Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond invisible colleges: Inspirations and aspirations of post-1972 social studies of science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A ten-year perspective on studies of scientific specialties-theory, method, and focus-from the social studies of science literature is presented. The inspirationprovided byPrice's work on “invisible colleges” andCrane's 1972 monograph of the same name is traced conceptually through the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. A decade later the literature on specialties is seen to aspire to interdisciplinary knowledge of scientific growth, fragmentation, consolidation, and supersession.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. D. E. CHUBIN, The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties,The Sociological Quarterly, 17 (Autumn 1976) 448–476; D. E. CHUBIN,Sociology of Sciences: An Annotated Bibliography on Invisible Colleges, 1972–1982, Garland Press, New York, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. HARGENS, Theory and Method in the Sociology of Science, inSociology of Science, J. GASTON (Ed.) Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1978, p. 121–139; D. E. CHUBIN, Constructing and Reconstructing Scientific Reality: A Meta-analysis,International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge Newsletter, 7 (May 1981) 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CHUBIN, 1983,.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. CRANE,Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. O. HAGSTROM, Review of Crane'sInvisible Colleges, Contemporary Sociology, 2 (July 1973) 381–383.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. KADUSHIN, Power, Influence and Social Circles: A New Methodology for Studying Opinion Makers,American Sociological Review, 33 (1968) 685–699.

    Google Scholar 

  8. I. SPIEGEL-ROESING,Science Studies: Bibliometric and Content Analysis, Social Studies of Science, 7 (February 1977) 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. W. WOOLGAR, The Identification and Definition of Scientific Collectivities, in:Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, G. LEMAINE et al. (Eds.), Aldine, Chicago, 1976, p. 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  10. PRICE,, 83.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For example, H. MENZEL, Scientific Communications: Five Social Themes,American Psychologist, 21 (1966) 999–1004; W. D. GARVEY, B. C. GRIFFITH, Scientific Communication as a Social System,Science, 157 (1 September 1967) 1011–1016; W. D. GARVEY, N. LIN, C. E. NELSON, Communication in the Physical and Social Sciences,Science, 180 (11 December 1970) 1166–1173;Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, C. E. NELSON, D. K. POLLACK (Eds.), D. C. Heath, Lexington, Mass., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. P. WILSON, E. B. FRED, The Growth Curve of a Scientific Literature: Nitrogen Fixation by Plants,Scientific Monthly, 41 (September 1935) 240–250.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. ANDERSON, R. G. van GELDER, The History and Status of the Literature of Mammalogy,BioScience, 20 (1970) 949–957.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. ROSE, The S Curve Considered,Technology and Society, 4 (1967) 33–39; K. E. STUDER, Interpreting Scientific Growth: A Comment on Derek Price's ‘Science Since Babylon’,History of Science, 15 (1977) 44–51.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. D. ALLISON, D. de S. PRICE, B. C. GRIFFITH, M. J. MORAVCSIK, J. A. STEWART, Lotka's Law: A Problem in its Interpretation and Application,Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976) 269–276.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. N. GILBERT, S. WOOLGAR, The Quantitative Study of Science: An Examination of the Literature,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  17. PRICE,, 74.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. K. MERTON, The Matthew Effect in Science,Science, 159 (5 January 1968) 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. SHILS, Centre and Periphery, inThe Logic of Personal Knowledge: Essays Presented to Michael Polanyi on his Seventieth Birthday, Routledge, London, 1961, p. 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  20. PRICE,, 86.

    Google Scholar 

  21. C. KADUSHIN, Networks and Circles in the Production of Culture, in:The Production of Culture, R. A. PETERSON (Ed.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1976, p. 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. N. BYSTRYN, Variation in Artistic Circles,The Sociological Quarterly, 22 (Winter 1981) 120–132.

    Google Scholar 

  23. PRICE,, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. BEN-DAVID, R. COLLINS, Social Factors in the Origins of a New Science: The Case for Psychology,American Sociological Review, 31 (1966) 451–465; A. J. IHDE, An Inquiry into the Origins of Hybrid Sciences: Astrophysics and Biochemistry,Journal of Chemical Education, 46 (April 1969) 193–196; B. RUSSETT, Methodological and Theoretical Schools in International Relations, in:Design for International Relations Research: Scope, Theory Methods and Relevance, N. D. PALMER (Ed.), American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, 1970, p. 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. V. DEUTSCH, D. SENGHASS, J. PLATT, Conditions Favoring Major Advances in Social Sciences,Science, 171 (5 February 1971) 450–459.

    Google Scholar 

  26. D. de S. PRICE, D. de B. BEAVER, Collaboration in an Invisible College,American Psychologist, 2 (November 1966) 1011–1018; N. C. MULLINS, The Distribution of Social and Cultural Properties in Informal Communication Networks Among Biological Scientists,American Sociological Review, 33 (1968) 786–797; N. W. STORER, T. PARSONS, The Disciplines as a Differentiating Force, in:The Foundation of Access to Knowledge — A Symposium, E. B. MONTGOMERY (Ed.), Division of Summer Sessions, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y., p. 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  27. E. B. PARKER, W. J. PAISLEY, R. GARRETT,Bibliographic Citations as Unobtrusive Measures of Scientific Communication, Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research, Stanford, Cal., 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. J. MEADOWS, J. G. O'CONNOR, Bibliographic Statistics as a Guide to Growth Points in Science,Science Studies, 1 (January 1971) 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  29. N. KAPLAN, The Norms of Citation Behavior: Prolegomena to the Footnote,American Documentation, 16 (1965) 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  30. PRICE,, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  31. For some it is a growth industry; see E. GARFIELD,Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 1, 1962–1973; Vol. 2, 1974–1976, ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1977.

  32. PRICE,, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  33. P. BOSSERMAN, Review of Crane'sInvisible Colleges, American Journal of Sociology, 79 (July 1973) 180–182.

    Google Scholar 

  34. C. S. FISHER, The Death of a Mathematical Theory: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge,Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 3 (1966) 137–159; D. L. KRANTZ (Ed.),Schools of Psychology, Appleton Century-Crofts, New York, 1969; G. M. SWATEZ, The Social Organization of a University Laboratory,Minerva, 8 (January 1970) 36–58.

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. WOOLGAR, Laboratory Studies: A Comment on the State of the Art,Social Studies of Science, 12 (November 1982) 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  36. T. S. KUHN,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. E. CHUBIN, 1976,.

    Google Scholar 

  38. PRICE,, 91.

    Google Scholar 

  39. CHUBIN, 1983,.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. R. GUSFIELD, Historical Problematics and Sociological Fields American Liberalism and the Study of Social Movements,Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, 1 (1978) 121–149.

    Google Scholar 

  41. I. SPIEGEL-ROESING, The Study of Science, Technology, and Society (SSTS): Recent Trends and Future Challenges, in:Science, Technology, and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Pespctive, I. SPIEGEL-ROESING, D. de S. PRICE (Eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 177, p. 7–42.

  42. D. O. EDGE, Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A critical Review,History of Science, 17 (1979) 102–134.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R. K. MERTON, Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge,American Journal of Sociology, 77 (July 1972) 9–47.

    Google Scholar 

  44. N. C. MULLINS, A Sociological Theory of Normal and Revolutionary Science, in:Determinants and Control of Scientific Development, K. D. KNORR et al. (Eds), D. Reidel, Boston, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. R. COLE and S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973; J. BEN-DAVID, Organization, Social Control, and Cognitive Change in Science, in:Culture and its Creators: Essays in Honor of Edward Shils, J. BEN-DAVID, T. N. CLARK (Eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977, p. 244–265; J. BEN-DAVID, Emergence of National Traditions in the Sociology of Science: The United States and Great Britain, inSociology of Science, J. GASTON (Ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Franciasco, 1978, p. 197–218; H. A. ZUCKERMAN,Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States, Free Press, Newy York, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  46. HARGENS,.

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. R. COLE, H. ZUCKERMAN, The Emergence of a Scientific Specialty: The Self-Examplifying Case of the Sociology of Science, in:The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, L. A. COSER (Ed.), Harcourt Brace, New York, 1975, p. 139–174; J. GASTON, Sociology of Science and technology, in:A Guide to the Culture of Science, Technology and Medicine, P. T. DURBIN (Ed.), Free Press, New York, p. 465–526; H. ZUCKERMAN, R. B. MILLER (Eds), Science Indicators: Implications for Research and Policy,Scientometrics, 2 (special issue, October 1980) 327–448.

    Google Scholar 

  48. R. K. MERTON, The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir, in:The Sociology of Science, R. K. MERTON, J. GASTON (Eds.), Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1977, p. 3–141.

    Google Scholar 

  49. I. I. MITROFF,The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Enquiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists, Elsevier, New York, 1974; D. E. CHUBIN, op. cit., note 1 The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties,The Sociological Quarterly, 17 448–476; S. P. TURNER, D. E. CHUBIN, Chance and Eminence in Science: Ecclesiastes II,Social Science Information, 18 (1979) 437–449.

    Google Scholar 

  50. R. KROHN, Scientific Ideology and Scientific Process: The Natural History of a Conceptual Shift, in:The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge E. MENDELSOHN, P. WEINGART, R. WHITLEY (Eds.), D. Reidel, Boston, 1977, p. 69–99; B. GRUENBERG, The Problem of Reflexivity in the Sociology of Science,Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 8 (December 1978) 321–343; M. A. OVERINGTON, Doing What Comes Rationally: Some Developments in Metatheory,American Sociologist, 14 (February 1979) 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  51. S. RESTIVO, Notes and Queries on Science, Technology, and Human Values,Science, Technology and Human Values, Science, Technology and Human Values, 6 (Winter 1981) 20–24.

  52. For example, H. MARTINS, The Kuhnian ‘Revolution’ and its Implications for Sociology, in:Imagination and Precision in the Social Sciences, T. J. NOSSITER et al. (Eds.), Faber and Faber, London, 1972, p. 13–58; P. WEINGART, On a Sociological Theory of Scientific Change, in:Social Processes of Scientific Development, R. WHITLEY (Ed.), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974, p. 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  53. C. J. LAMMERS, Mono- and Poly-paradigmatic Developments in Natural and Social Sciences, in:Social Processes of Scientific Development, R. WHITLEY (Ed.), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974, p. 123–147.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. D. WHITLEY, Black Boxism and the Sociology of Science: A Discussion of the Major Developments in the Field,The Sociological Review Monograph, 18 (September 1972) 61–92; R. D. WHITLEY,Social Processes of Scientific Development, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974; R. D. WHITLEY, Components of Scientific Activities, Their Characteristics and Institutionalization in Specialties and Research Areas, in:Determinants anc Controls of Scientific Development, K. KNORR et al. (Eds), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975. p. 37–73.

    Google Scholar 

  55. J. LAW, D. FRENCH, Normative and Interpretive Sociologies of Science,Sociological Review, 22 (1974) 581–595.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Social Studies of Science, Special issue: Aspects of the Sociology of Science, 6 (September 1976).

  57. M. MULKAY, Norms and Idology in Science,Social Science Information, 15 (1976) 637–656.

    Google Scholar 

  58. R. JOHNSTON, Contextual Knowledge: A Model for the Overthrow of the Internal/External Dichotomy in Science,Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 12 (October 1976) 196–203.

    Google Scholar 

  59. W. van den DAELE, W. KROHN, P. WEINGART, The Political Direction of Scientific Development, in:The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, E. MENDELSOHN et al. (Eds.), D. Reidel, Boston, 1977, p. 219–242. A Notable Predecessor of Such Work in: S. S. BLUME,Toward a Political Sociology of Science, The Free Press, New York, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  60. G. N. GILBERT, Measuring the Growth of Science: A Review of Indicators of Scientific Growth,Scientometrics, 1 (1978) 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. R. G. A. DOLBY, Reflections on Deviant Science, in:On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, R. WALLIS (Ed.), University of Keele, Staffordshire, 1979, p. 9–47.

    Google Scholar 

  62. M. MULKAY, Knowledge and Utility: Implications for the Sociology of Knowledge,Social Studies of Science, 9 (February 1979) 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  63. B. BARNES,Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974; J. LAW, Is Epistemology Redundant? A Sociological view,Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 5 (1975) 317–337; D. BLOOR,Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  64. H. MEYNELL, On the Limits of the Sociology of Knowledge,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 489–500.

    Google Scholar 

  65. E. MILLSTONE, A Framework for the Sociology of Knowledge,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  66. R. TRIGG, The Sociology of Knowledge (Review of Bloor'sKnowledge and Social Imagery),Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 8 (1978) 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  67. M. NEVE, The Naturalization of Science,Social Studies of Science, 10 (August 1980) 375–391.

    Google Scholar 

  68. H. M. COLLINS, The Investigation of Frames of Meaning in Science: Complementarity and Compromise,The Sociological Review, 27 (1979) 703–718. A fuller, self-exemplifying statement of this program is H. M. COLLINS, The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,Annual Review of Sociology, 9 (1983) 265–285.

    Google Scholar 

  69. B. BARNES, On the Causal Explanation of Scientific Judgement,Social Science Information, 19 (1980) 685–695.

    Google Scholar 

  70. J. E. McGUIRE, Newton and the Demonic Furies: Some Current Problems and Approaches in the History of Science,History of Science, 11 (1973) 21–48; S. SHAPIN, A. THACKRAY, Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community, 1700–1900,History of Science, 12 (1974) 1–28; G. WERSKY,The Visible College: The Collective Biography of British Scientific Socialists of the 1930s, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  71. A. THACKRAY, Measurement in the Historiography of Science, in:Toward a Metric Science, Y. ELKANA et al. (Eds) Wiley, New York, 1977, p. 11–30; R. F. BUD, P. T. Caroll, J. L. STURCHIO, A. THACKRAY,Chemistry in America, 1876–1976: An Historical Application of Science Indicators, A Report to the National Science Foundation, University of Pennsylvania, 1978 (D. Reidel, forthcoming 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  72. M. TEICH, R. M. YOUNG (Eds),Changing Perspectives in the History of Science, Heinemann, London, 1972; R. MacLEOD, Changing Perspectives in the Social History of Science, in:Science, Technology, and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, I. SPIEGEL-ROESING, D. de S. PRICE (Eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1977, p. 149–195; M. P. CROSLAND, Aspects of International Scientific Collaboration and Organization Before 1900, in:Human Implications of Scientific Advance, E. G. FORBES (ed.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1978. p. 114–125; A. OLESON, J. VOSS (Eds.),The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1979. A recent and thorough review is S. SHAPIN, History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions,History of Science, 20 (1982) 157–211.

    Google Scholar 

  73. G. N. CANTOR, Method in History' For and Against,History of Science, 14 (1976) 265–276.

    Google Scholar 

  74. I. LAKATOS, A. MUSGRAVE (Eds.),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  75. N. REINGOLD, Through Paradigm-land to a Normal History of Science,Social Studies of Science, 10 (November 1980) 475–496.

    Google Scholar 

  76. For example, D. SHAPERE, The Paradigm Concept,Science, 172 (14 May 1971) 706–709; I. SCHEFFLER, Discussion: Vision and Revolution: A Postrscript on Kuhn,Philosophy of Science, 39 (September 1971) 366–374.

    Google Scholar 

  77. REINGOLD, ; for an extensive accreditation, see B. BARNES,T. S. Kuhn and Social Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  78. R. BHASKAR,A Realist Theory of Science, Leeds Books, Leeds, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  79. S. TOULMIN, From Form to Function: Philosophy and History of Science in the 1950s and Now,Daedalus, 106 (Summer 1978) 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Y. ELKANA, Two-tier Thinking: Philosophical Realism and Historical Relativism,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 309–326.

    Google Scholar 

  81. L. LAUDAN,Progress and Its Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1977; L. LAUDAN, Views of Progress: Separating the Pilgrims from the Rakes,Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 10 (1980) 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  82. D. E. CHUBIN, 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  83. G. RADNITZKY, Towards a System Philosophy of Scientific Research,Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 4 (1974) 369–398.

    Google Scholar 

  84. P. FEYERABEND,Against Method, Verso, London, 1975; P. FEYERABEND, From Incompetent Professionalism to Professionalized Incompetence: The Rise of a New Breed of Intellectuals,Philosophy of the Social Science, 8 (1978) 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  85. A. W. GOULDNER, Prologue to a Theory of Revolutionary Intellectuals,Telos, 26 (Winter 1957–76 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  86. MITROFF,.

    Google Scholar 

  87. I. I. MITROFF, R. H. KILMANN,Methodological Approaches in the Social Sciences, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  88. R. FISCH, Psychology of Science, in:Science, Technology and Society: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective, I. SPIEGEL-ROESING, D. de S. PRICE (Eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1977, p. 227–318; M. J. MAHONEY, Psychology of the Scientist: An Evaluative Review,Social Studies of Science, 9 (August 1979) 349–375.

    Google Scholar 

  89. J. GOODFIELD, Humanity in Science: A Perspective and a Plea,Science, 198 (11 November 1977) 580–585.

    Google Scholar 

  90. C. GEERTZ, Blurred Genres: The Refiguration of Social Thought,American Scholar, 56 (Spring 1980) 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  91. B. LATOUR, S. WOOLGAR,Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1979; K. D. KNORR-CETINA,The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, New York, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  92. R. KROHN, Introduction: Toward the Empirical Study of Scientific Practice, in:The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, K. D. KNORR et al. (Eds), D. Reidel, Boston, 1980, p. xxi-xxv.

    Google Scholar 

  93. G. N. GILBERT, M. J. MULKAY, Contexts of Scientific Discourse: Social Accounting in Experimental Papers, in:The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, K. D. KNORR et al. (Eds), D. Reidel, Boston, 1980, p. 269–294.

    Google Scholar 

  94. E. MENDELSOHN, P. WEINGART, R. WHITLEY (Eds.),The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Two come to mind: S. S. BLUME (Ed.),Perspectives in the Sociology of Science, Wiley and Sons, Chistester, 1977, and the very recent K. D. KNORR-CETINA, M. MULKAY (Eds.),Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  96. S. RESTIVO, New Directions in the Sociology, of Science,International Society for Sociology of Knowledge Newsletter, 7 (May, 1981, special issue) 3–35; S. RESTIVO, Commentary: Some Perspectives in Contemporary Sociology of Science,Science, Technology and Human Values, 6 (Spring 1981) 22–30; R. COLLINS, S. RESTIVO, Development, Diversity and Conflict in the Sociology of Science,The Sociological Quarterly, 24 (Spring 1983) 185–200; D. E. CHUBIN, S. RESTIVO, The ‘mooting’ of Science Studies: Research Programs and Science Policy, in:Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, K. D. KNORR-CETINA, M. MULKAY (Eds), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1983, p. 53–83.

    Google Scholar 

  97. H. M. COLLINS, T. J. PINCH,Frames of meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  98. D. T. CAMPBELL, Evolutionary Epistemology, in:The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Vol. 14–1, P. A. SCHIPPP (Ed.), Open Court, LaSalle Ill., 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  99. C. A. HOOKER, Philosophy and Meta-philosophy of Science: Empiricism, Popperianism and Realism,Synthese, 32 (1975) 177–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. D. E. CHUBIN, S. RESTIVO,.

    Google Scholar 

  101. M. MULKAY,Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, Allen and Unwin, London, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  102. L. FLECK,Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, T. J. TRENN, R. K. MERTON (Eds), F. BRADLEY, T. J. TRENN (Trans.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  103. B. G. ROSENKRANTZ, Reflecktions: Review of Fleck'sGenesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Isis, 71 (1981) 96–99.

    Google Scholar 

  104. A. MacINTYRE, Ideology, Social Science and Revolution,Comparative Politics, 5 (April 1973).

  105. T. F. GIERYN, Relativist/Constructivist Programs in the Sociology of Science: Redundance and Retreat,Social Studies of Science, (May 1982) 279–297.

  106. S. DEDIJER (Ed.),An Attempt at a Bibliography of Bibliographies in the Science of Science, Science Policy Center, Lund, Sweden, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  107. E. CRAWFORD (compiler), The Sociology of the Social Sciences: An International Bibliography,Social Science Information, 13 (1974) 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  108. R. HAHN,A Bibliography of Quantitative Studies on Science and Its History, Berkeley Papers in History of Science III, Berkeley, Calif., 1980.

  109. J. GASTON, op. cit., note 47 Sociology of Science and technology in:A Guide to the Culture of Science, Technology and Medicine, P. T. DURBIN (Ed.), Free Press, New York, p. 465–526.

  110. A. PRITCHARD, G. WITTIG,Bibliometrics: A Bibliography and Index, Volume 1: 1874–1959, ALLM Books, Watford, England, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  111. C. MITCHAM, J. GROTE, Technology Assessment: Supplementary Bibliography,Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2 (1979) 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  112. M. J. IVORY, J. LaPORTE, H. G. SMALL, J. STANLEY,Citation-Analysis: An Annotated Bibliography, Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  113. OFFICE OF PLANNING AND POLICY ANALYSIS,Studies of Scientific Disciplines: An Annotated Bibliography, D. C., National Science Foundation, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  114. M. MULKAY, Sociology of Science in the West,Sociology, 18 (Winter 1980), Part I (p. 1–116), Bibliography (p. 133–184).

    Google Scholar 

  115. These periodicals in history, information science, management, philosophy, psychology and sociology, and the first years I reviewed of each through unbound issues in 1981, are as follows:Academy of Management Review (1976), American Journal of Sociology (1972), American Sociological Review (1972), American Psychologist (1974), The American Sociologist (1972), 4S Newsletter (Society for Social Studies of Science) (1977), Harvard Newsletter on Public Conceptions of Science (nowScience, Technology, and Human Values) (1974), History of Science (1972), Human Development (1972), Information Storage and Retrieval (nowInformation Processing and Management) (1972), Isis (1972), Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1972), Journal of Documentation (1972), Minerva (1972), Philosophy of the Social Sciences (1972), Science Studies (nowSocial Studies of Science) (1972), Social Science Information (1972), In addition, spot checks of the following journals wee made:Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Philosophy of Science, Research in the Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art (an annual),The Sociological Quarterly, andSociology. I think my search biases are apparent: history philosophy and information science are under-represented relative to sociology. Non-English journals have been ignored.

  116. H. SHUCHMAN, E. ABEL, S. FRAMPTON,Self-Regulation in the Professions: Accounting, Law, Medicine, Final Report to the National Science Foundation, The Futures Group, 1981.

  117. A. M. WEINBERG,Reflections on Big Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  118. D. NELKIN, Threats and Promises: Negotiating the Control of Research,Daedalus, 107 (Spring 1978) 191–209; J. R. RAVETZ, Criticisms of Science, in:Science, Technology and Society: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective, I. SPIEGEL-ROESING, D. de S. PRICE (Eds), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1977, p. 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  119. G. E. MARKLE, J. C. PETERSEN (Eds.),Politics, Science, and Cancer: The Laetrile Phenomenon, CO, Westview Press, Boulder, 1980; D. NELKIN, Science and Technology Policy and the Democratic Process, in:The Five-Year Outlook: Problems, Opportunities and Constraints in Science and Technology, Vol. II, National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C., 1980, p. 483–492; J. D. MILLER, Atittudes Toward Genetic Modification Research: An Analysis of the Views of the Sputnik Generation,Science, Technology and Human Values, 7 (Spring 1982) 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  120. P. BUCK, Images of the Scientific “Community”: Commentary on Papers by Alice Kimball Smith and Dorothy Nelkin,Newsletter on Science, Technology and Human Values, 24 (June 1978) 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  121. L. RAINWATER, D. J. PITTMAN, Ethical Problems in Studying a Politically Sensitive and Deviant Community,Social Problems, 14 (Spring 1967) 357–366; K. E. STUDER, D. E. CHUBIN, Ethics and the Unintended consequences of Social Research: A Perspective from the Sociology of Science,Policy Sciences, 8 (1977) 111–124; S. BOK, Freedom and Risk,Daedalus, 107 (Spring 1978) 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  122. J. H. COMROE, R. D. DRIPPS, Scientific Basis for the Support of Biomedical Science,Science, 192 (9 April 1976) 105–111; N. RESCHER,Scientific Progress: A Philosophical Essay on the Economics of Research in Natural Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  123. For example, J. BEN-DAVID,The Scientist's Role in Society, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1971; P. FORMAN, The Financial Support and Political Alignment of Physicists in Weimar Germany,Minerva 12 (1974) 39–66; M. HEIRICH, Why We Avoid the Key Questions: How Shifts in Funding of Scientific Inquiries Affect Decision-making About Science, in:The Recombinant DNA Debate, S. STICH, D. JACKSON (Eds), University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1977, p. 234–260; G. HOLTON, R. S. MORISON (Eds), Limits of Scientific Inquiry,Daedalus, 107 (special issue Spring, 1978); K. E. STUDER, D. E. CHUBIN,The Cancer Mission: Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  124. PRICE,, 115.

    Google Scholar 

  125. My own assessment of this situation is contained in D. E. CHUBIN, A Philosophy of Knowledge Application: Unauthorized Science Policy, unpublished paper, 1984. Another notable assessment is J. SCHMANDT (guest co-editor), Linking Science to Policy: The Role of Technical Knowledge in Regulatory Decisionmaking,Science, Technology and Human Values, 9 (Winter 1984, special issue) 14–133.

  126. E. SHILS, Intellectuals, Tradition, and the Traditions of Intellectuals: Some Preliminary Considerations,Daedalus, 101 (Spring 1972) 21–34; F. R. WESTIE, Academic Expectations for Professional Immortality: A Study of Legitimation,The American Sociologist, 8 (February 1973) 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  127. For example, B. F. RESKIN, Sex Differences in Status Attainment in Science: The Case of the Postdoctoral Fellowship,American Sociological Review, 41 (August 1976) 597–612; L. R. HARMON,A Century of Doctorates: Data Analyses of Growth and Change, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1978; J. S. LONG, Productivity and Academic Position in the Scientific Career,American Sociological Review, 43 (December 1978) 889–908; D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, M. E. BOECKMANN, Career Patterns of Scientists: A Case for Complementary Data,American Sociological Review, 46 (August 1981) 488–496.

    Google Scholar 

  128. B. C. GRIFFITH, N. C. MULLINS, Coherent Social Groups in Scientific Change,Science, 177 (15 September 1972) 959–964; D. E. CHUBIN, K. E. STUDER, Knowledge and Structures of Scientific Growth: Measurement of a Cancer Problem Domain,Scientometrics, 1 (January 1979) 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  129. ZUCKERMAN,, 1977; E. F. KELLER,A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  130. D. LINDSEY,The Scientific Publication System in the Social Sciences, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  131. For example, S. COLE, L. RUBIN, J. R. COLE,Peer Review in the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1978; D. E. CHUBIN, Competence is not Enough: Essay Review of Cole, et al. 'sPeer Review in the National Science Foundation, Contemporary Sociology, 9 (May 1980) 204–207; D. E. CHUBIN, Peer Review and the Courts: Notes of a Participant-Scientist,Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 2 (1982) 423–432. The British case for linking peer review to public policy is made in: J. IRVINE, B. R. MARTIN, Assessing Basic Research: The Case of the Isaac Newton Telescope,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  132. A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, D. E. CHUBIN, T. CONNOLLY, Between Disciplines [letter],Science, 109 (29 August 1980) 966.

    Google Scholar 

  133. D. T. CAMPBELL, Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-scale Model of Omniscience, in:Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, M. SHERIF, C. W. SHERIF (Eds), Aldine, Chicago, 1969, p. 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  134. W. LEPENIES, History and Anthropology: A Historical Appraisal of the Current Contact Between the Disciplines,Social Science Information, 15 (1976) 287–306. Sociobiology is another obvious locus for disciplinary consolidation.

    Google Scholar 

  135. R. T. BARTH, R. STECK (Eds),Interdisciplinary Research Groups: Their Management and Organization, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  136. P. H. BIRNBAUM, Academic Contexts of Interdisciplinary Research,Educational Administration Quarterly, 14 (1978) 80–97; F. A. ROSSINI, A. L. PORTER, Framworks for Integrating Interdiscplinary Research,Research Policy, 8 (1979) 70–79.

    Google Scholar 

  137. PRICE,, 81.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Elements of that agenda can be found in D. E. CHUBIN, A. L. PORTER, F. A. ROSSINI, Interdisciplinarity: How Do We Know Thee?, unpublished paper, November 1983.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program on Science, Technology and Society Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, (USA)

    D. E. Chubin

  2. Technology and Science Policy Program School of Social Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, 30332, GA, (USA)

    D. E. Chubin

Authors
  1. D. E. Chubin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This essay is based upon the introduction to my Sociology of Sciences: An Annotated Bibliography on Invisible Colleges, 1972–1981 (Garland, 1983).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chubin, D.E. Beyond invisible colleges: Inspirations and aspirations of post-1972 social studies of science. Scientometrics 7, 221–254 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017148

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017148

Keywords

Search

Navigation