BRIDGING THE INVISIBLE BOUNDARIES

Abstract

In his magisterial overview, Edwards (2006) makes a convincing case for the global reach and distinction that Addiction has attained in its recent decades. What he does not emphasize so much is the broad range of research disciplines which jostle and find sustenance in its pages. It is true that Addiction's stablemate, Addiction Biology, takes care of one aspect of the field. But Addiction takes in most of the rest—the ‘psychosocial, clinical and public health aspects’, as Edwards characterizes them. The image Edwards uses for the constituency with which Addiction interrelates is the invisible college. As used in a scientific context, the term derives originally from Robert Boyle in the 17th century, at a time when English science was carried on largely by those excluded from the visible colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. It was given modern currency by Derek de Solla Price (1963), to describe ‘informal collectives of scientists interacting in their work on similar problems . . . generally limited to a size which can be handled by personal relationships’ (Merton 1988). Addiction's constituency has clearly grown far beyond what can be encompassed in an invisible college as defined by Price. One can point to two rather visible colleges within the constituency. One is Addiction's owner, the Society for the Study of Addiction, which is considerably more Britain-centred than the journal, and perhaps also more clinically orientated. The other is the company of those involved editorially with Addiction; as Edwards records, this includes more than 100 Assistant Editors and 50 members of the International Editorial Advisory Board. Both of these are important nexuses of intellectual exchange and collaboration, across as well as within disciplines. Less obvious, by definition, are the invisible colleges of our field. I say colleges, because the reality, even in our cross-disciplinary field, is that no one can be involved in or expert at everything, and modern science in our field as in all others is marked by great division of labour. So, at least in the usage of the sociology of science, it needs to be ‘the invisible colleges’ in Edwards’ Fig. 1. Indeed, in daily or periodic face-to-face interactions, and above all these days in listserves and e-mail correspondence, a multitude of invisible colleges operate in our field, to the great benefit of the advancement of knowledge. Addiction aspires to reach across these informal groupings, and to a considerable degree succeeds in doing so. The great engine of this in Addiction is what Edwards describes as the ‘commissioned’ content. More than impact factor or geographic reach, the debates, commentaries, editorials and other such material are what set Addiction apart from other journals in the field, and it is this aspect of Addiction which makes the strongest contribution to creating a common arena in which the different invisible colleges can interact, argue and learn from each other. At its best, the ‘commissioned content’ in Addiction attains the scientific ideal of being an arena where disciplinary prestige and personal seniority are left behind, and the only considerations are the strength of the evidence and the logic of the argument. The development of the arena of ‘commissioned content’ in Addiction has been largely Edwards’ doing. In my view, it is the most important legacy to the journal and to the field of his time as Editor-in-Chief. Long may it thrive!