Disciplinary Bloc Formation and Inter-Bloc Crossing in the Nomination Network of Class IX of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1990–2024)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51624/Keywords:
nomination network, collegial selection, academic recognition, bloc formation, gatekeeping, mediationAbstract
This study examines how nominations were organized in Class IX of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences between 1990 and 2024. Rather than treating nomination as a merely administrative preliminary step, the paper conceptualizes it as an entry mechanism in the institutional production of scientific recognition: a stage where support is assembled and where disciplinary boundaries, gatekeeping, and patterns of nominator co-movement become observable. The analysis draws on the Academy’s official nomination and election documents and on special issues of Magyar Tudomány; the dataset covers 13 election cycles and 468 nomination ties made by nominators belonging to Class IX. Using a descriptive network approach, the paper examines bloc formation in the bipartite nominator–nominee network, inter-bloc crossings, and the concentration of support in the projected co-nomination network. The findings show that the nomination network is durably structured by disciplinary blocs: most support remains within the same disciplinary circles. Inter-bloc crossing is present but limited, and in several cycles it is tied to a small number of active intermediaries. The study’s sociological contribution is to make the institutional production of scientific recognition observable not at the final stage of election outcomes, but at the earlier stage where nomination support is organized.
References
Aadland, E., Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2019). Friends, gifts, and cliques: Social proximity and recognition in peer-based tournament rituals. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 883–917. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0437
Allison, P. D., Long, J. S., & Krauze, T. K. (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47(5), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095162
Ayoubi, C., Pezzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2021). Does it pay to do novel science? The selectivity patterns in science funding. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab031
Azoulay, P., Stuart, T., & Wang, Y. (2014). Matthew: Effect or fable? American Economic Review, 104(6), 1531–1556. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1755
Bol, T., De Vaan, M., & Van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115
Borjas, G. J., & Doran, K. B. (2013). Prizes and productivity: How winning the Fields Medal affects scientific output. Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 728–758. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19445
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543–676. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543
Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., & Torgler, B. (2014). Academic honors and performance. Labour Economics, 31, 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.05.005
Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2014). The power of awards. The Economists’ Voice, 11(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1515/ev-2014-0002
Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2016). Honors: A rational choice analysis of award bestowals. Rationality and Society, 28(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463116634656
Frey, B. S., & Gallus, J. (2017). Towards an economics of awards. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(1), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12127
Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2009). Abundant but neglected: Awards as incentives. The Economists’ Voice, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1553-3832.1378
Gallus, J., & Frey, B. S. (2017). Awards as strategic signals. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616658127
Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024). The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly, 78, e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511
Jin, C., Uzzi, B., & Wang, D. (2020). Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25712-2
Kladakis, A., Mongeon, P., & Bloch, C. W. (2024). Citation elites in polytheistic and umbrella disciplines: Patterns of stratification and concentration in Danish and British science. Minerva, 62, 397–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Harvard University Press.
Langfeldt, L., Nedeva, M., Sörlin, S., & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Co-existing notions of research quality: A framework to study context-specific understandings of good research. Minerva, 58(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09385-2
Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2010). Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492495
Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830
McCabe, M. J., & Babutsidze, Z. (2024). Scientific prizes and post-award attention: Evidence from the Nobel Prize in economics. Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3534922
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480
Qiu, Y. J. J. (2023). The Matthew effect, research productivity, and the dynamic allocation of NIH grants. The RAND Journal of Economics, 54(1), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12433
Petersen, A. M., Fortunato, S., Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., Penner, O., Rungi, A., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H. E., & Pammolli, F. (2014). Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15316–15321. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323111111
Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2013). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 460–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12060
