We have used 199 million papers over 5 decades and 21 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed

/pdf/the-increasing-dominance-of-teams-in-production-of-knowledge-h591ohwfzk.pdf

The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge

While the study of psychology has offered little in the way of explaining the creative process, Koestler examines the idea that we are at our most creative when rational thought is suspended--for example, in dreams and trancelike states. All who read The Act of Creation will find it a compelling and illuminating book.

The Act of Creation

Rabelais and His World.

The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act

The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as “team science.“ Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams' progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.

/pdf/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science-sz5t6ctjxj.pdf

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science

Introduction: Prizes and the Study of Culture I. The Age of Awards 1. Prize Frenzy 2. Precursors of the Modern Cultural Prize 3. The Logic of Proliferation 4. Prizes as Entertainment II. Peculiarities of the Awards Industry 5. The Making of a Prize 6. Taste Management 7. Trophies as Objects of Production and Trade III. The Game and Its Players 8. Scandalous Currency 9. The New Rhetoric of Prize Commentary 10. Strategies of Condescension, Styles of Play IV. The Global Economy of Cultural Prestige 11. The Arts as International Sport 12. The New Geography of Prestige 13. Prizes and the Politics of World Culture Appendix A. The Rise of the Prize Appendix B. Prizes and Commerce Appendix C. Winner Take All: Six Lists Notes Index

The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value

There is no form of cultural capital so ubiquitous, so powerful, so widely talked about, and yet so little explored by scholars as the cultural prize. Prizes and awards fairly dominate the cultural landscape these days, literally tens of thousands of them vying for our notice, lists of them appearing in every resume, every promotional blurb, every feature story or obituary of practically anyone connected with the production of art.1 Indeed, the sense that the cultural universe has become super-saturated with prizes, that there are more prizes than our collective cultural achievements can possibly justify, is the great and recurring theme of prize punditry. Gore Vidal says that in the U.S. there are more literary prizes than there are writers.2 Peter Porter, the Australian poet, says there are so many prizes in his country that "there is hardly any writer in Sydney who has not won one."3 A British novelist jokes about attending a "great literary function" in Bloomsbury where he turned out to be "one of only two fiction writers present never to have won a literary award," and where the other such writer was managing to go undetected by laying claim to an award of his own invention?the "Pemberton-Frost Memorial Prize."4 The author thus found himself in a perfect comic inversion of the normative prize scenario: a single loser emerging from a congested field of winners. The whole literary awards scene, as numerous commentators have observed, has come to resemble the "Caucus-race" of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, where the Dodo announces that "everybody has won, and all must have prizes."5 This is not a specifically literary circumstance, of course, but a general feature of contemporary cultural life. Woody Allen's character in Annie

Winning the Culture Game: Prizes, Awards, and the Rules of Art*

he "sociology of literature" has always named a polyglot and rather incoherent set of enterprises. It is scattered across so many separate domains and subdomains of scholarly research, each with its own distinct agendas of theory and method, that it scarcely even rates the designation of a "field." 1 But for purposes of clarity and simplicity, I will focus here on the fate of sociology in the recent history of literary studies. Is literary studies actively invested at present in the project of sustaining a sociology of literature? As currently configured, and facing the particular disciplinary circumstances that we do, are liter- ary scholars capable of producing a new sociology of literature? Would they be favorably disposed toward one if it came their way? One hesitates to answer such questions in the affirmative. New or old, the sociology of literature seems to possess little traction in literary studies. Nobody appears to regret the passing of an "old" sociology of literature, invoked these days (where it is invoked at all) as a stale and outmoded approach, like reader-response or archetypal criticism, barely worth a chapter in the latest theory anthology. But nor would many literary scholars embrace the prospect—as they perceive it—of a new sociological turn, of a more "sociological" future for literary studies. If the old sociology of literature seems all too old, a superseded relic of an earlier moment in the discipline, a new sociology of literature can seem all too contemporary, in step with ominous trends that are driving humanistic inquiry toward some small, sad corner of the increasingly social-science-dominated academy to endure an "interdisciplinary" af- terlife of collaborative media research. I am speaking here of images and perceptions, of what the phrase "sociology of literature" might conjure up in the disciplinary imaginary of the Eng Lit or Comp Lit professoriate. I am not speaking about any actual program of research, about attempts to connect the core mis- sion of sociology with that of literary studies, articulating in new, more thorough, or more provocative ways the social logic of literary texts and

/pdf/everywhere-and-nowhere-the-sociology-of-literature-after-the-41850jbe5a.pdf

James F. English

Papers

The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value

Winning the Culture Game: Prizes, Awards, and the Rules of Art*

Everywhere and Nowhere: The Sociology of Literature After "the Sociology of Literature"

Comic Transactions: Literature, Humor, and the Politics of Community in Twentieth-Century Britain

Literary Authorship and Celebrity Culture