Big Science, commonly defined as conventional science made big in three dimensions, namely organizations, machines, and politics, brings a plethora of different stakeholders together, often for a... Show moreBig Science, commonly defined as conventional science made big in three dimensions, namely organizations, machines, and politics, brings a plethora of different stakeholders together, often for a long period of time. This includes policymakers, scientists, (scientific) managers as well as local “host” communities. Each group has considerable, though often different, stakes in Big Science. These diverging interests require stakeholders to negotiate and to compromise between and among one another. Using qualitative methods, this dissertation contributes to a deeper understanding of such processes in and around Big Science in two distinct ways. First, it sheds light on how different stakeholders pursue and negotiate their interests within and in relation to Big Science. In doing so, the thesis pays particular attention to non-Western and indigenous actors, two stakeholder groups that the existing literature on Big Science has so far largely neglected. Second, it theorizes how conflicts emerge and develop between and among stakeholders, thus advancing theory-building in the largely undertheorized literature on Big Science. Overall, the dissertation demonstrates that, in contrast to conventional science, Big Science carries significant symbolism for the involved stakeholders, which often impedes effective stakeholder and conflict management. Show less
