341

Career patterns of scientists in peripheral

communities
Arnold J. HERZOG
Unioersity of Maine, Orono, ME 04473, USA

Final version received April 1983

In an advanced country, the scientific community is large enough to permit

differentiation, with sufficient members in each special field to permit complex
interaction with each other, and sufficiently different from each other to be able
to stimulate each other. . . . It has its own system of communicating and assessing
the results of research and analysis. . .It has its own circles of face-to-face
interaction and inter-individual communication. . . .Zt is linked with other scientific
communities across political boundaries by personal contact (emphasis added) by
mutual appreciation and by public communication and forma1 association. . . .
In the underdeveloped countries scientists are relatively few in number,. . .
They suffer isolation from each other.. . . They are in danger.. . of losing contacts
with their colleagues in the international scientific community.. . . They are in
brief not fully-fledged members of the scientific community and their work
suffers accordingly. [7]

The above quotation from Stevan Dedijer’s 1963 visits by distinguished foreign visitors over ex-
article [7] brings forth in bold relief the problem tended periods of time; and joint projects with
addressed here. Thriving scientific establishments foreign colleagues (on either a person-to-person or
do not grow in peripheral (i.e. to the world of an institution-to-institution basis). But to our
science) national communities like so much seed knowledge there is no empirical basis for these
scattered to the wind. They require intense cultiva- suggestions. They seem reasonable, but no one
tion and have no source of sustenance other than knows how well they actually work, or whether
the already thriving major centers of activity. they work at all. For example, no evidence appears
Ben-David [S], Dedijer [7] and Moravcsik [13] have in the literature which permits us to, say, rank
correctly emphasized the importance of creating order these mechanisms in terms of their efficacy,
and sustaining enduring ties between these major or better yet, their cost effectiveness.
centers and the periphery. And there is evidence The present work is an effort to identify those
that the most important such tie is the interper- mechanisms which effect a stable and enduring
sonal one, the direct scientist-to-scientist relation- interpersonal bond between a scientist in a periph-
ship based on common interests and mutual re- eral community and a colleague abroad. It also
spect. presents a contingency model which explains why
There is no dearth of ideas about how to forge some linking mechanisms work better than do
fruitful persona1 links between scientists on the others.
periphery and those in the metropolis. The mecha-
nisms most frequently advocated are: study in
major foreign universities; research sabbaticals; 1. The data

Research Policy 12 (1983) 341-349 The data presented in this paper were all col-
North-Holland lected within the Republic of Ireland. Strictly
342 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in peripheral communities

speaking, we cannot generalize our findings to of a respondent with “foreign contact”, we mean
other peripheral communities, even those roughly to imply that (1) said respondent specifically
comparable to Ireland in terms of size, economic named at least one foreign-based discussion
development and the like. partner, and that (2) he meets with his partner(s)
Yet, it would be a mistake to assume that this at least once a year.
work has no relevance to other countries. We view In our more complete report [lo], we noted
Ireland as a case study, one which serves to il- considerable variation across fields with respect to
lustrate more widespread phenomena. The Irish communication-related behaviors. For example,
pattern discussed below has a simple and reason- life scientists reported a lower rate of foreign
able interpretation, one in no way peculiar to contact than did their counterparts in the physical
Ireland, but rather, one stemming from Ireland’s and formal sciences. That is, they are less likely to
size and stage of development. We therefore ex- form a stable and enduring relationship with a
pect to find this pattern very much in evidence in foreign colleague. This difference is quite signifi-
other, relatively small, developing countries. cant and cannot be explained by variations in
Our data were collected in 1971 as part of a scientist age, or dependence on elaborate equip-
larger survey of the entire Irish research and devel- ment found outside Ireland; nor is it an artifact of
opment community. Nearly 600 scientists returned our measure of collegial contact [IO, pp. 64-671.
completed questionnaires, representing about 70 On the other hand, life scientists formed a much
percent of the subject population. more cohesive community, complete with identifi-
The respondents supplied a great deal of demo- able liaison roles (“gatekeepers”, cf. [3]) and these
graphic data including age, citizenship, research liaison roles serve to couple it with the interna-
field, educational history and employment history. tional scientific brotherhood.
They were also asked numerous questions related What accounts for this dual pattern? Of the
to their information-seeking behavior. explanatory hypotheses examined, only two
In particular, two questions required the re- survived analysis. The first posits a relationship
spondent to list the names and institutional affilia- between a field’s communication network and the
tions of all individuals outside the respondent’s cognitive nature of the field, particularly the de-
organization with whom he regularly discusses gree of paradigm development [ll]. Paradigm
technical and scientific matters. The respondent creates consensus and a common language, focuses
also indicated how he originally met each individ- attention on common problems, suggests common
ual he listed and the frequency of contact. standards for evaluating research and therefore
facilitates collegial communication. Since the
physical sciences are characterized by a relatively
2. Collegial communication: the measure high degree of paradigm development, we would
certainly expect freer international exchange in
At the outset of the study, the analyst decided these areas. We would expect an international
to use the sociometric nominations as his principal “invisible college” [6;8;14], a network of workers
measure of collegial communication, both within spanning international boundaries. Diana Crane’s
and outside the Republic of Ireland. Items which analysis of collegial networks in two scientific
require the respondent to mention specific individ- fields suggests this approach [6]. Mathematicians
uals and their institutional affiliations - by name concerned with the theory of finite groups (high
_ unquestionably provide more reliable data than paradigm) developed an international (interper-
do other types of items, e.g. backward-looking sonal) communication network. However, sociolo-
single figure estimates. Relatively few respondents gists specializing in agricultural innovation diffu-
did, in fact, report discussion with a colleague sion (low paradigm) were overwhelmingly Ameri-
employed outside the Republic of Ireland. Even can. The implication is clear: low paradigm fields
fewer reported discussion with more than one such tend to give rise to distinctive national research
colleague. The highly skewed distribution of the traditions with little international cooperation.
sample suggested that we dichotomize our depen- Well then, do physical scientists communicate more
dent variable. This was in fact done and will be with foreign colleagues because they are more
used throughout these pages. Whenever we speak likely to share common research interest, because
 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in peripheral communities 343

there is greater competitive need to keep abreast of physical scientists tend to make greater use of
developments? certain mechanisms rather than others in order to
Perhaps so, but there may be yet another reason create stable interpersonal relationships with
for the observed pattern. The biological and agri- foreign colleagues? Are they the same mechanisms
cultural sciences are clearly relevant to Ireland’s favored by life scientists?
largely agrarian economy. The physical sciences,
by contrast, are cultivated there as a form of
cultural consumption. For this reason, too, physi- 3. The origin of foreign contact
cists, astronomers and the like can be expected to
look abroad for their reference groups [4;12], for Table 1 shows that nearly half of the foreign
their “invisible colleges”. These groups supply not contacts reported by all academic life scientists
only information but also professional acclaim, were met in other than the work context, as op-
problems and the “competent response” or feed- posed to only 30 percent of the contacts reported
back [16] without which the act of creation is not by their counterparts in the physical sciences,
complete. The physical sciences simply do not chemistry and mathematics.
have a local referent for their work. Hence, they Even when we consider only respondents who
take their cues from reference groups abroad and have been employed abroad, a factor expected to
tend to mirror the diversity found in the interna- promote foreign employment, the data suggest that
tional community. This alone accounts for the it is the least relevant scientists (high paradigm)
relatively fragmented state of the physical science who find this a more productive source of foreign
field in Ireland. It also helps explain the interna- contact (table 2A). Our comments above regarding
tional orientation of the Irish physical scientist. the consequences of a common paradigm, eco-
The biological and agricultural scientists, by nomic relevance, and susceptibility to influence
contrast, find problems, information and acclaim attempts by a foreign reference group apply here
at home, in Ireland. This fact alone could account as well.
for their characteristic pattern: internally cohesive Note also that among the academic scientists
but encapsulated with respect to the rest of the only the agricultural specialists reported more than
world. According to this view, the wider society, one contact met via the joint interorganizational
by directing the attention of the life scientist to project (table 1, column 3, “Past Work Relation”).
economically relevant problems, effects a shift in Thus it is only the most applied of the academic
the social structure of his field. Specifically, the scientists who find this source relatively productive
life scientists begin to take on the appearance of (Fisher exact test, p < 0.02; see table 3). Why?
technologists [1;15]. Our previous comments about the importance
Given these differences between the two areas, of focused interests, paradigms, and economic rel-
what consequences are there of interest to us? Do evance are apropos here too. Let us state them in a

Table 1
How Irish scientists first met their communication partners, by organizational affiliation (N = 220 contacts)

Research field Non-mission oriented organizations

Worked together Current Past Other ”
in same work relation work relation (W)
organization @) (%)
(W)

Physical science and mathematics 39 31 2 21 51

Chemistry 50 10 5 35 20
Nonrelevant fields 42 25 3 30 71

Biological sciences 33 11 57 46
Agricultural sciences 32 16 16 35 31
Relevant fields 32 13 6 48 77

Total 37 19 5 39 148
344 A.J. Herzog / Scientists m peripheral communrties

Table 2
How Irish scientists, employed by non-mission oriented organizations, first met their communication partners (n = 148). by foreign
employment experience
A.

Research field At least one foreign job

Worked together Current Past Other n
in same work relation work relation (R)
organization (%) (W)
@)
Physical science and mathematics 47 34 3 16 38
Chemistry 60 13 27 15
Non-relevant fields 51 28 2 19 53

Biological sciences 37 9 _ 54 35
Agricultural sciences 50 17 _ 33 12
Relevant fields 40 11 _ 49 47
Total 46 20 1 33 100

B.

Research field No foreign jobs

Worked together Current Past Other n
in same work relation work relation (%)
organization (%) (%)
(%)
Physical science and mathematics 15 23 _ 62 13
Chemistry _ _ _ _ 5
Non-relevant fields 17 17 6 61 18

Biological sciences 18 18 _ 64 11
Agricultural sciences 21 16 26 37 19
Relevant fields 20 17 17 47 30
Total 19 17 13 52 48

different way. When scientists are guided by prac- Two consequences flow from the fact that there
tical concerns, the consensus on what constitutes is a smaller scientific audience for achievements in
important scientific questions is immediately applied science. The first is that the applied re-
shattered. The scientists of a given nationality searcher must look more to non-scientists for his
would not ordinarily be interested in, nor able to rewards. He more freely collaborates with user
contribute to, the work of scientists in other na- groups. The second consequence is what is at issue
tions in such circumstances. This is true even in here. The applied researcher cannot as readily find
fields (such as animal science and dairying) which colleagues in foreign organizations with whom he
do not deal with the specifics of a country’s climate, will share research interests over a long period of
flora, topography, soil conditions, etc. The key time as can his counterpart in, say, physics. The
point is that empirical, practical problems do not chances of finding such an individual are greatly
arise in a logical sequence as do the theoretical enhanced if he is directed into a specific collabora-
questions which occupy basic scientists (especially tive relationship, one which requires specific skills
in fields characterized by high paradigm develop- and has a specific objective, e.g. some joint project
ment, e.g. physics). Truly applied, relevant re- with a foreign organization.
search has little potential for building a cumula- The number of cases involved in table 3 is very
tive, generalized body of knowledge. The applied small but the finding is quite reasonable and war-
scientist’s chance of obtaining “competent re- rants further investigation. The Irish government
sponse” from colleagues outside Ireland is drasti- may help its academic agricultural scientists forge
cally reduced as a consequence [16]. links with foreign counterparts by encouraging
 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in peripheral communities 345

Table 3 and 2B, we see that this is even more pronounced

Association between research field and formation of collegial among those respondents who reported either a
contact with an individual in another organization via a shared protracted research sabbatical abroad or employ-
work experience
ment by a foreign institution. The inference is that
Research field How met contact working with foreigners in a foreign organization
Other Previous leads to collegial contact which persists even after
work relation the Irish respondent returns home. Working with
Agriculture 21 4 foreigners in Irish organizations does not lead to
Other 115 2 contact which persists after the foreigner returns
Fisher’s exact test p(n a 4) < 0.02 home. This point can be made even more salient
by again examining the rate of foreign contact
across research categories, this time controlling for
more joint projects with foreign institutions on the effect of the foreign job or research sabbatical
problems of mutual interest. Such projects should (table 4). Clearly, the foreign job does increase the
reduce status barriers and help the Irish agricul- rate of foreign contact in every research category,
tural scientist identify those foreigners who can and especially in the intermediate cases (chemistry
truly contribute to Irish agricultural research. and the biological sciences).
Finally, referring back to table 1, we again see We also note that the least relevant scientists
that the least relevant group displays the highest are more likely to go abroad for either employ-
rate of cooptation. Nearly one-third of the con- ment, or a research sabbatical. About 62 percent
tacts reported by the physical scientists and of the physical scientists and mathematicians have
mathematicians are current collaborators. Because been abroad versus about 40 percent of the re-
the physical scientists and mathematicians have no maining respondents. Why should this group of
local referent, they are most susceptible to in- academic scientists go abroad? The paradigm hy-
fluence from parties abroad and are, therefore, pothesis suggests a “pull” force (common research
most likely to accept problems suggested by those interests, better facilities for pursuing them, etc.)
parties abroad. It is safe to assume that in those whereas the economic relevance hypothesis sug-
instances of collaboration with a foreigner, the gests a “push” force.
Irish scientist has so oriented his work as to appeal
to the widest possible international audience.
5. Antecedents of the foreign work experience: a
descriptive model
4. Foreign contact and foreign employment
Let us explore the latter point and try to de-
Common organizational membership at some termine why economic nonrelevance tends to
time in the past is the single most important “push” the physicist or astronomer, or mathemati-
source of foreign colleagues. Comparing tables 2A cian out of Ireland, at least for part of his career.

Table 4
Percentage of Irish scientists, employed by non-mission oriented organizations, reporting at least one foreign contact, by foreign job
experience (N = 256)

Research category Foreign jobs held Total

None At least one

Physical science and mathematics (%) 29 (24) a 44 (39) 38 (63)

Chemistry(X) 24 (25) 50 (18) 35 (43)
Non-relevant fields (W) 27 (49) 46 (57) 37 (106)

Biological sciences (!%) 18 (51) 45 (33) 29 (84)

Agricultural sciences (5%) 18 (40) 35 (26) 24 (66)
Relevant fields (‘%) 18 (91) 41 (59) 27 (150)
Total 21(140) 43 (116) 31 (256)

a Actual number of scientists in parentheses.

346 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in peripheral communrties

We have argued that an individual recruited to foreign job markets. And, if the doctorate is
the nonrelevant areas experiences relative diffi- awarded by a prestigious American or British uni-
culty establishing his professional identity at home. versity, the opportunity for foreign employment
‘The larger society does not confirm or buttress his widens. Study abroad also has another, subtle
own image of himself; it pays him little honor. The effect to which we have already alluded: it leads to
gulf is too wide between those inside the field and the acceptance of research problems deemed im-
the non-scientist laity. portant by reference groups in the host country
We expect the individual in this situation to but not necessarily relevant to the home country.
take two steps. First, we expect him to seek full Foreign study may reinforce the young scientist’s
professional accreditation by earning a doctorate nonrelevant orientation, and thus narrow his
degree. The doctorate degree signifies a high level employment opportunities in the home country.
of competence in a discipline whose worth is Finally, employment abroad brings the young
acknowledged by the world of science and scholar- scientist into close, protracted contact with many
ship, if not by the wider public. colleagues native to the host country. He will
Next we expect ‘him to earn that doctorate retain contact with some of these individuals after
degree abroad, particularly in a major research returning to his home country for a combination
center. He will remove himself from the non-sup- of factors:
portive local environment, and spend several years
in intimate professional association with people (1) These people represent a reference group much
whom he has selected as a reference group. needed to sustain a professional identity.
Doctoral study, particularly doctoral study (2) He meets these people after his professional
abroad, will lead to employment abroad. The concerns have crystallized. Focused interests
doctorate degree enhances the scientist’s value in direct our young scientist toward specific inter-

A \ Enhanced value
-_’ 2

1 in job market
Propinquity,
social contact,
common research
/
\ I interests
Research Desire for Ph.D. degree Foreign
field professional and foreign employment
(high status and study highly (none US.
paradigm identity via associated in I at least
and/or foreign high paradigm 1 one) 1
economic- reference non-relevant
4
relevance) groups
Knowledge of job opportunities
abroad, acceptance of problems
of concern to foreign colleagues

1 abroad) 1

Fig. 1. A causal model of integration into international scientific community.

 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in peripheral communitres 341

personal sources of information and peer sup- Tables 5 and 6 confirm our expectations regard-
port. ing the first proposition. The doctorate degree is
(3) A shared work experience reduces the social definitely associated with a greater likelihood of
barriers to interpersonal communication [2]. foreign employment. Furthermore, it is the Ph.D.
who is more likely to report a foreign job in the
Figure 1 illustrates the variables in the model
nonrelevant fields. As predicted, foreign study (for
and the hypothesized relationships among these
the terminal degree) also enhances the young sci-
variables.
entist’s chances for employment outside Ireland.
We note that a nonrelevant scientist is more likely
to have a doctorate degree and is more likely to
6. Empirical support for the model
have received his highest degree from a foreign
institution. ’
The model makes two basic statements which There is reason to believe that the doctorate
we can test. First, it says that both the doctorate
degree and foreign study are each associated with
’ The agricultural scientists report a high proportion of foreign
foreign jobs. There may be an interaction effect study relative to the chemists and biologists. This is due to
but this is not clear. Second, the doctorate degree the intervention of the Kellogg Foundation, which provided a
and foreign study are more highly correlated substantial sum of money to support the training of Irish
among the least relevant scientists. agricultural scientists in the United States.

Table 5
Percentage of Irish scientists, employed by non-mission oriented organizations, reporting at least one foreign job. by highest degree
earned (N = 256)

Research category Non-Ph.D. Ph.D. Total

(%) (%) 6)
Physical science and mathematics 25 (24) a 85 (39) 62 (63)
Chemistry 5 (22) 81 (21) 42 (43)
Non-relevant fields 15 (46) 83 (60) 54 (106)

Biological sciences 18 (49) 69 (35) 39 (84)

Agricultural sciences 26 (38) 51 (28) 39 (66)
Relevant fields 22 (87) 63 (63) 39 (150)
Total 20 (133) 13 (123)

a Actual number of scientists in parentheses.

Table 6
Percentage of Irish scientists, employed by non-mission oriented organizations, reporting at least one foreign job, by where highest
degree was earned (N = 256)

Research category Respondent’s highest degree earned Total

In Republic Outside (W)
of Ireland Republic of Ireland
(a) (t%)
Physical science and mathematics 42 (36) ’ 89 (27) 62 (63)
Chemistry 35 (37) - (6) 42 (43)
Non-relevant fields 38 (73) 88 (33) 54 (106)

Biological sciences 31 (70) 19 (14) 39 (84)

Agricultural sciences 20 (46) 85 (20) 39 (66)
Relevant fields 27 (116) 82 (34) 39 (150)
Total 31 (189) 85 (67)

a Actual number of scientists in parentheses.

348 A.J. Herzog / Scientists in perrpheral communrties

Table 7
Percentage of Irish scientists, employed by non-mission oriented organizations, reporting at least one foreign job, by highest degree
and where highest degree was earned (N = 256)

Research category Ph.D. Non-Ph.D.

Foreign Irish Foreign Irish
highest degree highest degree highest degree highest degree
Nonrelevant fields 93 (29) a 74 (31) - (4) 12 (43)
Relevant fields 86 (22) 51 (41) 75 (12) 14 (74)
Total 90 (51) 61 (72) 69 (16) 13 (117)

a Actual number of scientists in parentheses.

degree and foreign study have a cumulative effect the academic sector probably because the academic
on the likelihood of foreign employment (table 7, agricultural scientists perceive it as a quasi-
total row). Among the Ph.D.s, foreign study closes academic institution. For many years, the In-
the gap between the research categories. But if the stitute, as a matter of policy, sought to encourage
doctorate degree is earned in Ireland, the life its staff scientists to consider the Master’s degree
scientist is not as likely to take a job abroad. as a terminal degree. One secondary effect of this
Indeed, it is among the least relevant scientists policy may have been to establish a similar stan-
that we note study abroad for the doctorate de- dard for the agricultural academics. Whatever the
gree. Table 8 is a rather dramatic demonstration of reason, there seems to be no motive for an
the validity of our model’s second major proposi- academic agricultural scientist to pursue a doctoral
tion. An Irish national in the less relevant fields program if he does decide to go abroad. Alterna-
who decides to seek full professional accreditation tively, such a scientist is as likely to stay in Ireland
and earn a doctorate degree will usually enter a for doctoral studies as not.
foreign university to do so. The association be-
tween doctoral status and the conferral of such
status by a foreign university is much weaker 7. Summary
among the life scientists; it is virtually non-ex-
istent for the agricultural specialists.
The argument thus far may be restated as fol-
Parenthetically, special mention must be made
lows:
of the Irish Agricultural Institute (An Foras
Taluntais). For historical reasons, this organiza- (1) The shared work experience (in the same
tion is larger than the academic departments of organization) is the single most productive source
agriculture. We may speculate that it provides a of foreign colleagues, provided that it takes place
reference group for the academics in the agricul- in a foreign organization.
tural sciences. The institute is well integrated with (2) Doctorate level scientists are more likely to
report foreign employment or an extended re-
search sabbatical abroad.
Table 8.
Association between highest degree earned and where highest (3) Scientists in the less relevant fields are more
degree earned (Irish nationals, employed by non-mission ori- likely to have earned a doctorate degree.
ented organizations) (4) Scientists who have earned their highest
Research Yule’s degree abroad are more likely to report foreign
category Q employment or an extended research sabbatical
Physical science and mathematics 0.90 abroad.
Physical science, mathematics and (5) Scientists in the less relevant fields are more
chemistry (all nonrelevant fields) 0.82 likely to have earned their highest degree abroad.
Biological and agricultural sciences (6) When scientists in the less relevant fields
(all relevant fields) 0.54
earn a doctorate degree they are more likely to do
Agricultural sciences 0.08
so in a foreign university.
 A.J. Herzog / Scienkrs in peripheral communirws 349

The implication of the foregoing to the berger, The Problem of Inkrnal Consulting m rhe R&D
policymaker is fairly obvious. There are (social) Laboratory. MIT Sloan School of Management Working
Paper No. 319-1968. Cambridge, MA, 1968.
forces at work which tend to encourage a “cosmo-
[31 Thomas J. Allen, James M. Piepmeier and Sean Cooney,
politan” orientation among the scientists in the The International Gatekeeper, Technology Review 73(5)
less relevant fields, and a “local” orientation (1971) 36-43.
among those in the more relevant fields. Govern- [41 Lydia Aran and Joseph Ben-David, Socialization and
ment policies may counter the “local” inclination Career Patterns as Determinants of Productivity of Medi-
cal Researchers, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 9
of life scientists if they enable these scientists to
(1968) 3-15.
identify and collaborate with foreign colleagues.
151 Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Endeavor in Israel and the
Joint projects between Irish and foreign institu- United States, The American Behavioral Scientist 6(4) (De-
tions may be particularly fruitful for the agricul- cember 1962) 12-16.
tural specialists. The data are a bit scanty: few I61 Diana Crane, Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in
Scientific Communities (University of Chicago Press,
instances of foreign contact originated this way,
Chicago, 1972).
probably because this mechanism has been under-
[71 Stevan Dedijer, Underdeveloped Science in Underdevel-
utilized. oped Countries, Mmerua 2(l) (Autumn 1963) 61-81.
Our remarks thus far strongly suggest that PI Belver Griffith and Nicholas Mullins, Coherent Social
policies should encourage the life scientists to go Groups in Scientific Change, Science 177 (15 September
1972) 959-964.
abroad periodically for extended stays and con-
[91 Warren Hagstrom, The Scienrific Community (Basic Books,
duct their research in foreign organizations. The New York, 1965).
danger is, of course, that the Irish life scientist will [lOI Arnold J. Herzog, Colleague Networks, Institutional Roles
lose interest in problems relevant to Ireland. In- and the International Transfer of Scientific Knowledge:
deed, he may leave Ireland altogether. These risks the Case of Ireland. Ph.D. dissertation, Alfred P. Sloan
School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
may be reduced if the life scientist is professionally
nology, 1975.
mature and committed to relevant research prob-
Ull Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
lems. We wish to make our point quite clear. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970).
Sending people abroad is not enough; in fact it WI Robert Merton, Priorities in Scientific Discovery: a
may be counterproductive if the scientist has not Chapter in the Sociology of Science, in: B. Barber and W.
Hirsch (eds.) The Sociology of Science (The Free Press,
first been socialized by the Irish research establish-
New York, 1962) 447-485.
ment and recruited to research problems relevant to
u31 Michael Moravcsik, Technical Assistance and Fundamen-
Ireland. tal Research in Underdeveloped Countries, Minerua 2(2)
(Winter 1964) 197-209.
[14] Derek de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science (Columbia
References University Press, New York, 1963).
[15] Derek de Solla Price, Citation Measures of Hard Science,
[l] Thomas J. Allen, Managing the Flow of Scientific an’d Soft Science, Technology and Nonscience, in: C. Nelson
Technical Information, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, and D. Pollack (eds.) Communication Among Screnrisrs and
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Engineers (D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, 1970) 3-22.
Institute of Technology: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966. [16] Norman Storer, The Social System of Science (Holt, Rine-
[2] Thomas J. Allen, Arthur Gerstenfeld, and Peter Gerst- hart and Winston, New York, 1966).