No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The SENSE of Nuclear Physics: New Frontiers, Media, and Collaborations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2018
Argument
This article describes the efforts of one fifty-year-old nuclear physics research center to stay relevant as the boundaries of nuclear physics have expanded and distributed collaborations have become increasingly common. In adapting to these shifts, SENSE, a university-based institute in the United States, has seen notable changes in power relations, forms of legitimation, and social structures. This article recognizes and investigates these changes through an interpretative investigation of four common media objects incorporated into research practice at the institute: collaboration wikis, telephones, computer simulations, and government reports. In doing so, this article adopts an approach from media studies through which hard-to-see changes in social and cultural life can be investigated by observing media objects in research practice. Ultimately, this article tells the story of a research organization and an entire discipline working to adapt to a rapidly changing scientific landscape.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018
References
Abgrall, Nicolas, et al. 2014. “The Majorana Demonstrator Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay Experiment.” Advances in High Energy Physics 2014:1–18.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Iftekhar. 2007. “Virtual Scientific Collaboration: The Role of Communication Technology in Teamwork and Interaction.” National Communication Association Annual Conference.Google Scholar
Bodnarczuk, Mark, and Hoddeson, Lillian. 2008. “Megascience in Particle Physics: The Birth of an Experiment String at Fermilab.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 38 (4):508–34.Google Scholar
Couldry, Nick. 2008. “Mediatization or Mediation? Alternative Understandings of the Emergent Space of Digital Storytelling.” New Media & Society 10 (3):373–91.Google Scholar
Couldry, Nick, and Hepp, Andreas. 2013. “Conceptualizing Mediatization: Contexts, Traditions, Arguments.” Communication Theory 23 (3):191–202.Google Scholar
Crombie, Alistair Cameron. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts. Vol. 2. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation Nuclear Science Advisory Committee. 1989. Nuclei, Nucleons, Quarks Nuclear Science in the 1990’s: A Long Range Plan by the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee. https://science.energy.gov/~/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/lrp_1989.pdfGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter, and Hevly, Bruce William. 1992. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hallonsten, Olof, and Heinze, Thomas. 2013. “From Particle Physics to Photon Science: Multi-Dimensional and Multi-Level Renewal at DESY and SLAC.” Science and Public Policy 40 (5):591–603.Google Scholar
Hepp, Andreas. 2013. Cultures of Mediatization. Translated by Keith Tribe. Malden MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Hepp, Andreas, Hjarvard, Stig, and Lundby, Knut. 2010. “Mediatization – Empirical Perspectives: An Introduction to a Special Issue.” Communications 35 (3).Google Scholar
Hewlett, Richard G., and Holl, Jack M.. 1989. Atoms for Peace and War, 1953–1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. Vol. 3. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, Kolb, Adrienne W., and Westfall, Catherine. 2009. Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier, and Megascience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Merle, and Hallonsten, Olof. 2012. “The Persistence of Big Science and Megascience in Research and Innovation Policy.” Science and Public Policy 39 (4):411–15.Google Scholar
Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. London: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Knoblauch, Hubert. 2013. “Communicative Constructivism and Mediatization.” Communication Theory 23 (3):297–315.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krige, John. 2001. “Distrust and Discovery: The Case of the Heavy Bosons at CERN.” Isis 92 (3): 517–40.Google Scholar
Krotz, Friedrich. 2009. “Mediatization: A Concept with Which to Grasp Media and Societal Change.” In Mediatization: Concept, Change, Consequences, edited by Lundby, Knut, 21–40. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Magerko, Brian. 2010. “The potential for scientific collaboration in virtual ecosystems.” Learning, Media & Technology 35 (2):243–248.Google Scholar
Manovich, Lev. 2012. “Trending: The Promises and the Challenges of Big Social Data.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, by Gold, Matthew K.. City? University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mazur, Allan and Boyko, Elma. 1981. “Large-Scale Ocean Research Projects: What Makes Them Succeed or Fail?” Social Studies of Science 11 (4):425–49.Google Scholar
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Walter. 1967. Elements of Nuclear Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Newson, Henry, Bilpuch, Edward, Purser, Fred O, Boyce, James Reid, and Clegg, Thomas. 1974. “An Operational Review of the TUNL Cyclo-Graaff.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods 122 (November):99–113.Google Scholar
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee. 1983, 1989, 1996, 2012. A Report by the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
Packer, Jeremy. 2013. “The Conditions of Media's Possibility.” The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies.Google Scholar
Peters, John Durham. 2015. The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shrum, Wesley, Genuth, Joel, and Chompalov, Ivan. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siegert, Bernhard. 2013. “Mineral Sound or Missing Fundamental: Cultural History as Signal Analysis.” Osiris 28 (1):105–18.Google Scholar
Price, Solla, de, Derek John, and Price, Derek De Solla. 1965. Little Science, Big Science. Vol. 6. Columbia University Press New York.Google Scholar
Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beam Times and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vertesi, J. 2014. “Seamful Spaces: Heterogeneous Infrastructures in Interaction.” Science, Technology & Human Values 39 (2):264–84.Google Scholar
Walsh, John P. and Maloney, Nancy G.. 2007. “Collaboration Structure, Communication Media, and Problems in Scientific Work Teams.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2):712–32.Google Scholar
Westfall, Catherine. 2003. “Rethinking Big Science: Modest, Mezzo, Grand Science and the Development of the Bevalac, 1971–1993.” Isis 94 (1):30–56.Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2010. Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wuchty, Stefan, Jones, Benjamin F., and Uzzi, Brian. 2007. “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge.” Science 316 (5827):1036–1039.Google Scholar