INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC lNFORMATION@J3501 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 191C4

Citation and Social Behavior:Raymond G. McInNs and Dal Symes

Explore David Riesnum’s The Lonely Crowd

Number 35

Last spring we published an essay on ci-tation behavior that discussed a few of themany motivations scholars have for givinga citation. 1 We also commented on the re-liability of these motivations for the purposesof citation anrdysis-and, indeed, for cita-tion indexing itself. As part of th]s continu-ing examination of citation behavior, I amdelighted to acknowledge [he thoughtfulcontribution of two scholars associated withthe Wilson Library, Western WashingtonUniversity, Bellingham. Raymond G. McIn-nis is social sciences librarian and head ofthe General Reference Department, whiIeDal Symes is the humanities librarian.

In their article,z reprinted here, McInnisand Symes characterize citation behavior interms of the stages of character developmentin social order set forth by David Riesman,Reuel Demey, and Nathan Glazer in theirclassic 1950 book, l%e Lonely Crowd: AStudy of the Changing American Charac-ter. 3 The work was perhaps the first ofpost-World War II sociology to reflect a self-conscious society and has been cited morethan 800 times since 1966. In 1980 Riesmanwrote a Cilalion Classic@ commentary inwhich he noted that “the book reflects theinterest, after the Second World War, inlinking sociology, on the one hand, withpsychoanalytic psychology and characterol-ogy and, on the other hand, with socialhistory.”4 We also touched on l%e LarelyCrowd in the context of a discussion of lone-liness and solitude a few years backs

According to the book, groups of individ-uals in Western civilization have historicallycycled through three types of belief systems:the tradition-directed, characterized by con-formity to societal norms and customs

August 20, 1989

handed down over generations; the innerdi-reeted, characterized by an internalized codeof conduct passed on by one’s parents andother contemporary authority figures; andthe other-directed, in which behavior is in-fluenced by peers, personal and professionrdassociates, the mass media, and other wide-ranging, contemporary sources. In the viewof Riesman and colleagues, tradition-di-rected societies existed for the most partbefore the Renaissance, imer-directed so-cieties from the Renaissance through thenineteenth century, and other-directed so-cieties since then.

McInnis and Symes make a relevant con-nection between these behavior systems andcitation behavior. They relate citation stylesto the three historical stages described byRiesman and colleagues. In each stage notonly does the format for the bibliographiccitation change, but so does the concept ofits function. in present-day scholarly culture,the authors conclude, the citation serves asa label for intellectual property: “In 1957,sociologist Robert Merton [Department ofSociology, Columbia University, NewYork] introduced the notion of the biblio-graphic citation as the symbol for intellec-tual property, a theme that, with variations,was later developed by other writers.’ ‘z

McInnis and Symes thus give new evi-dence to confirm an old idea. As noted byG. Nigel Gilbert, Department of Sociology,University of Surrey, UK, in his paper“Referencing as persuasion,’ ‘b NormanKaplan, then at George Washington Uni-versity, Washington, DC, argued in 1965that’ ‘the citation practices of scientists todayare in large part a social device for copingwith problems of property rights and priority

238

claims.”7 Later, J.R. Ravetz, Departmentof Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK,stated that citations are a means of’ ‘dividingthe property in the published report and pro-viding an ‘income’ to the owner. ” g

But Gilbert himself raises an interestingpoint when he comments that the idea of ci-tations as property labels does not filly ac-count for such phenomena as “negative ref-erences’ ‘-citations to papers that the authorintends to disprove, contradict, or otherwisedisagree with. In fact, Gilbert finds littlevalue in applying the metaphor of’ ‘proper-ty” to citations. He points out that, beforethe invention of the Science Citation Index”(SW’ ), there was no “institutionalizedmethod of bringing citations to the citedauthor’s attention . . . . Indeed, before the ex-istence of the SC1, ” he adds, “seeking outsuch citations . . .was an extremely laborioustask.’ ‘b (He might also have added that the,4SCA@ system, ISI@’s personalized cur-rent-awareness service, virtually eliminatesthe labor involved in using the SC].) Asmight be expected from the title of his paper,Gilbert argues instead that citations act “asaids which increase a paper’s power to per-suade” scientists that its results are both gen-uine and important. After all, referencing,as noted by Blaise Cronin, University ofStrathclyde, Glasgow, UK, “constitutes anappeal to disembodied authority.”9

Since it is virtually impossible to know orglean authors’ motivations for each of theircitations, it is difficult to believe that a whol-ly satisfactory theory of citing–or of citingbehavior-will soon be devised. However,with regard to reference practices, Croninconcludes, “If authors can be educated asto the informational role of citations and en-

couraged to be more restrained and selec-tive in their referencing habits, then it shouldbe possible to arrive at a greater consistencyin referencing practice generally.”9 (Seealso his book ?%e Citarion Process. 10)

But this begs the question of preciselywhat education authors are to be given con-cerning citation practices. Quite frankly, Ican find little to fault in a 1945 description,cited by McImis and Symes, by WilliamDostite Postell, librarian, Louisiana StateUniversity Medical Center, New Orleans,that the function of bibliographical citationis <‘to give authority for every statement offact quoted and also to provide a clear andconcise description of the document fromwhich each statement is taken. The reasonfor this is that a citation is an integral partof the logic. It is a link in the chain of evi-dence, and its source should be so clearlygiven that no one would have any troublein verifying the statement.”11

I have often thought that the deletion oftitles of cited articles in references inScience, Nature, and other highly cited jour-nals denies the reader useftd information anddenies cited authors some of the recognitionthey deserve. Titles provide readers with ad-ditional information about the cited articlesand can also help them decide whether toinvestigate articles further. By omittingtitles, journals obscure part of the informa-tional value of the reference.

*****

My thanks to Stephen A. Bonaduce andC.J. Fiscus for their help in the preparationof this essay.

0,989 [s,

REFERENCES

1. Garfield E. Citation behavior-an aid or a hindrance to information retrieval? Currenf Comenfs (18):3-8, I May 1989.2. Mchuds R G & Symes D. David Riesman and the concept of bibliographic citation. COIL Res, Libr. 49:387-99, 19883. Ries.nwn D, Denriey R & Glazer N. 2%e lonely crowd a study of Ihe changing American character. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 1950.386 p.4. Rksman D. Cktation Classic, Commentary on 21e lonely crowd: o study of tbe changing American cbarac:er. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1950.386 p. (Smelser N J. comp.) Contempowy ckzssics in the social and behavioral

sciences. Philadelphia 1S1 Press, 1987. p. 286. (Reprinted from: Current Contents/ ficial & Behavioral Sciences

12(30):20, 28 Jtdy 1980,)

5. Garfield E. The loneliness researcher is m! so lonely anymore. .EJSOYSof an infmtuwion scienris(: towurds scientographyPbiladelpbk 1S1 Press, 1986. Vol. 9. p. 3340

6. Gilbert G N. Referencing as persuasion. Sot, Stud. Sci. 7:1 I 3-22, 1977.7, Kaplan N. The norms of citation behavior: prolegomena to the fcmtnote. Amer. h.. 16:179-84. 1965.8. Ravetz J R. Sciemijic knowledge and its social problems Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1971. p. 256-7.

9. Cronin B. The need for a theory of citing. J. k. 37:16-24, 1981.10. -—------ 7he citation process. London: Taylor Graham, 1984. 103 p.11. PosleU W D. Clarifying bibliographical citation. CoI{. Res. Libr. 6:249; 288, 1945.

239

Reprinted woh pnussion of the American bbmry Assoaatin, ‘‘Oawd f&wnan am-l !k coru%p of biblmgraphic cmuon” by Raymond

G Mchmis and Dal Symes, appearing in Co/Jege & Rest-archLbraries, Wptember 1988, copyright @ 1988 by ALA.

David Riesmanand the Concept of

Bibliographic Citation

Raymond G. McInnis and Dal Symes

[n this article, we discuss how, over time, both the concept and the function of bibliographiccitation change and correspond to Riesman’s three types of personal character. First in thetradition-directed period, titles come beforeauthors, since the writer is seerr as merely theinstrument of authority, In the inner-directed period, a transition occurs, with the author’sname coming before the title. Finally, in the present time, which corresponds to Riesman’sother-directed pen”od, the format for the bibliographic citation becomes formalizd, and theconceptof its function changes dramatically. Ultimately the citation becomes a symbol for bothsubstantive content and for intellectual property.

I cholars generally agree that TheLonely Crowd’ has significantlyinfluenced the way they under-stand and discuss contempo-

rary society. z David Riesman’s observa-tions on the stages of characterdevelopment in the social order can alsobe illuminating when applied to the devel-opment of scholarly activity as it is demon-strated in published records. Especiallypertinent are how referencing and otherbibliographic practices and conventions,from a historical perspective, reflect hismodels of tradition-, inner-, and other-directed character.

To understand how the theories of Ries-man and other thinkers apply to scholarlyconventions, we will develop a frame-work that first discusses the function ofconcept in scholarly discourse, with specialattention to how, through evolution, bib-liographic citations have come to function asconcepts, including how bibliographic ci-tations have taken on a symbolic function,frequently substituting for substantivecontent. 3Finally, we will present evidencethat demonstrates how Riesman’s theoryof the historical development of humancharacter provides a possible explanationof why our concept of the bibliographic ci-tation has developed through these per-mutations.’

THE FUNCTION OF CONCEPTSIN SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE

Concepts are the basic building blocks ofknowledge. Many scholars, especiallyphilosophers of science, have pointed outhow concepts are fundamental to inquiryand explanation in all scholarly disci-plines.’ Essentially they perceive the pur-pose of research is to produce knowledge.The results of research (findings) are pre-sented in scholarly publications as expla-nations. These explanations, in turn, or-ganize knowledge. The principles andtheories that emerge from this organiza-tion of knowledge are called concepts.

Specifically, says Eugene Meehan, anAmerican sociologist, concepts identifyand classify the topics we think about byplacing them in specific times and places.They present definitions and perform therange of tasks that Abraham Kaplan’sterm organizing experience implies.’

Without concepts, Meehan argues,“man could hardly be said to think.”7 Inaddition, according to British anthropolo-gist Edmund Leach, when concepts areconverted into materiaf objects, as theyare when published, they attain “relativepermanence, ” or, to put it another way,abstract thoughts are given a concretequality.’ Once turned into this sort of ma-

Raymond G. MclrmIs is Social Sciences Librarian and Head oj the General Reference Depvtmenf and Da/Symes is HumanitiesLibrarian at Wilson Library, Western Washington Unwwsity,BeMnghmn, Washington98225. The twfhors wish to acknowledgethe comments of Paul Du rbirr, Dick Feringer, Jim Irrverunty, WilliamKeith, Dan Lzmer, Ron Merchart, John Richardson, and especially David Riesman.

240

terial form, Leach claims, concepts can besubjected to technical operations other-wise beyond “the capacity of the mindacting by itself. ”

PRESCRIPTIVE NATUREOF MEANING AND

VALIDITY OF CONCEPTS

Throughout scholarly discourse, themeanings of concepts are set forth in a pre-scriptive rather than a descriptive sense. Aconcept has meaning only becausescholars prescribe the meaning attached toit.9In other words, a concept’s meaning isvalid only if scholars in the same fieldagree to it having the same meaning.

The American lexicographer Sidney 1.Landau further singles out distinctions be-tween prescriptive and descriptive mean-ings in scholarly discourse. Landauspeaks of “extracted” or “imposed”meanings. To illustrate, he distinguishesbetween the way words are defined in lex-ical (standard) dictionaries and the waywords (as labels for concepts) are treatedin subject-field (specialized) dictionaries.In lexicaf dictionaries, general words aredefined by citations from specific texts il-lustrating how particular words are used.The particular meanings are extracted fromthe context in which these words are em-ployed in sentences. In subject-field dic-tionaries, on the other hand, terms take onspecial meanings “imposed on the basisof expert advice, ” or are prescribed. 10

In TheLonelyCrorod,Riesman’s conceptsregarding the development of humancharacter are excellent examples of termswith specialized imposed or prescribedmeanings. As is the tradition, when ascholar’s special definitions of particularterms are considered valid, other scholarsattach the same meanings when they em-ploy these terms.

THE SYMBOLICFUNCTION OF THE

BIBLIOGIWPHIC CITATIONIN SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE

In scholarship, the accepted method ofidentifying a published source is the bib-liographic citation. When we cite anotherpublication in the text of our discourse, weidentify the particular source by givingsufficient details needed for others to lo-cate it.

John Ziman, the British physicist andpopularizer of science, presents evidence

that the collective nature of Scientflc dis-course “is made very obvious by the sys-tematic use of references or citations in sci-entific papers.”]’ In scientific (andscholarly) discourse, papers do not standalone; they are, instead, embedded in theliterature of the subject. The knowledgeincluded also contains all relevant pre-vious studies—not just the actual workscited but also the works referred to in thecited articles as well. Arguments pre-sented and facts listed need to be docu-mented, not unlike’ ‘the precedents in En-glish Common bw. “12

Further, Ziman argues, the “pattern”citations take has “its own internal logic, ”which may not resemble the theoreticallogic of the subject. The “historical orderand connectivity” into which citations fallmay not be the categories into which thefield will eventually settle. A particular pa-per, for example, clever but not entirelysound, may dominate the subject foryears, only to be corrected; later, except inhistories, it scarcely warrants mention.On the other hand, continues Ziman, re-search can long lie neglected and forgot-ten, but when discovered it becomes “agreat well of knowledge.’ ’13

SCHOLARSHIPAS PERSUASION

If we accept this understanding aboutthe function of bibliographic citation, a li-brary is “not primarily a quarry, ” or “afactory. “14Instead, we should consider ita store, a memory where, as new resultsfrom scholarly activity are transferred toit, each unit is constantly updated. Thus,says Zirnan, when consulting an article ina back issue of a journal, a scientist is notseeking what an author was thinkingabout when the paper was published; in-stead, the scientist is looking for evidenceto support his or her own research topic.Similarly, an attorney is searching the lit-erature when looking for the title deeds ofa property a client is purchasing. The cita-tion of references, “which validates manyof the claims that he will make, embeds itin the pre-existing consensus. ” The “or-derliness of this prmess, the intellectualstructure implicit in the library, the cata-log, the encyclopedia, the treatise, givemeaning to the research of the past andthe motive for research in the future. ”

241

—

“Ziman’s testimony demonstrateshow scholarship is essentially per-suasion by argument, buttressed bysupport from authoritative papers inthe field.”

Ziman’s testimony demonstrates howscholarship is essentially persuasion byargument, buttressed by support from au-thoritative papers in the field. This obser-vation is not unique to Ziman. In a sense,the citation is the modern equivalent ofthe classicaJ rhetorical device that uses anappeal to authority to bolster one’s argu-ment. Aristotle catls such a means of per-suasion atechrroi p“steis, or nonartistic ornontechnical persuasion, since the rheto-rician did not have to invent supportingarguments.’5 Others who have also ob-served how scholarship is persuasion in-clude Arthur Koestler, C. Wright Mills,Thomas Kuhn, Jerome Bruner, F. C.Bartlett, Peter McKellar, Lawrence Kubin,Abraham Kaplan, Michael Polanyi,Chairn Perelman, William T. Scott, JeromeRavetz, and G. R. Elton.”

Another example of persuasion comesfrom examining the processes involved inscholarly writing. In an empirical study ofhow graduate students write, David S.Kaufer, a professor of rhetoric atCarnegie-Mellon, finds that the writingprocess falls into four phases: (1) summa-rize the work of other authors, (2) synthe-size their ideas to find common principles,(3) analyze the merit of their positions,and (4) contribute new views to the dis-cussion. ” White one must admit that, to agreater or lesser degree, variations in thisformula exist among scholars, the formatnonetheless reflects scholarly discourse ingeneral and is not just characteristic of stu-dent writing. We get more evidence to jus-tify this claim from the citation studies ofNigel Gilbert, Henry Small, and BlaiseCronin.

REFERENCINGAS PERSUASION

In a succession of papers late in the1970s, British sociologist G, Nigel Gilbertargued that referencing, such as citing ascientific paper, is really a form of persua-sion. 1’ A scholar with true, importantresults still has to persuade the scholarlycommunity to share this opinion, for it is

only when some consensus has beenachieved that the research findings will betransformed into scientific knowledge. Inother words, scholarly papers reatly con-tain “knowledge claims” staked out byauthors who must wait for their claims tobe certified by the scholarly community.

One of the riskiest knowledge claims in-volved Galileo’s insistence that the au-thorship and authority of his conceptionsabout the universe be recognized. This ledto his famous trial by the Catholic Inquisi-tion. Ernst Cassirer, the German philoso-pher, points out that when Galileo in-sisted on publishing the’ ‘scandalous” Onthe Two Systems of the Universe, he was sug-gesting a dangerous idea: scientific schol-arship is the product of a new priesthoodqualified to interpret nature as a revelationof God, comparable to the Testament rev-elation that, up to then, was the church’sown preserve.

Galileo’s knowledge ciaim, in effect, ar-gued that no authority, divine or human,can supersede the authority that comesthrough experiment and mathematical de-duction. From observable facts comes animage of reality “that possesses a uniqueand necessary truth. ” When we strive tounderstand and explain the universe andits parts, Galileo argued, why should we“begin with the word of God?” Instead,he insisted, knowledge comes from expe-rience and can never be questioned by ar-gument from biblical texts. 19

THE SIGNIFICANCEOF THE CITATION CONTEXT

In 1978, Henry Small, a historian of sci-ence, argued that insufficient attention isgiven in citation analyses to the textualcontent of the citation context (i.e., how awriter labels the publications cited), Be-cause of this lack of attention, citationanalyses miss “the role citations play assymbols of concepts or methods.”~ More.over, Small adds, citation contexts per-form cognitive functions, arising from theformal requirement imposed on thescholar to embed references to earlier liter-ature in a written text. his leads to the cit-ing of works that embody ideas the authoris discussing. The cited documents be-come symbols for these ideas. In a text,Small says,

The footnote number has the function of point-ing to a portion of the text in whict,it is embed-ded and at the same time corresponding to a

242

specificdocumentusuallygiven at the bottomof the page or grouped at the end of the article,The footnote number should unambiguouslypoint to a word, phrase, sentence, or other unitof text to show what ideas are to be connectedwith the cited document.z’

By referring to other sources, authorsgive further meaning to their own writing,and also give their sources meaning by cit-ing them. For example, continues Small,“if I use Lowry’s method of protein deter-mination and cite his paper, I am not onlyteJling the reader where he can find a de-scription of the method, but 1 am statingwhat his paper is about, that is, a methodfor protein determination. ” When weview referencing this way, we can see it asa labeling process. The language pointedto by the footnote number characterizesthe documents cited—or constitutes theauthor’s interpretation of the cited work.In citing a document, an author, there-fore, creates its meaning.

According to Small, viewing “citationsas concept symbols is a more direct inter-pretation of citation practice than previous‘classification’ attempts. ” Small quotesEugene Garfield: “A cited document isanalogous to a subject heading in an in-dexing system. ” Studying the citationcontext of highly cited documents is amethod of observing the transformationof scholars’ work into knowledge.

BIBLIOGIWPHICCITATIONS AS FOOTPRINTS

We are indebted to Blaise Cronin, a Brit-ish librarian, for analyzing the scatteredliterature about citation practice. “Meta-phonically, ” Cronin argues, “citations arefrozen footprints in the landscape ofscholarly achievement” and “bear wit-ness to the passage of ideas.’ ’22With foot-prints, we can deduce direction’ ‘from theconfiguration and depth of the imprint. ”Ideally, we can also construct a picture ofthose who have passed by, and the distri-bution and variety furnish clues as towhether the advance was orderly and pur-posive. Citations give substantive expres-sion to the process of innovation, and, ifproperly marshaled, provide scholars“with a forensic tool of seductive powerand versatilityy.”

In scholarly discourse, then, when wecite another work we are substituting thecitation for the concepts the work con-tains.n Citing the book is a device for tell-ing readers that you are discussing one or

more of the book’s concepts. To illustrate,let’s look at The I.anely Crowd, the source ofat least three major concepts; as we shallsee below, such citation practice is a mir-ror image of certain characteristics Ries-man attributes to his notion of the other-directed character.

THE LONELY CROWD

When David Riesman, a sociologist atHarvard University, published The Lone[yCrowd in 1950, he argued that historicallyin Western civilization the majority of per-sons have evolved through three types ofindividual character: the tradition-directed, the inner-directed, and theother-directed. Riesman defines cha ratteras those components of our behavior andbelief systems that organize our drivesand satisfactions.

Tradition-directed individuals behaveaccording to norms expected of the age inwhich they live, of their family, of their be-liefs, of their social customs. Whentradition-directed, we conform to slowlychanging behavior practices passed fromgeneration to generation. In Riesman’sview, tradition-directed societies mainlyexisted before the Renaissance, or, if theyexist today, they are labeled under-developed.

As the Renaissance unfolded, examplesof the inner-directed individual appeared.Early in this individual’s life a set of fixedgoals–success, piety, self -control–becomes part of an internalized code ofconduct. These characteristics are passedon to us by parents and other authorities.“The inner-directed social order pro-duced people equipped with an inner psy-chological gyroscope that would carrythem through all sorts of new situations, ”Joseph Featherstone argues, “men andwomen of unbending principle, ” where“the ideals of ‘work,’ ‘success, ‘ ‘indepen-dence,’ ‘manliness, ‘ ‘character,’ focus onpatterns of drives and strivings.’’” InRiesman’s view, the inner-directed char-acter came into full flower in the nine-teenth century.

The other-directed individual, charac-teristic of American society, appeared inthe mid-twentieth century. Production, asignificant feature of the social order of theinner-directed person, became secondaryto consumption, a feature of the social or-der of the other-directed person. As other-directed individuals, we respond to sig-nals emerging from a circle far wider than

243

just our parents. Guidance comes frompeers and contemporaries, personal andprofessional associations, and the massmedia. Conformity, in effect, is external-ized. The other-directed character “sig-nals a broad shift from nature to society,from competition to cooperation,’ “’’”

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICCITATION IN THE

TRADITION-DIRECTED PERIOD

Recognition of the author’s name as theprimary means of identifying publicationsoccurred slowly. The Western concept ofauthor entry came from the Greeks. In the

“Recognition of the author’s name asthe primary means of identifyingpublications occurred slowly.”

non-Western world and also in the medi-eval world of Christian Europe, the titleidentified a book, not the author, This tra-dition developed out of the notion of thesupremacy of a deity, in which an authoris important only as an instrument of apublication, and not as an individual.Similar to art and architecture, a book wasconsidered to come from God and the au-thor was only a conduit for God’s word.Mirroring this belief, bibliographies put awork’s title before the author’s name, oreven ignored it just as the creators ofworks of art were ignored. Ruth Strout, acataloging authority, points out that eventoday in the East the traditional entry for abook is its title. Whenever, under the in-fluence of modern Western librarianship,a book in an Asian library is entered underauthor—a tradition that “rests upon beliefin the importance of the individual’’—it isconsidered very progressive and Western,or democratic. Z7

Such practices provide evidence of thetradition-directed social order David Ries-man presents in ‘Me LonelyCrowd.

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICCITATION IN THE

INNER-DIRECTED PERIOD

The first bibliography to list books byauthor is attributed to Johannes Trithe-mius in the fifteenth century. ?HSurnamesas entry words, instead of forenames,were introduced by Konrad Gesner in1545. But, says Johannes Dewton, only inthe eighteenth centurv did the “surname

as entry word become generally ac-cepted. ”

According to Alice Mona East, the prac-tice of citing authorities, with reference tothe exact place a text is cited, developedonly after the invention of printing withmoveable type.29 (Before, the pages onwhich specific texts appeared varied toomuch to be referred to with any assur-ance. ) East examined the citation practicesof more than fifty works published in thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Sheinvestigated “the use of citations to booksas evidence, as authority for a statement,rather than on their use as sources or asdecoration in literature, ” Investigationfound citations used–as suggested byclassical rhetoricians—as evidence to per-suade by authority rather than for sourcesof authority or for pretentious decoration,“Probably because books became moregenerally known, ” she argues, “the feel-ing that a piece of writing belonged insome sense to its author gradually devel-oped. ” Here, again, the evidence con-firms Riesman’s theory of the historicalemergence of the inner-directed individ-ual as it is manifested in scholarship, Thetransition from one citation practice to theother was lengthy. East states that onlywith the advent of the eighteenth centurydid the published records of scholarshipbegin to approach the modem standard ofcitation. ~

When they discovered the value of di-rect observation of phenomena—and hav-ing few predecessors to refer to—the earlyscientists wrote “fairly straight-forwarddescriptions of the methods and results ofthe experiment undertaken, with an occa-sional reference to the classics or the Bibleas a sort of decoration.’ ‘3’But, claims East,in the period of her study, few publica-tions cited other scientific works.

Instead, “the earliest true citations ap-pear in works of religion, where the ap-peal to authority is natural, and in booksof controversy, where it is necessary forclarity .’”z Biographies and historicalworks, in which writers must use othersources, included citations, and these cita-tions came at an earlier date than those inbooks of medicine or other practical arts,where the work was produced from thewriter’s own knowledge. Scientificworks, which appeared from about themiddle of the seventeenth century, con-fined themselves to reports of the immedi-ate investigation.,,

244

Between 1700 and 1750, all scholarlywriters except experimental scientistsused citations that, although they did notreach the modem standard in form (thechief deficiency being the persistent use ofabbreviated titles), they did make clearwhat sources were being cited. Derek J. deSolla Price notes that the transformationof the scientific paper into its modern formoccurred in the 1B60s, “As late as 1900,some of the respected journals contain notone scientific paper of the present vari-ety, ” But, claims Price, a historian of sci-ence, distinctions can be made about “themode of cumulation of the papers, ” eachof which, in turn, “is one of several pointsof departure for the next, ” Our most tell-ing “manifestation of this scholarly brick-laying is the citation of references. “33Thisevidence gives us, in very broad brushstrokes, the outlines of features of other-directedness: (1) greater social cohesive-ness and scholarly rigor among individ-uals working in the same areas; (2) the useof agreed-upon procedures, cooperativelyproducing increasingly larger bodies ofknowledge; and (3) a responsiveness andloyalty beyond the boundaries of univer-sity to a national or even internationalcommunity.

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICCITATION IN THE

OTHER-DIRECTED PERIOD

In the 1940s, dramatic changes in ourconcept of bibliographic citation began tooccur. In separate articles, two librarianspresented new interpretations of the func-tions of bibliographic citation. Accordingto both J. F. Fultonw and William Postell, ~Sbibliographic citations serve two basicfunctions: (1) to identify the source of agiven statement and (2) to describe “thenature and scope of the printed documentin which the statement is found. ”

But, says Fulton, citations are also “anintegral part of the scientific evidence of apaper.” Thus if “writers quote from theliterature without giving readers any op-portunity of verifying statements, impor-tant elements in the chain of logic areomitted. ”~ Such practices cast suspicionabout the author’s credibility. To Postell,“the purpose of bibliographic citation is togive authority for every statement of factquoted.” A citation, then, is an integrafpart of the logic of the discipline’s rheto-ric. A bibliographic citation is a “link inthe chain of evidence” associated with a

topic ,3’Thus, for the first time, the notionof citation is articulated as an integral partof scholarship. Like Riesman’s definitionof other-directedness, it must also out-wardly conform to the established formatof the particular discipline in which thescholar writes. Further, both Fulton andPostell’s arguments about the function ofbibliographic citations as “evidence” inscholarship in the 1940s are harbingers ofsignificant new insights about the conceptof the bibliographic citation that occurredin the 1950s.

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICCITATION AS

SUBJECT HEADING

When he presented his concept of cita-tion indexes in 1955, Eugene Garfield in-troduced the notion of bibliographic cita-tion as subject heading. A majorbreakthrough, this concept is the first oftwo in the decade that changed our viewof the function of bibliographic citations inscholarly discourse. Subtitled’ ‘A New Di-mension in Documentation through Asso-ciation of Ideas, ” his article argues that“the utility of a citation index in any fieldmust also be considered from the point ofview of the transmission of ideas. “N

“The concept of bibliographic cita-tion as subject heading indicates anincreasing prevalence of agreed-upon norms of scholarship. ”

The concept of bibliographic citation assubject heading indicated an increasingprevalence of agreed-upon norms ofscholarship. These, in turn, produced inthe minds of scholars working in similarfields the idea that (1) they shared similarmethods and concepts, and (2) compo-nents of their knowledge could be speci-fied by citing the publications that were re-sponsible for contributing to thisknowledge. When cited, these discreteknowledge components function as sub-ject headings. When the language of suchdiscourse takes on prescribed meanings ofa specific discipline, we see further evi-dence of Riesman’s other-directed charac-teristics becoming manifest in that area ofscholarship.

As a means of identifying or otherwisespecifying a research topic, Garfield findsthat the bibliographic citation possessesgreater power than the arbitrarily as-

245

signed subject heading. He says, in effeet,that bibliographic citation is a more pre-cise way of identifying a concept con-tained by a specific publication than is asubject heading arbitrarily added by an-other party. A bibliographic citation, inother words, can substitute for a subjectheading.

A decade later Garfield again arguedthat we have to recognize the underlyingconcept symbolized by a bibliographic ci-tation .3’ As librarians, he says, our tradi-tional concept of a subject is so ingrainedthat we fail to realize that a word is merelya symbol for a concept. To demonstratehis point, Garfield cites an analogy fromchemistry. Chemists, he claims, fall intothe same trap and often forget that achemical formula is only symbolic of thereal thing.

As an example of the difficulties in cor-relating complex concepts with arbitrarilyassigned word-structured indexing lan-guages, Garfield argues, consider the con-cept protein determination of the Folinphenol reagent, or the Lowry method,’”First published in 1951

the paper is the most frequentlycited work inthe 1%7 literature. No term exists for it in the(thesaurus) of Index Medicus. The symbo: Lo-wry, 1951, JBC v 193, p. 265 also identifies its ex-act address! Unquestionably, Index Medicusdoes provide for indexing papers on protein de-termination methods, but that is a vastly moregeneric concept than the Lowry method, order-ivates thereof.

THE BIBLIOGRAPHICCITATION AS LABEL FOR

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

In 1957, sociologist Robert Merton intro-duced the notion of the bibliographic cita-tion as the symbol for intellectual prop-erty, a theme that, with variations, waslater developed by other writers.” As thedecade’s second major breakthrough inshaping our understanding of the func-tion of bibliographic citations, this conceptcontributes significantly to arguments inour discussion.

In our opinion, the view of bibliographiccitation as subject heading and intellectualproperty connects to the other-directed in-dividual, the third and final of Riesman’sthree kinds of character. Scholarship, to-day, is a collective enterprise, which im-plies that knowledge is socially con-structed. The production of knowledgeunder these conditions means that partici-

pants in specific areas of scholarship nec-essarily follow certain agreed-upon pat-terns of behavior and share a common setof values. These behaviors and values areusually learned from peers by apprentice-ship. While scholarship is a collective en-terprise, which means other-directednessin individual contributions conforming toa set of norms, the ownership of thesecontributions is vested in individualswhose property is maintained through asystem of citations. And, following Leach,Small, Gilbert, and Garfield, citations be-come shorthand referents for abstract ma-terial. They acquire a form that allows usto manipulate them more easily withoutlosing meaning,

‘ORIGINALITY’IN SCHOLARSHIP

Inner-dkection and other-direction are,of course, both modes of conformity, withthe main distinction being conforming to.Inner-directed people, in Hartshorne’sview, just “seem more individualistic thanthe other-directed person. ” Why? Be-cause “the pressures to which he con-formed are less obvious. ” This individualconforms to such inner-directed stan-dards as those dictated by family practicesor beliefs, or social norms prevailing at thetime. Under inner direction, an individual“has no more rational freedom of choicethan the other-directed person. ” The indi-vidual himself “is likely to be followinghis own self-determined course, but Ries-man himself insists that this is a deh.r-sion.’”z With the inner-directed character,cooperation is limited because competi-tion is more important. Communicationtakes place only with the intimate group,and the final product is perceived as aunique contribution. This kind of activity,it is true, still prevails in the research anddevelopment departments of large manu-facturing firms.

In scholarly communities, people con-form to certain standards and proceduresbased on an understanding that this con-formity is less confining than inner-directedness. While conformity exists, itexists in order to enhance cooperation andcommunication among a national, or eveninternational, community, rather than torespond mainly to the expectations ofone’s local peer group .43(We acknowl-edge, of course, that scholarly activity hasits darker side, including excessive se-crecy, deliberate distribution of incorrect

246

data, and referees acting as ‘‘gatekeep-ers. ” As an example, we need only citeWatson’s The Double Helix. )*

A scholar’s role is to advance scholar-ship, and, in this context, originality is at apremium. Recognition for originality is in-dicated through the citation of one’s pub-lications. With such citation, one estab-lishes property rights. Merton writesabout scientific scholarship, but others ar-gue similar practices prevail throughoutscholarship, 45Critics generally credit Nor-man Kaplan, for example, for bringinginto focus scattered commentary aboutthe social function of citation practices inscholarship, with special concern for thenature of intellectual property.ti

In Merton’s view, such recognition canbe seen in the language employed by sci-entists in speaking of their work:”

Ramsay,forexample,asksRayleigh’s’‘permis-sion to look into atmospheric nitrogen” onwhich Rayleigh has been working; the youngClerk Maxwell writes William Thomson, ‘‘1 donot know the game laws and patent laws of sci-ence but 1certainly intend to poach amongyour electrical images”; Norbert Weiner de-scribes “differential space, the space of Brow-nian motion” as “wholly mine in its purelymathematical aspects, whereas I was only ajuniorpartnerin the theory of Banachspaces.”

Other evidence confirming this notionas it relates to scientific fields (and whichwe believe, to a greater or lesser degree,applies in scholarship in general) comesfrom Pierre Bourdieu. Through Bour-dieu’s lens, scientific activity is cast in acompetition model. Bourdieu, a Frenchsociologist, argues that scientific activitiesare “directed towards the acquisition ofscientific authority. “a

The struggle for authority is about scien-tific property rights. To achieve authorityin a scientific field means that recognitionfor this authority must be extracted fromone’s competitors, that is, only other sci-entists working in the same field have“the means of symbolically appropriating(one’s) work and assessing its merits. ”

At stake here, Bourdieu continues, is“in fact the power to impose the defini-tions of science best united to legitimizethe assumption of an ascendant positionin the hierarchy of scientific values,’ “gAp-propriating scientific authority means ap-propriating scientific property rights.And, as we agreed above, the labels forthese property rights are bibliographic ci-tations. In effect, scientific authority is “a

particular kind of capital which can be ac-cumulated, transmitted, and even recon-verted into other Kinds of capital undercertain conditions. ” W

In the scholarly world, one cannot bor-row, trespass, poach, steal, or otherwiseclaim a concept belonging to another with-out giving due credit where, because ofproperty rights, credit is due. In short,Merton concludes, property rights inscholarship can be reduced to just one is-sue: “the recognitionbyothers of thescholar’sdistirrctizrepart in having brought the resultirrtobeing. ” 51With such evidence, we canconclude that in what Riesman labels another-directed social order, where con-formity is externalized, scholars, throughbibliographic citations, are able to main-tain individual property rights to their in-tellectual creation. ‘z

“In what Riesman labels an other-directed social order, where confor-mity is externalized, scholars,through bibliographic citations, areable to maintain individual propertyrights to their intellectual creation. ”

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Historically, concepts symbolizedthrough bibliographic citation correlatewith the three models of individual char-acter Riesman develops in The LonelyCrowd.Today, in scholarly discourse, bib-liographic citations are, as concept sym-bols, recognized as integral to the produc-tion of knowledge.

Concepts are essential components ofscholarly discourse. Socially constructed,they are the principles and theories result-ing from scholarly activity. Concepts arethe building blocks of knowledge.

The meanings given concepts are pre-scriptive, not descriptive. In seeking tounderstand and explain the subject matterof their inquiry, scholars impose specialmeaning on certain terms. If these specialmeanings are considered valid, the mean-ings achieve a sort of concrete quality,conveniently allowing us to discuss themwith others in the field.

As examples of imposed meanings,Riesman’s three major concepts in TheLonelyCrowd are examined. Reisman char-acterizes the individual in the social orderaccording to an understanding of personalbehavior in the three major epochs of

247

Western civilization. In the first epoch, in-dividuals were tradition-directed, withbehavior influenced by authority figures.In the second epoch, individuals tendedto be more inner-directed, relying more onguidance from parents and other familymembers. In the third epoch, which beganin the middle of the twentieth century, in-dividuals were more other-directed.When other-directed, values and otherdeterminants of our behavior come fromgroups outside our immediate circle.

A function of bibliographic citations inscholarly discourse is to symbolize or oth-erwise represent concepts, methods, orother features from a given work. That is,if a writer wishes to incorporate some-thing from another work, it must be cited.By citing other works, writers transmit thecited material rapidly and efficiently. Bib-liographic citations also perform cognitivefunctions: for example, to persuade read-ers about the validity of a thesis, a writerembeds the text with references fromworks supporting this reasoning. By be-ing cited these documents become sym-bols for these views. According to Small,two results are achieved: (1) by citing theworks of others, writers give additionalmeaning to their own writing, and (2) byciting other works, authors enhance theimportance of these cited works. Biblio-graphic citations may then function bothas subject headings (Garfield) and as la-bels for intellectual property (Merton).

Finally, by citing other works, authorscreate, in Cronin’s words, “footprints inthe landscape of scholarly achievement. ”This practice allows others to trace thepath of scholarship either backward or for-ward, determine what progress has beenachieved in a given area of inquiry, andpossibly predict potential future develop-ments.

Loyalty is no longer primarily to one’sdepartment or university. Instead, loyaltyis transferred to the scholarly communityto which one belongs, Part of this loyaltyrequires following rigorous standards in

the conduct of scholarly inquiry, includ-ing the format for citing bibliographic ref-erences. Along with agreed-upon con-cepts and procedures, these standards, inturn, are part of the system for transmit-ting knowledge.

In the Western world, throughout theperiod covered by written records, theconcept of the function of bibliographic ci-tations corresponds with Riesman’s threetypes of personal character:

First, in the tradkion-directed period,direction comes from figures of suprem-acy; ordinary people, including writers,are said to be merely the instruments ofauthority. In these conditions, in bibliog-raphies, the titles of published workscome before the names of authors.

Second, in the inner-directed period,which began roughly when printing withmoveable type was introduced, a distinctchange in bibliographic format occurred:in bibliographies, authors’ names werelisted first, indicating that a work be-longed to the writer.

Third, in the other-directed period, theformat of the bibliographic citation be-came more formalized and the concept ofits function changed dramatically. 53In thesocial order of the other-directed period,although they operate independently,people are said to conform to standardsemanating from the group to which theygive their loyalty.

However, as much as people are said toconform to particular patterns of behaviorin this other-directed period, proceduresare needed to define specifically what con-tributions these individuals are resporrsi-ble for. To Merton, these practices indicateoriginalityy in scholarship. Citation con-texts specify these contributions with con-siderable precision. And to borrow an ideafrom another work without proper ac-knowledgment is to plagiarize. Such con-ventions and beliefs justify the notionthat, in the other-directed period, the bib-liographic citation is a label for intellectualproperty.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. David Riesman, Renel Denny, and Nathan Glazer, The Lonely Crorui: A Study o~the Changing Amer-iom Character (New Haven, Corm.: Yale Univ.Pr., 1%0),

2. Leon Botsteinr “The Children of the LonelyCrowd,” Chrr!ge10:16 (May 1978); Eric Larrabee,“David Riesman and His Readers” in Culture arrd %&d Churucfer: 7’he Work of David Riesman Re-oiewed, ed. Seymour M. Lipset and Leo Lowenthal (Glenme, Ill.: Free Pr., 1%1), p ,404-16;Thomas Harthshome, The Disforfed hrrage: Churtq”ng Conceptions of fhe American Character since

248

Turner (Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Univ. Pr., 1968), p. 173; Peter Rose, “David Rlesman Re-considered,” Society 19:57 (Mar. /Apr. 1982); Richard H. Pens, The L.ibenrJMind in a ConservatiwAge: American Irrtel[ecfuafs in the 1940s and 1950 (New York: Harper,1985),p,23t3-@;JonathanYardley,“Reconsiderations:TheLonelyCrowd,” NewRepublic166:29 (Mar. 4, 1972).

3. We acknowledge that in scholarly discourse differences of opinion prevail among scholars aboutthe necessity and/or utility of authors citing the works of others. These views represent a minority,however, and—regardless of whatever merit these views are said to have–are not considered inthis discussion. In addition, much good scholarly writing does not formally cite the work of others.In these cases, regardless of the lack of explicit, formal citations, it can be demonstrated that suchwriting implicitlyincorporates the work of others. Finally, we acknowledge that both the motivesfor citation and the broad range of types of citations are not addressed. For discussion of thesematters, see Blaise Cronin, The Citcsficm Process (London: Taylor Graham, 19&),

4, In this discussion, bibliographic citation means the printed record that identifies a publication,whether in footnotes, bibliographies, Iibracy card catalogs, or computerized databases. For publi-cations for which an individual author is identifiable as the originator of the material (that is, peri-odical article, chapters in books, or entire books), the bibliographic citation includes such details asauthor, title of article or beok, periodical title or book publisher, date of publication, and of courseany other information necessary to indicate a publication’s uniqueness.

5. Eugene J. Meehan, Expkrmrtion in .%rird Science, A System Paradigm (Home wood, Ill.: Dor.w y Pr.,1968); Edward N. Saveth, American History and the .%rcid Sciences (Glencc-e, O. Free Pr., 1964), p.5;Robert Berkhofer, A Behavioral Approach to Historical Analysis (New York: Free Pr,, 1969), p.271.

6. Meehan, Exphrnafion in .%ciaf Science, p.35.7. IMd.8. Edmund Leach, Culture and Cmrcrnunicafion:The Loj?ic fru Which SymbolsAre Connected (Cambridge,

91011121314

15

16

17

18

19

20

Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1976), p.37.-.

Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (Scranton, Pa.: Chandler Pub., 1964), p.46.Sidney 1. Landau, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft o~bxicognrphy (New York: Scribner, 1984), p.20.John Ziman, Public Knowledge(Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 196B), p.58.Ziman, Public Knowledge, p.158.Ibid., p.59-60.Ibid., p.103-4; Charles B. Osburn, Academic Research and Library Resources (Westport, Corm,:Greenwood Pr., 1979), p.49; Stephen Stoan, “Research and Library Skitls: An Analysis and Inter-pretation, College & Research Libraries 45:100 (Mar. 1984).Edward P. J. Corbett, ClassicalRheforic@r the Modern Student, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr.,1971), p.33-34.Raymond G. Mchrnis, New Perspectirm for Reference Work in Academic Libraries (WestPort, Corm.:Greenwood Pr., 1978), p.83-86.David S. Kaufer, The Architecture of Argument (New York: HBJ, 1988), as cited in New York Times136: Cl (Apr. 7, 1987). We get more insight about scholarship as persuasion from the current in-crease in interest in the study of rhetoric, especially as it is said to apply in the conventions em-ployed by scholars working in “interpretive communities, ” that is, the networks of scholarsdrawn together because of similar research interests. [n 1987 the University of Wisconsin Presspublished the results of the 1984 University of IowaHumanitiesSymposiumontheRhetoricoftheHumanSciences. Edited by John S. Nelson, Alan Megill and Donald N. McCloskey, this volumesurveys rhetorical conventions empIoyed in a number of disciplines, but primarify the social sci-ences. In chapter one, to set the theme for the volume, the editors declare that’ ‘Scholarship usesargument, and argument uses rhetoric. The ‘rhetoric’ is not mere ornament or manipulation ortrickery. It is rhetoric in the ancient sense of persuasive discourse. In matters of mathematicalproof to literary criticism, scholars write rhetorically. ” (John S. Nelson and others, “Rhetoric ofInquiry, ” in The Rheton”c of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public A/-fairs, ed, John S. Nelson and others [Madison, Wise.: Univ. of Wisconsin Pr., 1987], p.3.) Othertitles that explore these same themes incIude: Richard A Cherwitz and James W. Hikins, Communi-cation and Knowledge: An ha%tigation in Rhetorical Epistemology (Columbla, SC.: Univ. of SouthCarolina Pr., 1986) and WinifredBryanHomer,cd., The Present State in Historical and CorrkmrporayRhetoric (Columbia, Mo.: Univ. of Missouri Pr., 1983). As an issue, scholarship as persuasion is ofcourse of major concern to academic libraries, especially as it relates to at least two matters of na-tional significance in academetodayassociatedwithstudentlearning:the “writing-across-the-curriculum”movementandwithteaching”criticalthinking”skills.G. Nigel Gifbert, “The Transformation of Research Findings into %ientific Knowledge,” SocialStudies of Science6:281 (1976)”, —. “Referencing as Persuasion, ” Sociu/ Studies of Science7:115 (1977).Ernst Cassirer, “Galileo: A New Science and a New Spirit, ” American Scholar 12:5-19 (Winter1942); but also see Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Pn”rrting Press as an Agent o~Charrge: Communicationsand Cultural Trmrsfomrations in Early-Modern Europe, V.2 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. R.,1979), p,698.Henry Small, “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols,” %cicd Studies of Science 3:328 (1978). Seealso his “Citation Context Analysis, ” Progress in Communication Sciences 3:287-310 (1982).

249

2122

23.

24.

25,26.

27.

28.

29.

30.31.32.33.

34.

35.36.37,38.39.

40.41.

42.

Smalf, “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols, ” p.328.Blake Cronin, “The Need for a Theocy of Citing, ” Journal ojDocurnerdafion 37:16 (1981); _.Cihrtion Pnxess, p. 25.In this context, concept is not used according to its abstract or theoretical formulation. Instead,foklowing Small, “Cited Dwuments as Concept Symbols, ” p.329, concept includes’ ‘experiment-al findings, methodologies, types of data, metaphysical notions, theoretical statements orequations—or, in general when deafing with citations, any statement which maybe taken as char-acterizing or describing the cited doament. ”Joseph Featherstone, “John Dewey and David Riseman: From the Lost Individual to the LonelyCrowd, ” in On the Making o~Arnericmrs: Essays in Honor of David Ris+murn, ed. Herbert J. Gans andothers (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Pr., 1979), p. 17-18.Ibid., p.18.Below we’U see that the other-directed character is vecy appropriate for understanding how indi-viduals operate in scholarly communities.Ruth Strout, “The Development of the Catafog and Cataloging Codes, ” Library Quarterly 26:257(1956); Johannes L. Dewton, “The Influence of the Structure of the CataIog on the Form of CatalogEntry, ” Feskchrift Josef Stummc.wIl . . . . 1970, p.489; Ilse Bry, “The Emerging Field of Sociobiblio-gcaphy: Reassessment and Reorientation of Access to Knowledge in the Social Sciences, ” in Ac-cess to the Litenrtu re of the %cird Sciences and Humurrities Proceedings, New York, 1972 (Flushing,NY.: Queens College PK., 1974), p.14.Strout, “Development of the Catalog and Cataloging”; Dewton, “The Influence of the Structureof the Catalog. ”Alice Mona East, Btb[iognrphicalCitation m English fkwksin the Sixteenth and %urnteenth Centuries(Unpublished thesis, Univ. of Michigan, Dept. of Library Science, 1952), p. 1-2.Ibid., p.3.Ibid., p.43.Ibid., p,71.Ibid., p.72; Derek J. de SolkaPrice, Little .%ierrce,Big Saence (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1%3),p.64-65. Price places the date at the middle of the eighteenth century. See also Norman Kaplan,“Norcns of Citation Behavior, ” American Documerrfafion 16:180 (July 1965).John F. Fulton, “The Principles of Bibliographical Citation, ” College & Research Libraries 6:185(1945); Cyril C, Barnard, “Bibliographical Citation, ” The Librarian and fhe Bcok World39:105 (1950).Wifliam Postell, “Clarifying Bibliographical Citation, ” College & Resrsrrch Libraries 6:249 (1945).Fulton,“Principlesof BibliographicalCitation,” p,1S5.Postell,“ClarifyingBibliographicalCitation,” p.249.EugeneGarfield,“CitationIndexesforScience,” Science122:109-10 (1955).EugeneGarfield, “Citation Indexing and the Sociology of Science, ” brtermrfiorralCongress o/Medi-cal Librarianship, M, Amsterdam, %weedings (Amsterdam: Excecpta Medics, 1%9), p. 189.Garfield, “Citation Indexing and the Sociology of Sdence,” p.192.Robert K. Merton, “Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science, ”Americcrn Sociological Review 22:639 (Dec. 1957); Kaplan,“NormsofCitationBehavior”;DerekJ. deSolla Price, “Networksof Scientific Papers, ” Science 149:510 (1965); Zirnan, Public Knowledgep. 158; Jerome R. Ravetz, ScientificKnowledgeand [k Social Problems, (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr.,

1973), p.256-57.Hartshome, Disforted image, p. 177.

43. Osbum, Academic Researc~ ad Libray Resources, p xvii,44. James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Pemoncd Account o~fhe Discowy o/the Sfruchsre of DNA (New

York; Atheneum, 1968).45. For a thorough discussion of the literature of citation practices, see Cronin, The Citation Process.46. Kaplan,“Normsof CitationBehavior.”47. Merton,“Prioritiesin %ienti}c Diacovecy, ” p.640.48. Pierre Bourdieu, “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Scwial Conditions of the Progress

of Reason, ” Sod Science br@mation 14:21 (1975). Emphasis added.49. fbid., p.23.50, fbid., p.25.51. Mecton, “Priorities in %ientific Dkcovery,” p.640.52. Hacriet A, Zuckerman has studied the patterns of name ordering in the citation of mcdtiauthored

scientific papers. Her evidence suggests that, contrary to what one might assume, curcent practicedoes not dictate that first place in the order of names goes the most prominent investigator, in-stead she finds that “a name’s visibility in a series depends first on its relative visibility, defined byits ranks in the series and, aecondfy, on its ircfrinsicvisibility,‘‘ which it owes to the fact that beingfarnifiar, the practice of ‘‘[abandoning] first place to others increases as the capital possessed in-creases, and with it the symbolic profit automatically accruing to its pmsessor, regardless of hisplace in the order. ” Harriet A Zucker-cnan, “Patterns of Name Ordering among Authors of Scien-tific Papers: A Study of Social Symbolism and Its Ambiguity, ” A mericzm Journal of %ciokrgy, 74:276.291 (Nov. 1968), as cited by Bourdieu, “Specificity of the Scientific Field, ” p,26.

53. Merton, “Priorities in Scientific Discovery, ” p.640.

250