Abstract
Studies of science and science policy often rely upon analyzing the ‘structure’ of research fields. This is used to explore how scientific fields evolve, whether they are affected by policy and funding, and performance comparisons across universities and research systems (Porter & Rafols, 2009; Braam & van den Besselaar, 2014; Langfeldt et al. 2020). Traditionally, field structure has been investigated via citation-based relationships, touching upon fields’ knowledge pools (Van Raan & Tijssen 1993; Creswell 2009; Porter & Rafols 2009; Boyack & Klavans 2014). Elsewhere, as in classical sociology, structure is explored through a mix of social organisation and intellectual aspects, including the norms, intellectual conventions, governance rules and authority relations of ‘scientific communities’ (Merton 1968, Crane 1971, Whitley 2011).
In this paper, we instead explore co-existing ‘structures’ of a research field, comprising an ‘interlaced’, ‘multilayered’ or multiplex network phenomenon (Heimeriks et al. 2003, Teurtscher et al. 2014). Traditional approaches to investigating and mapping the structures of research fields, we posit, while in part useful to the study of science dynamics, have some unfortunate shortcomings. First, by assuming a unitary structure of science/scientific fields these approaches limit the investigation of complex, inherent dynamics. And second, by often inferring structures and relationships rather than mapping these directly, the explanatory power of traditional approaches is somewhat limited.
Still, unpacking the sources of inherent science dynamics, or the dynamics of scientific fields, is vital for understanding the evolution of science, the ways in which exogenous factors interlace with inherent sources to shape the workings of the sciences. Building on an understanding of structure originating with ‘new institutionalism’ (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) we assume that relationships can be empirically accessed through (social) exchange or distribution. Using co-nomination to trace three different kinds of exchange occurring within scientific networks, we mapped three different structures in a physics field – intellectual, collaboration and technical. (For more on the use of co-nomination to map research fields please see Karaulova et al. 2020) Social network analysis techniques were used to investigate further the links between the different networks/structures. The network maps were generated using VantagePoint and Gephi.
To test this ‘structures’ perspective, we used multiple rounds of co-nomination analysis, a reputation-based approach combining snowball sampling and social network analysis (Karaulova et al. 2020). We mapped three exchange networks for a particle physics field. We then highlight actors simultaneously active in one, two or three networks. This shows researchers performing multiple roles, and engaging multiple exchange relationships, perhaps not captured by citation-based approaches or study of single networks. It foregrounds the importance of other roles beyond intellectual influence, such as functions that technicians and equipment developers undertake, and social organizer roles that may help crystallize the field – a task more often associated with women, according to our in-progress analysis.
This ‘structures’ approach adds multidimensional character to whether scientists appear central or peripheral in a field. It has potential implications for how researcher performance is evaluated by universities, for organized mitigation of intersectional biases in science, and for how funders tackle coordination dysfunctions in fields developing over time (Tuertscher et al. 2014; Kozlowski et al. 2022). Overall, it promises to transform how we study research fields and science dynamics, by shifting our perspective from one-dimensional ‘structure’ to key multiplex ‘structures’. Using it to study additional cases could lead to better understanding of how research governance can support fields. It could also drive policy and funding to become tailored to bespoke dynamics of key field ‘types’, as revealed by their multiplex structures.
In this paper, we instead explore co-existing ‘structures’ of a research field, comprising an ‘interlaced’, ‘multilayered’ or multiplex network phenomenon (Heimeriks et al. 2003, Teurtscher et al. 2014). Traditional approaches to investigating and mapping the structures of research fields, we posit, while in part useful to the study of science dynamics, have some unfortunate shortcomings. First, by assuming a unitary structure of science/scientific fields these approaches limit the investigation of complex, inherent dynamics. And second, by often inferring structures and relationships rather than mapping these directly, the explanatory power of traditional approaches is somewhat limited.
Still, unpacking the sources of inherent science dynamics, or the dynamics of scientific fields, is vital for understanding the evolution of science, the ways in which exogenous factors interlace with inherent sources to shape the workings of the sciences. Building on an understanding of structure originating with ‘new institutionalism’ (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) we assume that relationships can be empirically accessed through (social) exchange or distribution. Using co-nomination to trace three different kinds of exchange occurring within scientific networks, we mapped three different structures in a physics field – intellectual, collaboration and technical. (For more on the use of co-nomination to map research fields please see Karaulova et al. 2020) Social network analysis techniques were used to investigate further the links between the different networks/structures. The network maps were generated using VantagePoint and Gephi.
To test this ‘structures’ perspective, we used multiple rounds of co-nomination analysis, a reputation-based approach combining snowball sampling and social network analysis (Karaulova et al. 2020). We mapped three exchange networks for a particle physics field. We then highlight actors simultaneously active in one, two or three networks. This shows researchers performing multiple roles, and engaging multiple exchange relationships, perhaps not captured by citation-based approaches or study of single networks. It foregrounds the importance of other roles beyond intellectual influence, such as functions that technicians and equipment developers undertake, and social organizer roles that may help crystallize the field – a task more often associated with women, according to our in-progress analysis.
This ‘structures’ approach adds multidimensional character to whether scientists appear central or peripheral in a field. It has potential implications for how researcher performance is evaluated by universities, for organized mitigation of intersectional biases in science, and for how funders tackle coordination dysfunctions in fields developing over time (Tuertscher et al. 2014; Kozlowski et al. 2022). Overall, it promises to transform how we study research fields and science dynamics, by shifting our perspective from one-dimensional ‘structure’ to key multiplex ‘structures’. Using it to study additional cases could lead to better understanding of how research governance can support fields. It could also drive policy and funding to become tailored to bespoke dynamics of key field ‘types’, as revealed by their multiplex structures.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 24 May 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - 24 May 2023 |
| Event | The 9th Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy - Georgia Institute of Technology - Georgia Tech Global Learning Center, 84 5th Street NW, Atlanta, United States Duration: 24 May 2023 → 26 May 2023 https://www.atlconf.org/ |
Conference
| Conference | The 9th Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy |
|---|---|
| Location | Georgia Institute of Technology - Georgia Tech Global Learning Center, 84 5th Street NW |
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | Atlanta |
| Period | 24/05/2023 → 26/05/2023 |
| Internet address |