Essential tensions

Identity, control, and risk in research

Edward J. Hackett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

122 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)787-826
Number of pages40
JournalSocial Studies of Science
Volume35
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005

Fingerprint

ambivalence
continuity
role conflict
Group
secrecy
dictatorship
research process
science
elite
leader
democracy
university
interview
Research Groups
Ambivalence
Continuity
Paradox
Secrecy
Democracy
Elites

Keywords

  • Accumulative advantage
  • Ambivalence
  • Collaboration
  • Leadership
  • Paradox
  • Research groups

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Essential tensions : Identity, control, and risk in research. / Hackett, Edward J.

In: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 35, No. 5, 2005, p. 787-826.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hackett, Edward J. / Essential tensions : Identity, control, and risk in research. In: Social Studies of Science. 2005 ; Vol. 35, No. 5. pp. 787-826.
@article{d8a80704e69642ceb3df28d3df76e126,
title = "Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Accumulative advantage, Ambivalence, Collaboration, Leadership, Paradox, Research groups",
author = "Hackett, {Edward J.}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1177/0306312705056045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "787--826",
journal = "Social Studies of Science",
issn = "0306-3127",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Essential tensions

T2 - Identity, control, and risk in research

AU - Hackett, Edward J.

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 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 787

EP - 826

JO - Social Studies of Science

JF - Social Studies of Science

SN - 0306-3127

IS - 5

ER -