1. See, for example, M. SMITH, The Trend Toward Multiple Authorship in Psychology,American Psychologist, 13 (1958) 596–599, J. P. PHILLIPS, The Individual in Chemical Research,Science, 121 (1955) 311–312; W. R. UTZ,American Mathematical Society Notices, 9 (1962) 196–199; B. L. CLARKE, Multiple Authorship Trends in Scientific Papers,Science, 143 (1964) 822–824; D. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963, p. 87–90.
2. For a comprehensive review of these positions, see H. ZUCKERMAN, Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965), Chapter 1. (Revision, without extensive co-authorship statistics, published asScientific Elite, Nobel Laureates in the United States, Free Press, New York, 1977).
3. The best of these are: H. ZUCKERMAN, op. cit. Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration, (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965), and two works by W. D. HAGSTROM, Traditional and Modern Forms of Teamwork,Administrative Science Quarterly, 9 (1964) 241–263, andThe Scientific Community, Basic Books, New York, 1965, Chapter III.
4. Although the sociologist R. MERTON has been most influential in studying science as a community, his approach tends to obscure certain important factors. First, his postulation that the scientific community is organized around four norms (organized skepticism, universalism, communality, disinterestedness), either denies the existence of other motivations in a scientist's career or downgrades them by making them only isolated deviations normally to be shunned by scientists. More significantly, MERTON's work has oriented the sociology of science toward explaining the structure of the scientific community in terms of these four norms and consequently influenced others toward the view that scientists' behavior can be explained as either conforming to or deviating from the norms. Finally, reliance on this normative ideology, especially when priority or recognition is involved (two case which are statistically significant events in the scientific community) has led sociologists of science to treat status as a passive phenomenon (not leading to power which is tabooed by the norms: such a sase in which power or authority was involved would be treated as an isolated deviation). In this view status seeking is a permissible goal only when it can be explained as the natural result of conflicting norms. Thus this provision eliminates the need for explanations based on other non-positivistic possibilities. For an extended discussion of MERTON'S influence on the sociology of science see: M. D. KING, Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science,History and Theory, 10 (1971)
5. E. MENDELSOHN, The Emergence of Science as a Profession in Nineteenth-Century Europe, in:The Management of Scientists, K. HILL, (Ed.), p. 4.