A resource dependence perspective is used to conceptualize and to investigate the consequences of externalfunding on scientific enterprise. We argue that the participation of scientists in collegial activities is constrained by resource relations and the resulting dependence of scientists on nonscientists. Constraining factors include secrecy regulations, nonscientists' lack of concern for scientific standards, and the diminished research time available to scientists. Researchers endeavor to protect their autonomy and reduce the dependence by establishing alternative sources offunds. The empirical analysis of the theory is based on a study conducted in Israel. Our theoretical expectations are confirmed for researchers operating in academic settings. They are not fully supported for non-academic research settings. The significance and theoretical implications of the results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ALDRICH, H. E.Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1979.
2.
ALLISON, P. D., & STEWART, J. A.Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, 596-606.
3.
BARNES, B., & EDGE, D.Science in context. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1982.
4.
BEN-DAVID, J.The scientist's role in society: A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971.
5.
BRANNIGAN, A.The social basis of scientific discoveries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
6.
CHENG, J. L. C., & McKINLEY, W.Towards an integration of organization research and practice: A contingency study of bureaucratic control and performance in scientific settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, 85-100.
7.
COLE, L.Politics and the restraint of science. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983.
8.
CRANE, D.Scientists in major and minor universities. American Sociological Review, 1965, 30, 699-714.
9.
DUNCAN, P.From scientist to manager. In P. Halms (Ed.), The sociology of science: The sociological review monograph (No. 18). Keele, Staffordshire: The University of Keele, 1972.
10.
EMERSON, R.Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 1972, 27, 21-32.
11.
ENGINEERING MANPOWER COMMISSION. The engineer as a manager. Engineering Power Bulletin, 1973, 25-25.
12.
FOX, M. F.Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 1983, 13, 285-306.
13.
GASTON, J.Originality and competition in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
14.
GIERYN, T. F.Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48, 781-795.
15.
GOLDBERG, A. I., & KATS, R.Migration and research commitments: Long-term effects of national socialization. International Migration, 1984, 22, 129-143.
16.
GREENBERG, D. S.The politics of pure science. New York: The New American Library, 1967.
17.
HARGENS, L. L., & FELMLEE, D. H.Structural determinants of stratification is science. American Sociological Review, 1984, 49, 685-696.
18.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY. Federal restrictions: On the free flow of academic information and ideas. Office of the Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs, Harvard University, November 1984.
19.
HICKSON, D. J., HININGS, C. R., LEE, C. A., SCHNECK, R. E., & PENNINGS, J. M.A strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 216-229.
20.
ISRAEL CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS. Inputs in research and development in universities: 1972/73, 1974/75, 1976/77. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics, 1981.
21.
ISRAEL NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. Scientific research in Israel: 1976. Jerusalem, Israel: National Council for Research and Development, 1976.
22.
JAGTENBERG, T.The social construction of science: A comparative study of goal direction, research evolution and legitimation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983.
23.
KAPLAN, N.Research administration and the administrator: U.S.S.R. and U.S. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1961, 6, 51-72.
24.
KING RESEARCH. Statistical indicators of scientific and technical communication worldwide. Prepared for the National Science Foundation, King Research, Rockville, Maryland, March 1977.
25.
KNORR-CETINA, K. D.Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science, 1982, 12, 101-130.
26.
KUHN, T. S.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
27.
LADD, E. C., & LIPSET, S. M.The well-known universities lead in rating of faculties' reputations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1979, 17(18).
28.
LA PORTE, TODD, R., & WOOD, J. L.Functional contributions of bootlegging and entrepreneurship in research organizations. Human Organization, 1970, 29, 173-287.
29.
MERTON, R. K.Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1970.
30.
MERTON, R. K. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
31.
NARIN, F.Evaluative bibliometrics. Cherry Hill, N.J.
32.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION. American science manpower. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
33.
NELKIN, D.Science as intellectual property: Who controls research. New York: Macmillan, 1984.
34.
NEWTON-SMITH, W. H.The rationality of science. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
35.
PFEFFER, J., & SALANCIK, G. R.The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
36.
PFEFFER, J., SALANCIK, G. R., & LEBLEBICI, H.The effect of uncertainty on the use of social influence in organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 227-245.
37.
POPPER, K. R.The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
38.
POPPER, K. R.Conjectures and refutations. New York: Basic Books, 1965.
39.
PRICE, D. K.Government and science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.
40.
ROSENZWEIG, R. M.The research universities and their patrons. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1982.
41.
SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT REPORT. Vol. XV, No. 8, May 1, 1985, p. 3-3.
42.
SCOTT, W. R., & MEYER, W. J.Environmental linkages and organizational complexity: Public and private schools. Project report No. 84-A16, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education, Stanford University, 1984.
43.
SHENHAV, Y. Environmental and organizational effects on research agenda: The issue of funding. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, California 1985.
44.
SHENHAV, Y.Dependency and compliance in academic research infrastructures. Sociological Perspectives, 1986, 29, 29-51.
45.
SHENHAV, Y., & HABERFELD, Y.The various faces of scientific productivity: A contingency analysis. Quality and Quantity, 1988, 22.
46.
SHRUM, W.Scientific specialities and technical systems. Social Studies of Science, 1984, 14, 63-90.
47.
SHRUM, W., WUTHNOW, R., & BENIGER, J.The organization of technology in advanced industrial society: A hypothesis on technical systems. Social Forces, 1985, 64, 46-63.
48.
SIMMEL, G.Divide et impere. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: The Free Press, 1950, pp. 162-169.
49.
SUTTON, J. R.Organizational autonomy and professional norms in science: A case study of the Lawrence and Livermore Laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 1984, 14, 197-224.
50.
THOMPSON, J. D.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
51.
WUTHNOW, R.The world economy and the institutionalization of science in seventeenthcentury Europe. In A. Bergesen (Ed.), Studies of the modern world system. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
52.
YUCHTMAN, E., & SEASHORE, S. E.A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 891-903.
53.
ZIMAN, J.Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
