Science studies

Last updated

Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation and reception of scientific knowledge and its epistemic and semiotic role.

Contents

Similarly to cultural studies, science studies are defined by the subject of their research and encompass a large range of different theoretical and methodological perspectives and practices. The interdisciplinary approach may include and borrow methods from the humanities, natural and formal sciences, from scientometrics to ethnomethodology or cognitive science.

Science studies have a certain importance for evaluation and science policy. Overlapping with the field of science, technology and society, practitioners study the relationship between science and technology, and the interaction of expert and lay knowledge in the public realm.

Scope

The field started with a tendency toward navel-gazing: it was extremely self-conscious in its genesis and applications. [1] From early concerns with scientific discourse, practitioners soon started to deal with the relation of scientific expertise to politics and lay people. [1] Practical examples include bioethics, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), pollution, global warming, [2] [3] biomedical sciences, physical sciences, natural hazard predictions, the (alleged) impact of the Chernobyl disaster in the UK, generation and review of science policy and risk governance and its historical and geographic contexts. [1] While staying a discipline with multiple metanarratives, the fundamental concern is about the role of the perceived expert in providing governments and local authorities with information from which they can make decisions. [1]

The approach poses various important questions about what makes an expert and how experts and their authority are to be distinguished from the lay population and interacts with the values and policy making process in liberal democratic societies. [1]

Practitioners examine the forces within and through which scientists investigate specific phenomena such as

History of the field

In 1935, in a celebrated paper, the Polish sociologist couple Maria Ossowska and Stanisław Ossowski proposed the founding of a "science of science" to study the scientific enterprise, its practitioners, and the factors influencing their work. [10] [11] Earlier, in 1923, the Polish sociologist Florian Znaniecki had made a similar proposal. [12]

Fifty years before Znaniecki, in 1873, Aleksander Głowacki, better known in Poland by his pen name "Bolesław Prus", had delivered a public lecture – later published as a booklet – On Discoveries and Inventions , in which he said:

Until now there has been no science that describes the means for making discoveries and inventions, and the generality of people, as well as many people of learning, believe that there never will be. This is an error. Someday a science of making discoveries and inventions will exist and will render services. It will arise not all at once; first only its general outline will appear, which subsequent researchers will correct and elaborate, and which still later researchers will apply to individual branches of knowledge. [13]

It is striking that, while early 20th-century sociologist proponents of a discipline to study science and its practitioners wrote in general theoretical terms, Prus had already half a century earlier described, with many specific examples, the scope and methods of such a discipline.

Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) increased interest both in the history of science and in science's philosophical underpinnings. Kuhn posited that the history of science was less a linear succession of discoveries than a succession of paradigms within the philosophy of science. Paradigms are broader, socio-intellectual constructs that determine which types of truth claims are permissible.

Science studies seeks to identify key dichotomies – such as those between science and technology, nature and culture, theory and experiment, and science and fine art – leading to the differentiation of scientific fields and practices.

The sociology of scientific knowledge arose at the University of Edinburgh, where David Bloor and his colleagues developed what has been termed "the strong programme". It proposed that both "true" and "false" scientific theories should be treated the same way. [14] Both are informed by social factors such as cultural context and self-interest. [15]

Human knowledge, abiding as it does within human cognition, is ineluctably influenced by social factors. [16]

It proved difficult, however, to address natural-science topics with sociological methods, as was abundantly evidenced by the US science wars. [17] Use of a deconstructive approach (as in relation to works on arts or religion) to the natural sciences risked endangering not only the "hard facts" of the natural sciences, but the objectivity and positivist tradition of sociology itself. [17] The view on scientific knowledge production as a (at least partial) social construct was not easily accepted. [1] Latour and others identified a dichotomy crucial for modernity, the division between nature (things, objects) as being transcendent, allowing to detect them, and society (the subject, the state) as immanent as being artificial, constructed. The dichotomy allowed for mass production of things (technical-natural hybrids) and large-scale global issues that endangered the distinction as such. E.g. We Have Never Been Modern asks to reconnect the social and natural worlds, returning to the pre-modern use of "thing" [18] —addressing objects as hybrids made and scrutinized by the public interaction of people, things, and concepts. [19]

Science studies scholars such as Trevor Pinch and Steve Woolgar started already in the 1980s to involve "technology", and called their field "science, technology and society". [20] This "turn to technology" brought science studies into communication with academics in science, technology, and society programs.

More recently, a novel approach known as mapping controversies has been gaining momentum among science studies practitioners, and was introduced as a course for students in engineering, [21] [22] and architecture schools. [23] In 2002 Harry Collins and Robert Evans asked for a third wave of science studies (a pun on The Third Wave ), namely studies of expertise and experience answering to recent tendencies to dissolve the boundary between experts and the public. [24]

Application to natural and man-made hazards

Sheepfarming after Chernobyl

Herdwicks grazing in Cumbria Pair of Herdwicks grazing.jpg
Herdwicks grazing in Cumbria

A showcase of the rather complex problems of scientific information and its interaction with lay persons is Brian Wynne's study of Sheepfarming in Cumbria after the Chernobyl disaster. [1] [25] He elaborated on the responses of sheep farmers in Cumbria, who had been subjected to administrative restrictions because of radioactive contamination, allegedly caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986. [25] The sheep farmers suffered economic losses, and their resistance against the imposed regulation was being deemed irrational and inadequate. [25] It turned out that the source of radioactivity was actually the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing complex; thus, the experts who were responsible for the duration of the restrictions were completely mistaken. [25] The example led to attempts to better involve local knowledge and lay-persons' experience and to assess its often highly geographically and historically defined background. [26]

Science studies on volcanology

The aftermath of the 2007 Soufriere Hills eruption in Montserrat Soufriere Hills volcanic aftermath (Aerial views, Montserrat, 2007) 02.jpg
The aftermath of the 2007 Soufrière Hills eruption in Montserrat

Donovan et al. (2012) used social studies of volcanology to investigate the generation of knowledge and expert advice on various active volcanoes. [1] It contains a survey of volcanologists carried out during 2008 and 2009 and interviews with scientists in the UK, Montserrat, Italy and Iceland during fieldwork seasons. Donovan et al. (2012) asked the experts about the felt purpose of volcanology and what they considered the most important eruptions in historical time. The survey tries to identify eruptions that had an influence on volcanology as a science and to assess the role of scientists in policymaking. [1]

A main focus was on the impact of the Montserrat eruption 1997. The eruption, a classical example of the black swan theory [27] directly killed (only) 19 persons. However the outbreak had major impacts on the local society and destroyed important infrastructure, as the island's airport. [28] About 7,000 people, or two-thirds of the population, left Montserrat; 4,000 to the United Kingdom. [29]

The Montserrat case put immense pressure on volcanologists, as their expertise suddenly became the primary driver of various public policy approaches. [1] The science studies approach provided valuable insights in that situation. [1] There were various miscommunications among scientists. Matching scientific uncertainty (typical of volcanic unrest) and the request for a single unified voice for political advice was a challenge. [1] The Montserrat Volcanologists began to use statistical elicitation models to estimate the probabilities of particular events, a rather subjective method, but allowing to synthesizing consensus and experience-based expertise step by step. [1] It involved as well local knowledge and experience. [1]

Volcanology as a science currently faces a shift of its epistemological foundations of volcanology. The science started to involve more research into risk assessment and risk management. It requires new, integrated methodologies for knowledge collection that transcend scientific disciplinary boundaries but combine qualitative and quantitative outcomes in a structured whole. [30]

Experts and democracy

Science has become a major force in Western democratic societies, which depend on innovation and technology (compare Risk society) to address its risks. [31] Beliefs about science can be very different from those of the scientists themselves, for reasons of e.g. moral values, epistemology or political motivations.The designation of expertise as authoritative in the interaction with lay people and decision makers of all kind is nevertheless challenged in contemporary risk societies, as suggested by scholars who follow Ulrich Beck's theorisation. The role of expertise in contemporary democracies is an important theme for debate among science studies scholars. Some argue for a more widely distributed, pluralist understanding of expertise (Sheila Jasanoff and Brian Wynne, for example), while others argue for a more nuanced understanding of the idea of expertise and its social functions (Collins and Evans, for example). [32] [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bruno Latour</span> French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist (1947–2022)

Bruno Latour was a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist. He was especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS). After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris from 1982 to 2006, he became professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017. He was also a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science and technology studies</span> Academic field

Science and technology studies (STS) or science, technology, and society is an interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and consequences of science and technology in their historical, cultural, and social contexts.

Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of scientific knowledge</span> Study of science as a social activity

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity." The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific knowledge. For comparison, the sociology of knowledge studies the impact of human knowledge and the prevailing ideas on societies and relations between knowledge and the social context within which it arises.

The science wars were a series of scholarly and public discussions in the 1990s over the social place of science in making authoritative claims about the world. Encyclopedia.com, citing the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, describes the science wars as the

David Bloor is a British sociologist. He is a professor in, and a former director of, the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh. He is a key figure in the Edinburgh school and played a major role in the development of the field of science and technology studies. He is best known for advocating the strong programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge, most notably in his book Knowledge and Social Imagery.

The strong programme or strong sociology is a variety of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) particularly associated with David Bloor, Barry Barnes, Harry Collins, Donald A. MacKenzie, and John Henry. The strong programme's influence on science and technology studies is credited as being unparalleled. The largely Edinburgh-based school of thought aims to illustrate how the existence of a scientific community, bound together by allegiance to a shared paradigm, is a prerequisite for normal scientific activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Collins</span> British sociologist of science (born 1943)

Harry Collins, FLSW, is a British sociologist of science at the School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales. In 2012 he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. In 2013, he was elected a Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florian Znaniecki</span> Polish and American philosopher and sociologist

Florian Witold Znaniecki was a Polish and American philosopher and sociologist who taught and wrote in Poland and in the United States. Over the course of his work he shifted his focus from philosophy to sociology. He remains a major figure in the history of Polish and American sociology; the founder of Polish academic sociology, and of an entire school of thought in sociology. He won international renown as co-author, with William I. Thomas, of the study, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), which is considered the foundation of modern empirical sociology. He also made major contributions to sociological theory, introducing terms such as humanistic coefficient and culturalism.

Public awareness of science (PAwS) is everything relating to the awareness, attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and activities that comprise the relations between the general public or lay society as a whole to scientific knowledge and organization. This concept is also known as public understanding of science (PUS), or more recently, public engagement with science and technology (PEST). It is a comparatively new approach to the task of exploring the multitude of relations and linkages science, technology, and innovation have among the general public. While early work in the discipline focused on increasing or augmenting the public's knowledge of scientific topics, in line with the information deficit model of science communication, the deficit model has largely been abandoned by science communication researchers. Instead, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding how the public chooses to use scientific knowledge and on the development of interfaces to mediate between expert and lay understandings of an issue. Newer frameworks of communicating science include the dialogue and the participation models. The dialogue model aims to create spaces for conversations between scientists and non-scientists to occur while the participation model aims to include non-scientists in the process of science.

Michel Callon is a professor of sociology at the École des mines de Paris and member of the Centre de sociologie de l'innovation. He is an author in the field of Science and Technology Studies and one of the leading proponents of actor–network theory (ANT) with Bruno Latour.

John Law, is a sociologist and science and technology studies scholar, currently on the Faculty of Social Sciences at the Open University. Law coined the term Actor-Network Theory (ANT) in 1992 when synthesising work done with colleagues at the Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wiebe Bijker</span>

Wiebe E. Bijker is a Dutch professor Emeritus, former chair of the Department of Social Science and Technology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

Nico Stehr was "Karl Mannheim Professor for Cultural Studies" at the Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen / Germany and Founding Director of the European Center for Sustainability Research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steve Woolgar</span> British sociologist

Stephen William Woolgar is a British sociologist. He has worked closely with Bruno Latour, with whom he wrote Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979).

Brian Wynne is Professor Emeritus of Science Studies and a former Research Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC) at the Lancaster University. His education includes an MA, PhD, MPhil. His work has covered technology and risk assessment, public risk perceptions, and public understanding of science, focusing on the relations between expert and lay knowledge and policy decision-making.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sheila Jasanoff</span>

Sheila Sen Jasanoff is an Indian American academic and significant contributor to the field of Science and Technology Studies. In 2021 she was elected to the American Philosophical Society. Her research has been recognized with many awards, including the 2022 Holberg Prize "for her groundbreaking research in science and technology studies."

Engineering studies is an interdisciplinary branch of social sciences and humanities devoted to the study of engineers and their activities, often considered a part of science and technology studies (STS), and intersecting with and drawing from engineering education research. Studying engineers refers among other to the history and the sociology of their profession, its institutionalization and organization, the social composition and structure of the population of engineers, their training, their trajectory, etc. A subfield is for instance Women in engineering. Studying engineering refers to the study of engineering activities and practices, their knowledge and ontologies, their role into the society, their engagement.

Reiner Grundmann, is Professor of Science and Technology Studies (STS) at the University of Nottingham and Director of its interdisciplinary STS Research Priority Group. He is a German sociologist and political scientist who has resided in the UK since 1997. Previous appointments include Aston University and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

Sharon Jean Traweek is associate professor in the Department of Gender Studies and History at University of California, Los Angeles. Her book Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, which explores the social world of particle physicists, has been cited in thousands of books and articles relating to the sociology of science and translated into Chinese in 2003.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Amy Donovan, Clive Oppenheimer, Michael Bravo. Social studies of volcanology: knowledge generation and expert advice on active volcanoes. Bulletin of Volcanology, Springer Verlag (Germany), 2012, 74 (3), pp.677-689. doi:<10.1007/s00445-011-0547-z insu-00691620
  2. ↑ Martello M (2004) Global change science and the Arctic citizen.Sci Public Policy 31(2):107–115
  3. ↑ Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, Abingdon
  4. ↑ International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Volume 16, Issue 1, 2002, Recent work on aesthetics of science DOI:10.1080/02698590120118783 James W. McAllister pages 7-11, 21 Jul 2010
  5. ↑ Zeichen für Kunst: Zur Organisierbarkeit von Kreativität Detlev Nothnagel, ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ISBN   978-3-86057-887-2
  6. ↑ Organisierte Kreativität: Die vielen Gesichter der Innovation, Rene J.Jorna, in Zeichen für Kunst: Zur Organisierbarkeit von Kreativität Detlev Nothnagel, ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ISBN   978-3-86057-887-2
  7. ↑ Traweek, Sharon (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780674044449.
  8. ↑ Mario Biagioli: The science studies reader. Routledge, New York 1999, ISBN   0-415-91867-7
  9. ↑ Derek de Solla Price: Little Science, Big Science. Von der Studierstube zur Großforschung. Suhrkamp, 1982, ISBN   978-3518076484.
  10. ↑ Maria Ossowska and Stanisław Ossowski, "The Science of Science" [originally published 1935], reprinted in Bohdan Walentynowicz, ed., Polish Contributions to the Science of Science, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 82–95.
  11. ↑ Matthias Kölbel: Wissensmanagement in der Wissenschaft, Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung e.V. c/o Inst. f. Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2002, elektronische Bereitstellung 2011.
  12. ↑ Florian Znaniecki, "The Subject Matter and Tasks of the Science of Knowledge" (first published in the Polish journal Nauka Polska [Polish Learning, or Polish Science] in 1923 as "Przedmiot i zadania nauki o wiedzy"), English translation in Bohdan Walentynowicz, ed., Polish Contributions to the Science of Science, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 1-81.
  13. ↑ O odkryciach i wynalazkach, odczyt popularny wypowiedziany dnia 23 marca 1873 r. przez Aleksandra Głowackiego (On Discoveries and Inventions: A Public Lecture Delivered on 23 March 1873 by Aleksander Głowacki), p. 12.
  14. ↑ David Bloor, "The strengths of the strong programme", Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, Springer Netherlands, 1984, pp. 75-94.
  15. ↑ Wiebe E. Bijker et al, The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, MIT Press, 2012.
  16. ↑ Harry M. Collins, "Introduction: Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism", Social Studies of Science, 1981: 3-10, in JSTOR.
  17. 1 2 Latour, Bruno (March 2000). "When things strike back: a possible contribution of 'science studies' to the social sciences" (PDF). British Journal of Sociology . 51 (1): 107–123. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00107.x.
  18. ↑ In premodern times (and various languages) the term both meant an object and an assembly
  19. ↑ Lash, Scott (1999). Objects that judge: Latour's parliament of things, in another modernity, a different rationality. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN   9780631164999.
  20. ↑ An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies Sergio Sismondo John Wiley & Sons, 17.08.2011.
  21. ↑ MIT web.mit.edu Retrieved on 2009-02-21
  22. ↑ Ecoles Polytechniques Fédérales de Lausanne Archived 2012-07-12 at archive.today mappingcontroversies.epfl.ch Retrieved on 2009-02-21
  23. ↑ University of Manchester Archived 2009-05-15 at the Wayback Machine mappingcontroversies.co.uk Retrieved on 2009-02-16
  24. ↑ Social Studies of Science April 2002 vol. 32 no. 2 235-296 The Third Wave of Science Studies Studies of Expertise and Experience H.M. Collins and Robert Evans doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003
  25. 1 2 3 4 Wynne B (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 31(2):33–39.
  26. ↑ Lash, Scott; Szerszynski, Bronislaw; Wynne, Brian (1996). Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Theory, culture & society. London: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781446221983. ISBN   978-0803979376.
  27. ↑ Donovan et al. (2012) cite Taleb NN (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Allen Lane, London.
  28. ↑ "BBC country profile: Montserrat". BBC News. 22 September 2009. Retrieved 2008-03-08.
  29. ↑ "Montserrat evacuation remembered". BBC. 12 September 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2010.
  30. ↑ Horlick-Jones T, Sime J (2004) Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4):441
  31. ↑ Ulrich Beck (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: SAGE Publications. ISBN   978-0803983465. (in German: Die Risikogesellschaft 1986)
  32. ↑ Collins, Harry; Evans, Robert (2007). Rethinking Expertise. University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0226113623.
  33. ↑ Collins, Harry (2004). "Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge". Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 3 (2): 125–143. doi:10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a. ISSN   1568-7759. S2CID   143072688.

Bibliography

Science studies, general
Medicine and biology
Media, culture, society and technology
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.