Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:57:47.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social and Cognitive Dynamics of Paradigmatic Change: A Scientometric Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Klaus Fischer
Klaus Fischer
Affiliation:
Wissenschaftstheorie und analytische Philosophie Universität Trier
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kuhnian phases of paradigmatic development correspond to characteristic variations of citation measures. These correlations can in turn be predicted from a simple model of human information processing when applied to the common environments of scientists. By combining a scientometric and a human information processing approach to the history of scientific thought, structures of disciplinary development, and in particular paradigmatic cycles, can be more reliably assessed than before. Consequently, the quantitative historian of science is liberated to some extent from the vagaries of qualitative judgment, as exemplified by traditional narrative type approaches to the history of science.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 1992, pp. 51 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AIP (American Institute of Physics). 1966. Interview with Viktor Weisskopf, 22 February.Google Scholar
AIP (American Institute of Physics). 1979. Interview with Maurice Goldhaber, 29 January. Bernal, 1944–45.Google Scholar
Bernal, J. D. 1944/1945. “Lessons of the War for Science.” Reports on Progress in Physics X: 418–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethe, H. A. 1937. “Nuclear Physics B: Nuclear Dynamics — Theoretical.” Reviews of Modern Physics 9: 69–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethe, H. A., and Bacher, R. F., 1936. “Nuclear Physics A: Stationary States of Nuclei.” Reviews of Modern Physics 8: 82–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethe, H. A., and Livingston, M. S. 1937. “Nuclear Physics C: Nuclear Dynamics — Experimental.” Reviews of Modern Physics 9: 245–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, R. T. 1949. Selected Papers in Foundations of Nuclear Physics. New York.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1978. “Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus.” British Journal for the History of Science 11: 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caneva, K. L. 1981. “What Should We Do with the Monster? Electromagnetism and the Psychosociology of Knowledge.” In Sciences and Cultures: Anthropological and Historical Studies of the Sciences, edited by Mendelsohn, E. and Elkana, Y., 101–32. Dordrecht/Boston/London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, D. C. 1981. “Cosmic Ray Showers, High Energy Physics, and Quantum Field Theories: Programmatic Interactions in the 1930s.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 12: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chubin, D. E. 1985. “Beyond Invisible Colleges: Inspirations and Aspirations of Post–1972 Social Studies of Science.” Scientometrics 7: 221–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. R., and Cole, S. 1972. “The ‘Ortega’ Hypothesis.” Science 178: 368–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, J. R., and Cole, S. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago.Google Scholar
Cole, S., Cole, J. R., and Dietrich, L. 1978. “Measuring the Cognitive State of Scientific Disciplines.” In Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, edited by Elkana, Y. et al. , 209–52. New York.Google Scholar
Crane, D. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago.Google Scholar
Crane, D. 1980. “An Exploratory Study of Kuhnian Paradigms in Theoretical High Energy Physics.” Social Studies of Science 10: 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mey, N. 1982. The Cognitive Paradigm. Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebner, K., and Grassmann., E. 1936. “Künstliche Radioaktivität.” Phys. Z. 34: 359–83.Google Scholar
Diebner, K., and Grassmann, E. 1937. “Künstliche Radioaktivität II.” Phys. Z. 38: 406–25.Google Scholar
Diebner, K., and Grassmann, E. 1938. “Künstliche Radioaktivität III.” Phys. Z. 39: 488–501.Google Scholar
Diebner, K., and Grassmann, E. 1939. “Künstliche Radioaktivität IV.” Phys. Z. 40: 297–314.Google Scholar
Diebner, K., and Grassmann, E. 1940. “Künstliche Radioaktivität V.” Phys. Z. 41: 181–94.Google Scholar
Diemer, A., ed. 1977. Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Meisenheim.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1970. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. 1982a. “Cultural Bias.” In In the Active Voice, edited by Douglas, M.. London.Google Scholar
Douglas, M.ed. 1982b. Essays in the Sociology of Perception. London.Google Scholar
Edge, D. 1979. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Critical Review.” History of Science 17: 102–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkana, Y. 1981. “A Programmatic Attempt at an Anthropology of Knowledge.” In Sciences and Cultures, edited by Mendelsohn, E. and Elkana, Y., 1–76. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Elkana, Y. 1988. “Experiment as a Second-Order Concept.” Science in Context 2: 147–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. 1982. “Auf dem Weg zu einer exakten Soziologie des Wissens? Review Essay of Mary Douglas' Natural Symbols.” Soziologische Revue 5: 261–70.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. 1987. Kognitive Grundlagen der Soziologie. Berlin.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. 1988. “The Functional Architecture of Adaptive Cognitive Systems with Limited Capacity.” Semiotica 68 (3–4): 191–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. 1989a. “Changing Landscapes of Nuclear Physics: A Study on the Social and Cognitive Position of German-Speaking Emigrants within the Nuclear Physics Community 1921–1947.” Berlin/Heidelberg/New York (to appear in 1992).Google Scholar
Fischer, K. 1989b. “Die kognitive Konstitution sozialer Strukturen.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 18: 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. 1990. “Funktionale Architektur und mentale Repräsentation: Einige funktionsgesteuerte Regelmässigkeiten in kognitiven Prozessen.” In Aspekte des Leib-Seele-Problems, edited by Bühler, K. E., 223–60. Würzburg.Google Scholar
Fogel, R. W. 1982. “‘Scientific’ History and Traditional History.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VI, edited by Cohen, L. J. et al. , 15–62. Warszawa/Amsterdam/New York/Oxford.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago/ London.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1988. “Physics Between War and Peace.” In Science, Technology and the Military, edited by Mendelsohn, E. et al. , 47–86. Boston and London.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. 1979. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York.Google Scholar
Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., and Small, H. G. 1978. “Citation Data as Science Indicators.” In Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, edited by Elkana, Y. et al. , 179–208. New York.Google Scholar
Geirson, G. L. 1981. “Scientific Change, Emerging Specialties, and Research Schools.” History of Science 19: 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G. N. 1977. “Referencing as Persuasion.” Social Studies of Science 7:113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, W. 1977. “Science, Politics, and International Affairs.” In History of Twentieth-Century Physics, edited by Weiner, C., 402–34. New York/London.Google Scholar
Griffith, B. C., and Mullins, N. C. 1972. “Coherent Social Groups in Scientific Change.” Science 177: 959–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffith, B. C., et al. 1974. “The Structure of Scientific Literatures II: Toward a Macro-and Microstructure for Science.” Science Studies 4: 339–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1977. “Lectures on the History of Atomic Physics 1900–1922.” In History of Twentieth Century Physics. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course 57, edited by Weiner, C., 40–108. New York.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L., Seidel, W., and Wheaton, B. R. 1981. Lawrence and His Laboratory: Nuclear Science at Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hiebert, E. 1988. “The Role of Experiment and Theory in the Development of Nuclear Physics in the Early 1930s.” In Theory and Experiment, edited by Batens, D. and Bandegem, J. P. v., 55–76. Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoch, P. K. 1988. “The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s.” In Science, Technology and the Military, edited by Mendelsohn, E., Smith, M. R., and Weingart, P., 87–117. Dordrecht/Boston/London.Google Scholar
Kaplan, N. 1965. “The Norms of Citation Behavior: Prolegomena to the Footnote.” American Documentation 16: 179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowarski, L. 1977. “New Forms of Organization in Physical Research after 1945.” In History of Twentieth-Century Physics, edited by Weiner, C., 370–401. New York/ London.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Law, J. 1975. “The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography.” Science Studies 3: 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. 1986. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Study of the Formal Level.” Social Studies of Science 16: 151–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattauch, J., and Flügge, S. 1946. Nuclear Physics Tables and Introduction to Nuclear Physics. New York.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review 63: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moravcsik, M. J., and Murugesan, P. 1979. “Citation Patterns in Scientific Revolutions.” Scientometrics 1: 161–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherji, V. 1974. “A History of the Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces from 1935 to 1952.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 13: 27–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, N. C. 1972. “The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology.” Minerva 10: 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, N. C. 1973. “The Development of Specialties in Social Science: The Case of Ethnomethodology.” Science Studies 3: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldroyd, D. R. 1986. “Grid/Group Analysis for Historians of Science?” History of Science 24: 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauli, W. 1985. “Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a.,” Vol. II: 1930–1939. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo.Google Scholar
Pylyshin, Z. W. 1980. “Computation and Cognition. Issues in the Foundation of Cognitive Science.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 111–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. G. 1974. “Multiple Citation Patterns in Scientific Literature: The Circle and Hill Models.” Information Storage and Retrieval 10: 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. G. 1977. “A Cocitation Model of a Scientific Specialty: A Longitudinal Study of Collagen Research.” Social Studies of Science 7: 139–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. G. 1978. “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols.” Social Studies of Science 8:327–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. G., and Greenlee, H.. 1980. “Citation Context Analysis of a Cocitation Cluster: Recombinant DNA.” Scientometrics 2: 227–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H. G., and Greenlee, H. 1986. “Collagen Research in the 1970s.” Scientometrics 10: 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, H., and Griffith, B.. 1974. “The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties.” Science Studies 4: 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streufert, S., and Streufert, S. C., 1978. Behavior in the Complex Environment. New York.Google Scholar
Sullivan, D., and White, D. H. 1977. “Cocitation Analyses of Science: An Evaluation.” Social Studies of Science 7: 223–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, D., Koester, D., White, D. H., and Kern, R. 1980. “Understanding Rapid Theoretical Change in Particle Physics: A Month-by-Month Cocitation Analysis.” Scientometrics 2: 309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walke, H. J. 1939. Induced Radioactivity.” Reports on Progress in Physics 6: 16–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, C., and Hart, E., eds. 1972. Exploring the History of Nuclear Physics. New York.Google Scholar
Weingart, P., and Winterhager, M. 1984. Die Vermessung der Forschung: Theorie und Praxis der Wissenschaftsindikatoren. Frankfurt.Google Scholar