Four published reanalyses of part of the celebrated medical innovation data focus on network effects on the diffusion of tetracycline. Each reanalysis rejects the findings of the previous analysis. This article shows that in the early 1950s, when the original data were collected, private practice physicians, swamped by demand, but facing threats to their autonomy from the federal government and from university medical centers, struggled to keep up with new therapies and relied on colleagues and friends within the profession for help and advice. This article examines the reanalyses' judgment calls concerning the use of a psychophysics power function, the employment of a time-sensitive model, the imputation and exclusion of data, and the addition of new variables. Given the radical undecidability of numerical evidence in the absence of context, the reanalysis of stand-alone data is likely to produce a continuing series of conflicting results.
Bamber, L. S., Christensen, T. E., & Gaver, K. M. (2000). Do we really “know” what we think we know? A case study of seminal research and its subsequent overgeneralization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 103-129.
2.
Barkun, M. (1968). Law without sanctions: Order in primitive societies and the world community. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
Barley, S. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 61-103.
4.
Berkowitz, S. D. (1982). An introduction to structural analysis: The network approach to social research. Toronto, Canada: Butterworths.
5.
Berlant, J. L. (1975). Profession and monopoly: A study of medicine in the United States and Great Britain. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Bonner, T. N. (1991). Medicine in Chicago: 1850-1950 (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7.
Boorman, S. A., & White, H. C. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks, II: Role structures. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 1384-1446.
8.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 6, 991-1013.
9.
Burrow, J. G. (1963). AMA: Voice of American medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
10.
Burt, R. S. (1976). Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55, 93-122.
11.
Burt, R. S. (1978). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. Sociological Methods and Research, 7, 189-212.
12.
Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79-141.
13.
Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic.
14.
Burt, R. S. (1983). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 262-282).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287-1335.
16.
Burt, R. S. (1997). Neo-classical contagion: Recent developments in the network structure of diffusion. Unpublished note, University of Chicago.
17.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical innovation: A diffusion study. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
18.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables [with discussion]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 34, 187-220.
19.
Degenne, A., & Forse, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. London: Sage.
20.
Faust, K., & Romney, A. K. (1985). Does STRUCTURE find structures? A critique of Burt's use of distance as a measure of structural equivalence. Social Networks, 7, 77-103.
21.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. W. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
Fiske, D. W., & Shweder, R.A. (Eds.). (1986). Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Friedkin, N. E. (1984). Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Methods and Research, 12, 235-261.
24.
Friedkin, N. E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1988). Ethnostatistics: Qualitative foundations for quantitative research. Newbury Park: Sage.
28.
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2001). Ethnostatistics, research methods and organizational behavior. Research Methods Forum, 6. Retrieved November 23, 2004, from http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/2001forum.html
29.
Gergen, K. (1986). Correspondence versus autonomy in the language of understanding human action. In D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 136-162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
31.
Hart, K. (1996). Social anthropology is a generalizing science or it is nothing: For the motion (1). In T. Ingold (Ed.), Key debates in anthropology (pp. 21-26). London: Routledge.
32.
Hirsch, P. M. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
33.
Hirsch, P. M. (1981). On not learning from one's own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis part II. Communication Research, 8, 3-37.
34.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
35.
Hummon, N. P., & Carley, K. (1993). Social networks as normal science. Social Networks, 15, 71-106.
36.
Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 649-658.
37.
Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18, 13-31.
38.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Labovitz, L. (1972). Statistical usage in sociology: Sacred cows and ritual. Sociological Methods and Research, 1, 13-37.
40.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Lee, R. I. (1958). A doctor speaks his mind. Boston: Little, Brown.
43.
Marsden, P. V., & Podolny, J. (1990). Dynamic analysis of network diffusion processes. In H. Flap & J.Wessie (Eds.), Social networks through time (pp. 197-214). Utrecht, the Netherlands: ISOR.
44.
Merton, R. K. (1961). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
45.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
46.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
47.
Mitchell, G. T. (1994). Dr. George: An account of the life of a country doctor. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
48.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (2000). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 653-683.
49.
Oh, H., Kilduff, M., & Trevor, C. O. (2004). Professional networks and innovation adoption: Reanalyzing the classic on medical diffusion (Working paper). Seoul, Korea: Yonsei University.
50.
Popper, K. (1992). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. (Original work published 1959)
51.
Sawai, K. (1994). A study of how Coleman's book on diffusion of new drugs has been cited in subsequent published articles. Library and Information Science, 32, 105-122.
52.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
53.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
55.
Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.
56.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 78, 426-450.
57.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265-290.
58.
Strang, D., & Tuma, N. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 614-639.
59.
Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2001). Medical innovation revisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1409-1435.
60.
Van den Bulte, C., & Lilien, G. L. (2004). Two-stage partial observability models of innovation adoption (Working paper). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
61.
Wellman, B. (1988). Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 19-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks, I: Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 730-780.
64.
Zucker, L. H. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.
