Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 875–893 | Cite as

How physics works: scientific capital in the space of physics institutions

  • Yurij L. KatchanovEmail author
  • Yulia V. Markova
  • Natalia A. Shmatko
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the social space of physics research institutions. Scientific capital is a well-known concept for measuring and assessing the accumulated recognition and the specific scientific power developed by Pierre Bourdieu. The scientific capital of a physics research institution manifests itself as a reputation, a high-profile name in the field of physics, symbols of academic recognition, and scientific status. Using citation statistics from the Web of Science Core Collection and sociological data of dedicated survey “The Monitoring of the Labor Market for Highly Qualified R&D Personnel” we construct the social space of Russian physics institutions. The analysis reveals generalized grounds of social space of Russian physics institutions: principles of visibility and scientific capital. The study highlights internal differentiation of physics institutions on three groups (“major”, “high energy”, and “secondary” institutions). The social space of physics research institutions provides a map of field of physics in Russia. This research may be a useful starting point for developing a more comprehensive study of the field of physics.

Keywords

Scientific capital Scientometrics Sociology of science Physics research institutions 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91D30 91D99 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”.

References

  1. Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. doi: 10.1002/tea.21227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auriol, L. (2007). PhD holders: The labor market and international mobility. Foresight–Russia, 1(3), 34–48. http://foresight-journal.hse.ru/en/2007-1-3/26558538.html.
  3. Auriol, L. (2014). Careers of doctorate holders: Employment and mobility patterns. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 4, OECD, Paris. doi: 10.1787/5kmh8phxvvf5-en.
  4. Auriol, L., Misu, M., & Freeman, R. (2013). Doctorate holders: Labour market and mobility indicators. Foresight–Russia, 7(4). 16–42. http://foresight-journal.hse.ru/en/2013-7-4/107116768.html.
  5. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Copernicus. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-5426-1.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellotti, E. (2011). The social processes of production and validation of knowledge in particle physics: Preliminary theoretical and methodological observations. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 148–159. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications (2nd ed.)., Springer series in statistics New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/0-387-28981-X.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. doi: 10.1108/00220410810844150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47. doi: 10.1177/053901847501400602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723–744. doi: 10.1007/BF00174048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (2002). The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in economic sociology (pp. 280–291). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470755679.ch15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674212770.
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2475.
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Les Usages Sociaux de la Science: Pour une Sociologie Clinique du Champ Scientifique. Les Éditions INRA, Paris. http://www.quae.com/fr/r480-les-usages-sociaux-de-la-science.html.
  15. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3630402.html.
  16. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3649674.html.
  17. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7/8), 716–740. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2001.002988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brosnan, C. (2011). The significance of scientific capital in UK medical education. Minerva, 49, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/s11024-011-9177-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brubaker, R. (2005). Rethinking classical theory. In D. Swartz & V. Zolberg (Eds.), After Bourdieu: Influence, critique, elaboration (pp. 25–64). Boston, MA: Springer. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2589-0-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Calhoun, C. (1993). Habitus, field, and capital: The question of historical specificity. In: C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma,&, M. Postone (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp 61–88). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42383/.
  22. Camic, C. (2011). Bourdieu’s cleft sociology of science. Minerva, 49, 275–293. doi: 10.1007/s11024-011-9176-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Castelvecchi, D. (2015). Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature,. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.17567.Google Scholar
  24. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1981). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Coradini, O. L. (2010). The divergences between Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s notions of social capital and their epistemological limits. Social Science Information, 49(4), 563–583. doi: 10.1177/0539018410377130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Corolleur, C. D., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: The experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33(4), 631–642. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569. doi: 10.1002/asi.1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Hierarchical clustering. Chichester: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470977811.ch4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garforth, L., & Kerr, A. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and the social sciences: Capital, institutions and autonomy. The British Journal of Sociology, 62(4), 657–676. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2011.01385.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2001). Integrating scientometric indicators into sociological studies: Methodical and methodological problems. Scientometrics, 52(3), 411–434. doi: 10.1023/A:1014243832084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 101–123). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grenfell, M. (2012). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (2nd ed.). Stockswell: Acumen Publishing. https://www.routledge.com/products/9781844655304.
  34. Hong, W. (2008). Domination in a scientific field: Capital struggle in a Chinese isotope lab. Social Studies of Science, 38, 543–570. doi: 10.1177/0306312706092456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the \(h\)-index should be supplemented by role-based \(h\)-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73–85. doi: 10.1177/0165551509348133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katchanov, Y. L., & Shmatko, N. A. (2014). Complexity-based modeling of scientific capital: An outline of mathematical theory. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences. doi: 10.1155/2014/785058.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Lebaron, F. (2001). Economists and the economic order: The field of economists and the field of power in France. European Societies, 3(1), 91–110. doi: 10.1080/14616690120046969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lebaron, F. (2003). Dispositions, social structures and economic practices: Towards a new economic sociology. In: E. Fullbrook (Ed.), Intersubjectivity in economics: Agents and structures (pp. 231–240). London: Routledge. http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415266987/.
  39. Lebaron, F. (2009). How Bourdieu “quantified” Bourdieu: The geometric modelling of data. In K. Robson & C. Sanders (Eds.), Quantifying theory: Pierre Bourdieu (pp. 11–29). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9450-7_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lebaron, F., & Grenfell, M. (Eds.). (2014). Bourdieu and data analysis. Methodological principles and practice. Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien. http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten&seitentyp=produkt&pk=68922.
  41. Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1007/BF02458391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 269–290. doi: 10.1007/s10961-005-6111-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGuire, W. L. (2011). Constructing quality in academic science: How basic scientists respond to canadian market-oriented science policy—A Bourdieusian approach. Ph.D. thesis, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/31862.
  44. Must, U. (2014). The impact of multi-authored papers: The case of a small country. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 8(1), 41–47. doi: 10.1080/09737766.2014.916874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panofsky, A. (2011). Field analysis and interdisciplinary science: Scientific capital exchange in behavior genetics. Minerva, 49, 295–316. doi: 10.1007/s11024-011-9175-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pritychenko, B. (2015). Intriguing trends in nuclear physics authorship. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1781–1786. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1605-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruget, V. (2002). Scientific capital in American political science: Who possesses what, when and how? New Political Science, 24(3), 469–478. doi: 10.1080/0739314022000005464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sidhu, R., Yeoh, B., & Chang, S. (2014). A situated analysis of global knowledge networks: Capital accumulation strategies of transnationally mobile scientists in Singapore. Higher Education, 69(1), 79–101. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9762-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sismondo, S. (2011). Bourdieu’s rationalist science of science: Some promises and limitations. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 83–97. doi: 10.1177/1749975510389728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Small, H. (1998). Citations and consilience in science. Scientometrics, 43(1), 143–148. doi: 10.1007/BF02458403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Takane, Y., Young, F. W., & de Leeuw, J. (1977). Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42(1), 7–67. doi: 10.1007/BF02293745.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Wacquant, L. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu. In R. Stones (Ed.), Key sociological thinkers (pp. 261–277). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-26616-6_17.Google Scholar
  53. Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. http://www.transactionpub.com/title/Scientific-Elite-978-1-56000-855-2.html.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.American Association for the Advancement of ScienceWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations