The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Intellectual and Social Organization Of the Sciences
Abstract
In a rapidly changing and inter-disciplinary world it is important to understand the nature and generation of knowledge, and its social organization. Increasing attention is paid in the social sciences and management studies to the constitution and claims of different theories, perspectives, and 'paradigms'. This book is one of the most respected and robust analyses of these issues. For this new paperback edition Richard Whitley - a leading figure in European business education - has written a new introduction which addresses the particular epistemological issues presented by management and business studies. He approaches the sciences as differently organized systems for the production and validation of knowledge - systems which become established in particular contexts and which generate different sorts of knowledge. He identifies seven major types of scientific field and discusses the establishment and growth of these sciences, including the major consequences of the nineteenth-century expansion of employment opportunities for researchers; the competitive pursuit of public reputations; and the domination of intellectual work by employees. He also examines the divergences in the way research is organized and controlled both in different fields, and in the same field within different historical circumstances. This book will be of interest to all graduate students concerned with the social study of knowledge, science, technology, and the history and philosophy of science.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The framework has been championed by influential researchers at prestigious institutions, whose intellectual authority lends credibility and accelerates its diffusion through influential scientific networks (Whitley 2000).”
From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Whitley 2000
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 998
Journal rankings in management and business studies: What rules do we play by?
Vogel, R., Hattke, F., & Petersen, J. (2017) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.001 · Cited by 105
Macro-level changes in the structure of co-citation clusters: 1983–1989
Small, H. G. (1993) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02016789 · Cited by 104
Citations: Indicators of significance?
Amsterdamska, O., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (1989) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017065 · Cited by 99
The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources
Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2007) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551506068153 · Cited by 104
Digital Scholarship Considered: How New Technologies Could Transform Academic Work
Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., et al. (2012) · in education · doi:10.37119/ojs2010.v16i1.44 · Cited by 103
When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity
Birnholtz, J. P. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20684 · Cited by 104
Gläser, J., Glänzel, W., & Scharnhorst, A. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2296-z · Cited by 100
The academic field of information systems in Europe
Avgerou, C., Siemer, J., & Bjørn‐Andersen, N. (1999) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000319 · Cited by 99
The impact of research funding on scientific outputs: Evidence from six smaller E uropean countries
Gök, A., Rigby, J., & Philip Shapira, A. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23406 · Cited by 97
Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument
Hallonsten, O. (2021) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/0539018421992204 · Cited by 61
Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines
Moses, I. (1990) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00133898 · Cited by 97
Boaz, A., Biri, D., & McKevitt, C. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12295 · Cited by 97
Mapping methodological frontiers in cross-national management control research
Bhimani, A. (1999) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(98)00068-3 · Cited by 96
The prestige economy of higher education journals: a quantitative approach
Kwiek, M. (2020) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00553-y · Cited by 97
The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory
Greckhamer, T., & Koro‐Ljungberg, M. (2005) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education · doi:10.1080/09518390500298204 · Cited by 95
Sociological Innovation through Subfield Integration
Leahey, E., & Moody, J. W. (2014) · Social Currents · doi:10.1177/2329496514540131 · Cited by 93
Measuring originality in science
Shibayama, S., & Wang, J. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03263-0 · Cited by 94
Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., et al. (2017) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1349743 · Cited by 92
Kieser, A., & Nicolai, A. T. (2005) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492605279098 · Cited by 92
On the centrality of peripheral research and the dangers of tight boundary gatekeeping
Gendron, Y., & Rodrigue, M. (2019) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2019.02.003 · Cited by 91
Time and Reflexivity in Organization Studies: An Introduction
Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Tsoukas, H. (2002) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840602236006 · Cited by 90
Kyvik, S., & Smeby, J. (1994) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf01383730 · Cited by 89
Puuska, H.-M. (2009) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0037-7 · Cited by 86
Hu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2383-1 · Cited by 85
Hammarfelt, B. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0314-5 · Cited by 81
Larsson, A. O., & Moe, H. (2014) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244014559015 · Cited by 84
Theories of the Firm, Strategic Management, and Leadership
Knudsen, C. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2201-0_8 · Cited by 84
Debating the Future of Management Research
Birkinshaw, J., Healey, M. P., Suddaby, R., et al. (2013) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12061 · Cited by 79
Pinfield, S. (2015) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-05-2015-0167 · Cited by 81
Towards Common Ground and Trading Zones in Management Research and Practice
Romme, A. G. L., Avenier, M., Denyer, D., Hodgkinson, G. P., Pandža, K., Starkey, K., & Worren, N. (2015) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12110 · Cited by 88
Thiemann, M., Melches, C. R., & Ibrocevic, E. (2020) · Review of International Political Economy · doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1779780 · Cited by 77
Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment
Williams, K. (2020) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvaa001 · Cited by 77
New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord
Lin, Y., Evans, J. A., & Wu, L. (2021) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2021.101234 · Cited by 86
Integrating sciences by creating new disciplines: The case of cell biology
Bechtel, W. (1993) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00860430 · Cited by 77
Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems
Huisman, J. (1998) · Higher education · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-3971-7_3 · Cited by 76
Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L. K., & de Rijcke, S. (2018) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9 · Cited by 83
On Disciplinary Fragmentation and Scientific Progress
Balietti, S., Mäs, M., & Helbing, D. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118747 · Cited by 78
Thelwall, M. A., & Kousha, K. (2015) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2015.sep.08 · Cited by 78
Leydesdorff, L., Hammarfelt, B., & Salah, A. A. A. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21636 · Cited by 75
Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation
Siler, K., & Larivière, V. (2022) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2022.104608 · Cited by 70
Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals
Huutoniemi, K. I. (2012) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312712458478 · Cited by 73
Outcasts on the inside: academics reinventing themselves online
Costa, C. (2015) · International Journal of Lifelong Education · doi:10.1080/02601370.2014.985752 · Cited by 50
Dynamic Scientific Co-Authorship Networks
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., et al. (2011) · Understanding complex systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23068-4_6 · Cited by 73
Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0313-3 · Cited by 73
Cucari, N., Tutore, I., Montera, R., & Profita, S. (2022) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2346 · Cited by 77
Velden, T., Haque, A.-U., & Lagoze, C. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0224-6 · Cited by 97
Getting to the bottom of research funding: Acknowledging the complexity of funding dynamics
Aagaard, K., Mongeon, P., Ramos-Vielba, I., & Thomas, D. A. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251488 · Cited by 89
Public-Private Dynamics in Higher Education
Enders, J., Jongbloed, B., & Toonen, T. A. (2007) · Science studies · doi:10.14361/9783839407523 · Cited by 72
Fry, J., & Talja, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.1450410103 · Cited by 71
Ambiguity and Scientific Authority
Panofsky, A. L., & Bliss, C. (2017) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122416685812 · Cited by 85
Walker, J. T., Fenton, E. M., Salter, A. J., & Salandra, R. (2018) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12294 · Cited by 67
Where is disciplinarity going? Meeting on the borderland
Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2011) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/0539018411411036 · Cited by 69
Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities
Muriithi, P., Horner, D. S., Pemberton, L., & Wao, H. (2017) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.002 · Cited by 68
A review of meta-analytic research in accounting
Khlif, H., & Chalmers, K. (2015) · Journal of Accounting Literature · doi:10.1016/j.acclit.2015.09.001 · Cited by 68
Tribal regimes in academia: a comparative analysis of market structure across disciplines
Han, S. (2003) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/s0378-8733(03)00011-x · Cited by 65
CSR: Undertheorized or Essentially Contested?
Mitnick, B. M., Windsor, D., & Wood, D. J. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0239 · Cited by 70
(2023) · Studies in corpus linguistics · doi:10.1075/scl.107.c3 · Cited by 68
Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective
Meyer, M. S., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P., & Weckowska, D. M. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1103-8 · Cited by 65
Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Across Disciplines
Xia, J. (2007) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.020 · Cited by 68
Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities
Hammarfelt, B. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_10 · Cited by 66
Framing “Law and Society” in the Roman World
Pölönen, J. (2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198728689.013.2 · Cited by 66
The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model
Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2006) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781845429898.00009 · Cited by 89
Bibliometrics in Academic Recruitment: A Screening Tool Rather than a Game Changer
Reymert, I. (2020) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-020-09419-0 · Cited by 70
A Sociology of Knowledge Approach to European Integration: Four Analytical Principles
Adler‐Nissen, R., & Kropp, K. (2015) · Journal of European Integration · doi:10.1080/07036337.2014.990133 · Cited by 65
Heinze, T., Philip Shapira, A., Senker, J. M., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0108-6 · Cited by 62
Showcasing phenomenon-driven research on organizational change
Schwarz, G. M., & Stensaker, I. G. (2016) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2016.1230931 · Cited by 66
Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication
Peterson, D., & Panofsky, A. L. (2021) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/03063127211005551 · Cited by 72
Miedema, F. F. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-024-2115-6 · Cited by 81
The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies
Leydesdorff, L. (1989) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017058 · Cited by 65
Cuartas, G. V., Lucio‐Arias, D., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2016) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2016.ene.05 · Cited by 66
Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2010) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088310387259 · Cited by 71
Evidence and Implications of Multiple Paradigms in Accounting Knowledge Production
Locke, J., & Lowe, A. D. (2008) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/09638180701819881 · Cited by 64
Lowe, P. D., & Phillipson, J. (2009) · Environment and Planning A Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a4175 · Cited by 63
A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses
Tang, M., Cheng, Y. J., & Chen, K. H. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2496-6 · Cited by 62
Lindahl, J., Colliander, C., & Danell, R. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03262-1 · Cited by 63
Jouvenet, M. (2011) · Sociologie du Travail · doi:10.1016/j.soctra.2011.03.005 · Cited by 80
Theoretical foundations of Swedish entrepreneurship and small-business research
Landström, H., & Johannisson, B. (2001) · Scandinavian Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0956-5221(99)00030-5 · Cited by 62
The logic of positive accounting research
Williams, P. F. (1989) · Accounting Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/0361-3682(89)90011-1 · Cited by 62
Psychological Objects, Practice, and History
Danziger, K. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2982-8_2 · Cited by 60
Mentorship and creativity: Effects of mentor creativity and mentoring style
Wang, J., & Shibayama, S. (2021) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104451 · Cited by 74
In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?
Thelwall, M. A., Kousha, K., Stuart, E., Makita, M., Abdoli, M., Wilson, P., & Levitt, J. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24767 · Cited by 79
Gendron, Y., & Smith-Lacroix, J.-H. (2015) · Critical Perspectives on Accounting · doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2013.09.002 · Cited by 49
Kruss, G., & Visser, M. (2017) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9548-6 · Cited by 60
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. A. (2023) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24810 · Cited by 74
Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures
Hessels, L. K., Franssen, T., Scholten, W., & de Rijcke, S. (2019) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-018-09366-x · Cited by 57
Sociology as Public Discourse and Professional Practice: A Critique of Michael Burawoy
Holmwood, J. (2007) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00297.x · Cited by 58
Characteristics and determinants of eminent scientists' productivity
Prpić, K. (1996) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017313 · Cited by 58
Shibayama, S., Baba, Y., & Walsh, J. P. (2015) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.003 · Cited by 57
Velarde, K. S. (2018) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-018-9346-4 · Cited by 56
Turning weakness into strength: strategies for future LIS
Nolin, J. M., & Åström, F. (2010) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220411011016344 · Cited by 56
Persson, R. S. (2012) · Gifted and Talented International · doi:10.1080/15332276.2012.11673603 · Cited by 55
What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?
Leahey, E., Lee, J., & Funk, R. J. (2023) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224231168074 · Cited by 66
Influence and reputation in the social sciences – how much do researchers agree?
Andersen, H. (2000) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eum0000000007132 · Cited by 54
Misgivings about dismantling the opportunity construct
Wood, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Business Venturing Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.01.001 · Cited by 55
Is information systems a discipline? Foucauldian and Toulminian insights
Hassan, N. R. (2011) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.2 · Cited by 51
Paugam, L., Stolowy, H., & Gendron, Y. (2020) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12660 · Cited by 54
Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research
Hansson, F., & Mønsted, M. (2007) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9081-5 · Cited by 54
Jappe, A., Pithan, D. M., & Heinze, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199031 · Cited by 57
Co-word analysis and thematic landscapes in Spanish information science literature, 1985–2014
Olmeda‐Gómez, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., & Perianes‐Rodríguez, A. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2486-8 · Cited by 53
Transforming Universities: National Conditions of Their Varied Organisational Actorhood
Whitley, R. D. (2012) · Minerva · doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9215-5 · Cited by 52
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitley, R.
- Corresponding author
- Whitley, Richard
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 2000-06-29
- OpenAlex
- W4388150685
- Cited by
- 1,076
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 70 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 47
- FWCI
- 28.11
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- social organization of science, business education, scientific paradigms, history of science, philosophy of science, research organization, knowledge production, scientific reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
