Social Studies of Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Collins, H. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 29, No. 2, 163-197 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/030631299029002001

Tantalus and the Aliens:

Publications, Audiences and the Search for Gravitational Waves

H. M. Collins

Centre for the Study of Knowledge, Expertise and Science (KES), University of Wales, Cardiff, 50 Park Place, Cardiff CF1 3AT, Wales, UK; fax: +44 1222 874436; CollinsHM{at}Cardiff.ac.uk

Different audiences at different distances from the core-set read scientific papers in different ways. If the institutional circumstances are right, an `inner audience' may try to control an outer audience's reading.

In Physics, the literature is sufficiently open to allow some papers that have no credibility with the mainstream to be published. This normally causes no problem within `core-groups' of scientists, because the orthodox interpretation is widely understood. There can still be trouble, however, from those who have not been socialized into the core-group's interpretative framework. Strangers to the field may give credence to papers which the core-group considers to be interpretatively dead. The `strangers' to which I refer are not scientific antagonists but scientists in different specialisms to those in the core-group, as well as policymakers and funders. A problem arises for the core-group when non-core-groupers are drawn into important decisions - as when a Big Science is fighting for funds.

The case of heterodox publications in gravitational radiation is examined. It is shown that papers published between 1985 and 1995, of which the core-group could normally be expected to think, `Ho hum - more of this', were strongly attacked. The institutional background of these attacks is explained.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
R. Evans, I. Kotchetkova, and S. Langer
Just around the corner: rhetorics of progress and promise in genetic research
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 2009; 18(1): 43 - 59.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Social Studies of ScienceHome page
M. Ashmore
Magnum Opus: When Harry Met Joe, and What Follows
Social Studies of Science, February 1, 2007; 37(1): 159 - 166.
[PDF]


Home page
Social Studies of ScienceHome page
A. Hedgecoe
Pharmacogenetics as Alien Science: Alzheimer's Disease, Core Sets and Expectations
Social Studies of Science, October 1, 2006; 36(5): 723 - 752.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Social Studies of ScienceHome page
K. Gunnarsdottir
Scientific Journal Publications: On the Role of Electronic Preprint Exchange in the Distribution of Scientific Literature
Social Studies of Science, August 1, 2005; 35(4): 549 - 579.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Acta SociologicaHome page
J. Thurk and G. A. Fine
The Problem of Tools: Technology and the Sharing of Knowledge
Acta Sociologica, June 1, 2003; 46(2): 107 - 117.
[Abstract] [PDF]