The interplay between agency and structure explains a scientist's readiness to disclose information about research efforts. In a survey of 628 Israeli researchers, personal strategies in the pursuit of collegial appreciation were influenced by conflicting value guidelines at different time-space frameworks for scientific work. When researchers encountered the value of communality, they were encouraged to communicate freely to obtain community recognition. When a greater stress was placed on universalism, restricting communication became a reasonable strategy to protect acknowledgment rights. The influence of universalism was intensified when researchers inferred a structural vulnerability because of exposure to contextual conditions that increased the possibility of losing acknowledgment. A balanced impact of the two values—communality and universalism—may be postulated as contributing to a more rapid development of the scientific enterprise.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, J. C.
1982. Theoretical logic in sociology. Volume 1. Positivism, presuppositions, and current controversies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Alexander, J. C.
1987. Action and its environments. In The Micro-macro link, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch, and Neil J. Smelser, 289-318. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Alexander, J. C.
1988. Action and its environments: Toward a new synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press.
4.
Archer, M. S.
1988. Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Barber, B.
1952. Science and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
6.
Ben-David, J.
1977. Organization, social control, and cognitive change in science. In Culture and its creators: Essays in honor of Edward Shils, edited by Joseph Ben-David and Terry Nichols Clark, 244-265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Berger, P. L.
, and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
8.
Blumenthal, D.
, E. G. Campbell, M. S. Anderson, N. Causino, and K. S. Louis. 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association277 (15): 1224-1228.
9.
Boudon, R.
1986. Theories of social change: A critical appraisal. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
10.
Bourdieu, P.
1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Bourdieu, P.1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory7: 14-25.
12.
Bourdieu, P.1991. The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum6:3-26.
13.
Burns, T. R.
, and H. Flam. 1987. The shaping of social organization: Social rule system theory with applications. London: Sage.
14.
Charlesworth, M.
, L. Farrall, T. Stokes, and D. Turnbull. 1989. Life among the scientists: An anthropological study of an Australian scientific community. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
15.
Clark, J.
, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil, eds. 1990. Anthony Giddens: Consensus and controversy. London: Falmer.
16.
Cohen, I. J.
1989. Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life. New York: St. Martin's.
17.
Cole, J. R.
, and S. Cole. 1973. Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Cole, S.1983. The hierarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology89:111-139.
19.
Cole, S.
1992. Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Cook, K. S.
, and K. A. Hegtvedt. 1983. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. In Annual review of sociology, vol. 9, edited by Alex Inkeles, James Coleman, and N. Smelsor, 217-241. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
21.
Cozzens, S. E.
1989. Social control and multiple discovery in science: The opiate receptor case. Albany: SUNY Press.
22.
Craib, I.
1992. Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.
23.
Fine, G. A.1991. On the macrofoundations of microsociology: Constraint and the exterior reality of structure. Sociological Quarterly32 (2): 161-177.
24.
Frame, J. D.1979. National economic resources and the production of research in lesser developed countries. Social Studies of Science9:233-246.
25.
Friedman, D.
, and M. Hechter. 1988. The contribution of rational choice theory to macrosociological research. Sociological Theory6:201-218.
26.
Gaston, J.
1973. Originality and competition in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Gaston, J.
1978. The reward system in British and American science. New York: John Wiley.
28.
Geertz, C.
1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
29.
Gibbs, J. P.
1981. Norms, deviance and social control: Conceptual matters. New York: Elsevier.
30.
Giddens, A.
1979. Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
Giddens, A.
1986. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
Giddens, A.
1991. Structuration theory: Past, present and future. In Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appreciation, edited by Christopher G.A. Bryant and David Jary, 201-221. London: Routledge.
33.
Giesen, B.
, and M. Schmid. 1989. Symbolic, institutional, and social-structural differentiation: A selection-theoretical perspective. In Social structure and culture, edited by Hans Haferkamp, 67-85. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
34.
Goldberg, A. I.
, and R. Kats. 1984. Migration and research commitments: Long-term effects of national socialization. International Migration22:129-143.
35.
Goldberg, A. I.
, and A. B. Kirschenbaum. 1988. The organizational imperative in science. Organization Studies9:201-220.
36.
Goldberg, A. I.
, and B. Weinreb. 1978. Mobility of scientists and engineers among the R&D Institutes of Israel (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel National Council for Research and Development.
37.
Haferkamp, H.
1989. Differentiation and culture: Sociological optimism under scrutiny. In Social structure and culture, edited by Hans Haferkamp, 101-123. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
38.
Hagstrom, W. O.
1965. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
39.
Hagstrom, W. O.
1967. Competition and teamwork in science. Final report to the National Science Foundation, Madison, WI. Mimeo.
40.
Hagstrom, W. O.1974. Competition in science. American Sociological Review39:1-18.
41.
Hargens, L. L.
1975. Patterns of scientific research: A comparative analysis of research in three scientific fields. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
42.
Hays, S.1994. Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory12 (1): 57-72.
43.
Hilgartner, S.
, and S. I. Brandt-Rauf. 1994. Data access, ownership and control: Toward empirical studies of access practices. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization15 (4): 355-372.
44.
Hull, D. L.
1988. Science as a process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Israel National Council for Research and Development
. 1976. Scientific research in Israel: 1976. Jerusalem: Israel National Council for Research and Development.
46.
Jacobs, S.1987. Scientific community: Formulations and critique of a sociological motif. British Journal of Sociology38:266-276.
47.
Kyvik, S.
, and I. M. Larsen. 1997. The exchange of knowledge: A small country in the international research community. Science Communication18 (3): 238-264.
48.
LaFollette, M.1995. The beast without—and within. Science Communication17 (2): 115-118.
49.
Layder, D.
1994. Understanding social theory. London: Sage.
50.
Long, J. S.
, and R. McGinnis. 1981. Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review46:422-442.
51.
Marlin-Bennett, R.1995. International intellectual property rights in a web of social relations. Science Communication17 (2): 119-136.
52.
McCain, K. W.1995. Mandating sharing: Journal politics in the natural sciences. Science Communication16 (4): 403-431.
53.
Merton, R. K.
[1942] 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by Norman Storer, 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Merton, R. K.1957. Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review22:635-659.
55.
Merton, R. K.1963. The ambivalence of scientists. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital112:77-97.
56.
Merton, R. K.
1988. Reference groups, invisible colleges, and deviant behavior in science. In Surveying social life: Papers in honor of Herbert H. Hyman, edited by Hubert J. O'Gorman, 174-189. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
57.
Mitroff, I. I.1974. Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review39:579-595.
58.
Mulkay, M.1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information15:637-656.
59.
Mulkay, M.
1980. Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of the norms of science. In Science and social structure: A festschrift for Robert K. Merton, edited by Thomas F. Gieryn, 111-125. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
60.
Munch, R.
1987. Theory of action: Towards a new synthesis going beyond Parsons. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
61.
Newton-Smith, W. H.
1981. The rationality of science. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
62.
Parsons, T.
1949. The structure of social action. New York: Free Press.
63.
Parsons, T.
1951. The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
64.
Pickering, A.1993. The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology99 (3): 559-589.
65.
Pirages, D.1996. Intellectual property in a postindustrial world. Science Communication17 (3): 267-273.
66.
Ritzer, G.
1991. Metatheorizing in sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
67.
Sklair, L.
1972. The political sociology of science: A critique of current orthodoxies. In The sociology of science: Sociological Review Monograph No. 18, edited by Paul Halmos, 43-59. Keele, Staffordshire: University of Keele.
68.
Stewart, J. A.1983. Achievement and ascriptive processes in the recognition of scientific articles. Social Forces62:166-189.
69.
Stolte, J. F.1987. The formation of justice norms. American Sociological Review52:774-784.
70.
Swidler, A.1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review51 (2): 273-286.
71.
Sztompka, P.
1994. Society as social becoming: Beyond individualism and collectivism. In Agency and structure: Reorienting social theory, edited by Piotr Sztompka, 251-282. Yverdon, Switzerland: Gordon and Breach.
72.
Therborn, G.
1994. Sociology as a discipline of disagreements and as a paradigm of competing explanations: Culture, structure, and the variability of actors and situations. In Agency and structure: Reorienting social theory, edited by Piotr Sztompka, 283-306. Switzerland: Gordon and Breach.
73.
Turner, J. H.
1986. The structuration theory of Anthony Giddens. In The structure of sociological theory, 4th ed., 456-478. Chicago: Dorsey.
74.
West, S. S.1960. The ideology of academic scientists. IRE Transactions on Engineering ManagementEM-7:54-62.
75.
Ziman, J.
1994. Prometheus bound: Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
Zuckerman, H.
1977. Deviant behavior and social control in science. In Deviance and social change, edited by E. Sagarin, 87-138. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
