Science and Technology Studies, History of

Harald Rohracher, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The interdisciplinary eld of science and technology studies (STS) has only emerged in the late 1970s but has been inuenced
by various lines of thought in sociology, philosophy, and economics. At its basis is the claim that not only the social
institution of science or the impact of technological change on society is open to social analysis but also the very content of
science and engineering, i.e., scientic facts and technological objects. This article sketches out the development of STS from
its roots, among others in the sociology of knowledge and history of technology, to contemporary issues such as the problem
of expertise and transformations in the production of knowledge.

Introduction these contributions and given the heterogeneity and ongoing

dynamic of the eld presents a somewhat eclectic selection of
Science and technology studies (STS) have emerged in the further lines of thought and reasoning.
1970s and 1980s as a distinct interdisciplinary eld or
intradisciplinary as Jasanoff (2010) puts it to stress its focus on
questions not raised within existing disciplines which deals Precursors of STS
with the inseparability of science and technology from social
structures and practices. The constitutive idea in contrast to its Science and technology have been an object of social sciences
precursors in the sociology, history, or economics of science and humanities for a long time and various approaches and
and technology is an understanding that also the content of schools of thought have led up to the current concepts used in
science and engineering (scientic facts, technologies, objects) STS. Science has been regarded a crucial element in processes of
is open to social analysis and not the result of a privileged form modernization and the rise of a capitalist economy, as, e.g.,
of knowledge about nature. Facts and artifacts are but tempo- expressed in the writings of Karl Marx or Max Weber. Only later,
rarily stable outcomes of heterogeneous activities of scientists science and knowledge generation became direct objects of
and engineers and their entanglement in wider social and social scientic research, as in Karl Mannheims sociology of
political relations. From a STS perspective sociotechnical knowledge and in the investigation of science as a social system
assemblages are the smallest units of analysis and cannot be in Robert K. Mertons work. Technology also has played a long-
simply split into preexisting social and material dimensions, standing role in the social sciences and humanities, whether in
which are then analyzed separately. Society and technology/ social history (Mumford), political economy (Marx), or
materiality coconstitute each other and mutually shape each philosophy (Heidegger).
other through processes of translation, inscription, and enact-
ment. At its best, STS thus not only contributes to a more
Science as a Social Institution
appropriate understanding of science and technology but also
of society. The development of a sociology of science is closely interwoven
There are no strict demarcations of what counts as STS and with the scholarly work of American sociologist Robert K.
what is already outside its realm. One may take a narrower view Merton. Merton analyzes science as a social phenomenon in at
on the formation of core concepts and emerging disciplinary least three distinct ways (Barnes, 2007): (1) as a social unit
structures, or a broader view on STS as a multifaceted and functioning in a larger social system and being affected by the
heterogeneous eld overlapping with, e.g., economic innova- development of its social surroundings as, e.g., analyzed in
tion studies, anthropology or cultural studies, and also Mertons early work on the emergence of science in puritan
comprising of a broad range of problem- and application- seventeenth-century England; (2) as a set of peers, a moral
oriented STS research on health, climate change, or the community and a subculture with a distinctive normative order
democratization of science and technology. This article takes Mertons work on the ethos of science expressed by four basic
the broader view and complements the formation of an norms stands for this dimension of his work; and (3) the
academic canon with the development of an engaged program question of how the normative order in science is sustained
of STS (Sismondo, 2008). A number of introductory textbooks by a specic reward system encouraging original research.
(e.g., Fuller, 2007; Hess, 1997; Sismondo, 2010; Yearley, 2005) Mertons article on The normative structure of science
as well as articles on the history and development of the eld (Merton, 1973[1942]) is probably his most popular and well-
(e.g., Jasanoff, 2010; Latour, 2004; Pestre, 2004; Woolgar, known contribution to the sociology of science and reects the
2004) along with the STS-related entries in earlier versions of political context of the 1940s by emphasizing the importance
this encyclopedia have already contributed to an ex-post of a democratic social structure for science to thrive and to let
consolidation and ordering of the eld (and at the same time scientists live up to their ethos expressed by a set of four norms:
self-critical reection on such attempts). This article builds on communism (later termed communalism), universalism,

200 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03064-6
 Science and Technology Studies, History of 201

disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. The institutional essentially made an argument against the linear and cumulative
goal of science depending on these norms is the extension of growth of scientic knowledge and illustrated with various
certied knowledge pointing clearly to the assumption that cases from the history of science, how scientic development is
science as a social phenomenon only extends to the social characterized by (rarely occurring) shifts in scientic paradigms
behavior and practices of scientists but not to the content of (scientic revolutions), which are shared within a scientic
science itself. This strand of a sociology of science has remained community and incommensurable with each other. By far the
inuential throughout the postwar period with often contro- largest part of scientic activity (normal science) is engaged in
versial discussions about the need for additional norms, their problem solving within the framework of an existing paradigm.
empirical validity, and relevance for the social analysis of the Seen from an STS perspective, one can distinguish between
community, culture, and institutional makeup of science (see a more radical and a more conservative interpretation of
e.g., Zuckerman, 1988). Kuhns work (Pinch, 1997). This is particularly visible in the
use of the concept of paradigm either as a description of
a shared social activity or social network in science (similar to
The Social Constitution of Knowledge
an invisible college) distinct from the cognitive dimension of
Another strand of sociological thinking preparing the ground science, or as a term emphasizing the combined sociocognitive
for STS is the sociology of knowledge, best represented in the nature of science, i.e., science understood as doing and practice.
work of Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim particularly in his Kuhns work also laid the ground for a rediscovery of Ludwik
book Ideology and Utopia (Mannheim, 1929). The key argument Flecks (1979[1935]) book on The Genesis and Development of
is that knowledge is conditioned by the social position of the a Scientic Fact where Polish medical doctor Fleck developed
person or group who formed these thoughts. Everyones belief his concept of thought collectives and thought style and
and possibility to know depends on the social context he/she is a concept of scientic truth relative to these social collectives,
immersed in, be it social class, religion, profession, or age which anticipated much of STS and social constructivism in
cohort. Obviously, such a position has to deal with both a more contemporary way than Kuhns writings, which took
(Heintz, 1993), the problem of relativism (no overarching most of the credit.
criteria for the evaluation of knowledge claims) and reexivity
(as the positionality of knowledge also applies to the social
The Social Impact of Technology
scientist). Mannheim sought an answer to relativism in the
multiperspectivity of different knowledge claims and the aim While the sections above sketched out different lines of
of sociology of knowledge to understand why and how these thought about science as a social phenomenon, sociological
different perspectives and knowledge claims differed. His and philosophical engagement with technology and artifacts
strategy to deal with reexivity, however, sets Mannheim apart took place rather separate from these approaches. The main
from the later STS, as he chooses to exclude science and thrust of theses approaches was to understand the impact of
mathematics from the program of a sociology of knowledge modern technology on society and going beyond a one-
and assign them a privileged epistemological status. His sided relationship the interdependence of changes in
contemporary Ludwik Fleck (see next section) developed social structure (or: civilization) and technological develop-
precisely such a program of a sociology of scientic facts. ment. Lewis Mumford and Jacques Ellul can exemplarily be
mentioned in this context. In The Myth of the Machine
Mumford (1967) develops a universal history of civilization
History and Philosophy of Science and the Structure
with the development of order as the pervasive formative
of Scientic Revolutions
principle. As he points out with examples of megamachines
Thinking about the constitution and development of scientic such as pyramids, but also polytechnic traditions of medieval
knowledge has long been a prerogative of epistemology and times, the idea of the machine is deeply entrenched in the
the philosophy of science, which upheld the special status of history and development of civilization, in its organization
scientic knowledge and its exclusion from sociological or but also its ethics and aesthetics. For Jacques Ellul too, human
historic analysis. However, not least developments within the history and condition is intricately interwoven with tech-
theory of science paved the way to historic analyses of the nology. However, where Mumford puts some hope in alter-
development of scientic knowledge by Thomas Kuhn and native (democratic) technological traditions, Ellul draws
others. Two core theses set the scene for the so-called anti- a more pessimistic picture of technology taking control of
positivist or historic turn in the philosophy of science: the modern society. And similar to Mumford, la technique is
underdetermination of scientic theory as argued by Pierre more than just machine technology it is any complex of
Duhem and W.V.O. Quine and the theory-ladenness of standardized means to attain predetermined results. Tech-
observation. If isolated theoretical hypotheses cannot be nique integrates the machine into society. It constructs the
simply falsied by contradictory observations and if theory and kind of world the machine needs and introduces order (.),
observation cannot be strictly separated, historic or sociological claries, arranges, and rationalizes. (.) It is efcient and
arguments need to stand in to explain the development and brings efciency to everything (Ellul, 1964: 5).
constitution of scientic knowledge. This program has been Undoubtedly, various other lines of inquiry can be identi-
taken up in the book The Structure of Scientic Revolutions by ed, which prepared the ground for understanding artifacts as
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) who (despite being criticized on being deeply intertwined with social, cultural, and political
various grounds) created an intellectual space for STS analyses phenomena. Important inputs have, e.g., come from the soci-
of the social constitution of scientic knowledge. Kuhn ology of industrial organizations (e.g., studies of the industrial
202 Science and Technology Studies, History of

workplace and its interrelations with technological change); the Laboratory Studies
economics of innovation and technological change (such as the
Along with the SSK, another more ethnographically inspired
work of Joseph Schumpeter and its later uptake in theories of
eld of research developed around the analysis of knowledge
evolutionary economics); or early sociological analyses of the
production in scientic laboratories. Key representatives of this
social and cultural factors that shape technical invention (e.g.,
approach were Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar, Karin Knorr-
Gilllan, 1935).
Cetina, and Michael Lynch. Not science as knowledge was at
the center of these studies, but science as a localized practice,
which was analyzed through participant observation and the
The Emergence of a New Field
analysis of documents and discourses at the locus of knowledge
production, the scientic laboratory. As Knorr-Cetina (1995)
Only in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new eld of scientic
points out, these studies showed how scientic objects were
inquiry took shape, which later came to be known as STS
not only technically manufactured in laboratories but also
though terms such as Social Studies of Science and Tech-
symbolically and politically construed. Scientic knowledge
nology or Science, Technology, and Society existed in
thus is not only embedded in controversies and wider social
parallel and are sometimes still used. The common focus of
processes, but also socially fabricated in concrete locales
early STS was to gain an understanding of the social fabri-
with their specic knowledge cultures and idiosyncrasies.
cation of scientic facts be it as a product of discourses,
Particularly, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar in their study
social interests, or the heterogeneous social practices involved
Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar, 1979) do not focus on
in producing scientic knowledge. Much of the ground for
concepts of intentionality, but rather on the detailed descrip-
this new line of inquiry was prepared by Kuhns writings and
tion of the gestures and action observed in scientic work
a linguistic turn inspired by Ludwig Wittgensteins philos-
(Pestre, 2004). Scientic facts are not correspondents of
ophy. Two sets of approaches stood at the center of early STS:
observation, textual representation, and things, but gain
the sociology of scientic knowledge (SSK) and ethnographic
reality only through series or networks of translations that can
studies of scientic knowledge production in laboratories. In
each be contested and renegotiated. Particularly, Latours study
both cases, the focus was on natural sciences, which repre-
on Louis Pasteur, Give me a laboratory and I will raise the
sented the hardest possible case to show how scientic
world (Latour, 1983), makes clear, how laboratory practices
knowledge was imbued with social and cultural inuences
transcend the boundaries of the laboratory and modify social
and did not constitute a separate, asocial, and ahistoric realm
order and eventually transform the world.
of positive knowledge.

The Sociology of Scientic Knowledge The Technological Turn in Science Studies

Two UK schools stood at the center of early debates about the
social construction of scientic knowledge: a group of During the 1980s, the program of understanding the social
researches at the University of Edinburgh (David Bloor, Barry fabrication of scientic facts was extended to the study of
Barnes, Donald MacKenzie, Steven Shapin, and others) devel- technology. Central to these concepts is that there are potential
oping the strong program as well as interest theory of scientic choices (not necessarily conscious and manifest ones) inherent
knowledge, and a group at the University of Bath (Harry in the design of artifacts and technical systems. There is no
Collins, Trevor Pinch, and others) with their empirical inherent and compelling logic of technical development; the
programme of relativism (EPOR) and a focus on the analysis choices made depend on organizational, political, or economic
of discourses and scientic controversies. The strong program factors and on actor-strategies.
was based on several methodological claims for a more
symmetric analysis of scientic knowledge generation
The Social Construction of Technology
meaning that empirical analysis should be ignorant to
whether a scientic claim was true or false (contrary to the In their article The social construction of facts and artifacts: or
philosophy of science approach, which is just about ways of how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology
evaluating the truth or falsity of such beliefs). The aim thus was might benet each other, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker
not to methodologically decide on scientic truth claims, but (1984) apply the methodological principles and strategies of
to understand how they emerged, were accepted or rejected in the EPOR to the study of technological innovation. Their aim
social interactions. Historical case studies, moreover, eluci- is to understand technology from inside, as a body of
dated how decisions about scientic beliefs and knowledge knowledge and as a social system. This may be achieved
claims were inuenced by wider social interests (interest (following EPOR) by a symmetric and impartial treatment of
theory), e.g., how statistical concepts originating in early technical artifacts without an external reference in deciding why
twentieth-century England were ultimately grounded in one technology works and another one does not. At the basis is
debates about eugenics (MacKenzie, 1978). Instead of search- the concept of interpretative exibility, meaning that technol-
ing for such external social factors the Bath school with their ogies are open to more than one interpretation by different
EPOR along with scholars such as Michael Mulkay rather relevant social groups; the existence of social mechanisms that
focused on processes of inner-scientic discourses and lead to a closure of the controversy at a second stage, and nally
controversies to understand how interpretations of scientic the relation of such closure mechanisms to the wider context,
facts were developed, rejected, or stabilized. which they call the technological frame to contrast the
 Science and Technology Studies, History of 203

contingency and to an extent arbitrariness of interpretative Toward an Engaged Program

exibility. Along with the historic analyses of the messy and
nonlinear ways of developing artifacts inspired by the Social Building on and extending these core approaches of STS and
Construction of Technology approach, another historian of crossing over with other theories and research elds such as
technology gained an important inuence on the social cultural studies, history or gender studies, STS has developed
understanding of technology. In his seminal work Networks of into a versatile and heterogeneous research eld. Many of these
Power Thomas P. Hughes (1983) demonstrated the funda- subelds and specialties, however, have in common that they
mental inseparability of the social and the technical in the share an engagement with critically analyzing and decon-
analysis of artifacts in his historic analysis of the development structing dominant social discourses and power structures
of the electricity system in the US, the UK, and Germany as an enacted in sociomaterial relationships and reect on the
example of other large technical systems and infrastructure possibility of strategies and policies toward a more democratic,
technologies. Efforts of system building as a heterogeneous sustainable, or gender-equal society informed by such insights.
social, economic, and technical ability stood at the center of The following section highlights a selection of these engaged
this analysis, but also the momentum and obduracy gained as approaches in STS.
such large sociotechnical ensembles mature and become
increasingly entrenched in society and material structures.
Feminist STS
STS have had a productive relationship with feminist theory
Actor-Network Theory
and perspectives since its beginning. Uncovering gender rela-
A second direct line from science to technology studies is tions in science and technology and analyzing the role of
established by actor-network theory (ANT) closely linked to science in legitimizing social forms of domination largely
the names of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law parallels the STS program of understanding the social
who already studied science as a practice of creating heteroge- construction of the content of science and technology. Feminist
neous networks of actors, inscriptions, theories as well as standpoint theory (e.g., Harding, 1991) claims that all attempts
scientic instruments and other artifacts and accordingly put to know are socially situated and that the particular social
forward the notion of technoscience to stress the increasing position of women and their distinctive experiences of
convergence of producing scientic knowledge and technical discrimination is not reected in a male-dominated science.
objects. ANT follows the consequences of the new social The social location of women and other oppressed can be an
studies of science approach, especially its transgression of the important source to increase objectivity in science. Donna
separation of an internalist and externalist analysis of science to Haraway takes this perspective further, particularly, in her
its radical end. If the social realm of subjects and the realm of seminal essay Situated knowledges: the science question in
scientic facts or things is not separable and reducible to each feminism and the privilege of partial perspective (1991),
other any more, if neither nature nor society are objective where she develops a more dynamic and hybrid epistemology
arbiters, social theory has to be rebuild and conceptualized in granting privilege to partial perspectives, which takes the
a way that simultaneously includes humans and things. This position of the knower seriously. In her notion of situated
results in a generalized principle of symmetry between human knowledges, Haraway problematizes both subject and object
and nonhuman actants (as a term for anything that has force to and aims at thinking the world in terms of the apparatus of
change things), famously put forward in Michel Callons bodily production, which brings her work in close interrela-
(1986) article on the scallops of St. Brieuc bay, which are as tion with ANT and other STS approaches. Feminist positions
much granted agency as the scientists or shermen struggling have also been inuential for the discussion of the social
with a solution to cultivate such mussels. The stability of shaping of technology. As Wajcman (1991) points out, tech-
human social assemblage is always shared with the nonhu- nology itself is imbued with male power and male interests,
mans mobilized to this end. The same holds true the other way and technologies reveal a lot about the societies within which
round: what we call things or scientic facts are also highly they are invented and used, about dominant images of social
impregnated with sociality and need constant work to status and distributive justice, they currently reect a male-
stabilize as Latour once called it: technology is society made dominated world.
durable. Central terms employed to explain the eventual
constitution of these heterogeneous assemblages are trans-
From Epistemology to Ontology?
lation signifying an active element in the network connections
as an enrollment into an actor-network always involves A recent issue of the journal Social Studies of Science asks
displacements and changes in the identity of actors; or whether one can speak of an ontological turn in STS (Woolgar
heterogeneous engineering as the tactics of network-building, and Lezaun, 2013). In fact, important lines of discussion within
which depends on the interrelation of a range of disparate feminist STS such as Haraways above-mentioned situated
elements of varying degrees of malleability. Though frequently knowledges can be understood as a shift in analysis from
at the center of controversies within science studies or criticized different modes of knowing to different modes of being.
from outside (e.g., in the so-called science wars, pitching so- Within this perspective, objects do not acquire a particular
called postmodernists against scientic realists or construc- meaning through a given context, as Woolgar and Lezaun point
tivism against objectivity in science), ANT still is at the center of out, but they are enacted in practices, they are brought into
much of the research carried out in STS and has not lost its being, or realized, in the course of a certain practical activity.
provocative power. What we perceive as things or social phenomena are not just
204 Science and Technology Studies, History of

intertwined but constantly in the making and the (temporarily interactions crucially depend on, and interact with, political
stable) outcome of social and material processes. STS research culture and must conform to established ways of public
does not just observe disembedded things, but performances, knowing in order to gain broad-based support.
realities enacted into being, as John Law puts it. Objects Moreover, STS approaches have increasingly become
become ambivalent and uid and various modes of enactment involved in studying and understanding various other
may bring about a multiplicity of objects, as, e.g., Annemarie contemporary social and political issues and challenges,
Mol (2003) argues in The Body Multiple with respect to such as climate change and the transition of systems of
medical practices. In a similar vein, Karen Barad is concerned mobility, energy, or agriculture toward greater sustain-
with the constitution of material objects in her concept of ability, the functioning of nancial markets and wider
agential realism, where materiality is understood as a practical processes of marketization and valuation, or the governance
achievement, a contingent upshot of practices and produced of innovation and technological change to name but a few
through intra-action in an apparatus consisting of bodies, of the pathways an engaged program of STS is currently
norms, technologies, and other sociomaterial elements. If taking.
however, as Mol (2013) points out, realities are adaptive and
multiple, if they take different shapes as they engage, and are See also: Actor-Network Theory; Culture and Actor Network
engaged, in different relations, then questions of ontological Theory; Gender and Technology: From Exclusion to Inclusion?;
politics become important and STS may create new normative Reexivity in Science and Technology Studies; Science and
concerns with the making-up of alternative worlds (see also Technology Studies, Ethnomethodology of; Science, Sociology
Latour, 2004). of; Scientic Knowledge, Sociology of; Situated Knowledge,
Feminist and Science and Technology Studies Perspectives;
New Modes of Knowledge Production Social Constructionism; Technology, Social Construction of.

During the past decades, STS have also increasingly turned to

analyzing the changing role of science in economy, policy, and
society. During the 1990s, a new phase of science-related policy
Bibliography
has taken shape, where basic research has become intimately
intertwined with production of goods and technological Barnes, B., 2007. Catching up with Robert Merton: scientic collectives as status
development of relevance for all realms of society (Elzinga, groups. Journal of Classical Sociology 7 (2), 179192.
1997). At the same time parts of science have undergone Callon, M., 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the
substantial transformations addressed, e.g., with the notion scallops and the shermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and
Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,
mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994) characterized by pp. 196233.
a diversication of the locations of scientic knowledge Callon, M., Rabeharisoa, V., 2003. Research in the wild and the shaping of new
production, an orientation toward problems that cannot be social identities. Technology in Society 25, 193204.
solved by scientic research alone, require the participation of Collins, H.M., Evans, R., 2002. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise
and experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2), 235296.
actors outside academia and are situated in a context of high
Ellul, J., 1964. The Technological Society. Vintage Books, New York.
uncertainty, and by demands for more social accountability Elzinga, A., 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation: with
and reexivity. special reference to epistemic drift. Social Science Information 36 (3),
STS interest has shifted accordingly to issues such as credi- 411445.
bility (whose knowledge-claims are accepted as trustworthy?), Epstein, S., 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
expertise, the relation of science and policy, and the role of the Fleck, L., 1979[1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientic Fact. University of
wider public and civil society in science and technology. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Science has become increasingly contested and at the same Fuller, S., 2007. New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. Polity, Cambridge.
time plays an ever more important role in policy, court rooms Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994.
The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in
the media or public controversies about various types of
Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
problems. STS analyses various sites of such contestation, such Gilllan, S.C., 1935. The Sociology of Invention; an Essay in the Social Causes of
as the role of science in regulation and judiciary processes (e.g., Technic Invention and Some of its Social Results. Follett Publishing Company,
Jasanoff, 1990), the inuence AIDS activists got on the design Chicago.
of clinical trials for new AIDS drugs (Epstein, 1996), or patient Haraway, D., 1991. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. In: Haraway, D. (Ed.), Simians, Cyborgs, and
groups on pharmacological research (Callon and Rabeharisoa, Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York, pp. 183276.
2003). Harding, S.G., 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Womens
This potential conict between democracy and expertise is Lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
also discussed in terms of a problem of extension by Collins Heintz, B., 1993. Wissenschaft im Kontext. Neuere Entwicklungstendenzen der Wis-
senschaftssoziologie. Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45,
and Evans (2002), i.e., the question who should legitimately
528552.
participate in technical decision-making (see also Sismondo, Hess, D.J., 1997. Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. NYU Press, New York;
2010). Legitimate expertise extends beyond the provision of London.
scientic knowledge and encompasses other forms such as Hughes, T.P., 1983. Networks of Power. Electrication in Western Societies
contributory or interactional expertise, which facilitates 18801930. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard
meaningful interaction between experts and nonscientic University Press, Cambridge, MA.
groups. As Sheila Jasanoff highlights with her concept of Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the
civic epistemologies (Jasanoff, 2005) such sciencepolicy United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
 Science and Technology Studies, History of 205

Jasanoff, S., 2010. A eld of its own: the emergence of science and technology Mumford, L., 1967. The Myth of the Machine. Technics and Human Development.
studies. In: Frodeman, R., Thompson Klein, J., Mitcham, C. (Eds.), The Oxford Secker & Warburg, London.
Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 191205. Pestre, D., 2004. Thirty years of science studies: knowledge, society and the political.
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1995. Laboratory studies. The cultural approach to the study of science. History & Technology 20 (4), 351369.
In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., Pinch, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Science Pinch, T.J., 1997. Kuhn the conservative and radical interpretations: are some
and Technology Studies. Sage Publications Inc, USA, pp. 140166. mertonians Kuhnians and some Kuhnians Mertonians? Social Studies of Science
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 27 (3), 465482.
Chicago; London. Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E., 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how
Latour, B., 1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In: Knorr-Cetina, K.D., the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benet each other.
Mulkay, M. (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Social Studies of Science 14 (3), 399441.
Sage, London, pp. 141170. Sismondo, S., 2008. Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In:
Latour, B., 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of
of concern. Critical Inquiry 30, 225248. Science and Technology Studies. MIT Press, London, pp. 1331.
Latour, B., Woolgar, S., 1979. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientic Facts. Sismondo, S., 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Wiley-
Princeton University Press, Princeton. Blackwell, Chichester.
MacKenzie, D., 1978. Statistical theory and social interests: a case-study. Social Wajcman, J., 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity Press, Cam-
Studies of Science 8, 3583. bridge, UK.
Mannheim, K., 1929. Ideologie und Utopie. F. Cohen, (Bonn). Woolgar, S., 2004. What happened to provocation in science and technology studies?
Merton, R.K., 1973[1942]. The Normative structure of science. In: Merton, R.K., History and Technology: An International Journal 20 (4), 339349.
Storer, N.W. (Eds.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investi- Woolgar, S., Lezaun, J., 2013. The wrong bin bag: a turn to ontology in science and
gations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 267278. technology studies? Social Studies of Science 43 (3), 321340.
Mol, A., 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press, Yearley, S., 2005. Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of
Durham, NC; London. Science. SAGE, London.
Mol, A., 2013. Mind your plate! the ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of Zuckerman, H., 1988. The sociology of science. In: Smelser, N. (Ed.), Handbook of
Science 43 (3), 379396. Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 511574.