Science and Technology Studies has attained a strong international profile in recent decades. Science Studies incorporates work in the History and Philosophy of Science, but emphasizes the social, cultural, and political implications of developments in the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering, and medicine. The Sociology of Science remains a vital part of Science Studies, but many other key contributors in the field identify more strongly with core disciplines such as Anthropology, Political Science, and Communication Studies.
Edited by a leading scholar in the field, this new four-volume collection from Routledge brings together classic work and the very best contemporary and cutting-edge scholarship. It provides researchers—and advanced students—with easy access to the key items of scholarly literature, material that is otherwise inaccessible or scattered throughout a variety of specialist journals and books. In particular, the collection enables users to gain a deep understanding of the current controversies surrounding science. The materials gathered exemplify important arguments, empirical studies, perspectives, and controversies (such as ‘the science wars’ of the 1990s).
The collection also includes a full index, together with a comprehensive introduction, newly written by the editor, which places the collected material in its historical and intellectual context. Science and Technology Studies is an essential work of reference and will be welcomed as a vital one-stop research and pedagogic resource.
Part 1: Sociology of Science Before the Rise of STS
1. Karl Mannheim, ‘The Transition from the Theory of Ideology to the Sociology of Knowledge: The Non-Evaluative Conception of Ideology’, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge (Harvest Books, 1936), pp. 75–87.
2. Edger Zilzel, ‘The Sociological Roots of Science’, American Journal of Sociology, 1942, 47, 544–62.
3. Thomas S. Kuhn, ‘Postscript’, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. (University of Chicago Press, 1970), pp. 174–210.
4. Robert K. Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ , The Sociology of Science (University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 267–78.
5. Robert K. Merton, ‘The Matthew Effect in Science’, Science, 1968, 159, 56–63.
6. Michael Mulkay, ‘Norms and Ideology of Science’, Social Science Information, 1976, 15, 637–56.
7. Pierre Bourdieu, ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason’, Social Science Information, 1975, 14, 19–47.
Part 2: The Strong Programme and SSK
8. David Bloor, ‘Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 1973, 4, 173–91.
9. Barry Barnes and David Bloor, ‘Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism (MIT Press, 1982), pp. 21–47.
10. Larry Laudan, ‘The Pseudo-Science of Science?’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1981, 11, 173–98.
11. David Bloor, ‘The Strengths of the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Knowledge’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1981, 11, 199–213.
12. H. M. Collins, ‘Son of Seven Sexes: The Social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon’, Social Studies of Science, 1981, 11, 2, 33–62.
13. Andrew Pickering, ‘Against Putting the Phenomena First: The Discovery of the Weak Neutral Current’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 1984, 15, 85–117.
Part 3: Laboratory Studies and the Constructionist Idiom
14. Karin Knorr Cetina, ‘The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Sociology of Science’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed (Sage, 1983), pp. 115–40.
15. Bruno Latour, ‘Is it Possible to Reconstruct the Research Process? Sociology of a Brain Peptide’, in K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitley (eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of The Sciences Yearbook, Vol. IV (Kluwer, 1980), pp. 53–73.
16. Michael Lynch, ‘Technical Work and Critical Inquiry: Investigations in a Scientific Laboratory’, Social Studies of Science, 1982, 12, 499–534.
17. Sharon Traweek, ‘Pilgrim’s Progress: Male Tales Told During a Life in Physics’, Beamtimes and Lifetimes (Harvard University Press, 1988).
18. Ian Hacking, ‘The Participant Irrealist at Large in the Laboratory’, British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 1988, 39, 3, 277–94.
Part 4: Practice, Visualization, Discourse
19. Bruno Latour, ‘Visualisation and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands’, Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, 1986, 6, 1–40.
20. Steven Shapin, ‘Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology’, Social Studies of Science, 1984, 14, 481–520.
21. Michael Lynch, ‘Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visibility’, Social Studies of Science, 1985, 15, 1, 37–66.
22. Charles Goodwin, ‘Professional Vision’, American Anthropologist, 1994, 96, 3, 606–33.
23. Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, ‘Accounting for Error: How Scientists Construct Their Social World When They Account for Correct and Incorrect Belief’, Sociology, 1982, 16, 165–83.
24. Trevor Pinch, ‘Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observation Reports in Physics’, Social Studies of Science, 1985, 15, 1, 167–87.
25. Ian Hacking, ‘Microscopes’, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 186–210.
26. Georg Hans Rheinberger, ‘Experimental Systems: Historiality, Narration, and Deconstruction’, in M. Biagioli (ed.), Science Studies Reader (Routledge, 1999), pp. 417–29.
27. Simon Schaffer, ‘Late Victorian Metrology and its Instrumentation: A Manufactory of Ohms’, in R. Bud and S. Cozzens (eds.), Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions and Science (Optical Engineering Press, 1992), pp. 23–56.
Part 5: From Demarcation to Boundary Work
28. Peter Dear, ‘Science Studies as Epistemography’, in J. Labinger and H. Collins (eds.), The One Culture? A Conversation about Science (University of Chicago Press), pp. 128–41.
29. Karl Popper, ‘Science as Falsification’, Conjectures and Refutations (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), pp. 33–9.
30. Thomas F. Gieryn, ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science’, American Sociological Review, 1983, 48, 781–95.
31. Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer, ‘Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’, Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19, 387–420.
32. Peter Galison, ‘The Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief’, Image and Logic (University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 781–844.
Part 6: Tacit Knowledge
33. Michael Polanyi, ‘Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems in Philosophy’, Reviews of Modern Physics, 1962, 34, 4, 601–16.
34. H. M. Collins, ‘The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks’, Science Studies, 1974, 4, 165–86.
35. Alberto Cambrosio and Peter Keating ‘"Going Monoclonal": Art, Science, and Magic in the Day-to-Day Use of Hybridoma Technology’, Social Problems, 1988, 35, 244–60.
36. Kathleen Jordan and Michael Lynch, ‘The Sociology of a Genetic Engineering Technique: Ritual and Rationality in the Performance of the Plasmid Prep’, in A. Clarke and J. Fujimura (eds.), The Right Tools For the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Science (Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 77–114.
37. Christopher Lawrence, ‘Incommunicable Knowledge: Science, Technology and the Clinical Art in Britain 1850–1914’, Journal of Contemporary History, 1985, 20, 503–20.
Part 7: Actor Network Theory
38. Bruno Latour, ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (Sage, 1983), pp. 141–70).
39. Bruno Latour, ‘Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts’, in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (MIT Press, 1992), pp. 225–58.
40. Michel Callon, ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), pp. 196–233.
41. John Law, ‘On the Methods of Long-Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation and the Portuguese Route to India’, in Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), pp. 231–60.
42. H. M. Collins and Steven Yearley, ‘Epistemological Chicken’, in A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 301–26.
43. Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, ‘Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley’, in A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 343–68.
44. Andrew Pickering, ‘The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science’, American Journal of Sociology, 1993, 99, 559–89.
Part 8: From SHOT to SCOT: Social Construction of Technology
45. Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker, ‘The Social Construction of facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other’, Social Studies of Science, 1984, 14, 399–441.
46. Thomas P. Hughes, ‘Edison and the Electric Light’, in D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman (eds.), The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd edn. (Open University Press, 1999), pp. 50–63.
47. Steve Woolgar, ‘Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials’, in J. Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (Routledge, 1991), pp. 57–102.
48. Langdon Winner, ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1993, 18, 3, 362–78.
49. Langdon Winner, ‘Do Artifacts have Politics?’, Daedalus, 1980, 109, 1, 121–36.
50. Bernward Joerges, ‘Do Politics have Artefacts?’, Social Studies of Science, 1999, 29, 3, 411–31.
Part 9: Gender, Race, and Epistemology
51. Sandra Harding, ‘Feminist Standpoint Epistemology’, in M. Lederman and I. Bartsch (eds.), The Gender and Science Reader (Routledge, 2001), pp. 145–68.
52. Donna Haraway, ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, 1988, 14, 3, 575–99.
53. Emily Martin, ‘The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles’, Signs, 1996, 16, 3, 485–501.
54. Karen Barad, ‘Agential Realism: Feminist Interventions in Understanding Scientific Practices’, in M. Biagioli (ed.), The Science Studies Reader (Routledge, 1999), pp. 1–11.
55. Sergio Sismondo, ‘The Scientific Domains of Feminist Standpoints’, Perspectives on Science, 1995, 3, 49–65.
56. Barbara Herrnstein Smith, ‘The Unquiet Judge: Activism Without Objectivism in Law and Politics’, Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy (Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 1–21.
57. Pinar N. Ossorio and Troy Duster, ‘Race and Genetics: Controversies in Biomedical, Behavioral, and Forensic Sciences’, American Psychologist, 2005, 60, 1, 115–28.
Part 10: Global Science, Technology, and Medicine
58. Kapil Raj, ‘Relocations’, Relocating Modern Science (Palgrave, 2002), pp. 223–34.
59. Warwick Anderson, ‘Introduction’ (to a special issue on postcolonial technoscience), Social Studies of Science, 2002, 32, 643–58.
60. Roger Hart, ‘On the Problem of Chinese Science’, in M. Biagioli (ed.), The Science Studies Reader (Routledge, 1999), pp. 189–201.
61. Vincanne Adams, ‘Randomized Controlled Crime: Postcolonial Sciences in Alternative Medicine Research’, Social Studies of Science, 2002, 32, 659–90.
62. Adriana Petryna, ‘Ethical Variability: Drug Development and Globalizing Clinical Trials’, American Ethnologist, 2005, 43, 2, 183–97.
Part 11: Further Expansions: Expertise, Economics, and Beyond
63. Donald MacKenzie, ‘Is Economics Performative? Option Theory and the Construction of Derivatives Markets’, in D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, and L. Siu (eds.), Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 54–86.
64. Pam Scott, Eveleen Richards, and Brian Martin, ‘Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher in Contemporary Scientific Controversies’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1990, 15, 474–94.
65. Sheila Jasanoff, ‘Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science’, Social Studies of Science, 1996, 26, 2, 393–418.
66. Brian Wynne, ‘Sheepfarming After Chernobyl’, Environment, 1989, 31, 2, 10–15, 33–9.
67. Steven Epstein, ‘The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1995, 20, 4, 408–37.
68. Robert Evans and Harry Collins, ‘Expertise: From Attribute to Attribution and Back Again’, in E. J. Hackett et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn. (MIT Press, 2007), pp. 609–30.
69. B. Wynne, ‘Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans’, Social Studies of Science, 2002, 33, 3, 401–17.
70. Bruno Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, Critical Inquiry, 2004, 30, 2, 225–48.
The Critical Concepts in Social Sciences series encompasses a wide area of study and consequently the series includes titles on a number of popular subject areas, including human geography, leisure, tourism and economics. Risk is a new publication within this series and a suitable apt title for the times we live in. Examining potential hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and oil spills, the collection looks to uncover how we may better understand Risk Analysis.
The social sciences is a large area of study that is growing in interest and research output. Collections in this series look to collate the best of the available scholarship and are edited and introduced by leading academics in the field.