Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
This article examines the relationship between structural strain (the imbalance
between actual and preferred conditions of work) and anomie in science (the absence of
opportunities to achieve recognition). Using data from a nationally representative survey
of physicists and biologists in the United Kingdom (N = 1,604), we test competing
hypotheses about the occupational factors that produce structural strain. We find that
structural strain is influenced by organizational context and career stage, but not in the
manner existing theory suggests. We elaborate existing theoretical frameworks by show-
ing that role composition mediates the effects of organizational context and career stage.
Introduction
Scholars argue that professional occupations are associated with highly
autonomous conditions of work that produce job satisfaction. The autonomy of
professionals in law, medicine, science, and engineering, for example, is predi-
cated on abstract expertise that only members of a profession are able to evalu-
ate, meaning these expert laborers wield a great deal of control over the
definition, execution, and conditions of their work (Freidson 2001). Neverthe-
less, situated as they are in organizations (Randle 1996), professional workers
are subject to many sources of structural strain, an imbalance between actual
and preferred conditions of work.
Consider academic science. Structural strain can alter how scientists under-
stand their roles, including tensions between: access to funding and excess of
competition (Stephan 2012); the pursuit of traditional scientific inquiry and
demands for commercially relevant research (Johnson 2017); or work and fam-
ily (Ecklund and Lincoln 2016; Thompson and Bunderson 2001). Although
academic science has historically experienced structural changes corresponding
to economic prosperity in a given national context (Geiger 1999), the core
changes characterizing contemporary science involve adaptation to greater scar-
city of resources and opportunity (Hermanowicz 2009).
Little research, however, has directly examined how the distribution of
structural strain may vary across organizational contexts, career stages, or
According to Durkheim, “No living being can be happy or even exist unless
his needs are sufficiently proportioned to his means” (Durkheim [1897] 1951,
246). He first introduces the term in The Division of Labor in Society to
describe how industrialization created a division of labor that threatened social
cohesion. In Suicide, Durkheim reveals the relationship between a society’s
ability to regulate the aspirations and behaviors of its members and its suicide
rate, showing that anomic suicide is the result of a lack of social solidarity.
Merton (1938) draws upon the concept of anomie in his theory of social
order, arguing that anomie is the result of an imbalance between cultural struc-
ture and social structure. According to Merton, the dominant cultural goal in
the United States is material wealth, while education and hard work comprise
the legitimate means by which individuals may realize that goal. Merton argues
that the problem with this type of society is that the means for success are not
universally distributed across the social structure. Both Durkheim and Merton
conceptualize anomie as normlessness, but they differ in their views of what
causes anomie. Durkheim argues that rapid change in society leads to anomie,
whereas Merton argues that anomie is caused by excessive emphasis on the
goals of wealth and success in the United States.
Merton also distinguishes between anomie and strain, yet these distinct
theoretical components are not often distinguished in research because his
usage of the concept of anomie is inconsistent (Levine 1985). As Featherstone
and Deflem (2003) show, Merton presents two distinct theories: a theory of
anomie, the deinstitutionalization of norms that results from an imbalance
between emphasis on cultural goals and institutional means (Merton 1938; p.
673; Merton 1968, p. 189); and strain theory, which argues that people are
more likely to pursue illegitimate means to goal attainment when they are
blocked from access to the institutionalized means to these goals (Merton
1938, p. 679; 1968, p. 211). As Merton argues (1968, pp. 216–217), “social
structure strains the cultural values, making action in accord with them readily
possible for those occupying certain statuses within the society and difficult or
impossible for others.” Both anomie and strain explain social disorganization.
Whereas anomie theory argues that culturally induced pressure to achieve insti-
tutional goals leads to a sense of normlessness or a breakdown in the collective
order, strain theory is a structural argument that focuses on the distribution of
legitimate means to be successful.
Anomie and Strain in Science
The sociology of science has profited from anomie theory in particular.
Based on interviews with mathematicians, Hagstrom (1964) introduced the
notion of anomie in science, a contribution important for illustrating the con-
ceptual connections between Durkheim and Merton’s formulations and the
4 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
Organizational Context
The failure of organizations to establish an environment where a minimum
set of worker preferences can be met is critical to how employees experience
their careers (Hodson 1999). Organizational context is particularly important in
science because where scientists work makes a significant difference in how
much they publish (Allison and Long 1990), meaning anomie and strain should
vary by organizational context because of varying emphases on research and
the structural properties of universities that enable and constrain scientific
achievement. A widespread embrace of research now characterizes university
systems (Morphew 2009), with universities seeking funding, prestige, and bet-
ter faculty and students. In the context of scientific careers, this means a greater
stress on research productivity, even at universities where teaching is more
common than research.
While anomie is found throughout science (Hackett 1990; Hermanowicz
2011), scholars disagree about where it may be more pronounced. Hermanow-
icz (2011), for example, argues that the presence of resources and pressure
encourages anomie less than the lack of it. In his study, he finds that the “pov-
erty” of non-elite contexts protects scientists from anomie because scientists
perceive limited opportunity for recognition and advancement and consequently
6 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
Career Stage
Anomie and strain vary by career stage because the expectations for
careers vary over time. A possibility that one might naturally assume is that
strain is higher in earlier career stages as scientists experience the pressure that
accompanies the pursuit of tenure, while scientists in later career stages conduct
their work in the relative security of a permanent position. Hermanowicz’s
(2009) study suggests the effects of career stage are context specific. Among
elite scientists, the disjuncture between present and future expectations is high-
est in late career stages (Hermanowicz 2009). During early- and mid-career
stages, elite scientists experience cumulative advantage and opportunities, mani-
fest in accelerated publication productivity and heightened expectations. As
elites approached the end of their careers, however, they experience anomie
because greater achievement is circumvented by a lack of time, lower capaci-
ties, and a sense that their careers did not progress as they expected.
Anomie emerges earlier among non-elite scientists, primarily because the
structural conditions of their work contexts offer fewer professional
STRUCTURAL STRAIN IN SCIENCE 7
H3b: Incidence of structural strain among elite scientists will be higher among scientists in
late career stages relative to elites in early or mid-career stages.
of the eligible sampled departments, stratified by gender and career stage, total-
ing 3,372 physicists and biologists. We oversampled women because they are
underrepresented in science.
The survey was administered from September 19, 2013, to October 15,
2013, by GfK, an international survey research firm based in London, England.
The scientists were contacted in advance with an invitation to participate in the
study, which included a description of the study and a £5 pre-incentive. Fol-
lowing this letter, scientists received an e-mail containing a link to the online
survey, another description of the study, and a letter of support encouraging
participation from the study’s International Natural Science Advisory Board. E-
mail and telephone reminders followed, and scientists were given the option to
complete the survey over the phone.6
Of the 3,372 scientists in our initial sample, 1,604 completed the survey.
Using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s definition num-
ber 3 for response rates, our UK survey obtained a 50 percent response rate.7
We account for departmental clustering and selection probabilities in our analy-
sis through sampling weights and data stratification. This minimizes any bias
caused by the sampling design and the deficiencies of the sampling frame. t-
Tests conducted in the non-response analysis confirm that our sample matches
the sampling frame on known characteristics. The results of our analysis thus
reflect a representative cross section of the population of academic physicists
and biologists in the UK.8 Although in the remainder of the article we use the
term “scientists” to refer to the population we studied, this is merely for gram-
matical simplicity; we cannot generalize to scientists from other disciplines
such as chemistry and social sciences.
For our analytic sample in this article, we only consider those scientists
who possess a PhD (N = 1,084). We exclude postgraduate students (the equiva-
lent of master’s and doctoral students in the United States), because our mea-
sure of anomie is based on the discrepancy between actual and preferred tasks
that scientists perform. Postgraduate students do not engage in graduate and
undergraduate instruction, and because these activities are key components of
the scientific role (and may contribute to strain vis-a-vis research activities), we
exclude these scientists.9 Our sample thus comprises only scientists in the fol-
lowing positions: Postdoctoral Fellows, Research Fellows, Lecturers, Senior
Lecturers, Readers, and Professors.10 Note that in the UK, the lecturer position
is quite different from the position of the same title in the United States. In the
UK, lecturers are engaged in both research and teaching, much like any profes-
sor in the United States, whereas in the United States lecturers are exclusively
engaged in instructional tasks and not research. Reader is an academic rank
above senior lecturer and below professor. Like these other positions, readers
are engaged in both research and teaching. In our final models, 114 cases were
10 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
expectations for the present and future (desired allocation of effort). Moreover,
the notion of time is only important in our measure to the extent that it
expresses a preference about what scientists would prefer to be doing, which is
presumably driven by the reward system of science.
A second reason this measure has a strong ability to capture the meaning
of strain is tied to the emphasis on deprivation from legitimate means of suc-
cess in Merton’s strain theory. The mismatch between actual and preferred con-
ditions of work captured in our measure is a structural measure that expresses a
scientist’s desire to change the condition of her work, meaning one may feel
deprived of what she perceives to be a legitimate opportunity to fulfill her
achievement expectations when it comes to research.
Our measure offers a methodological advance in the study of anomie and
strain relative to the two existing quantitative studies that model this concept.
Hargens and Kelly-Wilson (1994), who use anomie to predict “disciplinary dis-
content,” simply infer anomie from discipline, suggesting that math and sociol-
ogy are anomic fields. Braxton (1993) employs a theoretical framework that
incorporates anomie theory, but labels and operationalizes his anomie construct
as “alienation.” These approaches partially capture notions of anomie, but they
bear less logical connection to the theoretical components of anomie and strain
than the present study.
Explanatory Variables
Elite Status. To classify the organizational status of departments as elite
or non-elite, we triangulated three sources of information: research
productivity, published rankings, and regional insiders (i.e., prominent scientists
in each region). In terms of research productivity, we used Web of Science. As
part of our broader sampling procedure, we randomly sampled biology and
physics articles published between 2001 and 2011 that had departments based
in the UK. We then extracted department data to create a list of unique
organizations for each discipline, and created a measure summarizing the
number of publications per department. This number provides a proxy for the
relative level of engagement in research of a given department, with elite
departments being research-intensive and non-elite departments exhibiting
lower levels of publication productivity. Yet, even departments that publish
frequently may not be considered elite, for example, because the articles appear
in non-top-tier journals or because they are rarely cited. A continuous measure
could also be problematic because smaller departments that have a lower total
article output, but are nevertheless recognized as elite, would be misclassified.
For these reasons, we also relied on published rankings and in-country experts.
We assume that the stronger the reputation according to published rank-
ings, the more elite the organization. We utilized the 2008 Research
12 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics (Weighted and Unweighted) for Variables Used in
Analysis (N = 970)
middle- and late-career scientists exhibit greater structural strain. There is a sta-
tistically significant difference (p < .001) between early-career scientists and
either of the others, but not between middle- and late-career scientists. (For
tests of statistical significance, see bivariate coefficients of these variables in
Table 4.)
Table 4 presents results from a weighted ordinary least squares regression
of structural strain on discipline, organizational context, and career stage. Mod-
els 1 and 2 aim to assess support for Hypothesis 1, that is, that incidence of
strain is higher among physicists than among biologists. Model 1 examines the
differences between Physics and Biology departments in the distribution of
structural strain, and Model 2 introduces controls. While the magnitude of dif-
ference increases when we introduce controls in Model 2, this effect is not sta-
tistically significant. There is no statistically significant difference between
Table 2
Correlation Matrix
Work-to- Family- Career Career Career
Family to-Work Stage Stage Stage Undergraduate Graduate Other
Strain Biology Female Income Publication Conflict Conflict Elite 1 2 3 Funding Teaching Teaching Activities
Strain 1
Biology .04 1
Female .04 .18 1
Income .07 .02 .22 1
Publications .04 .21 .20 .37 1
Work- .16 .05 .03 .02 .01 1
to-Family
Conflict
Family- .07 .03 .01 .01 .12 .18 1
to-Work
Conflict
Elite .10 .08 .06 .08 .12 .04 .04 1
Career .23 .02 .19 .41 .29 .03 .05 .05 1
Stage 1
Career .15 .02 .02 .08 .15 .04 .12 .04 .65 1
Stage 2
Career .09 .05 .20 .39 .17 .01 .08 .02 .40 .44 1
Stage 3
Funding .11 .03 .06 .26 .36 .02 .07 .14 .07 .06 .01 1
Undergraduate .34 .05 .06 .01 .03 .12 .10 .18 .27 .16 .13 .25 1
Teaching
Graduate .26 .00 .03 .18 .26 .15 .12 .00 .23 .12 .12 .18 .10 1
Teaching
STRUCTURAL STRAIN IN SCIENCE
Other .37 .02 .14 .30 .13 .09 .06 .01 .27 .09 .22 .00 .05 .12 1
Activities
15
16
Table 3
Structural Strain by Discipline, Organizational Context, and Career Stage (N = 970)
Early Late
Biology Physics Elite Non-elite career Mid-Career career
DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual
% Work 58.6 47.9 59.6 47.8 55.0 41.5 61.7 52.0 68.2 63.2 54.6 39.6 49.6 34.0
time
spent
on
research
Structural 13.6 14.1 12.5 15.7 9.8 16.7 16.0
strain
(%)
Note: Because cases where structural strain is less than zero are recoded to zero, mean values for structural strain do
not amount to the simple difference of means between preferred and actual proportions.
Table 4
Weighted Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Structural Strain on Discipline, Organizational Context, and Career Stage
Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5) Model (6) Model (7)
Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4) Model (5) Model (6) Model (7)
Undergraduate .418***
teaching hours (.0607)
Postgraduate .577***
teaching hours (.114)
Other .652***
non-research (.0930)
work hours
Constant 14.07*** 3.824 15.71*** 5.687* 9.786*** 4.366 .0334
(.794) (2.410) (.816) (2.511) (.888) (2.542) (2.391)
N 970 970 970 970 970 970 970
R-square .000 .034 .011 .045 .051 .092 .339
Adj. .001 .028 .010 .038 .049 .081 .329
R-square
Table 5
Preferred and Actual Allocation of Work Hours by Career Stage (N = 970)
scientists spend more time on such activities than early-career scientists do—
the role composition for scientists in later career stages entails more time spent
teaching and on administrative duties. Consequently, mid- and late-career scien-
tists would prefer to dedicate more of their work hours to doing research than
they currently do.
Discussion
These findings contribute to knowledge of scientific work in the UK and
have implications for the study of professions more broadly. Research on Bri-
tish scientists tends to focus on outcomes of scientific work—such as commer-
cialization of research (Haeussler and Colyvas 2011), science communication
with the public (Pearson 2001; Johnson et al. 2016), and scientists’ involve-
ment in policy (Waterton 2005)—rather than conditions of scientific work. We
build on earlier studies of British scientists (Gaston 1975) and more recent
essays (Morris and Rip 2006; Pritchard 1998) that consider workplace condi-
tions. Specifically, the conditions of structural strain we identify illuminate
threats to job satisfaction and professional autonomy in UK academic science
careers.
Our findings advance the theory of anomie in science by systematically
measuring the incidence of structural strain using a nationally representative
sample of scientists. We found that the majority (63%) of UK scientists experi-
ence some structural strain; that is, they prefer to spend a greater proportion of
their work time on research than they currently do. We developed hypotheses
about conditions that give rise to strain from research on anomie, and found
support for some, but not all of the propositions. In the UK, organizational con-
text and career stage matter, but not in the manner proposed for U.S. scientists.
We also elaborate the existing theoretical frameworks by showing that role
composition mediates the effects of organizational context and career stage.
Below, we consider our main findings and their implications.
This study provides the first test of structural strain that compares disci-
plinary differences, finding that there are no significant differences between
physicists and biologists. Based on codification theory, we expected physicists
to experience higher levels of strain because definitions of success are so strin-
gently tied to transformative discoveries in physics, whereas biology—charac-
terized by medium consensus—offers more definitions of success to which
scientists can attach their sense of self. Physicists do report a desire to spend
more time on research than biologists, but the differences are negligible and
not significant. It could be that while biology offers more varied definitions of
success, these definitions do not spillover into tasks unrelated to research. It
could also be that disciplinary differences in strain only exist between low con-
sensus (such as social science disciplines) and high consensus disciplines.
22 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
that the effects of career stage and organizational context on structural strain
are mediated by the amount of time scientists allocate to other tasks. Even
though scientists’ preference to work more hours increases over the course of
the career, this increase is outpaced by the expansion of hours scientists actu-
ally work. What is more, the actual amount of time scientists spend on research
decreases as they enter mid- and late-career stages, while commitments to
teaching and other tasks increase during these periods. How these tasks are
allocated ultimately matters more than the organizational context or career stage
in which a scientist is situated. Yet it is more difficult to achieve one’s pre-
ferred working conditions at non-elite universities primarily because the teach-
ing expectations are so high. The anomie experienced by elite scientists in late
career stages may result in part from the difficulty of living up to such height-
ened group expectations for success, but they nevertheless remain structurally
inhibited. Even in an organizational context of accumulative advantage, achiev-
ing one’s preferred conditions of work gets more challenging over time.
The limitations of our study provide important avenues for future research.
Although our work is unable to operationalize constructs related to cultural
conditions such as meaning, meaninglessness, and identification with the insti-
tutional goals, it nevertheless provides a measure of strain in science that is
empirically more precise than previous scholarship, which simply infers anomie
from discipline (Hargens and Kelly-Wilson 1994). Future studies would benefit
from direct measures of institutional expectations and scientists’ perceptions of
them. Further, we cannot rule out the possibility that the incidence of structural
strain and anomie vary across national contexts of science as national science
infrastructures vary in terms of the distribution of resources and career opportu-
nities and the culture of scientific work. It is thus probable that conditions of
structural strain vary across nations as a result.
The theory of strain and anomie in science could fruitfully be applied
more broadly as a theory of strain and anomie in professions such as medicine,
law, and architecture. In particular, this work suggests that rather than focusing
on broad dynamics that erode control over conditions of professional work
(Ritzer and Walczak 1988), the study of threats to autonomy should assume a
multidimensional approach including factors like organizational context, career
stage, and specialty. Like science, all professions are characterized by strong
socialization processes that encourage achievement aspirations and commitment
to institutional goals. Here, we focused on the elite and non-elite characteristics
of organizational context. Professions more broadly are similarly characterized
by internal differentiation (Becker 1982), meaning the organizational contexts
in which professional careers are carried out—like science—are characterized
by structural differences that enable and constrain achievement. Like non-elite
scientists who aspire to achieve through research but find themselves
24 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
ENDNOTES
*Please direct correspondence to David R. Johnson, University of Nevada Reno, 1664 N. Vir-
ginia St, Reno, NV 89557, USA; e-mail: drj@unr.edu
David R. Johnson (drj@unr.edu) is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the
University of Nevada, Reno, and author of the forthcoming book, Commercialism and Conflict in
Academic Science: A Fractured Profession (Johns Hopkins University Press).
Brandon Vaidyanathan is a Public Policy Fellow at the Center for Ethics and Culture at the
University of Notre Dame.
Elaine Howard Ecklund is the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences and Professor of
Sociology at Rice University.
The authors wish to thank Scott V. Savage and Richard Williams for comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
Data collection for this study was funded by the Templeton World Charity Foundation, Elaine
Howard Ecklund PI, and Kirstin R. W. Matthews, and Steven W. Lewis Co-PIs, grant #0033/
AB14.
1
To be clear, there are clearly literatures on role strain caused by interinstitutional conflict
between spheres such as work and family or science and capitalism.
2
The Research Assessment Exercise is now entitled the Research Excellence Framework.
3
Teaching colleges and polytechnics did not have university status in the UK until the Further
and Higher Education Act of 1992. These institutions are much more focused on teaching than
older universities, but some have departments that can compete in research terms. The non-elite
subset of our sample includes six departments located at post-1992 universities.
4
In some countries, academic research takes place in research institutes that are not necessar-
ily affiliated with universities. All of the scientists in our UK subset are located at universities.
STRUCTURAL STRAIN IN SCIENCE 25
5
A department was identified as ineligible if (1) there was a lack of contact information for
scientists; (2) the department could not be found online; and (3) the department was not a biology
or physics department. In the event a department was ineligible, a new one was randomly sampled.
6
Sixteen scientists completed the survey by phone.
7
See http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169thed
itionfinal.pdf
8
In the absence of a census of British physicists and biologists—no such census currently
exists—we cannot accurately verify the extent to which our sample is representative of the popula-
tion of physicists and biologists in the UK. However, we took several steps to minimize the poten-
tial for differences between our sample and the population of academic physicists and biologists,
including multistage random selection and stratification by key variables such as gender, rank, and
institutional status as we mentioned earlier. It is possible that our sampling method may have
missed some marginal segments of the population of academic biologists and physicists in the UK
that would require oversampling for representativeness, such as scientists in the most esoteric sub-
fields within each discipline. There is no theoretical reason this should have any implications for
our findings.
9
Most postdoctoral scientists and research fellows in the UK do not teach undergraduates, but
they are very involved in the training of graduate students and other administrative tasks—key roles
of relevance to structural strain.
10
The research questions and sampling strategy of the broader study focus on scientists in
graduate, postdoctoral, and the equivalent of tenure-track and tenured positions. The professional
position measure on the survey included an “other” option that allowed respondents to specify their
position. In the event a respondent indicated a rank for which we did not sample, such as adjunct
or technician, their case was dropped from the sample.
11
These measures are derived from the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty.
12
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this recommendation.
13
For more information about RAE quality profiles, see http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/intro.aspx
14
In the case of physics, for example, the total number of randomly selected publications per
department ranged from 1 to 128. We employed a threshold of 50 randomly selected articles. Only
14 departments were situated above this level.
15
To determine whether the career stage effect is a function of the number of postdoctoral sci-
entists situated in career stage 1, we ran an ancillary analysis in which we moved all lecturers and
readers into career stage 2 and restricted career stage 1 to scientists in fellowships, and found simi-
lar results. Results of this analysis are available on request.
REFERENCES
Allison, Paul. 1999. Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Allison, Paul and J. Scott Long. 1990. “Departmental Effects on Scientific Productivity.” American
Sociological Review 55(4):469–78.
Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Braxton, John. 1993. “Deviancy from the Norms of Science: The Effects of Anomie and Alienation
in the Academic Profession.” Research in Higher Education 34(2):213–28.
Braxton, John and Lowell Hargens. 1996. “Variation Among Academic Disciplines: Analytical
Frameworks and Research.” Pp. 1–46 in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research, Vol. 11., edited by John Smart. New York: Agathon.
26 DAVID R. JOHNSON ET AL.
Burris, Val. 2004. “The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks.”
American Sociological Review 69(2):239–64.
Chandler, John, Jim Barry, and Heather Clark. 2002. “Stressing Academe: The Wear and Tear of
the New Public Management.” Human Relations 55(9):1051–69.
Cole, Jonathan. 1983. “The Hierarchy of the Sciences?” American Journal of Sociology 89:111–39.
Corcoran, Mary and Shirley Clark. 1984. “Professional Socialization and Contemporary Career
Attitudes of Three Faculty Generations.” Research in Higher Education 20(2):131–53.
Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 1951. Suicide. Translated by John A. Spalding and George Simpson. New
York: Free Press.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard and Anne Lincoln. 2016. Failing Families, Failing Science: Work-family
Conflict in Academic Science. New York: New York University Press.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard., David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, Kirstin R.W. Matthews and
Steven W. Lewis. 2016. “Religion Among Scientists in International Context: A New Study
of Scientists in Eight Regions.” Socius 2:1–9.
Featherstone, Richard and Mathieu Deflem. 2003. “Anomie and Strain: Context and Consequences
of Merton’s Two Theories.” Sociological Inquiry 73(4):471–89.
Freidson, Eliot. 2001. Professionalism: The Third Logic. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gaston, Jerry. 1975. “Autonomy in the Research Role and Participation in Departmental Decision-
Making.” British Journal of Sociology 26(2):227–41.
Geiger, Roger. 1999. “The Ten Generations of American Higher Education.” Pp. 38–69 in Higher
Education in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert Berdahl, Philip G. Altbach and
Patricia J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hackett, Edward. 1990. “Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture
of Academic Science.” Journal of Higher Education 60(3):241–79.
———. 1994. “A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct.” Journal of Higher
Education 65(3):242–60.
Haeussler, Carolin and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. “Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic
Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany.” Research Policy 40(1):41–54.
Hagstrom, Warren. 1964. “Anomy in Scientific Communities.” Social Problems 12:186–95.
Hargens, Lowell and Lisa Kelly-Wilson. 1994. “Determinants of Disciplinary Discontent.” Social
Forces 72(4):1177–95.
Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 1998. The Stars Are Not Enough: Scientists-Their Passions and
Professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2009. Lives in Science: How Institutions Affect Academic Careers. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
———. 2011. The American Academic Profession: Transformation in Contemporary Higher
Education. Baltimorem, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hodson, Randy. 1999. “Organizational Anomie and Worker Consent.” Work and Occupations 26
(3):292–323.
Johnson, David R. 2017. Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science: A Fractured
Profession. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Johnson, David R., Elaine Howard Ecklund, Di Di and Kirstin R.W. Matthews. 2016. “Responding
to Richard: Celebrity and (Mis)representation of Science.” Public Understanding of Science.
10.1177/0963662516673501
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler. 1973. “Occupational Experience and Psychological
Functioning: An Assessment of Reciprocal Effects.” American Sociological Review 38:97–
118.
Levine, Donald. 1985. The Flight from Ambiguity: Essays in Social and Cultural Theory. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
STRUCTURAL STRAIN IN SCIENCE 27
Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3:672–82.
———. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Merton, Robert K. and Harriet Zuckerman. 1973. “Age, Aging, and Age Structure in Science.” Pp.
497–559 in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by
Norman Storer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Morphew, Christopher. 2009. “Conceptualizing Change in the Institutional Diversity of US
Colleges and Universities.” Journal of Higher Education 80:243–69.
Morris, Norma and Arie Rip. 2006. “Scientists’ Coping Strategies in an Evolving Research System:
The Case of Life Scientists in the UK.” Science and Public Policy 33(4):253–63.
Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Jon Lorence. 1994. “Social Psychology of Work.” Pp 497–523 in
Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine
and James S. House. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Parker, Jonathan. 2008. “Comparing Research and Teaching in University Promotion Criteria.”
Higher Education Quarterly 62(3):237–51.
Pearson, Gillian. 2001. “The Participation of Scientists in Public Understanding of Science
Activities: The Policy and Practice of the UK Research Councils.” Public Understanding of
Science 10(1):121–37.
Pritchard, Rosalind. 1998. “Academic Freedom and Autonomy in the United Kingdom and
Germany.” Minerva 36(2):101–24.
Randle, Keith. 1996. The White-Coated Worker: Professional Autonomy in a Period of Change.
Work, Employment, and Society. 10(4):737–53.
Ritzer, George and David Walczak. 1988. “Rationalization and the Deprofessionalization of
Physicians.” Social Forces 67(1):1–22.
Schuster, Jack and Martin Finkelstein. 2006. The American Faculty. Baltimore, MD: Hopkins
University Press.
Stephan, Paula. 2012. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridgem, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Thompson, Jeffrey and J. Stuart Bunderson. 2001. “Work-Nonwork Conflict and the Phenomenology
of Time: Beyond the Balance Metaphor.” Work and Occupations 28(1):17–39.
Waterton, Claire. 2005. “Scientists’ Conceptions of the Boundaries between Their Own Research
and Policy.” Science and Public Policy 32(6):435–44.
Zuckerman, Harriet. 1988. “The Sociology of Science.” Pp. 511–74 in Handbook of Sociology,
edited by Neil Smelser. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.