TY - JOUR
T1 - Essential tensions
T2 - Identity, control, and risk in research
AU - Hackett, Edward J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Len Lederman, Joshua Lederberg, and David Thaler provided essential support, advice, and encouragement throughout the study. I am also very grateful to the scientists interviewed for this research, who were extraordinarily gracious and generous with their time and ideas. The research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SBE 9896330) and by a fellowship from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that allowed me to spend a year visiting the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics and Informatics at Rockefeller University. The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA, which is funded by National Science Foundation, supported the Ecology Transformed? (or BOBCOWS) Working Group (DEB 94-21535) that contributed to ideas in this paper and generously supported the author as a center fellow as the writing was completed (DEB 00-72909). Earlier versions were presented at the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Sociological Association, 2004. Detailed and insightful comments were provided by Diana Rhoten, Jason Owen-Smith, Sergio Sismondo, and Mike Lynch.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - This paper examines the tensions and paradoxes that arise during the life course of research groups as they strive to establish and maintain an identity, acquire and retain control of an ensemble of research technologies, and evaluate and choose the risks they are willing to accept in their work. My central aim is to rekindle interest in the ambivalences, tensions, and paradoxes of science by identifying and illustrating the tensions that characterize research groups. Among the questions of concern are: How does a group establish an independent identity while remaining connected with its field of research? How are consistency of focus and continuity of approach balanced against the freedom younger scientists need to develop as independent investigators? What varieties of risks are encountered in research and how are they evaluated and navigated? Based on intensive, repeated, face-to-face interviews with scientists at various levels of seniority at elite private and public universities, the paper examines the choices leaders make at these critical junctures and the consequences of those choices. Several sorts of tensions are examined, including autocracy versus democracy, varieties of risk, role conflicts, openness versus secrecy, competitive cooperation, ambivalences about priority claims, and balancing continuity and change, and their implications for science, scientists, and the research process are discussed.
AB - This paper examines the tensions and paradoxes that arise during the life course of research groups as they strive to establish and maintain an identity, acquire and retain control of an ensemble of research technologies, and evaluate and choose the risks they are willing to accept in their work. My central aim is to rekindle interest in the ambivalences, tensions, and paradoxes of science by identifying and illustrating the tensions that characterize research groups. Among the questions of concern are: How does a group establish an independent identity while remaining connected with its field of research? How are consistency of focus and continuity of approach balanced against the freedom younger scientists need to develop as independent investigators? What varieties of risks are encountered in research and how are they evaluated and navigated? Based on intensive, repeated, face-to-face interviews with scientists at various levels of seniority at elite private and public universities, the paper examines the choices leaders make at these critical junctures and the consequences of those choices. Several sorts of tensions are examined, including autocracy versus democracy, varieties of risk, role conflicts, openness versus secrecy, competitive cooperation, ambivalences about priority claims, and balancing continuity and change, and their implications for science, scientists, and the research process are discussed.
KW - Accumulative advantage
KW - Ambivalence
KW - Collaboration
KW - Leadership
KW - Paradox
KW - Research groups
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27144530708&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27144530708&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0306312705056045
DO - 10.1177/0306312705056045
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:27144530708
SN - 0306-3127
VL - 35
SP - 787
EP - 826
JO - Social Studies of Science
JF - Social Studies of Science
IS - 5
ER -