Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional Context and Growth of New Research Fields. Comparison Between State Universities in Germany and the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation in Science and Organizational Renewal

Abstract

The chapter examines the capabilities of universities to rapidly build up and expand their research capacities in new and emerging scientific fields following major scientific contributions. Based on two Nobel Prize-winning breakthroughs of the 1980s, the chapter investigates how fast scientists in German and US state universities built up research capacity in the 1990s and 2000s. Most importantly, the chapter explores to what extent the institutional framework in which state universities are embedded supported such expansion and renewal. We find that growth in the number of professors, growth in basic funding, a high percentage of professors among all scientific staff, and a high percentage of grant funding among are key factors positively associated with building up and expanding research capacities in new and emerging fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jerry Gaston, Originality and Competition in Science (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1973); Michael Polanyi, Knowing And Being. With an Introduction by Marjorie Grene (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1969); Richard Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences: Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

  2. 2.

    James G. March, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science 2 (1991): 71–87.

  3. 3.

    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; Thomas Heinze, “Creative Accomplishments in Science: Definition, Theoretical Considerations, Examples from Science History, and Bibliometric Findings,” Scientometrics 95 (2013): 927–940; Thomas Heinze et al., “Organizational and Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research,” Research Policy 38 (2009): 610–623; 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; Grit Laudel and Jochen Gläser, “Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding,” Research Policy 43 (2014): 1204–1216; 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); 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.

  4. 4.

    Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, “Scanning Tunneling Microscopy,” Surface Science 126 (1982): 336–344.

  5. 5.

    Harold Kroto et al., “C-60: Buckminsterfullerene,” Nature, 318 (1985): 162–163.

  6. 6.

    Max Haller, Birgit Wohinz and Margot Wohinz, Österreichs Nobelpreisträger und Wissenschaftler im historischen und internationalen Vergleich (Wien: Passagen Verlag, 2002); Thomas Heinze et al., “New Patterns of Scientific Growth? How Research Expanded after the Invention of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and the Discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (2013): 829–843; J. Rogers Hollingsworth, Research Organizations and Major Discoveries in Twentieth-century Science: a Case Study of Excellence in Biomedical Research (Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2002); 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; Harriet Zuckerman, Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1977); Harriet Zuckerman, Die Werdegänge von Nobelpreisträgern. In Generationsdynamik in der Forschung (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1993).

  7. 7.

    Joseph Ben-David, The Scientist’s Role in Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971); Tim Lenoir, Instituting Science: The Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1997).

  8. 8.

    Mitchell G. Ash, Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universitäten (Wien: Böhlau, 1997); Burton R. Clark, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation (New York: Pergamon Press, 1998); Jonathan R. Cole, The Great American University (New York: Public Affairs, 2009); David John Frank and Jay Gabler, Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006); Reinhard Kreckel, Zwischen Promotion und Professur: Das wissenschaftliche Personal in Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA, Schweden, den Niederlanden, Osterreich und der Schweiz (Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt, 2008); Georg Krücken et al., Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions (Bielefeld: Transcript, 2007); Richard Münch, Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007); Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2006); Ulrich Teichler, Higher Education Systems (Rotterdam/Taipeh: Sense Publishers, 2007).

  9. 9.

    Rudolf Stichweh, Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993); Peter Weingart, Wissenschaftssoziologie (Bielefeld: Transkript, 2003); Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization.

  10. 10.

    As an example of an early attempt, see Michael Joseph Mulkay, “Conformity and Innovation in Science,” The Sociological Review, 18 (1972): 5–23; Michael Joseph Mulkay, “Three Models of Scientific Development,” The Sociological Review, 23 (1975): 509–526.

  11. 11.

    James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change,” in Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, ed. James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1–37; Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen, “Introduction,” in Beyond Continuity. Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, ed. Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1–39; Kathleen Thelen, “How Institutions Evolve. Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis,” in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 208–240.

  12. 12.

    Streeck, Thelen, “Introduction”; Thelen, “How Institutions Evolve”.

  13. 13.

    Duncon Wilson, Reconfiguring Biological Sciences in the Late Twentieth Century: A Study of the University of Manchester (Manchester: University of Manchester, 2008).

  14. 14.

    Chunli Bai, Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Its Applications (New York: Springer, 2000); C. Julian Chen, Introduction to Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Hyungsub Choi and Cyrus C.M. Mody, “The Long History of Molecular Electronics: Microelectronics Origins of Nanotechnology,” Social Studies of Science, 39 (2009): 11–50; Arne Hessenbruch, “Nanotechnology and the Negotiation of Novelty,” in Discovering the Nanoscale, ed. Davis Baird, Alfred Nordmann and Joachim Schummer (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004), 135–144; Cyrus C.M. Mody, Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011).

  15. 15.

    Hugh Aldersey-Williams, The Most Beautiful Molecule: An Adventure in Chemistry (London: Aurum Press, 1995); Jim Baggot, Perfect Symmetry: The Accidental Discovery of Buckminsterfullerene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Rudy M. Baum, “Ideas on Soot Formation Spark Controversy,” Chemical and Engineering News 68 (1990): 30–32.

  16. 16.

    For details, see Heinze et al., “New Patterns of Scientific Growth”.

  17. 17.

    Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 2003).

  18. 18.

    Lee Fleming, Santiago Mingo and David Chen, “Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success,” Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (2007): 443–475; Walter W. Powell et al., “Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences,” American Journal of Sociology 110 (2005): 1132–1205.

  19. 19.

    Heinze et al., “Organizational and Institutional Influences”; Hollingsworth, “Institutionalizing Excellence”; Hollingsworth, “A Path-Dependent Perspective”; Youtie et al., “Career-based Influences”.

  20. 20.

    J. Scott Long and Robert McGinnis, “Organizational Context and Scientific Productivity,” American Sociological Review 46 (1981): 422–442; Youtie et al., “Career-based Influences”; Harriet Zuckerman, Die Werdegänge von Nobelpreisträgern.

  21. 21.

    Interviewees in alphabetical order: Guenther Ahlers, 20.3.2012; Tom Albrecht, 30.3.2012; Steve Buratto, 19.3.2012; Paul Hansma, 29.3.2012; Robert Madix, 3.4.2012; Fred Wudl, 22.3.2013; Joseph Zasadzinski, 22.3.2012.

  22. 22.

    Mody, Instrumental Community.

  23. 23.

    Interviewees in alphabetical order: Karoly Holczer, 29.3.2012; Richard Kaner, 20.3.2012; Robert Madix, 3.4.2012; Yves Rubin, 19.3.2012; Fred Wudl, 22.3.2012.

  24. 24.

    W. Krätschmer et al., “Solid C60: A New Form of Carbon,” Nature 347 (1990): 345.

  25. 25.

    Jürgen Enders, Die wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter: Ausbildung, Beschäftigung und Karriere der Nachwuchswissenschaftler und Mittelbauangehörigen an den Universitäten (Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag,1996); Kreckel, Zwischen Promotion und Professur.

  26. 26.

    Interviewees in alphabetical order: Paul Hansma, 29.3.2012; Wolfgang Heckl, 28.2.2012; Khaled Karrei, 25.6.2012; Jörg Kotthaus, 15.10.2012; Stefan Thalhammer, 25.6.2012.

  27. 27.

    Interviewees in alphabetical order: Timothy Clark, 28.7.2011; Dirk M. Guldi, 26.9.2011; Frank Hauke, 22.9.2011; Andreas Hirsch, 5.6.2012, 19.4.2012, Norbert Jux, 13.7.2011.

  28. 28.

    W. Krätschmer et al., “Solid C60.”

References

  • Aldersey-Williams, Hugh. 1995. The most beautiful molecule: An adventure in chemistry. London: Aurum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, Mitchell G. 1997. Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universitäten. Wien: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baggot, Jim. 1994. Perfect symmetry: The accidental discovery of buckminsterfullerene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, Chunli. 2000. Scanning tunneling microscopy and its applications. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Rudy M. 1990. Ideas on soot formation spark controversy. Chemical and Engineering News 68: 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, Joseph. 1971. The scientist’s role in society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binnig, Gerd, and Heinrich Rohrer. 1982. Scanning tunneling microscopy. Surface Science 126: 336–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Julian. 1993. Introduction to scanning tunneling microscopy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Hyungsub, and Cyrus C.M. Mody. 2009. The long history of molecular electronics: Microelectronics origins of nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science 39: 11–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Jonathan R. 2009. The Great American University. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, Jürgen. 1996. Die wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter: Ausbildung, Beschäftigung und Karriere der Nachwuchswissenschaftler und Mittelbauangehörigen an den Universitäten. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, Lee, Santiago Mingo, and David Chen. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52: 443–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, David John, and Jay Gabler. 2006. Reconstructing the university: Worldwide shifts in academia in the 20th century. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, Jerry. 1973. Originality and competition in science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haller, Max, Birgit Wohinz, and Margot Wohinz. 2002. Österreichs Nobelpreisträger und Wissenschaftler im historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Wien: Passagen Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Thomas. 2013. Creative accomplishments in science: Definition, theoretical considerations, examples from science history, and bibliometric findings. Scientometrics 95: 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Thomas, and Georg Krücken. 2012. Institutionelle Erneuerungsfähigkeit der Forschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, Thomas, Richard Heidler, Heiko Heiberger, and Jan Riebling. 2013. New patterns of scientific growth? How research expanded after the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy and the discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 829–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessenbruch, Arne. 2004. Nanotechnology and the negotiation of novelty. In Discovering the nanoscale, ed. Davis Baird, Alfred Nordmann, and Joachim Schummer, 135–144. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krätschmer, W., L.D. Lamb, K. Fostiropoulos, and D.R. Huffman. 1990. Solid C60: A new form of carbon. Nature 347: 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreckel, Reinhard. 2008. Zwischen Promotion und Professur: Das wissenschaftliche Personal in Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA, Schweden, den Niederlanden, Osterreich und der Schweiz. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroto, H.W., J.R. Heath, S.C. O’Brien, R.F. Curl, and R.E. Smalley. 1985. C-60: Buckminsterfullerene. Nature 318: 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, Georg, Anna Kosmützky, and Mark Torka. 2007. Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions. Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy 43: 1204–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, Tim. 1997. Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott, and Robert McGinnis. 1981. Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review 46: 422–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen. 2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. In Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, ed. James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mody, Cyrus C.M. 2011. Instrumental community: Probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, Michael J. 1972. Conformity and innovation in science. The Sociological Review 18: 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, Michael J. 1975. Three models of scientific development. The Sociological Review 23: 509–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münch, Richard. 2007. Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1969. Knowing and being. With an Introduction by Marjorie Grene. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Walter W., Douglas R. White, Kenneth W. Koput, and Jason Owen‐Smith. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110: 1132–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, Jack H., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 2006. The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servos, John W. 1990. Physical chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling: The making of a science in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, Rudolf. 1993. Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen. 2005. Introduction. In Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies, ed. Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen, 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, Ulrich. 2007. Higher education systems. Rotterdam/Taipeh: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, Kathleen. 2003. How institutions evolve. Insights from comparative historical analysis. In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, ed. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, 208–240. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter. 2003. Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld: Transkript.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the science, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Duncan. 2008. Reconfiguring biological sciences in the late twentieth century: A study of the University of Manchester. Manchester: University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet. 1993. Die Werdegänge von Nobelpreisträgernn. In Generations- dynamik in der Forschung. ed. Karl Ulrich Mayer, 59–79. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter is based on research that was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF) grant 01UZ1001. We thank Richard Heidler and Heiko Heiberger for assistance in conducting interviews and retrieving statistical data at the Bavarian Statistical Office. We are very grateful to David Pithan for processing bibliometric data, Joel Fuchs for retrieving valuable additional personnel and funding data at archives at UCLA and UCSB, and at the German Federal Statistical Office, and for cleaning and processing all personnel and funding data. We are also very grateful for comments and suggestions from the participants of the Research Colloquium at the Institute of Sociology, Technical University Berlin (January 14, 2015), the 20th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators in Lugano (September 2–4, 2015), and the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (September 17–19, 2015) where earlier versions of this chapter were presented.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Centre for Science and Technology Studies (IZWT), University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

    Arlette Jappe & Thomas Heinze

Authors
  1. Arlette Jappe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Heinze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arlette Jappe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Science and Technology Studies (IZWT) University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

    Thomas Heinze

  2. University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

    Richard Münch

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jappe, A., Heinze, T. (2016). Institutional Context and Growth of New Research Fields. Comparison Between State Universities in Germany and the USA. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59420-4_6

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation