Display options
Cite
Light Ryan, Moody James. Dynamic building blocks for science: Comment on Kronegger, Ferligoj, and Doreian. 2011;45:1017-1022doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2.
Light, R. y. a. n., & Moody, J. a. m. e. s. (2011). Dynamic building blocks for science: Comment on Kronegger, Ferligoj, and Doreian. 451017-1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2
Light, Ryan, and Moody, James. "Dynamic building blocks for science: Comment on Kronegger, Ferligoj, and Doreian." vol. 45 (2011): 1017-1022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2
Light Ryan, Moody James. Dynamic building blocks for science: Comment on Kronegger, Ferligoj, and Doreian. 2011;45:1017-1022. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2. UIID-AD: 1886.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

2011;45:1017-1022. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2.

Dynamic building blocks for science: Comment on Kronegger, Ferligoj, and Doreian.

Ryan Light, James Moody

UIID-AD: 1886 DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9485-2

Abstract

Comments on an article by Luka Kronegger et al. (see record [rid]2011-17940-002[/rid]). There are two very good reasons to study the social organization of science, and Kronegger, Ferligoj and Doreian’s paper exemplify both (henceforth K, F, D). First, we rarely have such rich and detailed data in most other areas of social life. Because science is a written social sphere where credit and authorship matter greatly, we have rich data on scientific careers that allows us to develop new research methodologies. Second, with a nod to the sociology of science, the ever-increasing importance of scientific discovery to national economies, the extension of science through metaphor (or evidence) to other types of organizations with emphasis on the development of new ideas, career trajectories and so forth, underscore the substantive importance of studying science. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Publication Types