Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invisible colleges as science elites

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An intensive investigation of the American science advisory system failed to find indications of elite structure in the selection or patterns of service of advisors. Advisory groups cannot act as elements of the invisible college circuits thatPrice refered to. The only long term advisors areex officio members.

Advisory committee growth and activity is marked by three periods: 1951 to 1957, slow growth; 1957 to 1966, rapid growth; and 1967 to 1972, no growth. Combined with the pattern of growth in numbers of eligible scientists, a perception of elite control may have been created.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elizabeth DREW, The Health Syndicate: Washington's Noble Conspirators,The Atlantic Monthly, April (1967) 75–82.

  3. C. WRIGHT, Scientists and the Establishment of Science Affairs, pp 257–302, in R. GILPIN, C. WRIGHT (Eds)Scientists and National Policy Making, Columbia University Press, New York, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. W. BRONK,The Science Committee, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D. C., 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. GROSS, Peer Review System,Science, 172 (1971) 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. WADE, Peer Review System: How to Hand out Money Fairly,Science, 179 (1973) 158–161.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. C. WHITE,Chains of Opportunity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. S. GREENBERG, NIH: Fountain Committee Issues Bitter Attack on Programs, Science, 158 (1967) 611–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barbara CULLITON, Peer Review: OMB May Dismantle NIH Study Sections,Science, 180 (1973) 843–44.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. M. BOFFEY,The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 175.

  12. L. P. GROENEVELD, Bureaucracy and the Organization of Science: A Structural Analysis of the National Science Foundation, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. MATRAS, Models and Indicators of Organizational Growth, Changes, and Transformations, pp. 301–318, in: K. LAND, S. SPILLERMAN (Eds),Social Indicators Models, Russel Sage, New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase Two of a Study, National Academy of Sciences, Washington D. C., 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  15. N. C. MULLINS, Power, Social Structure, and Advice in American Science: The United States National Advisory System 1950–1972,Science, Technology, and Human Values, 7 (1981) 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksberg, Virginia, (USA)

    N. C. Mullins

Authors
  1. N. C. Mullins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mullins, N.C. Invisible colleges as science elites. Scientometrics 7, 357–368 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017154

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017154

Keywords

Search

Navigation