Institutional Struggles for Recognition in the Academic Field: The Case of University Departments in German Chemistry

Minerva

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 97-126

  Münch, Richard ^a   Baier, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Academic capitalism; Academic field; New public management; Research grants; Scientific capital; Symbolic capital

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857507283     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-012-9189-3     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Allison, Paul D., J. Scott Long, and Tad K. Krauze. 1982. Cumulative advantage and in-equality in science. American Sociological Review 47(5): 615-625.
2. Bentley, Richard, and Robert Blackburn. 1990. Changes in academic research performance over time. A study of institutional accumulative advantage. Research in Higher Education 31(4): 327-353.
3. Berghoff, Sonja, Gero Federkeil, Petra Giebisch, Cort-Denis Hachmeister, and Detlef Müller-Böling. 2005. Das CHE-Forschungs-Ranking deutscher Universitäten 2005. Working-paper No. 70. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
4. Berghoff, Sonja, Gero Federkeil, Petra Giebisch, Cort-Denis Hachmeister, Mareike Hennings, and Detlef Müller Böling. 2006. Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher Universitäten 2006. Gütersloh: Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung.
5. Berghoff, Sonja, Gero Federkeil, Petra Giebisch, Cort-Denis Hachmeister, Mareike Hennings, Isabel Roessler, and Franz Ziegele. 2009. Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher Universitäten 2009. Arbeitspapier 130. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
6. Binswanger, Mathias. 2010. Sinnlose Wettbewerbe. Warum wir immer mehr Unsinn produzieren. Freiburg: Herder.
7. Bonitz, Manfred, Eberhard Bruckner, and Andrea Scharnhorst. 1997. Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics 40(3): 407-422.
8. Bonitz, Manfred, and Andrea Scharnhorst. 2001. Competition in science and the Matthew core journals. Scientometrics 51(1): 37-54.
9. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14(6): 19-47.
10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. John G. Richardson, 241-256. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
11. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
12. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The state nobility. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
14. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15. Broadhead, Lee-Anne, and Sean Howard. 1998. 'The Art of Punishing': The research assessment exercise and the ritualization of power in higher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 6(8): 1-14.
16. Burris, Val. 2004. The academic caste system. Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review 69: 239-264.
17. Clark, Burton R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford und New York: Pergamon Press.
18. Cole, Stephen. 1970. Professional standing and the reception of scientific discoveries. American Journal of Sociology 76: 286-306.
19. Cole, Jonathan R., and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Crespi, Gustavo A., and Aldo Geuna. 2006. The productivity of UK Universities. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No. 147.
21. Curran, Paul J. 2000. Competition in UK higher education: Competitive advantage in the research assessment exercise and porter's diamond model. Higher Education Quarterly 54(4): 386-410.
22. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 1998. Jahresbericht 1997. Bonn.
23. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2002. Jahresbericht 2001. Bonn.
24. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2003. Förder-Ranking 2003. Institutionen - Regionen - Netzwerke. DFG-Bewilligungen und weitere Basisdaten öffentlich geförderter Forschung. Bonn.
25. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2005. Jahresbericht 2004. Bonn.
26. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2006. Förder-Ranking 2006. Institutionen - Regionen - Netzwerke. Bonn.
27. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2008. Exzellenzinitiative auf einen Blick. Bonn.
28. DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). 2009. Förder-Ranking 2009. Bonn.
29. Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. Science in the modern world polity. Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
30. Durkheim, Emile. 1952. Suicide (trans. Spaulding, J. A. and G. Simpson). London: Routledge.
31. Elton, Lewis. 2000. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Unintended consequences. Higher Education 54(3): 274-283.
32. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1993. Against method, 3rd ed. London: Verso.
33. Fligstein, Neil. 2001. The architecture of markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
34. Geuna, Aldo. 2001. The changing rationale for European research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues 35(September): 607-633.
35. Geuna, Aldo, and Lionel Nesta. 2006. University patenting and its effect on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35(6): 790-807.
36. Goldstone, Jack A. 1979. A deductive explanation of the Matthew Effect in science. Social Studies of Science 9: 385-392.
37. Gruening, Gernod. 2001. Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal 4(1): 1-25.
38. Halffman, Willem, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2010. Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva 48(1): 55-72.
39. Havemann, Frank, Michael Heinz, and Roland Wagner-Döbler. 2005. Firm-like behavior of journals? Scaling properties of their output and impact growth dynamics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56(1): 3-12.
40. Heinze, Thomas, Philip Shapira, Juan D. Rogers, and Jacqueline M. Senker. 2009. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy 38: 610-623.
41. Hicks, Diana, and James Skea. 1998. Is big really better? Physics World 2: 31-34.
42. Hoare, Anthony G. 1995. Scale economies in academic excellence: An exploratory analysis of the United Kingdom's 1992 research selectivity exercise. Higher Education 29: 241-260.
43. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers. 2006. The dynamics of American discoveries. In Transformationen des Kapitalismus, eds. J. Beckert, B. Ebbinghaus, A. Hassel, and P. Manow, 361-380. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.
44. Jansen, Dorothea, Andreas Wald, Karola Franke, Ulrich Schmoch, and Torben Schubert. 2007. Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59(1): 125-149.
45. Janson, Kerstin, Harald Schomburg, and Ulrich Teichler. 2006. Wissenschaftliche Wege zur Professur oder ins Abseits? Strukturinformationen zu Arbeitsmarkt und Beschäftigung an Hochschulen in Deutschland und den USA. New York: German Academic International Network. Retrieved September 20, 2006. (http://www. gain-network. org/file).
46. Johnes, Jill. 1996, "Performance assessment in higher education in Britain". European Journal of Operation Research 89: 18-33.
47. Johnes, Jill, and Geraint Johnes. 1995. Research funding and performance in the UK University Departments of Economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review 14: 301-314.
48. Krull, Wilhelm (ed.). 1999. Forschungsförderung in Deutschland. Bericht der internationalen Kommission zur Systemevaluation der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Hannover.
49. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Lane, Jan-Erik. 2000. New public management. London: Routledge.
51. Laudel, Grit. 2006. The 'quality myth': Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Higher Education 52: 375-403.
52. Lynn, Laurence E. 1998. A critical analysis of the new public management. International Public Management Journal 1(1): 107-123.
53. Mauss, Marcel. 1967. The gift. Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: Norton.
54. McNamee, Stephen J., and Cecil L. Willis. 1994. Stratification in science. Science Communication 15(4): 396-416.
55. Merton, Robert K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56-63.
56. Merton, Robert K. 1949/1968b. The self-fulfilling prophecy. In Social theory and social structure, ed. Merton, R. K. 424-436. New York: Free Press.
57. Merton, Robert K. 1949/1968c. "Social Structure and Anomie." In Social theory and social structure, ed. Robert K. Merton, 185-214. New York: Free Press.
58. Merton, Robert K. 1942/1973. "The normative structure of science." In The sociology of science, ed Robert K. Merton, 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Merton, Robert K. 1995. The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect. Social Forces 74(2): 379-424.
60. Merton, Robert K. 1996. "The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property." In On social structure and science, ed. Robert K. Merton, 318-336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 55-77.
62. Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Franciso O. Ramirez. (eds). 1997. World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology 103: 144-181.
63. Münch, Richard. 2007. Die akademische Elite. Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.
64. Münch, Richard. 2010. Akademischer Kapitalismus. Zur politischen Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M.
65. National Science Foundation. 1998. What follows the postdoctorate experience? Employment patterns of 1993 Postdocs in 1995. ISSUE Brief. Retrieved October 20, 2005. (www. nsf. gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99307. htm).
66. National Science Foundation. 2006. Science and engineering indicators. 2006. Ch. 5 Arlington. Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). Retrieved May 25, 2007. (www. nsf. ogv/statistics/seind04/c5/c5. htm).
67. Owen-Smith, Jason. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy 32: 1081-1104.
68. Rigney, Daniel C. 2010. Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. New York: Columbia University Press.
69. Schimank, Uwe. 1995. Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
70. Sharp, Stephen, and Simon Coleman. 2005. Ratings in the research assessment exercise 2001-The patterns of university status and panel membership. Higher Education 59(2): 153-171.
71. SJTU (Shanghai Jiao Tong University) 2010: Academic ranking of world universities. Shanghai: Online. http://www. arwu. org/. Retrieved January 2011.
72. Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
73. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy. Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
74. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2005. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4. 3. 2 (2003). Bildung und Kultur. Wiesbaden.
75. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2010. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4. 3. 2 (2008). Bildung und Kultur. Wiesbaden.
76. Tol, Richard S. J. 2009. The Matthew effect defined and tested for the 100 most prolific economists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 420-426.
77. Weber, Max. 1922/1976. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
78. Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.