Search

The results from four studies are reported separately to test the idea that influential articles in psychology will be more readable than less influential ones. This idea is upheld when the papers involved are ones that have been highly rated by fellow colleagues (Studies 1 and 2) but it is not supported when the papers involved are highly-cited journal articles (Studies 3 and 4). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes the form of a double text which simultaneously investigates the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) through citation analysis, and investigates citation analysis using theoretical ideas from SSK and Foucault. One strand of the text performs an analysis of citation patterns in SSK. This text identifies the figures who have had the most impact through their articles and books, and examines the possible effects of cultural and linguistic bias. It also investigates the impact of SSK outside the field, asks whether this impact has changed over time, and identifies researchers who have had a particularly high impact outside SSK. The other strand takes citation analysis, as exemplified in the citation study of SSK, as its topic. This text focuses on the way the citation analysis constitutes its field of study, and on the way a citation is produced as a separable, countable category. It notes the 'realistic' idea of science categories which is deployed, and the individualistic model of scientific activity. It questions the involvement of citation analysis with power, both in the traditional sense of institutional control of science through funding changes, and in the Foucaldian sense of scientists adopting citation counting as a regime of self-regulation. The paper ends with a dialogue between the 'authors' on/in these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents group of papers and related discussion arising from the workshop on "Federal Funding and Knowledge Growth in Subfields and Specialties of Science," held at the U.S. National Science Foundations, under the aegis of its Division of Policy Research and Analysis, in Washington D.C. region, as of February 1, 1986. The author expresses gratitude to Susan Cozzens, of that Division, who undertook the duties of Guest Editor for this "Theme Section." Her cheerful and efficient performance in this role is warmly appreciated. The author wonders about the content and balance of a journal such as "Social Studies of Science," which relies for most of its material on unsolicited submissions of research papers, are largely determined by the journal's image-- and that image may bear little, relation to reality. In entering the sixteenth year, changes have been made in the team of Editorial Advisers. The author is thankful to Michael Gibbons, Ian Mitroff, Marcel Roche, Jarlath Ronayne, Jean-Jacques Salomon and Brigitte Schroeder-Gudehus: they have all given devoted service to us over the years, and they are counted as continuing friends of the journal.

In response to a recent descriptive account of the state of science studies in France, this Comment - which is a participant observer's account, not a research paper - seeks to contribute towards a sociological explanation of the observed state of affairs. The absence of specifically social studies of science in France is an aspect of the traditional French construal of science studies as consisting of (positivist or philosophically-minded) history of science. The reason why new approaches have difficulty in getting established is sought mainly in the structure of French institutions: decision- making bearing on intellectual choices is concentrated in very few hands, and these decisions affect, and streamline, most institutions throughout the country. Moreover, the large and overarching decision-making bodies, whose members have divergent preferences and interests, are inherently prudent and shun risk -taking: their very social structure favours conservatism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]