Olof Hallonsten

Introducing `facilitymetrics': a first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide

Big Science accelerator complexes are no longer mere tools for nuclear and particle physics, but modern-day experimental resources for a wide range of natural sciences and often named instrumental to scientific and technological development for innovation and economic growth. Facilities compete on a global market to attract the best users and facilitate the best science, and advertise the achievement of their users as markers of quality and productivity. Thus a need has risen for (quantitative) quality assessment of science on the level of facilities. In this article, we examine some quantitative performance measurements frequently used by facilities to display quality: technical reliability, competition for access, and publication records. We report data from the world’s three largest synchrotron radiation facilities from the years 2004–2010, and discuss their meaning and significance by placing them in proper context. While we argue that quality is not possible to completely capture in these quantitative metrics, we acknowledge their apparent importance and, hence, we introduce and propose facilitymetrics as a new feature of the study of modern big science, and as a new empirical focus for scientometrical study, in the hope that future studies can contribute to a deeper, much-needed analysis of the topic.

Commissioning the University of Excellence: Swedish research policy and new public research funding programmes

In many countries, current research policy is dominated by managerialism and excellence, manifesting the aim of making universities into national strategic assets in the globally competitive knowledge economy. This article discusses these policy trends and their mirror in recent developments in public funding for academic research, with special attention to Sweden. A review of the language in three consecutive Swedish governmental research bills from the past 10 years shows a clear policy shift towards the promotion of excellence and strategic priority on the level of higher education institutions. Reforms to the funding system, especially the launch of specific strategic excellence funding programmes, are introduced to put the policy in practice. While the policy shift itself might be discursive, the changes to the funding system clearly show a determination on behalf of the Swedish government to increase strategic profiling and the pursuit of excellence in research on behalf of universities.

How scientists may ‘benefit from the mess’: A resource dependence perspective on individual organizing in contemporary science

There is general consensus in the study of science, and especially research policy studies, that a wave of profound change has struck academic science in the past decades. Central parts of this change are increased competition, growing demands of relevance and excellence, and managerialism reforms in institutions and policy systems. The underpinning thesis of this article is that, if seen from the perspective of individual scientists, these changes are exogenous and lead to greater environmental complexity and uncertainty, which in turn induces or forces individuals towards strategic planning and organizing in order to maintain control over their own research programs. Recent empirical studies have made various worthy contributions to the understanding of the macro-level (institutions, policy and funding systems, and broader epistemic developments) and the micro-level (individual and group behavior) developments of the social system of science, but there is a lack of comprehensive conceptual tools for analysis of change and its effect on individual scientists. This article takes the first steps towards developing a conceptual scheme for use in empirical studies of the (strategic) response of individual scientists to exogenous change, based on an adaptation of Resource Dependence Theory (RDT). The intended theoretical contribution builds on conceptualization of the individual researcher as crucially able to act rationally and strategically in the face of potentially conflicting demands from a growingly unpredictable environment. Defining a basic framework for a broad future research program, the article adds to the knowledge about the recent changes to the academic research system and calls for renewed interest in organizing in science and an analysis of the complex social system of science from the perspective of its smallest performing units: individuals.

The Politics of European Collaboration in Big Science

Intergovernmental collaboration in Big Science has been an important resource for European science since the 1950s, as a means to compete on global level. But interestingly, collaboration in (basic) science has traditionally been left outside of the political integration work of the European Community/Union, which has resulted in a cluttered policy field and a situation where European Big Science collaborations are built on ad hoc solutions rather than a coherent political framework and common regulatory standards. Despite this formal detachment, however, the genesis and development of collaborations, and their political realities once launched, often draw upon and reflect the ordinary (geo)political dynamics of Europe. This chapter reports on four historical and two contemporary cases of European collaboration in Big Science, from CERN in the 1950s to the currently planned European Spallation Source (ESS), all well-documented by previous studies, showing that while scientific and technical preconditions doubtlessly impact the fate of these Big Science installations, the logic and cycles of high-level politics in Europe always plays a role and can, in some cases, be said to have been decisive for the realization of a collaborative effort. Always balancing between national interest and the common good, European collaboration in Big Science is thus no different from the process of EC/EU integration, despite being formally detached therefrom. Using a historical perspective to make justice to the rather small collection of cases to study, the chapter covers a distinct instance of where science and technology is directly affected by international politics.

How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities

Although the nuclear era and the Cold War superpower competition have long since passed, governments are still investing in Big Science, although these large facilities are nowadays mostly geared towards areas of use closer to utility. Investments in Big Science are also motivated not only by promises of scientific breakthroughs but also by expectations (and demands) of measurable impact, and with an emerging global market of competing user-oriented Big Science facilities, quantitative measures of productivity and quality have become mainstream. Among these are rather simple and one-sided publication counts. This article uses publication counts and figures of expenditure for three cases that are disparate but all represent the state-of-the-art of Big Science of their times, discussing at depth the problems of using simple publication counts as a measure of performance in science. Showing, quite trivially, that Big Science is very expensive, the article also shows the absurd consequences of consistently using simple publication counts to display productivity and quality of Big Science, and concludes that such measures should be deemed irrelevant for analyses on the level of organizations in science and replaced by qualitative assessment of the content of the science produced.

Analyzing structural stratification in the Swedish higher education system: Data contextualization with policy-history analysis

20th century massification of higher education and research in academia is said to have produced structurally stratified higher education systems in many countries. Most manifestly, the research mission of universities appears to be divisive. Authors have claimed that the Swedish system, while formally unified, has developed into a binary state, and statistics seem to support this conclusion. This article makes use of a comprehensive statistical data source on Swedish higher education institutions to illustrate stratification, and uses literature on Swedish research policy history to contextualize the statistics. Highlighting the opportunities as well as constraints of the data, the article argues that there is great merit in combining statistics with a qualitative analysis when studying the structural characteristics of national higher education systems. Not least the article shows that it is an over-simplification to describe the Swedish system as binary; the stratification is more complex. On basis of the analysis, the article also argues that while global trends certainly influence national developments, higher education systems have country-specific features that may enrich the understanding of how systems evolve and therefore should be analyzed as part of a broader study of the increasingly globalized academic system.

Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs

The use of quantitative performance measures to evaluate the productivity, impact and quality of research has spread to almost all parts of public R&D systems, including Big Science where traditional measures of technical reliability of instruments and user oversubscription have been joined by publication counts to assess scientific productivity. But such performance assessment has been shown to lead to absurdities, as the calculated average cost of single journal publications easily may reach hundreds of millions of dollars. In this article, the issue of productivity and impact is therefore further qualified by the use of additional measures such as the immediacy index as well as network analysis to evaluate qualitative aspects of the impact of contemporary Big Science labs. Connecting to previous work within what has been called “facilitymetrics”, the article continues the search for relevant bibliometric measures of the performance of Big Science labs with the use of a case study of a recently opened facility that is advertised as contributing to “breakthrough” research, by using several more measures and thus qualifying the topic of performance evaluation in contemporary Big Science beyond simple counts of publications, citations, and costs.

From Periphery to Center

In its fifty-year history, the German national research laboratory DESY (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, German Electron Synchrotron) has undergone a gradual transformation from a single-mission particle physics laboratory to a multi-mission research center for accelerator physics, particle physics, and photon science. The last is an umbrella term for research using synchrotron radiation and, in later years, free-electron laser. Synchrotron radiation emerged initially as a peripheral part of the laboratory activities but grew to become a central experimental activity at DESY via a series of changes in the organizational, scientific, and infrastructural setup of the lab, and in its contextual scientific, political, and societal environment. This article chronicles the first sixteen years (1962–77) of the history of synchrotron radiation at DESY and its gradual transformation from peripheral and parasitic to a regular and recognized research program. The article complements previous writings on DESY history by focusing on synchrotron radiation, and it adds to the body of knowledge about the crucial renewal of Big Science laboratories toward the end of the twentieth century. This renewal culminated in the close-down of several particle physics machines in the early 2000s and their replacement by facilities dedicated to the study of the structure, properties, and dynamics of matter by the interaction with vacuum ultraviolet/X-ray photons. Therefore, this article contributes to the knowledge about the emergence and growth of synchrotron radiation as a laboratory resource, the understanding of processes of renewal in Big Science, and the general history of late-twentieth-century science.

From Periphery to Center: Synchrotron Radiation at DESY, Part II: 1977—1993

In its fifty-year history, the German national research laboratory DESY (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, German Electron Synchrotron) has undergone a gradual transformation from a single-mission particle physics laboratory to a multi-mission research center for accelerator physics, particle physics, and photon science. The last is an umbrella term for research using synchrotron radiation and, in later years, free-electron laser. Synchrotron radiation emerged initially as a peripheral part of the laboratory activities but grew to become a central experimental activity at DESY via a series of changes in the organizational, scientific, and infrastructural setup of the lab, and in its contextual scientific, political, and societal environment. Together with an earlier publication on the issue in this journal,1 this article chronicles the first thirty years in the history of synchrotron radiation at DESY. The focus is on the gradual transformation of DESY’s research program in synchrotron radiation from peripheral and parasitic into mainstream and mission. We provide insights about the crucial renewal of Big Science laboratories toward the end of the twentieth century. This renewal culminated in the close-down of several particle physics machines in the early 2000s and their replacement by facilities dedicated to the study of the structure, properties, and dynamics of matter by the interaction with vacuum ultraviolet and X-ray photons. Therefore, we contribute to better understanding the growth of synchrotron radiation as a laboratory resource, and processes of renewal in Big Science as part of the general history of late-twentieth-century science.

Introduction and Framework

This book uses a variety of perspectives, conceptual tools and empirical cases to argue that Big Science in North America and (Western) Europe has transformed dramatically and, by most accounts, beyond recognition. Promoting a new understanding and a partly new use of the slightly worn-out and arguably very vague and analytically unworkable term “Big Science,” the book argues that the basic structures of Big Science (big machines, big organizations, and big politics) have remained in place but that the content of the research activities that nowadays constitute Big Science are radically different from some decades ago. Likewise—and importantly—the political and organizational forms for Big Science have changed profoundly. There is thus both continuity and change in Big Science, and while the central term is ambiguous, it can be relied upon as an independent variable in the conceptualization of the topic and the building of a framework for the analysis: although many of the preconditions for its original existence are long gone, Big Science has not vanished, but has transformed.