Analytical Comparison of Two Physics Research Fields

• In Event: When Infrastructures Fall Apart: Cuts and Ruptures in STS

Abstract

Research quality and excellence are key priorities for scientists, universities employing them, and for funding agencies (Paradeise and Thoenig, 2013). However, these notions are contextual and multi-dimensional. They are established, contested and institutionalised through negotiation amongst representatives of these domains (Langfeldt et al 2019). Here we approach tension between inherently global ‘research fields’, and ‘research spaces’ localised within organisational boundaries (Nedeva, 2013) by conceptualising degree of overlap between fields’ ‘site of accountability’ and ‘site of knowledge production’. These ‘sites’ overlap in, e.g. competing local laboratory-based fields, becoming susceptible to quality/excellence notions originating in organisational and policy evaluative environments. In fields organised around collaborative off-site facilities (e.g. large particle accelerators, telescopes) these sites are disconnected, with judgement of quality more rooted in knowledge communities.

We describe a mixed-methods analytical comparison of quantum many-body physics of ultracold atoms, an onsite lab-based field, and heavy flavour physics, a particle physics field organised mostly around an offsite CERN experiment. We first use co-nomination to map these fields’ intellectual influence networks followed by qualitative case studies. Our results show these two fields have differing communication structures, and differences in overlap between accountability and knowledge production sites, affecting research agenda setting (Luukkonen and Thomas, 2016), susceptibility to organisational evaluation notions, and scientists’ adaptation to exogenous quality notions. Our results challenge current ways research fields are evaluated, emphasising differences not only across but also within disciplines. We further problematise the extent of universities’ apparent influence over scientists’ research agendas according to the type of field involved.

Authors

• Maria Nedeva, University of Manchester

• Maria Karaulova, The University of Manchester

• Duncan Thomas, Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU)