On the Sociology of Scientific Activity
Those who study the sociology and psychology of science are beginning to see relationships that will enable them to develoo analvses of the wav scientists think and act. and of thew& thatscientific knowledge is accumulated. ~ I t h o u g h most of these studies are still in formative stapes. oortions of them offer insights and suggest meaning that might he of particular interest to chemists-especially those who teach. [see:I. spiegel-UingandD. deS Prirr."Scionce.Technolagiand Society." Saw. Beverly Hills. 1917, especially Chaptors 4 and 8.1
Socioloaical analvsis of the modern research community began wit< an examination of the social norms and values that appeared to distinguish the scientific community from other social groupings. From this came the idea that the continuous extension of certified scientific knowledge is possible only in a community where there is widespread conformity to an ideal or ethos of science defined in terms of four imperatives or norms: uni~vrmlr.~m. the rc.quirement that ~nfcmnatiunpresrnted to the sc~entifirrummunit\, Ile assessed indrpendentl\. of the personal or institutional source of the infbrmation-. communality: the concept that scientific information belongs to the profession, and not to those responsible for the discovery. disinterestedness: the condition that researchers pursue scientific knowledge without considering their career or reputation. organized skepticism: The obligation never to take results on trust. Behind this analysis was the thesis that science is an activity that depends-on its practitioners being open-minded, impartial and self-critical. Scientific knowledge is perceived as being socially neutral, and the ethos of science is seen as preventing scientists from interfering with this neutrality. To the extent that scientists conform to the four norms, science can grow rapidly; intellectual prejudice and resistance to new ideas will be minimized; the "objective" nature of the physical world will be revealed without distortion. An important implication here is that the rapid growth of reliable knowledge can occur only in "open" communities, and, since science has developed much more auicklv and with more nractical success than &her intellectuai actiiities, the scieniific community must he more internallv open. uncommitted. and self-critical than other intellectuaigrkpk. Unfortunatelv, there is little direct evidence for this or f o r the view of the scientific ethos just described. Studies of the way in which aeneral conformity to the four norms of science was msintai~,edwithin the research ro~nmunityhave led to the conclusiun that the wntral profrssimal reward in scirnre is recognition by competent colleagues. Recognition is awarded partly in response to quantity of research output, but, more sienificantlv. in resoonse to the nerceived scientific value of the information. Perceived value, however, most often is assessed in light of currently accepted cognitive and technical standards as maintained by informal hierarchies composed of self-reinforcing groups of the best recognized. In essence, the reward system operates primarily to maintain conformity to established conceptions and techniques. There is no clear evidence that recognition is linked to conformity to the values of universalism, disinterestedness, and skepticism. More detailed studies of conformitv and rewards in science have identified variations in value orientation hased on dif-
ferent attachments. lovalties. and reference erouns. Imoortant distinctions can h e k i d e between "local" &d "c"cosmopolitan" scientists, and between basic and applied researchers. Local scientists are described as being interested primarily in the scientific organization in which they work, in its management and reward system and their advancement within it. Cosmopolitan scientists are seen as strongly committed to specialized skills and research achievements, and to recognition from an external reference group. Similarly, applied researchers are perceived as producing information for an audience composed mainly of non-researchers. They expect their work to be judged primarily in relation to non-scientific criteria, and they look for bureaucratic rewards such as promotions and increases in salary. Basic researchers are viewed as pursuing topics largely on the basis of scientific significance. Their results are communicated in the first instance to fellow researchers who reward them accordingly. Psychologists have looked a t various aspects of the development process that scientists go through t o enter their profession. In addition to socialization processes, an educational program and an accumulation of knowledge and skills, the individual must survive a series of filtering processes. These may involve sporadic crises of personal development, changes of habit, interest and orientation, and coping with trauma. The development process may be different for-a researcher than for a practitioner. Special problems can arise if an individual has undergone development and socialization for both these roles (as is the case for many teachers of chemistry), for this means not only that two sets of norms and values must be internalized, hut that the individual is coupled to two sometimes conflictine" svstems of orofessional interaction and communication. Explanations for the origin of creativity and productivity in science remain elusive, gespite extensi;e research and d i bate. From one study comes the seemingly simplistic conclusion that intelligent behavior reflects the ability to solve problems, whereas creative behavior reflects the ability to formulate and pose problems as well as to solve them. Empirical investigations of the characteristics of creative physical scientists have generated the following summary: [from F.Barmn,"Creative Person and CreatmePmcers."Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York. 19m1: $I, i , . a n < n h w h ce., . t r m m h . e m
tllrn81
.l,ll~p,,dlln...~li.dlr.~l,. I.. ,"I I " , . . ! ~ ~ " c ?o,,,rr A.. c."M"I ,",*I d W C . Il,.,f..,
,",l
? ! ~ h # l # t vh w h drsrre I i t o n l r .I ,I 8mpul.-a. ".,!"$
A 1"
.or
.
lfll.lnll'\
em,,"A.,. " 81Mr"t.r ,h,"k,",7,v*f?r
i . r -.,ny,',.,,.,,.n~~\nndrr~,,,'r.n,.x~l,,al~.n
('c,.n 8 . r needant1 r WTI a ~ . a I ! l ~ ~ n k ~ ~ ~ v 1u~t in. ~ m1r1r1 ~ r w e d .ntere.t ~ n t h e ~ h ~ l l r n # ~ ~ ~ , s eh ,. ~. ,nmt ~ecd~ t I!um. # e x . s ! ~ r ~ . n .m c l > ~ < l > , s r s t > r ..A.
.',.
snria! ~
~h i ~ ~ h ehe fnr d innuencp ~ and ~ pcrwprincluding i ~ fnrcefulnesr ~ eiup~nim: ~ a preference for dealing p i t h thinpa nr ah.l.scti""~ rather than with wople.
Althoueh all these results are ohviouslv tentative. they tell us some &resting things about ourse1ves"and about the social community of which we are a part. They also identify large areas that now are amenable to social science research, and from which especially useful knowledge can be expected. One of these areas embodies the social norms of scientific work. Studies here might lead to clarification of the scientific ethos itself, and to an indication of the extent to which activity in science is controlled by subiectivity and parochialism from within, and by social and political forces from without. WTL Volume 55. Number 9. September 1978 / 545
