A path dependent perspective on institutional and organizational factors shaping major scientific discoveries
FACILITATING THE MAKING OF MAJOR DISCOVERIES 4
Download 172.21 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- THE MAKING OF MAJOR DISCOVERIES
FACILITATING THE MAKING OF MAJOR DISCOVERIES 41. Moderately high scientific diversity: This existed when the organizational context had (a) a variety of biological disciplines and medical specialties and sub-specialties, and (b) numerous people in the biological sciences with research experience in different disciplines and/or paradigms. Scientific diversity exerted maximum beneficial effect when the organizational context had high depth (that is, individuals highly competent in different task areas—theoreticians, methodologists, scientists highly conversant with literature in various fields, scientists highly competent in the latest instrumentation in diverse fields).
1. Differentiation: Organizations were highly differentiated internally when they had sharp boundaries among subunits such as (a) basic biomedical departments and other subunits, (b) the delegation of recruitment exclusively to departments or other subunit level, (c) the delegation of responsibility for extramural funding to the department or other subunit level. 2. Hierarchical authority: Organizations were coded as being very hierarchical when they experienced (a) centralized decision-making about research programmes, (b) centralized decision-making about number of personnel, (c) centralized control over work conditions, (d) centralized budgetary control. 3. Bureaucratic coordination: Organizations which had high standardization of rules and procedures. 4. Hyperdiversity: This was the presence of diversity to such a deleterious degree that there could not be effective communication among actors in different fields of science or even in similar fields. FIGURE ONE THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SCIENTIFIC DIVERSITY, COMMUNICATION/INTEGRATION, AND MAKING MAJOR DISCOVERIES 
HIGH 
Number of Major Breakthroughs in Biomedical Science
Communication and Social Integration LOW
HIGH
Scientific Diversity
2) Weak control over scientific disciplines 3) Weak control over funding for scientific research 4) Many different types of training systems 
Research Organizations Generally no departments between core of organization and laboratories Organizational Characteristics:
Examples: Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Salk Institute, The Rockefeller, Scripps Research Institute, Caltech Institutional Characteristics: Characteristics of FEW departments and subunits: Type 1
Examples: Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Harvard University College of Arts and Sciences; University of Cambridge Departments of Physiology and Biochemistry before WW II; Cavendish Lab during the 1950s  
Organizations having multiple major discoveries: Type II Major Discovery No Major Discovery No Major Discovery Major Discovery        
Laboratories
Organizational Characteristics:
Examples: University of Cambridge, Oxford University, Harvard University, University of Washington Medical School, University College London Laboratories Type B‡ Type A† Type A† Type A† Type B‡ Type B‡
† Type A Laboratories have the following characteristics: 1) Cognitive: High scientific diversity; 2) Social: Well connected to invisible colleges (e.g. networks) in diverse fields; 3) Material Resources: Access to new instrumentation and funding for high risk research; 4) Personality of Laboratory Head: High cognitive complexity, high confidence and motivation; 5) Leadership: Excellent grasp of ways scientific fields might be integrated and ability to move research in that direction. FIGURE TWO: MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF MAJOR DISCOVERIES—PANEL  T 
WO* 
Characteristics of departments and other subunits in large universities: Type 3
Organizations having few or no major discoveries: Type III Weak Institutional Environment Major Discovery No Major Discovery
1) Weak control over personnel 2) Weak control over scientific disciplines 3) Weak control over funding for scientific research 4) Many different types of training systems Research Organizations 
Type B‡ Laboratories Characteristics of departments and other subunits in large universities: Type 4 — Research Institutes
Examples: Enzyme Institute and McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at University of Wisconsin Organizational Characteristics:
Examples: Universities of California (Berkeley), Wisconsin (Madison), Birmingham, Sheffield
No Major Discovery Major Discovery
Laboratories
Type A†
Type A†
Type B‡    
Institutional Characteristics: ‡ Type B Laboratories have the following characteristics: 1) Cognitive: Moderately low scientific diversity; 2) Social: Well connected to invisible colleges (e.g. networks) in a single discipline; 3) Material Resources: Limited funding for high risk research; 4) Personality of Laboratory Head: Lack of high cognitive complexity, limited inclination to conduct high risk research; 5) Leadership: Not greatly concerned with integrating scientific fields. F IGURE TWO: MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF MAJOR DISCOVERIES—PANEL THREE* 
Research Organizations 3) Strong control over funding for scientific research 4) Few types of training systems
2) Strong control over scientific disciplines
Type B‡ Organizational Characteristics:
Examples: Universities of Munich, Heidelberg, Freiburg, Paris, Strasbourg Characteristics of departments and other subunits in large universities: Type 3
Major Discovery
Type B‡
Type A† Institutional Characteristics:
Type A† Organizational Characteristics:
Examples: Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute for Biology; Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute for Leather Research; Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute for Biochemistry; Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute for Brain Research; Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max-Planck Institute for Cell Physiology; Max-Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry; Institut Pasteur #  
Laboratories Generally no departments between core of organization and laboratories
* See note and definitions on Panels One and Two. # Institut Pasteur is a bit of an anomaly within this grouping. For most of its history, it has had relatively few major discoveries. But in the first two decades of the twentieth century and again during the late 1950s and into the 1960s, there were a number of major discoveries there. However, during the years when it had stronger connections with its strong institutional environment, it had fewer major discoveries (Hage, 1998). Download 172.21 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
