| dc.description.abstract | Knowledge production remains poorly understood. Especially research on organizational structures of knowledge fields and their dynamics lacks reliable knowledge gained through quantitative studies and compels actors to generalize policies. This exploratory and longitudinal study aimed to explore the structure dynamics of four emerging and four mature fields. It aimed to give answer to the question of how organizational structures of different knowledge fields change over time. All papers in every four years (1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010), during a 20 year time period, were collected (436.074 publications). Over 50 conventional and experimental indicators were placed in the framework of Whitley’s organizational theory which focuses on the mutual dependency and task uncertainty of researchers. These two dimensions are further decomposed in their analytical counter parts: the functional dependence, strategic dependence, technical task uncertainty, and the strategic task uncertainty of researchers.
It is found that the structures of fields are different and that even the analytical parts within dimensions can greatly differ. Overall, it is concluded that mature fields are more stable in their topics and intellectual leaders, while showing higher rates of knowledge accumulation. Mature fields tend to operate under a higher functional and possibly strategic dependence while showing lower levels of technical and strategic task uncertainty. The absolute levels however, highly depend on the nature of the field. The ‘big sciences’ for example are mature fields characterized by a high mutual dependence and low task uncertainty. In contrast, a field like Applied Mathematics is mature, but is due to its nature low in its (strategic) mutual dependence. Arguably because it lacks the necessity to mobilize research resources as opposed to the ‘big sciences’.
Lastly, additional non-maturity dynamics, are found for all fields which could imply dynamics bound to the time period of 1990-2010. The most striking trend concerns the intensification of research collaborations, the increasing institution citation inequality and institution ranking stability.
Ultimately the truth is likely to lay somewhere in the middle when returning to the research question. Yes, fields seem to be prone to a certain maturity dynamic in its organizational structure as discussed earlier, but its time period in which it finds itself and its nature highly influences the extend of this dynamic.
In conclusion, this paper has explored the dynamics of organizational structures of different fields and hoped, by doing so, to spark future scientific debates on how to further research this topic. | |
