Bibliography
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Robert Merton is a foundational academic in sociology as it relates to science and technology. In particular he is known for defining idealized scientific norms. The book here reviewed describes and addresses his norms. It also includes a number of case studies to demonstrate the application of norms or when scientists or organizations of scientists have not displayed these sorts of idealized behaviors in the formation of scientific ‘facts’ or ‘findings’.
For Merton, scientific norms are formed through what he calls the ‘ethos of science’ (Merton, 1973, p. 268). His norms include ‘universalism’ which means truth-claims “are subjected to preestablished impersonal criteria” (Merton, 1973, p. 270). The next is called ‘communism’, which not a reference to Marxist political theories. Rather, it refers to a willingness of scientists to share their findings with other scientists so knowledge can advance for the common good. Another norm is called ‘disinterestedness’. For Merton, this is not about individual motivation, rather it is “a distinctive pattern of institutional control of a wide range of motives which characterizes the behavior of scientists” (Merton, 1973, p. 276). Merton refers to his final norm as ‘organized skepticism’. In this he is speaking about scientific self-review as an industry. This is functionally displayed in the idea of peer review of published findings.
These all sound well and good, but Merton himself refers in this book to ways that individual scientists and the scientific industry as a whole fail to live up to these norms. Others make the argument that rather than accept Mertonian norms as the standard, they are just his specific take on the topic. In fact the exceptions that Merton shares can be argues as the real norms, or at least alternatives to Merton’s normative descriptors. In this book for example, Robert Merton examines the scientific reward system. Who gets their papers published and in which industry publications is one way that incentive can cause norms to shift. Some universities or research organizations tend to be published more because of past publication. If that is so, then a researcher is more likely to get recognized by virtue of becoming a part of that organization as opposed to another. Getting credit becomes more motivation perhaps than advancing knowledge. Since Merton does a good job in my opinion at laying out these counter-norm examples, in a way he makes a case against his framework. In short, he argues for his version or norms, and notes deviations from those norms. As I said above, it could be that there are any number of ‘norms’ from organization to organization and person to person. If science as an industry accepts Mertonian norms as a standard, just with the examples he shares in this book it’s clear the norm is likely not actually the norm.
One other way to think about this would be the tension between sharing and hoarding knowledge. Many countries are slow to allow publication of facts with likely military application that might benefit a geopolitical rival. Likewise, private research organizations exist for the benefit of the corporation that funds it. Pharmaceutical companies will be slow to share information that has not already been patented. The counter norm in the first instance is about protecting a specific citizenry, in the second it’s about protecting the financial sustainability of a specific for-profit company.
In the study of sociological influences between the scientific community and the community at large, this work by Robert K. Merton is part of the canon that is still often referred to in journal publications
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Robert Merton is a foundational academic in sociology as it relates to science and technology. In particular he is known for defining idealized scientific norms. The book here reviewed describes and addresses his norms. It also includes a number of case studies to demonstrate the application of norms or when scientists or organizations of scientists have not displayed these sorts of idealized behaviors in the formation of scientific ‘facts’ or ‘findings’.
For Merton, scientific norms are formed through what he calls the ‘ethos of science’ (Merton, 1973, p. 268). His norms include ‘universalism’ which means truth-claims “are subjected to preestablished impersonal criteria” (Merton, 1973, p. 270). The next is called ‘communism’, which not a reference to Marxist political theories. Rather, it refers to a willingness of scientists to share their findings with other scientists so knowledge can advance for the common good. Another norm is called ‘disinterestedness’. For Merton, this is not about individual motivation, rather it is “a distinctive pattern of institutional control of a wide range of motives which characterizes the behavior of scientists” (Merton, 1973, p. 276). Merton refers to his final norm as ‘organized skepticism’. In this he is speaking about scientific self-review as an industry. This is functionally displayed in the idea of peer review of published findings.
These all sound well and good, but Merton himself refers in this book to ways that individual scientists and the scientific industry as a whole fail to live up to these norms. Others make the argument that rather than accept Mertonian norms as the standard, they are just his specific take on the topic. In fact the exceptions that Merton shares can be argues as the real norms, or at least alternatives to Merton’s normative descriptors. In this book for example, Robert Merton examines the scientific reward system. Who gets their papers published and in which industry publications is one way that incentive can cause norms to shift. Some universities or research organizations tend to be published more because of past publication. If that is so, then a researcher is more likely to get recognized by virtue of becoming a part of that organization as opposed to another. Getting credit becomes more motivation perhaps than advancing knowledge. Since Merton does a good job in my opinion at laying out these counter-norm examples, in a way he makes a case against his framework. In short, he argues for his version or norms, and notes deviations from those norms. As I said above, it could be that there are any number of ‘norms’ from organization to organization and person to person. If science as an industry accepts Mertonian norms as a standard, just with the examples he shares in this book it’s clear the norm is likely not actually the norm.
One other way to think about this would be the tension between sharing and hoarding knowledge. Many countries are slow to allow publication of facts with likely military application that might benefit a geopolitical rival. Likewise, private research organizations exist for the benefit of the corporation that funds it. Pharmaceutical companies will be slow to share information that has not already been patented. The counter norm in the first instance is about protecting a specific citizenry, in the second it’s about protecting the financial sustainability of a specific for-profit company.
In the study of sociological influences between the scientific community and the community at large, this work by Robert K. Merton is part of the canon that is still often referred to in journal publications
RSS Feed