1. We conceptualize “problem domains” as cognitive regions around which scientists gather (intellectually) and through which they pass (as evidenced by publication on problems specific to the region). These domains, we think, tend to be shorter-lived and encompass fewer researchers than so-called scientific specialties [for a review, see D. E. CHUBIN, The conceptualization of scientific specialties,Sociological Quarterly, 17 (Autumn/1976), 448–476] The best approximations in the sociology of science literature of “problem domain” are the concepts of “research area” (R. D. WHITLEY, Cognitive and social institutionalization of scientific specialties and research areas, in:Social Progresses of Scientific Development, R. D. WHITLEY (Ed.), London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 65–95) and “transient network” (D. O. EDGE, M. J. MULKAY,Astronomy Transformed, New York, Wiley, 1976, esp. Chapt. 10). Network, unfortunately, connotes social properties which are construed all too readily as criteria for identifying a viable domain. We do not equate network with domain; reather, we see a domain as composed of networks through which ideas flow, often linked by clusters of researchers at certain institutional sites. But above all, a problem domain is an intellectual entity, a nexus of research interests; we assume nothing about the social structure of those interests.
2. These terms include what others have referred to as “cognitive and technical norms” [M. J. MULKAY, Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural sciences,Social Research, 36 (Spring 1969) 22–52]; “tacit knowledge” [M. POLANYI,The Tacit Dimension, Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Doubleday, 1967; H. M. COLLINS, The TEA set: tacit knowledge and scientific networks,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 165–186; and the “inner logic of a set of scientific problems” (G. BOHME, Models for the development of science, inScience, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, I. SPIEGEL-RÖSING, D. DE S. PRICE (Eds), Beverly Hills, Sage, 1977, p. 319–352].
3. J. R. COLE, H. ZUCKERMAN, The emergence of a scientific specialty: the self-exemplifying case of the sociology of science, inThe Idea of Social, Structure: Pepers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, L. A. COSER (Ed.), p. 139–174, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1975, B. C. GRIFFITH, M. G. DROTT, H. G. SMALL, On the use of citations in studying scientific achievements and communication,Newsletter of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 2 (Summer 1977) 9–13; D. O. EDGE, Why I am not a co-citationist,Newsletter of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 2 (Summer 1977) 13–19.
4. H. G. SMALL, B. C. GRIFFITH, The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17–40; N. C. MULLINS, L. L. HARGENS, P. K. HECHT, E. L. KICK, The group structure of cocitation clusters: a comparative study,Americal Sociological Review, 42 (August 1977) 552–562.
5. M. D. KING, Reason, tradition, and the progressiveness of science,History and Theory, 10 (1971) 3–32.