The Gift and Open Science

in Durkheimian Studies
Author:
Henrik Egbert Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany henrik.egbert@hs-anhalt.de

Search for other papers by Henrik Egbert in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

This article illustrates how social structures and behaviours of scientists in the societal sub-system of open science resemble patterns analysed in The Gift, an essay written by Marcel Mauss nearly 100 years ago. The presented analysis goes beyond existing interpretations of gift-giving in science. The latter has mainly focussed on the exchange of knowledge and citations. I argue that The Gift explains also identity, competition, co-opetition, rituals and punishment. Mauss's Gift is seen as a complementary model to existing economic and sociological approaches regularly used to analyse structures and behaviours in open science. By accentuating such an anthropological approach, I conclude that the Gift provides explanations for the stability and the expansion of the open science community.

Contributor Notes

Henrik Egbert is Professor of Economics at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. He is a researcher in micro-economics, new institutional economics, and economic anthropology. He has published books and articles on interdisciplinary topics, such as international migration, informal trade, social networks and entrepreneurship. E-mail: henrik.egbert@hs-anhalt.de

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Durkheimian Studies

Études Durkheimiennes

  • Adams, J. D., G. C. Black, J. R. Clemmons and P. E. Stephan. 2005. ‘Scientific Teams and Institutional Collaborations: Evidence from U.S. Universities, 1981–1999’. Research Policy 34 (3): 259285. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Albert, H. 2010. ‘The Economic Tradition and the Constitution of Science’. Public Choice 144: 401411. d https://www.jstor.org/stable/40835620.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Albert, M. 2006. Product Quality in Scientific Competition. Discussion Paper on Strategic Interaction 2006–6. Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Albert, M. 2008. ‘Introduction’. In M. Albert, D. Schmidtchen, and S. Voigt (eds), Scientific Competition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Albert. M. 2011. ‘Methodology and Scientific Completion’. Episteme 8 (2): 165183.

  • Arrow, K. N. 1962. ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’. In Universities National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council (ed), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 609625.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beaver, D. D. 2001. ‘Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and Its Study): Past, Present, and Future’. Scientometrics 52 (3): 265377. doi:10.1023/A:1014254214337.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bergquist, M. and J. Ljungberg. 2001. ‘The Power of Gifts: Organizing Social Relationships in Open Source Communities’. Information Systems Journal 11 (4): 305320. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2001.00111.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bourdieu, P. 1975. ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason’. Social Science Information 14 (6): 1947. doi:10.1177/053901847501400602.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dasgupta, R. and P. A. David. 1987. ‘Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology’. In G. R. Feiwel (ed), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan, 519542.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dasgupta, R. and P. A. David. 1994. ‘Towards a New Economics of Science’. Research Policy 23 (5): 487521. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Douglas, M. 1990. ‘Introduction’. In M. Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. W. D. Halls. London: Routledge, 17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Egbert, H. 2008. ‘Networking in Science and Policy Interventions’. In M. Albert, D. Schmidtchen and S. Voigt (eds), Scientific Competition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 231234. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvf3w2t3.19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Egbert, H. 2017a. ‘The Gift and Pay-What-You-Want Pricing.’ Journal of Business Anthropology 6 (2): 218230. doi:10.22439/jba.v6i2.5413.

  • Egbert, H. 2017b. ‘The Gift and the Centipede’. Structure and Dynamics: eJournal of Anthropological and Related Sciences 10 (1). doi:10.5070/SD9101034084.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Egbert, H. 2018. ‘Marcel Mauss und ökonomische Theorien: Die Institution Geld’ [Marcel Mauss and economic theories: The institution of money]. Anthropos 113 (2): 690699. doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2018-2-690.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eisenstadt, S. N. 1987. ‘The Classical Sociology of Knowledge and Beyond’. Minerva 25 (1–2): 7791. doi:10.1007/BF01096857.

  • Gudeman, S. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Hagstrom, W. O. 1965. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.

  • Hann, C. 2006. ‘The Gift and Reciprocity: Perspectives from Economic Anthropology’. In S.-C. Kolm and J. Mercier Ythier (eds), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 207223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hart, K. 2007. ‘Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole’. Comparative Studies in Society and History 49 (2): 473485. doi:10.1017/S0010417507000564.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hess, D. J. 2007. ‘Crosscurrents: Social Movements and the Anthropology of Science and Technology’. American Anthropologist 109 (3): 15481433. doi:10.1525/AA.2007.109.3.463.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hicks, D. and J. S. Katz. 1996. ‘Science Policy for a Highly Collaborative Science System’. Science and Public Policy 23 (1): 3944. doi:10.1093/spp/23.1.39.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hippel, E. von. 1987. ‘Cooperation between Rivals: Informal Know-How Trading’. Research Policy 16 (6): 291302. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(87)90015-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Jackson, M. O. and A. Wolinsky. 1996. ‘A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks’. Journal of Economic Theory 71 (1): 4474. doi:10.1006/jeth.1996.0108.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jarvie, I. C. 2001. The Republic of Science: The Emergence of Popper's Social View of Science 1935–1945. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

  • Kranton, R. E. 1996. ‘Reciprocal Exchange: A Self-Sustaining System’. American Economic Review 86 (4): 830851. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leonard, T. C. 2002. ‘Reflections on Rules in Science: An Invisible-Hand Perspective’. Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (2): 141168. doi:10.1080/13501780210137092.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lévi-Strauss, C. 1949. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.

  • Liebersohn, H. 2011. The Return of the Gift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E. P. Dutton.

  • Malinowski, B. 1926. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Kegan Paul.

  • Mauss, M. 1923–1924. ‘Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés primitives’. L'Année sociologique 1: 30186. http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/socio_et_anthropo/2_essai_sur_le_don/essai_sur_le_don.html.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. W. D. Halls. London: Routledge.

  • Melin, G. 2000. ‘Pragmatism and Self-Organization: Research Collaboration on the Individual Level’. Research Policy 29 (1): 3140. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Merton, R.K. 1942. ‘A note on Science and Democracy’. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115126.

  • Merton, R. K. 1957. ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’. American Sociological Review 22 (6): 635659. doi:10.2307/2089193.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Nalebuff, B. J. and A. M. Brandenburger. 1996. Co-Opetition. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

  • Necker, S. 2014. ‘Scientific Misbehavior in Economics’. Research Policy 43 (10): 17471759. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.05.002.

  • Nelson, R. R. 1959. ‘The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research’. Journal of Political Economy 67 (3): 297306. doi:10.1086/258177.

  • Parry, J. 1986. ‘The Gift, the Indian Gift and the “Indian Gift”’. Man 21 (3): 453473. doi:10.2307/2803096.

  • Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart.

  • Polanyi, M. 1962. ‘The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory’. Minerva 1 (1): 5473. doi:10.1023/A:1026591624255.

  • Popper, K. R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

  • Robinson, J. 1933. The Economics of Imperfect Competition. London: Macmillan.

  • Rosman, A. and P. G. Rubel. 1972. ‘The Potlatch: A Structural Analysis’. American Anthropologist 74 (3): 658671. doi:10.1525/aa.1972.74.3.02a00280.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sahlins, M. D. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Press.

  • Stephan, P. E. 1996. ‘The Economics of Science’. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (3): 11991235. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2729500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vanberg, V. J. 2010. ‘The “Science-as-a-Market” Analogy: A Constitutional Economics Perspective’. Constitutional Political Economy 21: 2849. doi:10.1007/s10602-008-9061-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagner, C. S. and L. Leydesdorff. 2005. ‘Network Structure, Self-Organization, and the Growth of International Collaboration in Science’. Research Policy 34 (10): 16081618. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Walstad, A. 2002. ‘Science as a Market Process’. The Independent Review 7 (1): 545. https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_1_walstad.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weiner, A. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Wible, J. R. 1998. The Economics of Science. London: Routledge.

  • Zamora Bonilla, J. P. 2008. ‘Methodology and the Constitution of Science: A Game-Theoretic Approach’. In M. Albert, D. Schmidtchen and S. Voigt (eds), Scientific Competition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 263278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeitlyn, D. 2003. ‘Gift Economies in the Development of Open Source Software: Anthropological Reflections’. Research Policy 32 (7): 12871291. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00053-2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1524 732 25
Full Text Views 251 21 3
PDF Downloads 108 4 0