Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science

Abstract

A general account is presented of the emergence, growth, and decline of scientific research networks and their associated problem areas. Research networks are seen to pass through three phases. The first, exploratory phase is distinguished by a lack of effective communication among participants and by the pursuit of imprecisely defined problems. The second phase is one of rapid growth, associated with increasing social and intellectual integration, made possible by improved communication. An increasingly precise scientific consensus gradually emerges from a process of negotiation, in which those participants who are members of the scientific elite exert most influence. But as consensus is achieved the problem area becomes less scientifically fruitful; and as the network grows, career opportunities diminish. Consequently, the third, final phase is one of decline and disbandment of the network, together with the movement of participants to new areas of scientific opportunity.

Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…For example, a transition model of Exploration Unification Decline/Displacement was proposed by Mulkay, Gilbert, and Woolgar (1975). Nevertheless, the three outlined above are represenative and they sufficiently cover the major characteristics of the development of a scientific field for the purpose of our systematic review.…”

Theoretical studies of the historical development of the accounting discipline: A review and evidence

“…The branching model, developed by Mulkay (1975) and Mulkay et al (1975), is based on a number of detailed case studies of scientific development which were undertaken by a group of U.K. researchers, and were motivated partly by the apparent deficiencies of functionalist analysis, viz. failure to incorporate either deviant behaviour or cognitive aspects.…”

Seeing and Knowing the Earth as a System : An Effective History of Global Environmental Change Research as Scientific and Political Practice

“…Due to these overlaps, the programmes and projects studied are better viewed as a mix of centrally organised and funded 'big science', and 'invisible collages', which are temporary networks of researchers united by an interest in a set of problems (Mulkay et al, 1975, Zuccala, 2006. As Kwa (2005b) adeptly demonstrates, detailed analysis of ecological research networks, their interests, funding, and the conflicts that arise when engaging with Earth System science provide important insights into the dynamics of knowledge production.…”