An impact-driven scholarly communication system may offer new levels of views for research and new metrics to assess these works, but are the upheavals actually reinforcing the cumulative advantage of those already in power? Drawing on Robert Merton’s norms for the production of science, Avtar Natt reframes current scholarly developments and finds the roots are too deep for a fair and equal system of knowledge production

Natt, Avtar

LSE Research Online

Image credit: Wikimedia (public domain)12/19/2013Upheavals to scholarly communication have not embracedRobert Merton’s normative guide to good scientificresearch.blogs.lse.ac.uk /impactofsocialsciences/2013/12/19/robert-mertons-norms-of-science-a-cynical-interpretation/An impact-driven scholarly communication system may offer new levels of views for research and newmetrics to assess these works, but are the upheavals actually reinforcing the cumulative advantageof those already in power? Drawing on Robert Merton’s norms for the production of science, AvtarNatt reframes current scholarly developments and finds the roots are too deep for a fair and equalsystem of knowledge production. In 1942 Robert Merton wrote ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’ which he laterpublished as ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in The Sociology of Science (1973). Merton’spaper is a reaction against totalitarianism threatening science but the key element of it is theproposition of four institutional imperatives that make up the ethos of modernscience. The Mertonian norms (also known as CUDOS – Communism,Universalism, Disinterestedness, and Organized Scepticism) may be off-putting for some due to the reference to science or because of Merton’sfunctionalist sociology being seen as prehistoric. What I believe overrules thecriticisms and makes the Mertonian norms so enriching is that they can actlike a moral compass for the knowledge worker. They are a framework givingus the opportunity to reflect and compare how we currently are to how wecould have been.My aim is to reframe the Mertonian norms to the present day wheredemonstration of impact is seen as a necessity to survive in the scholarlycommunication system. Overlapping all of this, I will draw upon Merton’s1988 paper on the Matthew Effect and Cumulative Advantage.Communism (all new knowledge should be in the public domain) –Communism corresponds with the conventional publication system already inplace. Peer recognition is sought which incentivises people to go through theacademic publication route. Commercial gain and competitivenesscomplicate this process with embargoes for journals and affording journalsubscriptions instantly coming to mind. According to SCONUL librarystatistics in the UK, from 2010-2011 the top ten serials budgets were from Russell Group institutions averagingapproximately £4m per year. The worldview and demands of resourcing a research intensive institution such asthese will differ significantly to poorer academic institutions that are often doing their best to survive. Consequently, aLibrary Director from a Russell Group institution may advocate open access with one hand but with the other haveno choice but legitimise the pricing models academic publishers have in place. Competitiveness and theidentification of peer interests rather than communal interests make dramatic change unlikely. The only saviours tothe current state of play is Green Open Access or groups working together to unlatch journal access.Universalism (it doesn’t matter what you are or where you are from) – Surrounding a journal article there isinformation concerning one’s name, institution, job title, publication and gender that can go for you or against you. Itis this murky area between implicit discrimination and evaluation that we often occupy. For those on the receivingend, the system surrounding journal publications and peer review is another target. There should always begratitude to esteemed colleagues that spend time on something not theirs. The other side to that however are1/3editors and reviewers that steer you to playing their notes in their particular order, are classless with comments orlook after their own. Thus, a socially acceptable form of coercion can occur where the author acquiesces to ensurepublication. The author is hardly a saint and the perfunctory citation plus other forms of gameplaying are tactics thatcan appease gatekeepers. It is hardly surprising, when authors surrounded by workloads and too much informationsee efficiencies of canonised things, be swayed by the distinguished, rely on quantitative measurements or closeranks and rely on their network (especially if they have power).Disinterestedness (interests should not get in the way) – Self-aggrandizement and competitiveness are the twothings that stick (thanks to Merton) here. Institutional control over science can dare to be explicit but internal politics,revenue streams, ranking, reputation and faculty constraints are the subtle forms of institutional control that come tomind. There are also invisible colleges, cliques and what Merton calls prolific but trivial publications to consider. Theincorporation of impact amongst academia is little more than a socially acceptable synonym for interestedness. Imake this statement not only because disinterestedness is the most idealistic of Merton’s norms but becausepromoting and demonstrating impact is necessary for the underdog. Constructing oneself by making the most ofdigital information flows (new altitudes), increasing reach and being the ‘have you also seen’ is nothing more thanpublicity in a competitive marketplace. The unintended consequence of this path, is if everyone is cranking theirdigital footprint up to eleven, won’t the next generation of researchers obfuscate rather than distinguish?Organized Scepticism (scientific produce should be open to scrutiny) – Merton views organized scepticism as thenorm that interrelates with the others due to peers being those most suited to scrutinise. OECD statistics steers oneto think that there are more roadworthy people that support organized scepticism than ever before. If this largegroup do not have a spot then they have to carve one for themselves. It is then sound thinking that the nextgeneration of researcher be in tune with various forms of publication and different forms of peer scrutiny thanks toopen access. Where discomfort lies, is with the risk of there being a swarm of publications with a varying degree oforganized scepticism due to a lack of mingling. If one is to stick with the belief in universalism, then all of these newforms of publication and peer review deserve their spot in the hope of perpetuating upward and downward mobility.In conclusion, what grates is how things like those mentioned above are rubbing against a scholarly communicationsystem. Those at the bottom might see an unequal system and those at the top might be genuinely supportive (andthese people do exist) but they are hardly going to vacate a position they have worked longer for than an earlycareer researcher. It is for this reason why cumulative advantage processes resonate so much to me. Simply put,cumulative advantage refers to how advantages and opportunities like resources, location, network of influence ortraining tend to lead to further advantages. For example, a Lecturer bagging a post at an elite institution is likely toreceive further advantages than say, a Lecturer taking a post near the bottom of a university ranking table. The starsdo not line up for everyone and missed potential of the underdog (who I consider to be early career researchers aswell as the late bloomer) a manifestation of cumulative advantage.Open access can be thrown into the ring as a potential game changer and I would steer readers to read more aboutthe Matthew Effect (a phenomena which Merton coined) and the relationship it has with open access . My cynicism isbased on the futility that all we are experiencing is realignment and that all this new stuff will end up supporting thosewith power eventually. Soaring to new altitudes and using new things like Altmetrics or inflating the value of hits(when compared to the citation) are valuable but could they be little more than case studies of cumulative advantageprocesses if one looks hard enough? Furthermore, if demonstrating impact is to be a key value in the nextgeneration of researcher then perhaps we need to be mindful of the type of people we are to construct? The rootsare too deep for a fair and equal system of knowledge production but Merton’s message can be seen as a warningof what could happen if we go too far.Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Impact of Social Science blog, nor of theLondon School of Economics. Please review our Comments Policy if you have any concerns on posting a commentbelow.About the Author2/3Avtar Natt is an Academic Liaison Librarian at the University of Bedfordshire. In between stints in academiclibrarianship, he was a Researcher for an investment bank. His interests overlap his background in sociology andinformation science. His wife thinks he worries too much.Copyright © The Author (or The Authors) - Unless otherwise stated, this work is licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution Unported 3.0 License.3/3

Upheavals to scholarly communication have not embraced Robert Merton’s normative guide to good scientific research.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online