Advertisement

From Salomon’s House to Synthesis Centers

  • Edward J. Hackett
  • John N. Parker
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology book series (PSHST)

Abstract

Synthesis centers, which catalyze and host working groups, are an innovative form of scientific organization that promotes the integration of scientific diversity and its engagement with real-world problems. Placed in historical perspective, such centers are examples of an ongoing process of renewal in the organizational and institutional arrangements of science, and they have consequences for the character and effects of scientific knowledge. We describe and analyze how intellectual and institutional innovations emerge and are entwined within such centers, then draw upon ideas from science studies, small group dynamics, and the group creativity and interdisciplinarity literatures to identify the patterns and processes of social interaction responsible for the centers’ performance.

Keywords

Research organization Collaboration Synthesis Emotion Values 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the cheerful and enduring support of Jim Reichman, Stephanie Hampton, Frank Davis, the NCEAS staff, and hundreds of scientists who took time from their research visits to answer our questions, complete our surveys, explain things to us, and simply allow us to spend time with them. We thank Nancy Grimm for suggesting NCEAS as a research site and Jonathon Bashford for helpful analyses and discussions. An earlier version of some of the ideas and evidence presented in this paper appeared in Hackett et al. (2008).

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (SBE 98–96330 to Hackett, SBE 1242749 to Hackett and Parker) and by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA (DEB 94–21535).

We are deeply grateful to Dave Conz for years of collegiality and conviviality, and dedicate this work to him.

References

  1. Accademia Nationale dei Lincei. History. http://www.lincei.it/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=21.html. Accessed 13 Feb 2012
  2. Amabile, Teresa M. 1983. Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amabile, Teresa M. 2012. Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School working paper 12–096, Harvard Business School.. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-096.pdf
  4. Andreae, Johann Valentin. 1916[1619]. Christianopolis: An idea state of the seventeenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bacon, Francis. 1627. The New Atlantis. London: John Haviland for William Lee.Google Scholar
  6. Bernal, Joseph. 1967 [1939]. Social functions of science. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bierman, Judah. 1963. Science and society in the New Atlantis and other Renaissance Utopias. Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 78: 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowden, Edward M., and Mark Jung-Beeman. 2003. Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behaviorial Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35: 634–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campanella, Tomasso. 1602. The city of the Sun. New York: P.F. Collier & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter, Stephen, E. Virginia Armbrust, Peter W. Arzberger, F. Stuart Chapín, James J. Elser, Edward J. Hackett, Anthony R. Ives, Peter M. Kareiva, Mathew A. Leibold, Per Lundberg, Marc Mangel, Nirav Merchant, William W. Murdoch, Margaret A. Palmer, Debra P.C. Peters, Steward T.A. Pickett, Kathleen K. Smith, Diana H. Wall, and Ann S. Zimmerman. 2009. Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences. BioScience 59: 699–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cash, David W., William C. Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy M. Dickson, Noelle Eckley, David H. Guston, Jill Jäger, and Ronald B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100: 8086–8091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, Randall. 1998. The sociology of philosophies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, H.M., and Robert J. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Michael Gorman. 2007. Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corte, Ugo. 2012. Subcultures and small groups: A social movement theory approach. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  17. DeFries, Ruth, Erle C. Ellis, F. Stuart Chapin III, Pamela A. Matson, B.L. Turner II, Arun Agrawal, Paul J. Crutzen, Chris Field, Peter Gleick, Peter M. Kareiva, Eric Lambin, Diana Liverman, Elinor Ostrom, Pedro A. Sanchez, and James Syvitski. 2012. Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62: 603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ecological Society of America and the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. 1992/1993. National Center for Ecological Synthesis: Scientific objectives, structure, and implementation, Report from a joint committee, based on a workshop held in Albuquerue, NM, 25–27 Oct 1992, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. Farrell, Michael P. 2001. Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fleck, Ludwik. 1979 [1935]. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2004. Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory and Practice 5: 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frickel, Scott, and Neil Gross. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review 70: 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thomson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, Gerald Sue Marquis. 1966. Freedom, visibility of consequence, and scientific innovation. American Journal of Sociology 72: 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffith, Belver C., and Nicholas C. Mullins. 1977. Coherent groups in scientific change: ‘Invisible colleges’ may be consistent throughout science. Science 177: 959–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guimerà, Roger, Brian Uzzi, Jarrett Spiro, and Luís A. Nunes Amaral. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308: 697–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunderson, Lance, and C.S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hackett, Edward J. 1990. Science as a vocation in the 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education 61: 241–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hackett, Edward J. 2005. Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science 35: 789–826.Google Scholar
  32. Hackett, Edward J., and John N. Parker. 2011. Research groups. In Leadership in science and technology: A reference handbook, ed. William Sims Bainbridge, 164–174. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Hackett, Edward J., and John N. Parker. 2016. Ecological science reconfigured: Group and organizational dynamics in scientific change. In The local configuration of new research fields: On regional and national diversity, ed. Martina Merz and Philippe Sormani, 153–171. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Hackett, Edward J., John N. Parker, David Conz, Diana Rhoten, and Andrew Parker. 2008. Ecology transformed: The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and the changing patterns of ecological research. In Scientific collaboration on the Internet, ed. Gary Olson, Nathan Bos, and Ann Zimmerman, 277–296. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hagstrom, Warren. 1965. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Hampton, Stephanie H., and John N. Parker. 2011. Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61: 900–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henke, Christopher. 2008. Cultivating science: Harvesting power: Science and industrial agriculture in California. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and the stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth. 2012. Fostering scientific excellence: Organizations, institutions, and major discoveries in biomedical science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Holton, Gerald. 1978. Subelectrons, presuppositions and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9: 166–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hook, Ernest B. 2002. Prematurity in scientific discovery: On resistance and neglect. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jacob, François. 1995 [1987]. The statue within. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. Janis, Irving L. 1972. Victims of group think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  46. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977 [1959]. Essential tensions: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Levine, John M., and Richard L. Moreland. 2004. Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marshall, Barry J. 2001. One hundred years of discovery and rediscovery of Helicobacter pylori and its association with peptic ulcer disease. In Helicobacter pylori: Physiology and genetics, ed. Harry L.T. Mobley, George L. Mendz, and Stuart L. Hazell. Washington, DC: ASM Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mednick, Sarnoff A. 1962. Remote associates test. Journal of Creative Behavior 2: 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mitroff, Ian I. 1974. Norms and counter-norms in a selected group of Apollo moon scientists: A case study in the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review 39: 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973. Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  55. Ornstein, Margaret. 1963. The role of scientific societies in the seventeenth century. Hamden: Archon Books.Google Scholar
  56. Parker, John. 2010. Integrating the social into the ecological: Organization and research group challenges. In Collaboration in the new life sciences, ed. J.N. Parker, N. Vermeulen, and B. Penders, 85–109. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  57. Parker, John N., and Beatrice I. Crona. 2012. On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science 42: 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parker, John N., and Edward J. Hackett. 2012. Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaboration and social movements. American Sociological Review 77: 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Parker, John N., and Edward J. Hackett. 2014. The sociology of science and emotions. In Handbook of the sociology of emotions: Volume II, ed. Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner, 549–572. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Pelz, Donald, and Frank M. Andrews. 1976. Scientists in organizations, revised edition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Polanyi, Michael. 1969. Knowing and being. With an introduction by Marjorie Grene. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Reichenbach, Hans. 1938. Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rhoten, Diana R., Erin O’Connor, and Edward J. Hackett. 2008. The act of collaborative creation and the art of integrative creativity: Originality, disciplinarity, and interdisciplinarity. Thesis Eleven 96: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone1, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–474.Google Scholar
  66. Sandel, Michael J. 2009. Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  67. Sawyer, Keith. 2007. Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  68. Schurman, Rachel, and William Munro. 2006. Ideas, thinkers, and social networks: The process of grievance construction in the anti-genetic engineering movement. Theory and Society 35: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  70. Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sidlauskas, Brian, Ganeshkumar Ganapathy, Einat Hazkani-Covo, Kristin P. Jenkins, Hilmar Lapp, Lauren W. McCall, Samantha Price, Ryan Scherle, Paula A. Spaeth, and David M. Kidd. 2009. Linking big: The continuing promise of evolutionary synthesis. Evolution 64: 871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. STEPS Centre. 2010. Innovation, sustainability, development: A new manifesto. Sussex: STEPS.Google Scholar
  73. Stewart, John A. 1990. Drifting continents and colliding paradigms: Perspectives on the geoscience revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Stokes, Donald. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  75. Thagard, Paul. 2006. Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Weber, Max. 1946 [1918]. Science as a vocation. In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, ed. Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 129–158. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  77. Weingart, Peter. 2010. A short history of knowledge formations. In The handbook of interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert P. Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Micham, 3–14. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  78. Whitley, Richard. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Woolley, Anita W., Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330: 686–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations