Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this paper we utilize an opportunity to construct ground truths for topics in the field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. Our research questions in this paper focus on (i) how to construct a ground truth for topics and (ii) the suitability of common algorithms applied to bibliometric networks to reconstruct these topics. We use the ground truths to test two data models (direct citation and bibliographic coupling) with two algorithms (the Leiden algorithm and the Infomap algorithm). Our results are discomforting: none of the four combinations leads to a consistent reconstruction of the ground truths. No combination of data model and algorithm simultaneously reconstructs all micro-level topics at any resolution level. Meso-level topics are not reconstructed at all. This suggests (a) that we are currently unable to predict which combination of data model, algorithm and parameter setting will adequately reconstruct which (types of) topics, and (b) that a combination of several data models, algorithms and parameter settings appears to be necessary to reconstruct all or most topics in a set of papers.

Scientific communities expect early career researchers (ECRs) to become intellectually independent and to develop longer-term research plans (individual research programs [IRPs]). How such programs emerge during the early career phase is still poorly understood. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with German ECRs in plant biology, experimental physics, and early modern history, we show that the development of such a plan is a research process in itself. The processes leading to IRPs are conditioned by the fields’ epistemic practices for producing new knowledge. By linking the conditions under which ECRs work to the epistemic properties of their IRPs, we identify mechanisms that produce these programs and conditions facilitating or hindering the operation of these mechanisms.

Wir möchten mit diesem Artikel zur methodologischen Diskussion über die Eignung qualitativer Methoden für spezifische Zwecke beitragen, indem wir die Rolle der extrahierenden qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse in der Entdeckung kausaler Mechanismen diskutieren. Die empirische Identifizierung kausaler Mechanismen wird in der methodologischen Literatur als Process Tracing bezeichnet. Allerdings wird die Literatur durch die Idee dominiert, Process Tracing würde das Vorhandensein eines hypothetischen Mechanismus testen. Wir betonen dagegen die Entdeckung kausaler Mechanismen auf der Basis einer kausalen Rekonstruktion, wie sie von MAYNTZ (2009 [2002], 2016) vorgeschlagen wurde. Wir identifizieren die extrahierende qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als eine distinkte qualitative Methode und spezifizieren ihr Ergebnis als eine strukturierte Informationsbasis, die für die Rekonstruktion sozialer Situationen und Prozesse genutzt werden kann. Eine solche Informationsbasis ist ein wichtiger Ausgangspunkt für die Kausalanalyse. Wir demonstrieren die Rolle der extrahierenden qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse an einer empirischen Studie von LAUDEL und BIELICK (2018), in der die Mechanismen identifiziert wurden, die zur Entstehung individueller Forschungsprogramme von Nachwuchswissenschaftler_innen führen.

Qualitative research aimed at \"mechanismic\" explanations poses specific challenges to qualitative data analysis because it must integrate existing theory with patterns identified in the data. We explore the utilization of two methods--coding and qualitative content analysis--for the first steps in the data analysis process, namely \"cleaning\" and organizing qualitative data. Both methods produce an information base that is structured by categories and can be used in the subsequent search for patterns in the data and integration of these patterns into a systematic, theoretically embedded explanation. Used as a stand-alone method outside the grounded theory approach, coding leads to an indexed text, i.e. both the original text and the index (the system of codes describing the content of text segments) are subjected to further analysis. Qualitative content analysis extracts the relevant information, i.e. separates it from the original text, and processes only this information. We suggest that qualitative content analysis has advantages compared to coding whenever the research question is embedded in prior theory and can be answered without processing knowledge about the form of statements and their position in the text, which usually is the case in the search for \"mechanismic\" explanations. Coding outperforms qualitative content analysis in research that needs this information in later stages of the analysis, e.g. the exploration of meaning or the study of the construction of narratives. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs130254

Many countries today have policies to encourage outstanding scientists to remain, or return, 'home'. To date, the cumulative effect of these policies remains unclear. This essay argues that we need a new approach to studying elites in science. It draws upon three studies to suggest that migration is field-specific; that migration occurs more among potential, rather than among established elites; and that policies aimed simply at attracting eminent scientists may prove inadequate to the task of sustaining national scientific communities.

Today science policy makers in many countries worry about a brain drain, i.e., about permanently losing their best scientists to other countries. However, such a brain drain has proven to be difficult to measure. This article reports a test of bibliometric methods that could possibly be used to study the brain drain on the micro-level. An investigation of elite mobility must solve the three methodological problems of delineating a specialty, identifying a specialty's elite and identifying international mobility and migration. The first two problems were preliminarily solved by combining participant lists from elite conferences (Gordon conferences) and citation data. Mobility was measured by using the address information of publication databases. The delineation of specialties has been identified as the crucial problem in studying elite mobility on the micro- level. Policy concerns of a brain drain were confirmed by measuring the mobility of the biomedical Angiotensin specialty.

Early career researchers are faced with the expectation of their scientific communities to conduct independent research, which is reflected in the development of independent new research lines. This change must take place under conditions that vary between national career systems. Case studies for a chair system (Germany) and two tenure systems, one with strong hierarchies (the Netherlands) and one with flat hierarchies (Australia) were conducted. The career conditions created by universities and funding agencies during this transition phase towards independence are systematically compared for two fields, molecular biology and history. Despite their different structures functional equivalents lead to similar outcomes: Only a small group of the potential elite had sufficient 'protected space' to start new research lines without delay. The majority of early career researchers encountered limitations of their 'protected space.' Differences between the systems occurred due to the increasing importance of the external funding system for the creation of 'protected space': researchers were better off in a rich funding landscape with higher grant success rates.(HRK / Abstract übernommen).

Die Forschungspolitik erwartet zunehmend, dass auch qualitative sozialwissenschaftliche Daten archiviert und für die Nachnutzung zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Es mangelt jedoch an empirischen Analysen zu den forschungspraktischen Möglichkeiten und Folgen einer Archivierung. Mit unserem Beitrag adressieren wir diese Lücke. Wir stellen einen gescheiterten Archivierungsversuch von leitfadengestützten Interviews in einem wissenschaftssoziologischen Projekt vor, der durch die Forderung des Forschungsförderers nach der Bereitstellung der Daten für eine Nachnutzung veranlasst wurde. Wir rekonstruieren alle Entscheidungsprozesse, die zur Vorbereitung der Datenarchivierung getroffen wurden. Wir mussten entscheiden, ob und in welcher Form Daten archiviert werden sollen, wie das Prinzip der informierten Einwilligung realisiert wird, wie wir die Einwilligung der Interviewten einholen, wie wir die Interviews anonymisieren und wie Kontextinformationen bereitgestellt werden. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass die Erfordernisse des Datenschutzes und der Forschungsethik zu unüberwindbaren forschungspraktischen Problemen führen können, die einer Archivierung von qualitativen Daten entgegenstehen. Solche Probleme treten auch in anderen Gebieten der Soziologie auf.

This review explores contributions by science policy studies and the sociology of science to our understanding of the impact of governance on research content. Contributions are subsumed under two perspectives, namely an “impact of”—perspective that searches for effects of specific governance arrangements and an “impact on”—perspective that asks what factors contribute to the construction of research content and includes governance among them. Our review shows that little is known so far about the impact of governance on knowledge content. A research agenda does not necessarily need to include additional empirical phenomena but must address the macro-micro-macro link inherent to the question in its full complexity, and systematically exploit comparative approaches in order to establish causality. This requires interdisciplinary collaboration between science policy studies, the sociology of science, and bibliometrics, which all can contribute to the necessary analytical toolbox. Cet article explore les apports de deux domaines – les étude de politique des sciences et la sociologie des sciences – pour la compréhension de l’impact de la gouvernance sur le contenu de la connaissance scientifique. Ces apports sont regroupés dans deux perspectives principales, d’une part celle dite de l’« impact de » qui cherche à identifier les effets spécifiques des dispositifs de gouvernance, d’autre part celle dite de l’« impact sur » qui s’interroge sur les facteurs qui façonnent le contenu et qui inclue la gouvernance comme l’un de ces facteurs. Les auteurs montrent que l’on dispose au final que de peu de connaissances sur l’impact de la gouvernance sur le contenu de la science. Un agenda de recherche ne doit pas servir nécessairement à produire davantage de matériau empirique mais avant tout à saisir, dans toute sa complexité, le lien macro-micro-macro inhérent à cette question, tout en exploitant de façxon systématique les approches comparées pour au final établir la causalité. Cela suppose l’élaboration d’une nouvelle « boîte à outils » analytique, fruit d’une collaboration interdisciplinaire à laquelle peuvent contribuer utilement les études de politique scientifique, la sociologie des sciences et l’approche bibliométrique. Dieser Review analysiert Beiträge der politikwissenschaftlichen und soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung zu der Frage, wie Governance Forschungsinhalte beeinflusst. Wir gruppieren die Beiträge unter zwei Perspektiven, und zwar einer ‚Einfluss von‘ – Perspektive, die nach Effekten spezifischer Governance-Arrangements sucht, und einer ‚Einfluss auf‘ – Perspektive, die nach Einflüssen auf die Konstruktion wissenschaftlichen Wissens fragt und Governance als einen solchen Einfluss einschließt. Unser Review verdeutlicht, wie gering unsere gegenwärtiges Wissen über den Einfluss von Governance auf Forschungsinhalte noch ist. Eine Forschungsagenda muss nicht unbedingt zusätzliche empirische Phänomene einschließen. Sie muss aber die der Frage inhärente Makro-Mikro-Makro – Struktur in ihrer vollen Komplexität adressieren und systematisch vergleichende Ansätze für die Etablierung von Kausalität ausnutzen. Das erfordert interdisziplinäre Kooperation zwischen der politikwissenschaftlichen und soziologischen Wissenschaftsforschung sowie der Bibliometrie, da alle drei Gebiete zum nötigen analytischen Werkzeugkasten beitragen können.

The past three decades have witnessed a sharp reduction in the rate of growth of public research funding, and sometimes an actual decline in its level. In many countries, this decline has been accompanied by substantial changes in the ways that such funding has been allocated and monitored. In addition, the institutions governing how research is directed and conducted underwent significant reforms. In this paper we examine how these changes have affected scientists' research goals and practices by comparing the development of three scientific innovations (one each in physics, biology, and educational research) in four European countries, namely Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden. We find that the increased number of actors exercising authority over research goals does not necessarily lead to a greater diversity of interests funding research. A narrowing of goals and frameworks is especially probable when the increasing importance of external project funding is combined with reductions in state financing of universities and public research institutes. Finally, the growing standardisation of project cycle times and resource packages across funding agencies and scientific communities make it more difficult for researchers to pursue projects that deviate from these norms, especially, if they challenge mainstream beliefs and assessment criteria.