A diverse group of researchers and scholars has achieved a better understanding of social and cognitive processes, general throughout science. The key elements proved to be communication and information. Communication is the only general scientific behavior; other behaviors are mostly specific and technical. Information and its representations are its principal and general artifacts. This article explores the development of theory and the discovery of some strong empirical relationships among measured communication and information that, in turn, capture important features of social process and cognitive change in science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, T. J.
(1966). Performance of information channels in the transfer of technology. Industrial Management Review, 8, 87-98.
2.
Bernal, J. D.
(1948). Preliminary analysis of pilot questionnaire on the use of scientific literature. Royal Society Scientific Information Conference, Reports and Papers Submitted (Paper no. 46, pp. 587-637). London.
3.
Crane, D.
(1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 34(3), 335-352.
4.
Crane, D.
(1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Garvey, W. D.
(1979). Communication: The essence of science. London: Pergamon Press.
6.
Garvey, W. D.
, & Griffith, B. C. (1971). Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge. American Psychologist, 26, 349-362.
7.
Griffith, B. C.
(1979). Science literature: How faulty a mirror of science?Aslib Proceedings, 31, 381-391.
8.
Griffith, B. C.
, & Mullins, N. C. (1972). Highly coherent groups in scientific change. Science, 177, 959-964.
9.
Griffith, B. C.
, Small, H. G., Stonehill, J. A., & Dey, S. L. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures: II. Toward a micro- and macrostructure of science. Science Studies, 4, 339-365.
10.
Kuhn, T. S.
(1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Merton, R. K.
(1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126.
12.
Merton, R. K.
(1957). Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review, 22(4), 635-659.
13.
Merton, R. K.
(1973). The sociology of science (N. W. Storer, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Mitroff, I. I.
(1974). The subjective side of science. New York: Elsevier.
15.
Mullins, N. C.
(1972). The development of a scientific specialty: The Phage Group and the development of molecular biology. Minerva, 10, 51-82.
16.
Pelz, D. C.
, & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations. New York: John Wiley.
17.
Price, D. J. deS.
(1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Price, D. J. deS.
(1963). Little science, big scienceNew York: Columbia University Press.
19.
Price, D. J. deS.
(1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
20.
Price, D. J. deS.
(1975). Science since Babylon (enl. ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Price, D. J. deS.
, & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011-1018.
22.
Ravetz, J. R.
(1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
23.
Small, H. G.
(1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 24, 265-269.
24.
Small, H. G.
(1977). A cocitation model of a scientific specialty: A longitudinal study of collagen research. Social Studies of Science, 7(5), 139-166.
25.
Small, H. G.
, & Griffith, B. C. (1974). The structure of scientific literature: I. Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4, 17-40.
