202 (Nov, 1978) 717–23. More answers to questions about age-related patterns of problem choice and theory choice should emerge from Peter Messeri's work-in-progress,The Formation of Scientific Consensus: The Acceptance of Continental Drift. Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1981. One other point deserves mention: initiation of a new line of research on an emerging problem area does not necessarily mean that a scientist will terminate lines of inquiry established earlier. The importance of this for understanding career patterns of problem choices is discussed in T. F. GIERYN, Problem Retention and Problem Change in Science,Sociological Inquiry, 48 (1978) 65–95.
The analysis of patterns of citations to these publications — a measure of the relative quality or usefulness of the contributions of younger and older astronomers — would add much to our understanding of age-related differences in contributions to emerging problem areas.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 4th Annual Meetings of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Washington D.C., November 1979.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gieryn, T.F. The aging of a science and its exploitation of innovation: Lessons from X-ray and radio astronomy. Scientometrics 3, 325–334 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021125
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021125