Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dialectical Tensions in the Funding Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

  • Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. I., & Gossett, L. M. (2007). Alternative times: temporal perceptions, processes, and practices defining the nonstandard work relationship. Communication Yearbook, 31, 274–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, I., Jones, B., & Kee, K. F. (2009). The organization and management of grid infrastructures. Computer, 41(1), 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, L. D. (1992). Lists and stories as organizational communication. Communication Theory, 2, 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, L. D., & Shetler, J. C. (2000). Sematech: Saving the U.S. semiconductor industry. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buetow, K. H. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure: empowering a “Third Way” in biomedical research. Science, 308(5723), 821–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catlett, C., Beckman, P., Skow, D., & Foster, I. (2006). Creating and operating national-scale cyberinfrastructure services. CTWatch Quarterly, 2(2), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, S. (1991). Metatheory as cognitive style. Sociological Perspectives, 34(3), 287–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, S. (1992). Relativism and reflexivity in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Metatheorizing (pp. 151–168). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, L. C. (1974). Social collectives as communication: perspective on organizational behaviors. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60(4), 497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Rodden, T., & Bowker, G. C. (2006). Special issue: collaboration in e-research. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 251–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, K. A. (2006). Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large e-research project. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(4), 385–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, J. (2010). How we decide. Boston: Mariner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview: Qualitative research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time in human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New York: Gilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(3), 274–287.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization <—> communication: Emerging perspectives I (pp. 151–167). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (2004). Dialectical tensions and rhetorical tropes in negotiations. Organization Studies, 25(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, L. D. (2008). Towards a cyberinfrastructure for the biological sciences: progress, visions and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(9), 678–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Semi-Structured, biographical and narrative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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

  1. Department of Communication Studies, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA

    Kerk F. Kee

  2. Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 2504A Whitis Avenue, Austin, TX, 78712-0115, USA

    Larry D. Browning

  3. Bodø Graduate School of Business, Bodø University, N-8049, Bodø, Norway

    Larry D. Browning

Authors
  1. Kerk F. Kee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry D. Browning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerk F. Kee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9116-9

Key words

Search

Navigation