Concepts of Originality in the Natural Science,Medical,and Engineering Disciplines: An Analysis of Research Proposals

Abstract

Science is fundamentally devoted to generating original knowledge, and therefore concepts of scientific originality are keys to understanding its very essence. Scientific originality has long been thought of as discovery, but new studies of the humanities and social sciences have shown that other, discipline-specific concepts of originality are used in these fields of study. Does this finding also hold for disciplines in the natural science, medicine, and engineering? Are concepts of originality scientifically grounded or do they instead reflect extrascientific modes of originality? These questions lie at the heart of research proposals responding to an initiative explicitly calling for original scientific projects. The proposals undergo a two-step analysis based on grounded theory[Per style, reference citation is not allowed in abstract section. Hence, we have deleted Charmaz, 2006. Please approve.]. First, three empirically identified modes of scientific originality are described: temporal, partially different, and revolutionary. The three modes of originality are consistent with extrascientific ones such as those in art and fashion. Second, six disciplines—two each in the natural science, medical, and engineering—are analyzed for ways the three modes of originality are used and for their associated disciplinary characteristics in order to identify discipline-specific concepts of originality.

Keywords

academic disciplines and traditions epistemology representation accounting practices originality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barber

Bernard

. 1952. Science and the Social Order. Glencoe, UK: The Free Press.

Bartel

Christopher

. 1985. “Originality and Value.” British Journal of Aesthetics 25 (3): 66–77.

Blakeslee

Ann M.

1994. “The Rhetorical Construction of Novelty: Presenting Claims in a Letters Forum.” Science, Technology, & Human Value 19 (1): 88–100.

Boring

Edwin G.

1927. “The Problem of Originality in Science.” The American Journal of Psychology 39 (1/4): 70–90.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.” Social Science Information 14 (6): 19–47.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1995. “Haute Couture and Haute Culture.” In Sociology in Question, edited by Bourdieu

Pierre

, 132–38. London, UK: Sage.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1996. Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, CA: University Press.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 2013. Manet. Une Révolution Symbolique. Cours au Collège de France (1998–2000) (Manet: A Symbolic Revolution—Courses at the Collége de France (1998–2000)). Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.

10.

Charmaz

Kathy

. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London, UK: Sage.

11.

Dirk

Lynn

. 1999. “A Measure of Originality: The Elements of Science.” Social Studies of Science 29 (5): 765–76.

12.

Esposito

Elena

. 2011. “Originality through Imitation: The Rationality of Fashion.” Organization Studies 32 (5): 603–13.

13.

Foster

Jacob G.

Rzhetsky

Andrey

Evans

James A.

. 2015. “Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies.” American Sociological Review 80 (5): 875–908.

14.

Glaser

Barney G.

Strauss

Anselm L.

. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

15.

Guetzkow

Joshua

Lamont

Michèle

Mallard

Grégoire

. 2004. “What Is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences?” American Sociological Review 69 (2): 190–212.

16.

Hackett

Edward J.

2005: “Essential Tensions. Identity, Control, and Risk in Research.” Social Studies of Science 35 (5): 787–826.

17.

Huutoniemi

Katri

. 2012. “Communicating and Compromising on Disciplinary Expertise in the Peer Review of Research Proposals.” Social Studies of Science 42 (6): 897–921.

18.

Koselleck

Reinhard

. 1997. “The Temporalisation of Concepts.” In Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, 16–24. Jyväkylä, Finland: SoPhi.

19.

Koselleck

Reinhard

. 2002. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Kuhn

Thomas S.

1962. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery.” Science, New Series 136 (3518): 760–64.

21.

Kuhn

Thomas S.

1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Kuhn

Thomas S.

1977. “The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, edited by Kuhn

T. S.

, 225–39. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Lamont

Michèle

. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24.

Lamont

Michèle

Huutoniemi

Katri

. 2011. “Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels.” In Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by Camic

Gross

Lamont

, 209–32. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Latour

Bruno

Woolgar

Steve

. 1986: Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

26.

Laudel

Grit

. 2006. “The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to Their Funding Conditions.” Science and Public Policy 33 (7): 489–504.

27.

Mallard

Grégoire

Lamont

Michèle

Guetzkow

Joshua

. 2009. “Fairness as Appropriateness: Negotiating Epistemological Differences in Peer Review.” Science Technology Human Values 34 (5): 573–606.

28.

Merton

Robert K.

1957. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.” American Sociological Review 22 (6): 635–59.

29.

Myers

Greg

. 1990. Writing Biology. The Social Construction of Popular Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

30.

Polanyi

Michael

. 1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva 1 (1): 54–73.

31.

Rheinberger

Hans-Jörg

. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things. Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

32.

Rhoten

Diana

O’Connor

Erin

Hackett

Edward J.

. 2009. “The Act of Collaborative Creation and the Art of Integrative Creativity: Originality, Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity.” Thesis Eleven 96 (1): 83–108.

33.

Simmel

Georg

. 1957. “Fashion.” American Journal of Sociology 62 (6): 541–58.

34.

Simonton

Dean K.

2004. Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Stigler

George J.

1955. “The Nature and Role of Originality in Scientific Progress.” Economia 22 (88): 293–302.

36.

Stokes

Donald E.

1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.