Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 127–149 | Cite as

Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures

  • Laurens K. HesselsEmail author
  • Thomas Franssen
  • Wout Scholten
  • Sarah de Rijcke
Article

Abstract

This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found significant differences in the manifestation of the six main resources that are part of the cycle, the mechanisms of conversion between these resources, the overall structure and the average speed of the credibility cycle. The different ways in which the groups use data and produce arguments affect the whole cycle of accumulating credibility. In some cultures, journal publications are the main source of recognition, but in others one can earn significant amounts of recognition for conference contributions or service to the academic community. Moreover, the collaboration practices in the respective fields strongly influence the connection between arguments and publications. In cultures where teams of researchers collaboratively produce arguments, it is more strongly embedded in the process of writing publications. We conclude that the credibility cycle can only be used as an analytical tool to explain the behavior of researchers or research groups when taking differences across epistemic cultures into account.

Keywords

Credibility Epistemic culture Valuation Recognition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Leonie van Drooge for many stimulating discussions and Jochen Gläser for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories, 2nd ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, Harry. 1992. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Costas, Rodrigo, Zohreh Zahedi, and Paul Wouters. 2015. The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67(3): 260–288.  https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cremonini, Leon, Edwin Horlings, and Laurens K. Hessels. 2017. Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing policies for scientific excellence across different countries. Science and Public Policy 45(2): 232–245.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fochler, Maximilian. 2016. Variants of epistemic capitalism: Knowledge production and the accumulation of worth in commercial biotechnology and the academic life sciences. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41(5): 922–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gläser, Jochen, Jana Bielick, Robert Jungmann, Grit Laudel, Eric Lettkemann, Grit Petschick, and Ulla Tschida. 2015. Research cultures as an explanatory factor. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 40(3): 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro van Lente. 2011. Practical applications as a source of credibility: A comparison of three fields of Dutch academic chemistry. Minerva 49(2): 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2009. In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy 36(5): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hessels, Laurens, Wout Scholten, Thomas Franssen, and Sarah De Rijcke. 2016. Excellent geld: De rol van excellentiesubsidies bij vier toponderzoeksgroepen in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.Google Scholar
  10. Joly, Pierre-Benoit, and Vincent Mangematin. 1996. Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: The dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation. Research Policy 25(6): 901–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(96)00882-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1982. Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science 12: 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1999. Epistemic cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larivière, Vincent, Nadine Desrochers, Benoît Macaluso, Philippe Mongeon, Adèle Paul-Hus, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2016. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science 46(3): 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2008. From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of early career researchers. Higher Education 55(3): 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laudel, Grit, and Jochen Gläser. 2014. Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding. Research Policy 43(7): 1204–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leišytė, Liudvika. 2007. University governance and academic research: Case studies of research units in Dutch and English Universities. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  19. Lepori, Benedetto, Michael Wise, Diana Ingenhoff, and Alexander Buhmann. 2016. The dynamics of university units as a multi-level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies. Scientometrics 109(3): 2279–2301.Google Scholar
  20. Merton, Robert K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman, M.E.J. 2004. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS 101: 5200–5205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Packer, K., and A. Webster. 1996. Patenting culture in science: Reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(4): 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stark, David. 2011. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Strange, Kevin. 2008. Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology: Cell Physiology 295(3): C567–C575.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsai, Chin-Chang, Elizabeth A. Corley, and Barry Bozeman. 2016. Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts. Scientometrics 108(2): 505–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1997-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Whitley, Richard D. 1983. From the sociology of scientific communities to the study of scientists’ negotiations and beyond. Social Science Information 22(4–5): 681–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wouters, Paul. 1997. Citation cycles and peer review cycles. Scientometrics 38(1): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KWR Watercycle Research InstituteNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology StudiesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Rathenau InstituutThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations