The State of a Science: Indicators in the Specialty of Weak Interactions

For several years now sociologists of science (and other science analysts) have been moving toward the study of scientific specialties and other smaller aggregates of scientists,1 such as theory groups2 and the 'problem domains' discussed by Studer and Chubin.3 These smaller intellectual and social divisions of science became an increasingly salient focus of attention because of their real importance for the ongoing requirements of specialized research. It is at the level of specialties, theory groups, and problem domains, not of disciplines, that scientists tend to communicate ideas and receive criticism related to proposed and ongoing research. We believe that careful study of the social and intellectual properties of these smaller units within science, followed by systematic comparative analysis, is essential to an understanding of the way science functions. Our work on a specialty within elementary particle physics, the physics of 'weak interactions', is meant to be a contribution to this very recent tradition of research, and we present our first results in this paper. Many different research approaches have been taken by analysts of specialties and smaller aggregates (hereafter, just 'specialties'), ranging from primarily qualitative case studies4 to studies where one or more

[1]  D. Sullivan,et al.  Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology , 1975 .

[2]  N. Mullins,et al.  Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. , 1975 .

[3]  C. Gillmor,et al.  Communication modes of qeophysics: The case of ionospheric physics , 1973 .

[4]  R. Garwin,et al.  Observations of the Failure of Conservation of Parity and Charge Conjugation in Meson Decays: The Magnetic Moment of the Free Muon , 1957 .

[5]  Claude Hillinger,et al.  Citations, references and the growth of scientific literature: A model of dynamic interaction , 1971 .

[6]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Literatures I: Identifying and Graphing Specialties , 1974 .

[7]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Literatures II: Toward a Macro- and Microstructure for Science , 1974 .

[8]  A. J. Meadows,et al.  Bibliographical Statistics as a Guide To Growth Points in Science , 1971 .

[9]  Chen Ning Yang,et al.  Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions , 1956 .

[10]  David O. Edge,et al.  Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain , 1978 .

[11]  Duncan MacRae,et al.  Growth and Decay Curves in Scientific Citations , 1969 .

[12]  N. Mullins The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology , 1972 .

[13]  Robert E. Marshak,et al.  Chirality invariance and the universal Fermi interaction , 1958 .

[14]  B. Dickens,et al.  Research on Human Subjects , 1975 .

[15]  S. Zienau,et al.  Weak Interactions , 1967, Nature.

[16]  R. Turlay,et al.  Evidence for the $2\pi$ Decay of the $K_2^0$ Meson , 1964 .

[17]  R. Freeman The market for college-trained manpower , 1971 .

[18]  D. D. Hoppes,et al.  Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay , 1957 .

[19]  M. Gell-Mann,et al.  Theory of the Fermi Interaction , 1958 .