Skip to main content
Log in

Little science, big science revisited

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the basic dependent variables in the sociology of science is the rate at which scientific knowledge advances. Sociologists of science have in the past assumed that the rate of scientific advance was a function of the number of talented people entering science. This assumption was challenged by Derek Price who argued that as the number of scientists increased the number of “high quality” scientists would increase at a slower rate. This paper reports the results of an empirical study of changes in the size of academic physics in the U. S. between 1963 and 1975. In each year we count the number of new Assistant Professors appointed in Ph. D.-granting departments. During the early 1960s there was a sharp increase in the size of entering cohorts followed by a sharp decline. A citation analysis indicates that the proportion of each cohort publishing work which was cited at least once in the first three years after appointment was relatively constant. This leads to the conclusion that the number of scientists capable of contributing to the advance of scientific knowledge through their published research is a linear function of the total number of people entering science.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. K. MERTON,Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England, Harper and Row, New York, (First published 1938.), 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. BECKER, Pietism and Science: A Critique of Robert K. Merton's Hypothesis,American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1984) 1065–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. K. MERTON, The Fallacy of the Latest Word: The Case of ‘Pietism and Science’.American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1984) 1091–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. BEN-DAVID, A. ZLOCZOWER, Universities and Academic Systems in Modern Society,European Journal of Sociology, 3 (1962) 45–84.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. R. COLE, S. COLE, The Ortega Hypothesis,Science, 178 (1972) 368–375.

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. S. MEYER, Academic Labor and the Development of Science, SUNY at Stony Brook. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, 1979.

  8. L. GRODZINS, Physics Faculties, 1959–1975, Mimeo dated May, 1976.

  9. D. BRENEMAN, Outlook and Opportunity for Graduate Education, Technical Report No. 3, National Board of Graduate Educatuion, Washington, D. C., 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. CARTTER,Ph. D.'s and the Academic Labor Market, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. RADNER, L. S. MILLER,Demand and Supply in United States Higher Education, Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  12. F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, Computer Horizons, Inc. Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. COLE, Age and Scientific Performance,American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1979) 958–77.

    Google Scholar 

  14. National Science Foundation,Science Indicators, Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Standard and Poor's Corporation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cole, S., Meyer, G.S. Little science, big science revisited. Scientometrics 7, 443–458 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017160

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017160

Keywords

Navigation