Abstract
This article focuses on funding for cyberinfrastructure and how funding affects the cyberinfrastructure foundation laid, who completes the work, and what the outcomes of the funding are. By following qualitative procedures and thematic analysis, we identify five dialectical tensions across three difference levels of institutions, individuals, and ideologies in the funding infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. Through an organizational communication lens, we define funding infrastructure as the communication arrangements of institutions, individuals, and ideologies that must be coordinated in order for cyberinfrastructure to be brought into existence. These communication arrangements include salient motivations of and financial compensations for individuals who engage in them. They also comprise explicit policies about funding, as well as implicit ideologies about science embedded in funding, as held by institutions involved in these communication arrangements.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.
Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., Messerschmitt, D. G., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/.
Ballard, D. I. (2008). Organizational temporality over time: Activity cycles as sources of entrainment. In R. A. Roe, M. J. Waller, & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Time in organizational research (pp. 204–219). London: Rutledge.
Ballard, D. I., & Gossett, L. M. (2007). Alternative times: temporal perceptions, processes, and practices defining the nonstandard work relationship. Communication Yearbook, 31, 274–320.
Bietz, M., & Lee, C. P. (2009). Collaboration in metagenomics: Sequence databases and the organization of scientific work. In I. Wagner, H. Tellioglu, E. Balka, C. Simone, & L. Ciolfi (Eds.), ECSCW ’09. Proceedings of the 11th European conference on computer supported cooperative work, Vienna, Austria, September 7 to 11, 2009 (pp. 246–262). New York: ACM.
Bird, I., Jones, B., & Kee, K. F. (2009). The organization and management of grid infrastructures. Computer, 41(1), 36–46.
Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.
Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., et al. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Report of the NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf.
Browning, L. D. (1978). A grounded organizational communication theory derived from qualitative data. Communication Monographs, 45(2), 93–109.
Browning, L. D. (1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281–302.
Browning, L. D., & Beyer, J. M. (1998). The structuring of shared voluntary standards in the U.S. semiconductor industry: communicating to reach agreement. Communication Monographs, 65(3), 220–243.
Browning, L. D., & Shetler, J. C. (2000). Sematech: Saving the U.S. semiconductor industry. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Browning, L. D., Beyer, J. M., & Shetler, J. C. (1995). Building cooperation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 113–151.
Buetow, K. H. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure: empowering a “Third Way” in biomedical research. Science, 308(5723), 821–824.
Catlett, C., Beckman, P., Skow, D., & Foster, I. (2006). Creating and operating national-scale cyberinfrastructure services. CTWatch Quarterly, 2(2), 2–10.
Cohen, M. D., Riolo, R. L., & Axelrod, R. (2001). The role of social structure in the maintenance of cooperative regimes. Rationality and Society, 13(1), 5–32.
Contractor, N., & Hesse, B. W. (2006). Cyberinfrastructure for public health. In J. A. B. Fortes & A. Macintosh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th annual international conference on digital government research, San Diego, California, USA, May 21 to 24, 2006 (pp. 9–10). New York: ACM.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
D’Alessio, M., Guarino, A., De Pascalis, V., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2003). Testing Zimbardo’s stanford time perspective inventory (STPI)—short form. An Italian study. Time & Society, 12, 333–347.
David, P. A. (2004). Towards a cyberinfrastructure for enhanced scientific collaboration: Providing its ‘soft’ foundations may be the hardest part. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper Series: SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 04-01. Retrieved at http://129.3.20.41/eps/le/papers/0502/0502002.pdf.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.
Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Williams, R. (2009). Introduction: an agenda for infrastructure studies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 364–374.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 379–439). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fuchs, S. (1991). Metatheory as cognitive style. Sociological Perspectives, 34(3), 287–301.
Fuchs, S. (1992). Relativism and reflexivity in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Metatheorizing (pp. 151–168). Newbury Park: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction.
Grethe, J. S., Baru, C., Gupta, A., James, M., Ludaescher, B., Martone, M. E., et al. (2005). Biomedical informatics research network: building a national collaboratory to hasten the derivation of new understanding and treatment of disease. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 112, 100–110.
Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935.
Hawes, L. C. (1974). Social collectives as communication: perspective on organizational behaviors. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60(4), 497–502.
Hofer, E. C., McKee, S., Birnholtz, J. P., & Avery, P. (2008). High energy physics: The large hadron collider collaborations. In M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the internet (pp. 143–151). Cambridge: MIT.
Hughes, T. P. (1989). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 51–82). Cambridge: MIT.
ISGTW. (2009). TeraGrid compute time applications due. Retrieved from http://www.isgtw.org/?pid=1002085.
Jirotka, M., & Goguen, J. (Eds.). (1994). Requirements engineering: Social and technical issues. Salt Lake City: Academic.
Jirotka, M., Gilbert, N., & Luff, P. (1992). On the social organisation of organisations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 95–118. This should be before Jirotka & Goguen 1994.
Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Rodden, T., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). Special issue: collaboration in e-research. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 251–255.
Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants. Newbury Park: Sage.
Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., & Halkola, E. (2006). Enriching the notion of data curation in e-science: data managing and information infrastructuring in the long term ecological research (LTER) network. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 321–358.
Kee, K. F., Cradduck, L., Blodgett, B., & Olwan, R. (2010). Cyberinfrastructure inside out: Definitions and influences shaping its emergence, development, and implementation. In D. Araya, Y. Breindl, & T. Houghton (Eds.), Nexus: New intersections in internet research. New York: Peter Lang.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, K. A. (2006). Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large e-research project. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 385–411.
Lawrence, K. A., & Zimmerman, A. (2007). TeraGrid planning process report: August 2007 User Workshops. Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work, School of Information, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61842.
Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(3), 307–339.
Lee, C., Dourish, P., & Mark, G. (2006). The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. In P. Hinds & D. Martin (Eds.), CSCW ’06. Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Canada, November 4 to 8, 2006 (pp. 483–492). New York: ACM.
Lehrer, J. (2010). How we decide. Boston: Mariner Books.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview: Qualitative research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time in human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New York: Gilford.
Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50–72.
NSF. (2007a). Cyberinfrastructure vision for 21st century discovery. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf0728/nsf0728.pdf.
NSF. (2007b). Grant proposal guide. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/papp/gpg_3.jsp.
NSF. (2010). National science foundation fiscal year budget request to congress. Retrieved from http://nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2010/index.jsp.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), 274–287.
Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization <—> communication: Emerging perspectives I (pp. 151–167). Norwood: Ablex.
Putnam, L. L. (2004). Dialectical tensions and rhetorical tropes in negotiations. Organization Studies, 25(1), 35–53.
Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.
Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2008). Organizing for multidisciplinary collaboration: The case of the geosciences network. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the internet (pp. 311–330). Cambridge: MIT.
Ribes, D., & Finholt, T. A. (2008). Representing community: Knowing users in the face of changing constituencies. In B. Begole & D. W. McDonalds (Eds.), CSCW ’08. Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, USA, November 8 to 12, 2008 (pp. 107–116). New York: ACM.
Ribes, D., & Finholt, T. A. (2009). The long now of technology infrastructure: articulating tensions in development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 375–398.
Ribes, D., Baker, K. S., Millerand, F., & Bowker, G. C. (2005). Comparative interoperability project: Configurations of community, technology, organization. In T. Sumner & F. Shipman (Eds.), JCDL ’05: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Denver, USA, June 7 to 11, 2005 (pp. 65–66). New York: ACM.
Sætre, A. S., Sørnes, J. O., Browning, L. D., & Stephens, K. K. (2007). Enacting media use in organizations. Journal of Information, Information Technologies and Organization, 2, 133–158.
ScienceDaily. (2009). Tennessee’s Kraken named world’s third fastest computer, ORNL’s Jaguar Is No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116094457.htm.
Seidel, E., Muñoz, J., Meacham, S., & Whitson, C. A. (2009). A vision for cyberinfrastructure. Computer, 42(1), 40.
Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). How to infrastructure. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. M. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs (pp. 230–245). London: Sage.
Stein, L. D. (2008). Towards a cyberinfrastructure for the biological sciences: progress, visions and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(9), 678–688.
Stewart, C. (2007). Indiana university cyberinfrastructure newsletter. Retrieved from http://racinfo.indiana.edu/newsletter/archives/2007-03.shtml.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tracy, S. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119–146.
Ure, J., Hartswood, M., Wardlaw, J., Procter, R., Anderson, S., Gonzalez-Velez, H., et al. (2009). The development of data infrastructures for ehealth: a socio-technical perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 415–429.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Semi-Structured, biographical and narrative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins-Diehr, N., Gannon, D., Klimeck, G., Oster, S., & Pamidighantam, S. (2008). TeraGrid science gateways and their impact on science. Computer, 41(11), 32–41.
Zimmerman, A. (2007). A socio-technical framework for cyberinfrastructure design. Paper Presented at the e-Social Science Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Zimmerman, A., & Finholt, T. A. (2006). TeraGrid user workshop final report. Collaboratory for research on electronic work, School of Information, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61841.
Zimmerman, A., & Finholt, T. A. (2007). Growing an infrastructure: The role of gateway organizations in cultivating new communities of users. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP ’07) (pp. 239–248). New York: ACM Press.
Zimmerman, A., & Finholt, T. A. (2008). Report from the TeraGrid evaluation study, Part 1: Project Findings. Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work, School of Information, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61838.
Zimmerman, A., Krause, M., Lawrence, K., & Finholt, T. A. (2008). Report from the TeraGrid evaluation study, Part 2: Findings from the TeraGrid user survey. Collaboratory for Research on Electronic Work, School of Information, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61839
Acknowledgements
In alphabetical order of last names, we would like to thank Dawna Ballard, Susan Corbin, Rion Dooley, Victoria Hoch, Susan Kung, and the two anonymous reviewers for their input and support of this project. An early version of this paper was presented at the International Communication Association conference in 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kee, K.F., Browning, L.D. The Dialectical Tensions in the Funding Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. Comput Supported Coop Work 19, 283–308 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9116-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9116-9