Surviving Closure: Post-Rejection Adaptation and Plurality in Science

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.Can the procedures and institutions of modern science support more than one version of reality? The early science of gravitational wave detection adapted and survived for a quarter of a century after its findings ceased to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Two mutually exclusive approaches to the same physical phenomenon, spawned by the same community, were initially supported by the same institutions and later by only marginally different institutions. The case reveals, then, a surprising plurality within physics, that stretches from publication policies to funding sources. The survival history of what will be called "high visibility gravitational radiation" (HighVGR) research is compared with that of other "rejected sciences" that experienced what might be called "life after death. " It is suggested that "core-groups" in physics allow a large degree of license within the formal institutions because their informal controls make sure that rejected science does no harm to progress in the mainstream. When informal controls break down, however, formal controls take over. Analysis of the formal, readily visible face of science reveals little of what is happening in the, often crucial, informal networks.A core-set of scientists is composed of those scientists who are deeply involved in experimentation or theorization that is directly relevant to a scientific controversy (Collins 1981a(Collins , [1985 1992). A core-set is often quite small-perhaps only a dozen scientists or a half-dozen laboratory teams. They are a "set" rather than a ''group" because the members may disagree so violently that there are few social ties among them.When a scientific controversy reaches closure, there are winners and losers. If new claims are rejected outright by the majority, the winners write their "told-you-so" books and papers and go back to their previous scientific lives; for them, there is a resumption of business as usual. As for the losers, they may disappear too, or they may form a "re-

War of Ontology Worlds: Mathematics, Computer Code, or Esperanto?

“…Second, diversity and disagreement persist within scientific communities—and sometimes even scientists—for long periods and sometimes indefinitely [19] . If we attempt to extract information from text without arbitrary censorship, disagreement must be retained.…”

Citation analysis

“…Baldi (1997, 1998) studied articles about celestial masers, an area of astrophysics research, and discovered that “authors are most likely to cite articles that are relevant to their work in terms of subject, recency of knowledge, [and] theoretical orientation, and seem to have little concern with the characteristics of authors who wrote them” (Baldi, 1998, p. 843). However, both Small (1998) and Collins (2000) have questioned the adequacy of Baldi's method.…”

Beyond Prototypes: Drivers of Market Categorization in Functional Foods and Nanotechnology

“…Functional foods and nanotechnology provide a theoretically interesting context for a comparison. With their origins in basic and applied research, they represent science‐based market categories that typically have strict boundaries for membership claims (Collins, ; Gieryn, ). But as we analyse in length below, even in such contexts participants’ categorization may have much variance.…”