Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Critical Review

Meadows Particularly A.J. , Communication in science (London: Butterworths, 1974) and Crane Diana , Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1972). Earlier reviews include Duffin Lorna , Communication in science: Some aspects of the literature (Edinburgh: Science Studies Unit, Edinburgh University, 1971, mimeo); Paisley W. J. , “Information needs and uses”, in Cuadra C. (ed.), Annual review of information science and technology, iii (1968), 1–30; Storer N. W. , “Modes and processes of communication among scientists: Theoretical issues and prospects for investigation”, paper presented at the conference on “Theoretical issues in the study of science, scientists and public policy” (New York, Social Science Research Council and the Institute for the Study of Science in Human Affairs, 29 February to 1 March 1968); Libbey M. A. Zaltman G. , The role and distribution of written informal communication in theoretical high energy physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1967); Paisley W. J. , The flow of (behavioral) science information: A review of the research literature (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research, 1965); and Menzel Herbert , The flow of information among scientists, 2 vols (New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1958). Some other material and discussion relevant to the theme of this review, but published too late for inclusion, can be found in Elkana Y. (eds), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978).

See Edge D. O. Mulkay M. J. , Astronomy transformed: The emergence of radio astronomy in Britain (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1976), esp. ch. 9. For a briefer account, see Mulkay M. J. Edge D. O. , “Cognitive, technical and social factors in the growth of radio astronomy”, Social science information, xii (1973), 25–61.

See Gaston Jerry , Originality and competition in science: A study of the British high energy physics community (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), ch. 7. See also Cole J. R. Cole S. , Social stratification in science (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1973).

Meadows , op. cit. (ref. 1), Preface.

There are far too many references on citations to cite here! But see Garfield E. , Sher I. H. Torpie R. J. , The use of citation data in writing the history of science (Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information, 1964); Parker E. B. Paisley W. J. Garrett R. , Bibliographic citations as unobtrusive measures of scientific communication (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research, 1967); de Solla Price D. J. , “Networks of scientific papers”, Science, cxxxxix (1965), 510–15, and “Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and nonscience”, in Nelson G. E. Pollock D. K. (eds), Communication among scientists and engineers (Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington Books, 1970)) 3–22; and Garfield E. , “Citation indexing for studying science”, Nature, ccxxvii (1970), 659–71.

Cole Jonathan R. , “Patterns of intellectual influence in scientific research”, Sociology of education, xliii (1970), 381–2.

Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 19.

Ibid.

Meadows , op. cit. (ref. 1), 171.

Garfield , op. cit. (ref. 5).

See, for instance, Narin F. Carpenter M. Berit N. C. , “Inter-relationships of scientific journals”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, xxiii (1972), 323–31; and Griffith Belver , “Mapping the scientific literature”, in Debons A. Cameron W. J. (eds), Perspectives in information science (Leyden: Noordhoff, 1975), 457–81. Recently, attempts have been made to classify citations. Moravcsik M. J. Murugesan P. , in “Some results on the function and quality of citations”, Social studies of science, v (1975), 86–92, classify citations on four scales: “conceptual/operational”; “organic/perfunctory”; “evolutionary/juxtapositional”; and “confirmational/negational”. Chubin D. E. Moitra S. D. , in “Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting?”, ibid., 423–41, criticize Moravcsik and Murugesan's scheme, and propose their own: “affirmative” citations are subdivided into “essential” (itself broken down to “basic” and “subsidiary”) and “supplementary” (either “additional information” or “perfunctory”); and “negational” citations, which subdivide into “partial” and “total”. Distinctions such as these have not yet proved notably fruitful.

Small H. , “Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, xxiv (1973), 265–9; Small H. Griffith B. C. , “The structure of scientific literatures: 1: Identifying and graphing specialties”, Science studies, iv (1974), 17–40; and Griffith B. C. , Small H. G. , Stonehill J. A. Dey S. , “II: Toward a macro- and microstructure for science”, ibid., 339–65. For a brief (and conservative) summary, see Griffith B. C. Drott M. C. Small H. G. , “On the use of citations in studying scientific achievements and communication”, Society for Social Studies of Science newsletter, ii (Summer 1977), 9–13.

Small Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 12), 19.

Ibid., 39–40.

Small H. G. , “A co-citation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 139–66; Sullivan D. White D. H. Barboni E. J. , “Co-citation analyses of science: An evaluation”, ibid., 223–40.

Mullins N. C. , Hargens L. L. Hecht P. K. Kick E. L. , “The group structure of co-citation clusters: A comparative study”, American sociological review, xlii (1977), 552–62.

See Chubin Daryl , “Trusted assessorship in science: A relation in need of data”, Social studies of science, v (1975), 362–8. The term originated with Mullins (see ref. 18, below).

Mullins N. C. , Theory and theory groups in contemporary American sociology (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 18.

Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 41.

See Edge Mulkay , op. cit. (ref. 2), esp. ch. a (and note c).

Griffith Drott Small , op. cit. (ref. 12), in their title, refer to “studying scientific achievements and communication”—yet, in their paper, they pose problems and hypotheses in terms of the properties of scientific literature and documents.

For elements of such a theory, see Barnes Barry , Scientific knowledge and sociological theory (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974); idem, Interests and the growth of knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), and idem, “Making out in industrial research”, Science studies, i (1971), 157–75; Collins H. M. , “The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks”, Science studies, iv (1974), 165–86, and idem, “The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics”, Sociology, ix (1975), 305–24; Mulkay M.J. , The social process of innovation (London: Macmillan, 1972) and idem, Science and the sociology of knowledge (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978); Mulkay M. J. , Gilbert G. N. Woolgar S. , “Problem areas and research networks in science”, Sociology, ix (1975), 187–303; Bitz A. McAlpine A. Whitley R. D. , The production, flow and use of information in research laboratories in different sciences (Manchester: Manchester Business School and Centre for Business Research, mimeo report, 1975); MacKenzie D. A. Barnes S. B. , “Biometrician versus Mendelian: A controversy and its explanation”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, xviii (1975), 165–96 (available in English in mimeo, Science Studies Unit, Edinburgh University); Harwood J. , “The race-IQ, controversy: A sociological approach, 1: Professional factors”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 369–404, and “11: ‘External’ factors”, ibid., vii (1977), 1–30; MacKenzie D. A. , “Statistical theory and social interests: A case-study”, ibid., viii (1978), 35–83. See also Back Kurt , “The behaviour of scientists: Communication and creativity”, Sociological inquiry, xxxii (1962), 82–87. Studies of communication in science bear a close resemblance to the mass-media researcher's problem of “Who says what to whom, with what effect?”. And the shift to a ‘participant's perspective’ in the sociology of scientific knowledge is strikingly parallel to a similar shift in the framework of mass media research; see Raymond Bauer's paper, “The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communication”, American psychologist, xix (1964), 319–38. By rephrasing the question “What do media do to people?” to “What do people do with the media?”, a great deal of puzzling data was explained, and much fruitful research has since been done. Many reviews of this field are available; see, for instance, McQuail Denis , Towards a sociology of mass communications (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1969).

Barnes , “Making out”, op. cit. (ref. 22), 163, cites Becker H. S. , “Personal change in adult life”, Sociometry, xxvii (1964), 40–53, and Becker H. S. Carper J. W. , “The development of identification with an occupation”, American journal of sociology, xvi (1956), 389–98.

See Collins Bitz , opera cit. (ref. 33). 25. Whitley R. D. , “A summary report of the study”, in Bitz op. cit. (ref. 22), 1, 7, and 15. Note that Meadows (op. cit. (ref. 1), 92) says that “given the choice, many scientists prefer to avoid acquiring information. They are interested in the research process itself rather than in the results of other peoples' work”; and (110) that “the fundamentally important point [is] that scientists are oriented towards the literature less as recipients than as donors. Most are more concerned with publishing their own work, than in following the work of others.”.

Frankel Eugene , “Corpuscular optics and the wave theory of light: The science and politics of a revolution in physics”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 141–84.

Woolgar S. W. , “Writing an intellectual history of scientific development: The use of discovery accounts”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 395–422.

This was the theme of a series of radio talks broadcast on the BBC Third Programme in 1963: See Edge D. (ed.), Experiment: A series of scientific case histories (London: BBC, 1964). In the first talk, P. B. Medawar asked “Is the scientific paper a fraud?” and answered: “Yes. The scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought.”.

Garfield , op. cit. (ref. 5), 1.

Ibid., 33.

For an example of such public anguish, see Woolgar S. W. , “The identification and definition of scientific collectivities”, in Lemaine G. (eds), Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, and Chicago: Aldine, 1976), 233–45. The problem particularly troubles sociologists, who seem especially concerned that they should be able to define precisely the outlines of the ‘specialty’ they are studying. See Chubin Daryl E. , “The conceptualization of scientific specialties”, The sociological quarterly, xvii (1976), 448–76.

Small , op. cit. (ref. 15), 140.

Ibid., 141–2.

Ibid., 156.

Garfield , op. cit. (ref. 5), 26. (Emphasis added.).

See ref. 14.

See Garfield , op. cit. (ref. 5); Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1); Small , op. cit. (ref. 15); and Sullivan , op. cit. (ref. 15).

Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 46.

See Mulkay M. J. , “Methodology in the sociology of science”, Social science information, xiii (1974), 107–19, for a discussion of the importance of using a variety of methods.

Garfield , op. cit. (ref. 5), 15.

Ibid.

Similar situations obtain if, for instance, A has not cited B, but says B is influential; or has not cited B, and says B is not influential—in both cases with (or without) the ‘confirmation’ from the citation analysis that B is ‘really’ influential.

Moravcsik Murugesan , op. cit. (ref. 11), 91.

Chubin Moitra , op. cit. (ref. 11).

Cole , op. cit. (ref. 6), 381.

Ibid., 380.

See Garvey W. D. Griffith B. C. , “Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge”, American psychologist, xxvi (1971), 349–62; Griffith B. C. Miller A. J. , “Networks of informal communication among scientifically productive scientists”, in Nelson Pollock (eds), op. cit. (ref. 5), 125–40; Menzel H. , “Informal communication in science: Its advantages and its formal analogies”, in Bergen D. (ed.), The foundations of access to knowledge (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1968), 153–67; and Wolek F. W. Griffith B. C. , “Policy and informal communications in applied science and technology”, Science studies, iv (1974), 411–20. The latter contains many useful further references. See also van Rossum W. , “Informal communication and the development of scientific fields”, Social science information, xii (1973), 63–75; and Mullins N. C. , “The distribution of social and cultural properties in informal communication networks among biological scientists”, American sociological review, xxxiii (1968), 786–97.

Garvey Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 47), 354.

Ibid., 361.

Ibid.

Ibid., 357.

Gilbert G. Nigel , “The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 281–306.

Gilbert G. Nigel , “Referencing as persuasion”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 113–22; Small H. G. , “Cited documents as concept symbols”, ibid., viii (1978), 327–40. Mulkay has recently urged the importance of developing a “theory of citing”: See Mulkay , op. cit. (ref. 39). For suggestive fragments of such a theory, see Ravetz J. R. , Scientific knowledge and its social problems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), esp. 256–7 (an excerpt is quoted by Chubin Moitra , op. cit. (ref. 11), 438); Gaston J. , op. cit. (ref. 3), esp. 110–15; and Kaplan N. , “The norms of citation behaviour: Prolegomena to the footnote”, American documentation, xvi (1965), 179–84. Both Kaplan and Ravetz see citations as essentially related to “claims to property rights”.

Garvey Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 47), 357.

Garvey W. D. Griffith B. C. , “Scientific information exchange in psychology”, Science, cxlvi (1964), 1655–9, p. 1658.

Garvey Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 47), 359. Garvey W. D. Lin Nan Nelson G. E. , in “Some comparisons of communication activities in the physical and social sciences” (in Nelson Pollock (eds), op. cit. (ref. 5), 61–84), report that over 80% of physical scientists had first presented their results informally.

Gaston , op. cit. (ref. 3), 126.

Garvey Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 47), 359, 360. (Emphasis added.).

For examples of such analyses, see MacKenzie Barnes , op. cit. (ref. 22), and Harwood , op. cit. (ref. 22). For a related approach, see Collins , “Seven sexes”, op. cit. (ref. 22).

Bullard Sir Edward , “The Earth's dynamo”, in Edge (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 28), 27–33. Bullard's account raises fundamental questions about Gaston's claim (op. cit. (ref. 3), 130) that “Communication is the lifeblood of science. If a communication system in science is efficient, there is no duplication of unnecessary effort. Time and other resources that might be wasted on such efforts are utilized elsewhere.” An ‘efficient’ communication system might have prevented the development of the dynamo theory completely.

I have a complete set of these mimeograph sheets to summer 1959.

As Back puts it (op. cit. (ref. 22), 85): This is the kind of communication in which a common body of attitudes is created, in this case the professional identification as a scientist with a commitment to a general line of work and approach. This is shown by the fact that this kind of information gathering is missed when a scientist is separated from his institutional locus, through retirement, travel, or other reasons, even though he may be able to obtain the relevant journals and books. Again, there is a parallel with the results of mass media research. As Meadows (pp. cit. (ref. 1), 119) says: “Indeed, there seems to be a general rule that a scientist may need repeated exposure to a specific piece of information via both formal and informal channels before it makes a significant impact on his thinking.”.

As samples, either fully analyzed, or with fruitful ‘loose ends’, see Edge (ed.), Experiment (ref. 28); Edge Mulkay , Astronomy transformed (ref. 2), passim; Collins , opera cit. (ref. 22); Collins H. M. Harrison R. G. , “Building a TEA laser: The caprices of communication”, Social studies of science, v (1975), 441–50; MacKenzie Barnes , op. cit. (ref. 22); Brodeur Paul , “The enigmatic enzyme”, New Yorker (16 January 1971), 43–60; Frankel , op. cit. (ref. 26); Gilbert , op. cit. (ref. 52); Woolgar , op. cit. (ref. 27); Wynne Brian , “C. G. Barkla and the J phenomenon: A case study in the treatment of deviance in physics”, Social studies of science, vi (1976), 307–47; Robbins David Johnston Ron , “The role of cognitive and occupational differentiation in scientific controversies”, ibid., 349–68; Gaston , op. cit. (ref. 3), passim; Woolf Patricia , “The second messenger: Informal communication in cyclic AMP research”, Minerva, xiii (1975), 349–73; Rudwick M. J. S. , “Darwin and Glen Roy: A ‘great failure’ in scientific method?”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, v (1974), 97–185; MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 22); and the articles by H. F. Judson on DNA in New Yorker for 27 November and 4 and 11 December 1978.

Here Crane refers to Libbey Zaltman , op. cit. (ref. 1), 64; Paisley (1968), op. cit. (ref. 1); and Storer , op. cit. (ref. 1), 12.

Crane Diana , “The nature of scientific communication and influence”, International social science journal, xxii (1970), 28. I should add here that I am well aware (as is Collins, see below) that Crane is very sensitive to the defects of quantitative measures, and is most sophisticated in her handling of them. See also Crane Diana , “Information needs and uses”, Annual review of information science and technology, vi (1976), 1–39.

Collins , “TEA set” (ref. 22); Collins Harrison , op. cit. (ref. 63).

Collins , “Seven sexes” (ref. 22).

Collins , “TEA set” (ref. 22), 167.

Collins here refers to Burns T. , “Models, images and myths”, in Gruber W. H. Marquis D. G. (eds), Factors in the transfer of technology (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969), 11–33.

Meadows , op. cit. (ref. 1), 95.

Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 22.

Meadows , op. cit. (ref. 1), 135.

Collins , “TEA set” (ref. 22), 168. See Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 46, footnote 7.

Granovetter H. S. , “The strength of weak ties”, American journal of sociology, lxxviii (1973), 1360–80.

Gaston , op. cit. (ref. 3), 107–14.

Ibid. 109. The reference is to Merton R. K. , “Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science”, European journal of sociology, iv (1963), 337–83.

And again, the results of mass media research suggest close parallels.

For some other criticisms of citation methods, and discussions of their limitations, see Cole J. R. Cole S. , “Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science citation index”, American sociologist, vi (1971), 23–39; Porter A. L. , “Citation analysis; Queries and caveats”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 357–67; and the brief remarks by Merton R. K. in Merton Gaston J. (eds), The sociology of science in Europe (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, and London and Amsterdam: Feffer & Simons, Inc., 1977), 84.

Sullivan , op. cit. (ref. 15).

Ibid., 231. The quotation is from Bardon M. Berley D. Lederman L. M. , “Asymmetry parameter in muon decay”, Physical review letters, ii (1959), 56.

This includes very personal experience, since my one major contribution to the scientific literature suffered this fate! The paper was Edge D. O. , “A survey of radio sources at a frequency of 159 Mc/s”, Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, cxviii (1959), 37–67. It presented the results and catalogue of the Third Cambridge (‘3C') Survey. It quickly established its credentials, and after eighteen months or so dropped out of the radio astronomy citations—although its catalogue numbers are still in use, and it has been cited by non-radio astronomers.

Gaston , op. cit. (ref. 3), 114.

Woolf , op. cit. (ref. 63), 363.

For a co-authorship analysis, see Edge Mulkay , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 9 and passim.

For some use of conference lists, see ibid., ch. a.

Garvey Griffith , op. cit. (ref. 47), 356.

Collins , “TEA set” (ref. 22), 180–1.

Ibid., 170.

Crane , op. cit. (ref. 1), 20.

Sullivan , op. cit. (ref. 15), 17.

Ibid., 18.

See ref. 31.

On this point, Warren Hagstrom's remarks on “Sources of resistance among scientists to their classification on the basis of specialty”, Society for Social Studies of Science newsletter, ii (Spring 1977), 15–16 are relevant and helpful.

Full details can be found in Edge Mulkay , op. cit. (ref. 2), ch. 9. Brief details are in Mulkay Edge , op. cit. (ref. 2).

Griffith Drott Small , op. cit. (ref. 12), 12.

Holton Gerald , “Striking gold in science: Fermi's group and the recapture of Italy's place in physics”, Minerva, xii (1974), 159–98. Fermi and Ryle seem very similar. Lovell's group is more akin to the Cavendish under Rutherford.

Swatez G. M. , “The social organization of a university laboratory”, Minerva, viii (1970), 36–58.

McAlpine Andrew Carr Ian , “The information process in a cancer research laboratory”, in Bitz , (ref. 23), 45–83.