An increase in the scale of modern science is associated with the proliferation of a new kind of research formation: collaborations involving teams of researchers from several organizations. Historical and sociological studies indicate substantial variation in such formations, but no general classification scheme exists. The authors provide the outline of a scheme through a systematic analysis of multi-institutional collaborations that span a variety of fields in physical science. First, general dimensions of scientific collaborations were identified through a qualitative, historical analysis of collaborations in high energy physics, space science, and geophysics. Next, the authors used informants in five new areas to collect systematic information on twenty-three recent collaborations. Finally, cluster analysis was employed to develop a variety of classification schemes and examine their relationships with outcome dimensions. Results show that a classification based on a broad conception of technological practice is superior to others in its ability to predict perceived success, trust, stress, conflict, and documentary routines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldenderfer, Mark, and Roger Blashfield. 1984. Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Alter, C.1990. An exploratory study of conflict and coordination in interorganizational service delivery systems. Academy of Management Journal33:478-501.
3.
Alter, C., and J. Hage. 1993. Organizations working together: Coordination in interorganizational networks. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
American Institute of Physics. 1992. AIP study of multi-institutional collaborations. Phase I: High-energy physics. New York: American Institute of Physics.
5.
American Institute of Physics. 1995. AIP study of multi-institutional collaborations. Phase II: Space science and geophysics. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
6.
Assael, G.1969. Constructive role for interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly14:573-581.
7.
Blau, Peter, and W. Richard Scott. 1962. Formal organizations. San Francisco: Chandler.
8.
Browning, L., J. Beyer, and J. Shetler. 1995. Building cooperation in a competitive industry: Sematech and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal38:113-151.
9.
Crow, Michael, and Barry Bozeman. 1987. A new typology for R&D laboratories: Implications for policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management6:328-341.
10.
de Solla Price, Derek J.1963. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
DiStefano, T.1984. Interorganizational conflict: A review of an emerging field. Human Relations37:351-366.
12.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
13.
Galison, Peter, and Bruce Hevly, eds. 1992. Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Gulati, R.1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal38:85-112.
15.
Haas, J. Eugene, Richard Hall, and Norman Johnson. 1966. Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of organizations. In Studies on behavior in organizations, edited by R. Bowers, 157-180. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Irvine, J., and B. Martin. 1985. Basic research in the East and West: A comparison of the scientific performance of high-energy physics accelerators. Social Studies of Science15:293-343.
18.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1995. How superorganisms change: Consensus formation and the social ontology of high energy physics experiments. Social Studies of Science25:119-147.
19.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1998. Epistemic cultures: The cultures of knowledge societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Kramer, R., and T. Tyler, eds. 1995. Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Maienschein, Jane. 1993. Why collaborate? Journal of the History of Biology26:167-183.
23.
Orbuch, T.1997. People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology23:455-478.
24.
Parsons, Talcott. 1960. Structure and process in modern society. New York: Free Press.
25.
Pelz, Donald, and Frank Andrews. 1966. Scientists in organizations: Productive climates of research and development. New York: John Wiley.
26.
Pugh, Derek, D. Hickson, and C. Hinings. 1969. An empirical taxonomy of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly14:115-126.
27.
Ring, P., and A. Van de Ven. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review19: 90-118.
28.
Schild, I. 1997. International collaboration as work in polar research. Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Tucson, Arizona, October.
29.
Shapin, Steven. 1995. Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology21:289-321.
30.
Shrum, Wesley, and Joan Morris. 1990. Organizational constructs for the assembly of technological knowledge. In Theories of science in society, edited by S. Cozzens and T. Gieryn, 235-259. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
31.
Sneath, P., and R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
32.
Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high-energy physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Warnow-Blewett, Joan. 1997. Multi-institutional collaborations in science: Documentation issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Tucson, Arizona, October.
34.
Whitley, Richard. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
35.
Zabusky, Stacia. 1995. Launching Europe: An ethnography of European cooperation in space science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
