This dissertation examines the prevalence of friendship and its effects on productivity in academic science from the perspective of networked social capital. It seeks to understand what friendship is in the context of the professional environment, what distinguishes it from other professional relationships, and how it affects the function and the outcomes of science. The study was motivated by the increased emphasis of collaboration as a means of fostering research competitiveness. The research reported here was performed as part of the National Science Foundation project "NETWISE I: Women in Science and Engineering: Network Access, Participation, and Career Outcomes" (Grant # REC-0529642). The importance of friendship in the context of academic science has often been implied and anecdotal, but it has not been elucidated or empirically tested. This dissertation seeks to address this gap. The unit of analysis in the model is the individual. The dissertation conceptualizes friendship as one aspect of a collaborative relationship and thus an important determinant of a scientist's social capability of pool relevant resources for the purposes of productivity. It hypothesizes that professional and personal roles form an integrative relationship within collaborative ties and that such complementarity benefits individual goal attainment, specifically with regard to publication productivity. The results of the study show that friendship has a strong positive effect on an individual's publication productivity, which is comparable to the effect of collaboration across organizational boundaries. The results also show that while friendship is fairly prevalent in collaborative relationships, some groups of scientists are more likely to have friends among their closest collaborators than other groups; that friendships differ from other collaborative relationships in that they more often form between individuals of the same status, provide a greater variety of productivity-relevant resources such as knowledge, advice, endorsements of one's reputation, and introductions to potential collaborators; and that friendship facilitates the mobilization of these resources from personal collaborative networks for productivity purposes.

No description available.

The notion of Mode 2, as a shift from Mode 1 science-as-we-know-it, depicts science as practically relevant, socially distributed and democratic. Debates remain over the empirical substantiation of Mode 2. In particular, our understanding has been impeded by the mutually exclusive framing of Mode 1/Mode 2. Looking at how academic science is justified to diverse institutional interests – a situation associated with Mode 2 – it is asked, “What happens to Mode 1 where Mode 2 is in demand?” This study comprises two sequential phases. It combines interviews with 18 university spinout founders as micro-level Mode 2 exemplars, and macro-level policy narratives from 72 expert witnesses examined by select committees. An interpretive scheme (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988) is applied to capture the internal means-ends structure of each mode, where the end is to satisfy demand constituents, both in academia (Mode 1) and beyond (Mode 2). Results indicate Mode 1’s enduring influence even where non-academic demands are concerned, thus refuting that means and ends necessarily operate together as a stable mode. The causal ambiguity inherent in scientific advances necessitates (i) Mode 1 peer review as the only quality control regime systematically applicable ex ante, and (ii) Mode 1 means of knowledge production as essential for the health and diversity of the science base. Modifications to performance criteria are proposed to create a synergy between modes and justify public investment, especially in the absence of immediate outcomes. The study presents a framework of Mode1/Mode 2 coexistence that eases the problem with the either/or perception and renders Mode 2 more amenable to empirical research. It is crucial to note, though, that this is contingent on given vested interests. In this study, Mode 1’s fate is seen through academic scientists whose imperative is unique from those of other constituents, thereby potentially entailing further struggles and negotiation.

The notion of Mode 2, as a shift from Mode 1 science-as-we-know-it, depicts science as practically relevant, socially distributed and democratic. Debates remain over the empirical substantiation of Mode 2. In particular, our understanding has been impeded by the mutually exclusive framing of Mode 1/Mode 2. Looking at how academic science is justified to diverse institutional interests – a situation associated with Mode 2 – it is asked, “What happens to Mode 1 where Mode 2 is in demand?” This study comprises two sequential phases. It combines interviews with 18 university spinout founders as micro-level Mode 2 exemplars, and macro-level policy narratives from 72 expert witnesses examined by select committees. An interpretive scheme (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988) is applied to capture the internal means-ends structure of each mode, where the end is to satisfy demand constituents, both in academia (Mode 1) and beyond (Mode 2). Results indicate Mode 1’s enduring influence even where non-academic demands are concerned, thus refuting that means and ends necessarily operate together as a stable mode. The causal ambiguity inherent in scientific advances necessitates (i) Mode 1 peer review as the only quality control regime systematically applicable ex ante, and (ii) Mode 1 means of knowledge production as essential for the health and diversity of the science base. Modifications to performance criteria are proposed to create a synergy between modes and justify public investment, especially in the absence of immediate outcomes. The study presents a framework of Mode1/Mode 2 coexistence that eases the problem with the either/or perception and renders Mode 2 more amenable to empirical research. It is crucial to note, though, that this is contingent on given vested interests. In this study, Mode 1’s fate is seen through academic scientists whose imperative is unique from those of other constituents, thereby potentially entailing further struggles and negotiation.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro / Nosso trabalho tem como objetivo central mostrar que as mudanças ocorridas no modo de produção da ciência contemporânea possuem implicações, tanto para os aspectos sociológicos da ciência quanto para os seus princípios filosóficos, que ainda apontam para uma necessidade de uma análise da relação entre ciência e sociedade. Baseamos nossa tese no trabalho desenvolvido pelo físico e epistemólogo da ciência John Michael Ziman F. R. S. (1925-2005), que defende que as mudanças ocorridas nos últimos 60 anos, relacionadas a uma nova forma de organizar, gerir e financiar a prática científica, i.e., a uma nova forma de prática científica, levaram ao surgimento de uma ciência pós-acadêmica ou pós-industrial. Sua consequência mais grave é a incorporação de um novo ethos científico, que tem como base princípios gerenciais, em detrimento do ethos mertoniano, cujo objetivo principal seria a manutenção de princípios que foram histórica e socialmente defendidos pelos cientistas em um ideal de ciência acadêmica, tais como os de objetividade, busca da verdade e autonomia, ainda que como ideais reguladores. Contudo, mostraremos que Ziman não adere à interpretação tradicional do ethos mertoniano, que o associa a uma epistemologia fundacionista. Além disso, ele reformula, seguindo as novas filosofia e sociologia da ciência, os ideais epistêmicos preconizados pelas tendências positivistas e neopositivistas, em especial a noção da objetividade. Para Ziman, a ciência ainda produz conhecimento confiável, pois possui um mecanismo cooperativo de produção, que tem como base a crítica entre os pares. / The major objective of this work is to demonstrate that the changes occurred in the last sixty years in the way science is organized, managed and funded, i.e., in the mode of knowledge production, have consequences both to the sociological and to the philosophical principles of science. Those changes raise the necessity to analyse sience and society relationship. Our thesis is mainly based on the work of the physicist and epistemologist John Michael Ziman F. R. S. (1925-2005), who argued that the collectivization of science led to a new mode of knowledge production called post-academic or post industrial science. One of its major consequences is related to the changes on the scientific ethos. In a post academic science a new ethos of science, based on managerial values, is deflating the mertonian ethos, which main goal would be the maintenance of principles historically and socially shared by scientists, in an ideal of academic science, such as objectivity, search for truth and autonomy (even tough as regulatory principles). Furthermore we will show that Ziman does not incorporate the traditional interpretation of the mertonian ethos, which associates it to a fundacionist epistemology. Besides that, he reinterprets it - by following the new trends in philosophy and in sociology of science the epistemic ideals preconised by the positivists and neo-positivists, specially the notion of objectivity. In Zimans point of view, we can still trust science, because it has a social mechanism of knowledge production that is based on the cooperation and organized scepticism.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro / Nosso trabalho tem como objetivo central mostrar que as mudanças ocorridas no modo de produção da ciência contemporânea possuem implicações, tanto para os aspectos sociológicos da ciência quanto para os seus princípios filosóficos, que ainda apontam para uma necessidade de uma análise da relação entre ciência e sociedade. Baseamos nossa tese no trabalho desenvolvido pelo físico e epistemólogo da ciência John Michael Ziman F. R. S. (1925-2005), que defende que as mudanças ocorridas nos últimos 60 anos, relacionadas a uma nova forma de organizar, gerir e financiar a prática científica, i.e., a uma nova forma de prática científica, levaram ao surgimento de uma ciência pós-acadêmica ou pós-industrial. Sua consequência mais grave é a incorporação de um novo ethos científico, que tem como base princípios gerenciais, em detrimento do ethos mertoniano, cujo objetivo principal seria a manutenção de princípios que foram histórica e socialmente defendidos pelos cientistas em um ideal de ciência acadêmica, tais como os de objetividade, busca da verdade e autonomia, ainda que como ideais reguladores. Contudo, mostraremos que Ziman não adere à interpretação tradicional do ethos mertoniano, que o associa a uma epistemologia fundacionista. Além disso, ele reformula, seguindo as novas filosofia e sociologia da ciência, os ideais epistêmicos preconizados pelas tendências positivistas e neopositivistas, em especial a noção da objetividade. Para Ziman, a ciência ainda produz conhecimento confiável, pois possui um mecanismo cooperativo de produção, que tem como base a crítica entre os pares. / The major objective of this work is to demonstrate that the changes occurred in the last sixty years in the way science is organized, managed and funded, i.e., in the mode of knowledge production, have consequences both to the sociological and to the philosophical principles of science. Those changes raise the necessity to analyse sience and society relationship. Our thesis is mainly based on the work of the physicist and epistemologist John Michael Ziman F. R. S. (1925-2005), who argued that the collectivization of science led to a new mode of knowledge production called post-academic or post industrial science. One of its major consequences is related to the changes on the scientific ethos. In a post academic science a new ethos of science, based on managerial values, is deflating the mertonian ethos, which main goal would be the maintenance of principles historically and socially shared by scientists, in an ideal of academic science, such as objectivity, search for truth and autonomy (even tough as regulatory principles). Furthermore we will show that Ziman does not incorporate the traditional interpretation of the mertonian ethos, which associates it to a fundacionist epistemology. Besides that, he reinterprets it - by following the new trends in philosophy and in sociology of science the epistemic ideals preconised by the positivists and neo-positivists, specially the notion of objectivity. In Zimans point of view, we can still trust science, because it has a social mechanism of knowledge production that is based on the cooperation and organized scepticism.