Accounts of change in contemporary research in industry and the academy often note the increasing coexistence of market and academic norms and practices. This article suggests that, at least in industry, these conflicting norms and practices are often preserved by loose coupling between market pressures and the research organization. Based on a two-year case study, this article examines the imposition of tight coupling at an industry lab that had previously been able to maintain some of the norms and practices associated with the academy. Tight market coupling limited the role of judgment in the governance of research. First, a market-based quantitative project selection system delegitimized expert judgment. As a result, projects with obvious market and technical uncertainties were more difficult to justify. Second, objective, market-based oversight also limited the role of expert judgment. Tracking the return on investment of scientists’ hours with time cards had the effect of discouraging time spent on learning or exploratory work. In many cases, researchers argued that displacement of judgment for a quantitative governance system caused work to shift away from research and toward product development.
BarnesBarry. 2007. “Catching Up with Robert Merton Scientific Collectives as Status Groups.” Journal of Classical Sociology7 (2): 179–92.
2.
BennerMary J.TushmanMichael L.. 2003. “Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited.” Academy of Management Review28 (2): 238–56.
3.
BermanElizabeth Popp. 2008. “Why Did Universities Start Patenting? Institution-building and the Road to the Bayh-Dole Act.” Social Studies of Science38 (6): 835–71.
4.
BermanElizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BermanElizabeth Popp. 2014. “Not Just Neoliberalism Economization in US Science and Technology Policy.” Science, Technology, & Human Values39 (3): 397–431.
6.
BoydThomas Alvin. 2002. Charles F. Kettering: A Biography. Frederick, MD: Beard Books.
7.
ColyvasJeannette A.PowellWalter W.. 2006. “Roads to Institutionalism: The Remaking of Boundaries between Public and Private Science.” In Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, edited by StawB., 305–53. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
8.
DennisMichael Aaron. 1987. “Accounting for Research: New Histories of Corporate Laboratories and the Social History of American Science.” Social Studies of Science17 (3): 479–518.
9.
DreyfusHubert L.DreyfusStuart E.. 2005. “Peripheral Vision Expertise in Real World Contexts.” Organization Studies26 (5): 779–92.
10.
EvansJames A.2010. “Industry Collaboration, Scientific Sharing, and the Dissemination of Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science40 (5): 757–91.
11.
FeyerabendPaul. 1957. Against Method. London, UK: Verso.
12.
HallettTim. 2010. “The Myth Incarnate Recoupling Processes, Turmoil, and Inhabited Institutions in an Urban Elementary School.” American Sociological Review75 (1): 52–74.
13.
HounshellDavid A.1998. “Measuring the Return on Investment in R&D: Voices from the Past, Visions of the Future.” In Assessing the Value of Research in the Chemical Sciences, edited by National Research Council, 6–17. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
HounshellDavid A.SmithJohn Kenly. 1988. Science and Corporate Strategy-DuPont R&D: 1902-1980. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
KleinmanDaniel LeeVallasSteven P.. 2001. “Science, Capitalism, and the Rise of the ‘Knowledge Worker’: The Changing Structure of Knowledge Production in the United States.” Theory and Society30 (4): 451–92.
LaveRebeccaMirowskiPhilipRandallsSamuel. 2010. “Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science.” Social Studies of Science40 (5): 659–75.
18.
LeslieMyles. 2010. “Quality Assured Science: Managerialism in Forensic Biology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (3): 283–306.
19.
MeyerJohn W.RowanBrian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology83 (2): 340–63.
20.
MeyerJohn W.RowanBrian. 1978. “The Structure of Educational Organizations.” In Environments and Organizations, edited by MeyerM. W., 78–109. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
MirowskiPhilip. 2004. The Effortless Economy of Science?Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22.
MirowskiPhilip. 2011. Science-mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
MirowskiPhilipHornRobert Van. 2005. “The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research.” Social Studies of Science35 (4): 503–48.
24.
MooreKellyKleinmanDaniel LeeHessDavidFrickelScott. 2011. “Science and Neoliberal Globalization: A Political Sociological Approach.” Theory and Society40 (5): 505–32.
25.
OrtonJ. DouglasWeickKarl E.. 1990. “Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization.” Academy of Management Review15 (2): 203–23.
26.
Owen-SmithJasonPowellWalter W.. 2001. “Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences.” In The Transformation of Work (Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 10), edited by VallasSteven, 109–140. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1016/S0277-2833%2801%2980023-6.
27.
PolanyiMichael. 1946. Science, Faith, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
PorterTheodore M.1992. “Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science.” Social Studies of Science22 (4): 633–51.
29.
PorterTheodore M.1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
PowellWalter W.1990. “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization.” In Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, edited by StawBarry M.CummingsLarry L., Vol. 12, 295–336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31.
PowellWalter W.KoputKenneth W.Smith-DoerrLaurel. 1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.” Administrative Science Quarterly41 (1): 116–45.
32.
PowellWalter W.SandholtzKurt. 2012. “Chance, nécessité, et naïveté.” In The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, edited by PadgettJohn F.PowellWalter W, 434–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
PowerMichael. 1999. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
PowerMichael. 2008. “Research Evaluation in the Audit Society.” In Wissenschaft unter Beobachtung: Effekte und Defekte von Evaluationen, edited by MatthiasHildegardSimonDagmar, 15–24. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
35.
ReichLeonard S.1985. The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
RobsonKeith. 1994. “Connecting Science to the Economic: Accounting Calculation and the Visibility of Research and Development.” Science in Context7 (3): 497–514.
37.
SalerMichael. 2006. “Modernity and Enchantment: A Historiographic Review.” The American Historical Review111 (3): 692–716.
38.
ShapinSteven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
ShapinSteven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
SitkinSim B.StickelDarryl. 1996. “The Road to Hell: The Dynamics of Distrust in an Era of Quality.” In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, edited by KramerRoderick M.TylerTom R., 196–216. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
SlaughterSheilaRhoadesGary. 1996. “The Emergence of a Competitiveness Research and Development Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (3): 303–39.
42.
StarkDavid W.2001. “Ambiguous Assets for Uncertain Environments: Heterarchy in Postsocialist Firms.” In The Twenty-first-century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective, edited by DiMaggioPaul, 69–104. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
StarkDavid W.2009. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
StephanPaula. 2012. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
StrathernMarilyn. 2000. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy. London, UK: Routledge.
47.
SunsteinCass R. 1995. “Incompletely Theorized Agreements.” Harvard Law Review108 (7): 1733–1772.
48.
VallasSteven PeterKleinmanDaniel Lee. 2008. “Contradiction, Convergence and the Knowledge Economy: The Confluence of Academic and Commercial Biotechnology.” Socio-Economic Review6 (2): 283–311.
49.
VarmaRoli. 2000. “Changing Research Cultures in U. S. Industry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values25 (4): 395–416.
50.
WeberMax. (1918) 1958. “Science as a Vocation.” Daedalus87 (1): 111–34.
51.
WeberMax. (1958) 2012. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Courier Dover.
