Organizational complexity in big science: strategies and practices

Abstract

Studies on ‘Big Science’ have shifted our perspective from the complexity of scientific objects and their representations to the complexity of sociotechnical arrangements. However, how scientists in large-scale research attend to this complexity to facilitate and afford knowledge production has rarely been considered to date. In this article, we locate organizational complexity on the level of organizing practices that follow multiple and divergent logics. We identify three strategies of managing organizational complexity, drawing on existing literature on large-scale research as well as own empirical research. The three strategies are: segmenting research infrastructure, introducing elements of bureaucratic governance, and implementing standards and standardization. We illustrate these strategies with examples from our empirical case study on experimental particle physics research at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. While the strategies we identified help to cope with the complexity of some organizational tasks by dividing, ordering, or mediating between divergent organizational logics, we find that organizational complexity overall is not reduced but rather displaced. We argue that dealing with complexity is a dynamic and ongoing process, which inevitably generates novel organizational complexity.

Key Science Goals for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope

“…On consent-based siting rather than top-down imposition, see Hamilton et al [264]; and for a recent development and analysis of consent-based siting, Richter et al [265]. 16 For lessons learnt regarding knowledge formation, governance, organisational structure, decision-making, diversity, accountability, creativity, credit assignment and the role of consensus, from a range of perspectives across the humanities and social sciences, see e.g., (a) in general: Galison and Hevly [272], Knorr Cetina [273], Sullivan [274], Shrum et al [275], Boyer-Kassem et al [276] and references therein; (b) for specific collaborations and institutions: Collins [277], Nichols [278] on LIGO; Boisot et al [279], Ritson [280], Sorgner [281], Merz and Sorgner [282] on ATLAS and/or CERN; Jebeile [283] on the IPCC; Smith et al [284], Vertesi [285] on NASA; and Traweek [286] on SLAC and KEK. 17 Regarding network analysis, communication structures and epistemic communities, see for instance the following texts and references therein: Kitcher [290,291], Zollman [292,293,294], Longino [295], Lalli et al [296,297], Light and Moody [298], Wüthrich [299], Šešelja [300].…”

The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture

“…A related concern is that creative research is stifled and individuals are prevented from developing diverse and novel ideas. Large research collaborations may tend towards conservatism, in part stemming from multiple requirements for collective approval [151] and a preference for well-tested over novel approaches [152]. When considering how we might ideally organize a research collaboration, it is thus important to consider creativity from both an individual and a collective perspective [153], including the opportunities for researchers to publish individual contributions to collaborative research, such as PhD theses [154].…”