HPSCGA42 Sociology of Science and Technology

Transcription

1 Department of Science and Technology Studies HPSCGA42 Sociology of Science and Technology Syllabus Session Web site See Moodle Moodle site Timetable Description The aim of this course is to undertake a detailed examination of the sociological contribution to the analysis of science and technology, mainly focusing on science. We will explore the complex relationship between science, technology and society, including key sociological accounts of the processes by which knowledge is constructed. The course will introduce you to the main currents of thought and important empirical studies that have been influential in sociology of science. The focus will be equally on contemporary as well as historical studies of science and technology. Key Information Assessment 20% Focused Review (1000 words) 80% Essay (4000 words) % Prerequisites none Required texts readings listed below

2 Module tutors Module tutor Contact Web Office location Office hours: Dr Martin Savransky Sts.ucl.ac.uk/staff 22 Gordon Square, B14 TBC and by appointment Aims and objectives aims The aim of this course is to undertake a detailed examination of the sociological contribution to the analysis of science and technology, mainly focusing on science. We will explore the complex relationship between science, technology and society, including key sociological accounts of the processes by which knowledge is constructed. The course will introduce you to the main currents of thought and important empirical studies that have been influential in sociology of science. The focus will be equally on contemporary as well as historical studies of science and technology. objectives By the end of this module students should be able to: Have an understanding of how science works as a social process i.e. how technical knowledge is produced by communities Have a detailed knowledge of the main theories in the sociology of science Be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a range of sociological approaches to the analysis of science and technology Be able to make links between sociological analyses of science and broader debates in science policy, history of science and philosophy of science Schedule UCL Wk Date Topic Activity /10 The Birth of Sociology of Science: Mannheim and Merton /10 Problematising Scientific Knowledge: The Strong Programme and the microsociologies of Science /10 Gender and Science: Is there a Feminist Science? /10 Science In Other Worlds: Postcolonial Science Studies 2

3 /11 Boundaries of Science 6 11 Reading Week No lectures /11 Actor-Network Theory /11 The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Ontology in Scientific Practice /11 After ANT: Relationality, Constraints, and Care /12 The Making of Scientific Selves: History, Epistemology, Subjectivity /12 Beyond War, Peace: Wondering About Science Reading list For essential and recommended readings see Module Plan. Textbooks There are several (fairly) recent introductory textbooks on the sociology of science, and, although the module does not follow a textbook as suck, you are encouraged to purchase one. They provide accessible introductions to many of the topics we will cover and are worth reading through for a bird s eye overview of the field. Yearley, Steve (2005), Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science (London: Sage) [A good overview, with a leaning towards more contemporary issues] Abbreviated to SY on this reading list; Bucchi, Massimiano (2002), Science in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science (London: Routledge) [Well written, a little too concise in places but particularly good if you are interested in public understanding/ communication of science] Abbreviated to MB on this reading list; Sismondo, Sergio (2010), An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (Oxford: Blackwell) 2 nd Edition. [Another good introduction now in second edition, with a greater leaning towards philosophy of science than the other texts]. Abbreviated to SS on this reading list. David, Matthew (2005), Science in Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Tends to be aimed more at sociology students, but still a good introduction particularly if you re interested in wider links with social theory Abbreviated to MD on this reading list. A good general reference book that you should be aware of is: Hackett, E.J. (et al.) (2007), The Handbook of science and technology studies (Cambridge, Mass. ; London : MIT Press) (3rd ed) 3

4 (Comprehensive overview of state of the art for the field; also the nd edition, edited by Jasanoff, S. et al., still has good, relevant overviews of topics) Also: Golinski, J. (1998), Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science (Cambridge University Press) - is an overview that specifically relates debates from this course to history of science. Module plan Week 1: The Birth of Sociology of Science: Mannheim and Merton In this session we will introduce some basic questions on what the sociology of science is, as well as trace its beginnings prior to and in the work of Mannheim and Merton. Sociology of science that followed Karl Mannheim sociology of knowledge remained largely outside STS, and the one that followed the work of Robert Merton was largely an institutional sociology of scientists. We will explore the intellectual and historical reasons for their respective approaches to the sociology of science, their connections with the broader discipline of sociology and social theory, and we will and consider some of their implications. Textbook Readings (optional: see Reading List section for references) SY Chapters 1 MD Chapters 1 and 4 SS Chapters 3 and 5 Essential Readings Merton, RK (1973), The Normative Structure of Science, in The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), Chapter 13 pp [UCL Teaching Collection 1264]. Mannheim, K.(1936), The Sociology of Knowledge, in Ideology & Utopia (New York & London: Harvest/HBJ Books). Chapter V. pp Recommended Readings Weber, M. (1950[1905]), The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD. (esp. Chapter V, for his argument on Ascetism and the spirit of capitalism) Shapin, S (2008), The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation (University of Chicago Press) 4

5 Jones, MP (2009), Entrepreneurial Science: The Rules of the Game, Social Studies of Science 39(6): Kalleberg, R. (2007), A Reconstruction of the Ethos of Science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, Pels, D. (1996), Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Toward a New Agenda. Sociological Theory, 14, 1, Cole, S. (2004), Merton s Contribution to the Sociology of Science. Social Studies of Science, 36 (6), Evans, J. (2010), Industry, collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 40 (5), Week 2: After Merton: The Strong Programme and Microsociology The publication of T.S. Kuhn s Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the 1960s opened the door to sociology of scientific knowledge. Although Kuhn himself eschewed this approach, his theory implied that scientific change of a revolutionary order (the paradigm shift) is rooted in the characteristics of the scientific community. Sociologists began to look at knowledge itself as socially conditioned. The strong programme argued that broad social and political conditions could influence the content of scientific knowledge. Towards the end of the 1970s sociology of science took a distinctly micro-social (and linguistic) turn. Detailed studies of scientists, in laboratories or making claims in papers, became the preferred methodology of lab anthropologists. The complex negotiations, contingencies and skills involved in creating a fact (and the way that these were all erased from the final product) became the focus of attention. Textbook Reading: Either SY Chapters 2 and 6 OR MB Chapter 4 OR SS Chapters 6, 10 OR MD Chapter 5 Essential Readings Bloor, D (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery (Routledge) (esp. Chapter 1 for the classic statement of the tenets of the strong programme and the argument against a sociology of error [Digitally available see p1]). Michael Lynch, Protocols, practices, and the reproduction of technique in molecular biology, British Journal of Sociology 53 (2) (2002): Recommended Readings Bloor, D (1981), The Strengths of the Strong Programme, Phil. Soc. Sci., Vol.11 pp

6 Chalmers, A (1990), Science and its Fabrication (chapters 6-8) (a critical overview of the strong programme) Doing, P (2007), Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise a Discipline: The Past, Present and Future Politics of Laboratory Studies in STS, in Hackett, EJ (et al) (2007), The Handbook of Science and Technology studies (Cambridge, Mass. ; London : MIT Press) (3rd ed) Mitroff, I (1974), Norms and counter-norms in a select group of Apollo moon scientists, American Sociological Review Vol.39 pp Michael Mulkay (1985), The Word and the World: Explorations in the Form of Sociological Analysis (London: Allen and Unwin). (Seminal work on discourse analysis and science) Laudan, L (1981), The Pseudo-Science of Science, Phil. Soc. Sci., Vol.11 pp (Scathing critique of the strong programme) Mulkay, M (1976), Norms and Ideology in Science, Social Science Information 15: Michael Mulkay and Nigel G. Gilbert, Accounting for Error: How Scientists Construct their Social World When they Account for Correct and Incorrect Belief, Sociology 16 (1982): Woolgar, S (1988), Science: The Very Idea (Chichester: Ellis Harwood) Chapter 6. (A good overview of some of the main claims of pioneering ethnographic works) (see also chapters 4-5) Michael Lynch, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), chapter 1: Ethnomethodology. Steve Woolgar ed. (1991), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage). Examples of Ethnographies of Science: Latour B & Woolgar S (1986), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton University Press) Chapter 2 and skim chapter 3 [ch.3 in TC 1701]. [Read the Doing chapter Give me a laboratory above first] Knorr-Cetina, K (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How The Sciences Make Knowledge (Chapters 1, 2 and either 3 or 4). Case studies which draw directly or indirectly from the strong programme : Gillespie B et al (1982), Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the United States and Great Britain: The Case of Aldrin/Dieldrin, in Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science (Eds Barnes B and Edge D. Milton Keynes: Open University Press) (Good, policy-relevant case-study) [Digitally available see p1]. Webster, A (1991), Science, Technology and Society (Chapter 2) (Overview, includes discussion of the botanical classification study mentioned in lecture) Collins, H and Pinch, T (1993), The Germs of Dissent: Louis Pasteur and the Origins of Life, in The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Chapter 4) [Digitally available see p1] 6

7 Week 3: Gender and Science: Is there a Feminist Science? Feminist critiques of science, until recently, tended to develop outside of mainstream sociology of science, despite the overlap in perspectives. Studies range from institutional questions (why so few women in science?) to epistemological questions (is there a distinctly feminist science?). Feminist analyses of science form a burgeoning literature. Other inequalities in science remain relatively under-researched. Textbook Reading Either SY Chapter 5 OR SS Chapter 7 OR MD Chapter 5 Essential Readings Haraway, D. (1997), Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium, in Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan _Meets_OncoMouse (London: Routledge) (Chapter 1) [Digitally available see p1] Harding, S. (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chapter 6: Strong Objectivity and Socially Situated Knowledge. Recommended Readings Schiebinger, L (1999), Has Feminism Changed Science? (Harvard Univ. Press) Lederman, M and Bartsch, I (2001), The Gender and Science Reader (London: Routledge) (Esp. sections 4 and 5) Myerson, G (2000), Donna Haraway and GM Foods (Icon) (Brief, lucid exposition of some of Haraway s ideas) Haraway, D (1999), Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, in Biagioli, M (ed) The Science Studies Reader (Routledge) and also in Lederman, M and Bartsch, I (2001), The Gender and Science Reader (London: Routledge). Oudshoorn, N (2004), "Astronauts in the Sperm World" : The Renegotiation of Masculine Identities in Discourses on Male Contraceptives, Men and Masculinities, Vol. 6, No. 4, (2004) Fox Keller, E. (1984), A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Rose, H (1994), Love, Power and Knowledge: Toward a Feminist Transformation of the Sciences (Cambridge: Polity) (Especially chapter 1; an earlier version can also be found in the journal Signs Vol.9, 1983, pp73-90). Harding, S (1998), Is Science Multicultural? (Indiana Univ Press) (esp. Chapters 5-7

8 6). Harding, S. (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jacobus et al. (1990), Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. Star, SL (1991), Power, Technology and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions in Law, J (ed) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London and New York: Routledge) pp (An essay on power, marginality and actor-network theory) Fox Keller, E. (1984), A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Henry Holt and Co Week 4: Science in Other Worlds: Postcolonial Science Studies Postcolonial critiques of science, until recently, tended to develop outside of mainstream sociology of science, despite the overlap in perspectives. Studies range from institutional questions (why so many white European scientists?) to historical and epistemological questions (what is the relationship between Science and Colonialism? is Science a distinctly Euorecentric project?) and ontological questions (are modern science s presuppositions about the nature of reality adequate beyond European realities? How many worlds are there?). Is the politics of scientific knowledge also a politics of reality? Essential Readings: Santos, B. (2009) A Non-Occidentalist West? Learned Ignorance and the Ecology of Knowledge, Theory, Culture & Society, 26, Savransky, M. (2014), In Praise of Hesitation: Global Knowledge as a Cosmopolitical Adventure. In Keim W. et al. (eds.), Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences. Farnham: Ashgate Recommended Readings: Chakrabarty, D. (2000), Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gutiérrez, E. (2010), Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches. Farnham: Ashgate. Mol, A. (1999), Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions. In Law J. & Hassard J. (eds), Actor- Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp Anderson, W. (2002), Postcolonial Technoscience: An Introduction. Social Studies of Science, 32 (5-6), Anderson, W. (2008), The Collectors of Lost Souls: Turning Kuru Scientists into Whitemen. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson, W. (2009), From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects: Science and Globalisation, or Postcolonial Studies of Science?, Postcolonial Studies, 12 (4),

9 Santos, B. (2009) A Non-Occidentalist West? Learned Ignorance and the Ecology of Knowledge, Theory, Culture & Society, 26, Savrasnky, M. (2012), Worlds in the Making: Social Sciences and the Ontopolitics of Knowledge. Postcolonial Studies, 15, Steven Shapin (1998) Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociological Problems in the Location of Science, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23 (1), 5 12 Santos, B. (2014), Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers. Harding, S. (2008), Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialisms and Modernities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nandy, A. (1988), Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity. New Dehli: Oxford University Press. Week 5: Boundaries of Science Much of the sociology of science has been concerned with the demarcation problem; in particular, in offering an alternative to the essentialist, epistemological approach of philosophy of science. One of the most successful sociological approaches to demarcation is Thomas Gieryn s idea of boundary work, which illuminates the social processes by which communities generate science and non-science. This session explores Gieryn s work and its application in social studies of science. Textbook reading SY Chapters 1 and 2 MB Chapter 3 Essential Reading Gieryn TF (1983), Boundary Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non- Science: Strains and Interests in the Professional Ideologies of Scientists, American Sociological Review Vol.48 pp [TC 3315]. Amsterdamska, O (2005), Demarcating Epidemiology, Science, Technology & Human Values Vol.30(1): (Historical case study of disciplinary boundary setting) Recommended Readings: Gieryn T (1995), Boundaries of Science in Jasanoff S et al (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, (London: Sage) pp (Long but useful overview of the practical problem of demarcating the inside from the outside of science) Lynch, M (2004), Circumscribing Expertise: Membership Categories in Courtroom Testimony in Jasanoff, S (ed) States of Knowledge (London: Routledge) (contains some criticisms of boundary-work ) Gieryn, T (1999), Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago) (Esp. Introduction) Yearley S (1988), Science, Technology and Social Change (London: Unwin Hyman). Chapter 2. Jasanoff, S (1987), Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science, Social Studies of Science Vol.17 pp (On the shifting and negotiable boundary 9

10 between science and politics) Golinski, J (1998), Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science (Chapter 2 - on historical uses of the boundary problem). Bal, R (2005), How to Kill with a Ballpoint: Credibility in Dutch Forensic Science, Science, Technology & Human Values Vol.30(1): (Case study of boundaries in law) Week 6 NO CLASS UCL READING WEEK Week 7 Actor-Network Theory One of the most influential and controversial - schools of thought since the 1980s and 1990s is actor-network theory. Its central idea is that facts are created when heterogeneous assemblages of actors and objects are mobilized into a network. Science and society are both co-created as the laboratory is used as a focal point for assembling knowledge and redefining social interests. Science becomes politics by other means. Textbook Reading Either SY Chapter 4 OR SS Chapter 8 Essential Readings: Latour, B (1999), Pandora s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Chapter 2) (A good, relatively clear, illustrative case study of Amazonian soil science in the making) [Digitally available see p1] Amsterdamska, O (1990), Surely you are joking, Monseiur Latour!, Science, Technology and Human Values Vol.15, Fall, pp Recommended Readings Latour, B (1983), Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World, in Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage) pp or extract in Biaglio, M (1999), The Science Studies Reader (Ch.18)). (Seminal and much-cited early case study that employs ideas from ANT) [Digitally available see p1] [See also Jones, S Death in a Small Package: A Short History of Anthrax. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. For broader context on the Pasteur case discussed by Latour] Latour, B (1987), Science in Action (Harvard University Press) (especially introduction and chapters 1 & 2) (A classic overview of Latour s ideas) [Ch 2 Digitally available see p1] Callon, M (1986), Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in Biaglio, M (1999), The Science Studies Reader (London Routledge) (Ch.5) (Some key ANT jargon explained through a case study of molluscs in Brittany) Collins, HM and Yearley, S (1992), Epistemological Chicken in A. Pickering (ed) 10

11 Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) pp (attacks the notion that non-humans can be treated as if they were the same as intentional actors) Callon M and Latour B (1992), Don t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley in Science as Practice and Culture (Ed. Pickering A. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press) pp David Bloor, Anti-Latour, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30 (8) (1999): Bruno Latour, For David Bloor and Beyond A Reply to David Bloor s Anti-Latour Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30 (1) (1999), , followed by Bloor s Reply to Bruno Latour, Scott, P (1991), Levers and Counterweights: A Laboratory that Failed to Raise the World, Social Studies of Science Vol.21 pp7-37 (empirically based critique of Latour) Law, J and Hassard, J (1999), Actor-Network Theory and After (Oxford: Blackwell). Gad, C and Jensen, CB (2010), On the Consequences of Post-ANT, Science, Technology and Human Values 35(1): Week 8 The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Ontology in Scientific Practice With ANT and other contemporary approaches to the sociology of science, there is a growing interest in questions of agency, practices, and on what the sciences make and do rather than represent, that is, on questions of ontology. In this session we will explore the work of other major contributions to the sociology of science that have developed an approach that is similar yet not equivalent to ANT. Essential Readings: Pickering, A. (1992), The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency & Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 1. Mol, A. (2002), The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Chapter 2. Recommended Readings: Pickering, A. (2011), The Cybernetic Brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, A. (1986), Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, A. & Guzik, K. (2009), The Mangle in Practice: Science, Society and Becoming. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K. & Savigny, E. (2000), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London & New York: Routledge Berg, M. & Mol, A. (1998), Differences in Medicine: Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Lampland, M. & Star, S. L. (2008), Standards and their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Law, J. & Mol, A. (2002), Complexities: Social Studies of Scientific Knowledge Practices. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Mol, A. (2008), The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice.London: Routledge 11

12 Week 9: After ANT: Relationality, Constraints, and Care Since around 1999 (marked by the publication of the book Actor-Network Thoery and After ) many developments in the sociology of science and technology have taken ANT as a point of departure while taking it beyond its initial scope and reworking some of its assumptions. In this session we will consider some of these new developments and the novel concepts they have proposed in order to develop a different sociology of science after ANT. Essential Readings Despret, V. (2004), The Body We Care For: Figures of Anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society, 10 (2-3), Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011), Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things. Social Studies of Science, 41, Recommended Readings: Barad, K. (2007), Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Jensen, C. P. & Rödje, K. (2010), Deleuzian Intersections: Science, Technology, Anthropology. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books. Gad, C. & Jensen, C. P (2009), On the Consequences of Post-ANT. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35, 1, Coole, D. & Frost, S. (2010), New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Gomart, E. (2002), Towards Generous Constraint: freedom and coercion in a French addiction treatment. Sociology of Health and Illness, 24, 5, Delanda, M. (2002), Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum. Haraway, D. (2008), When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Law, J. (2004), After Method: Mess In Social Science Research. London & New York: Routledge. Law, J. & Hassard, J. (1999), Actor-Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell. Mol, A. (2002), The Body Multiple. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Michael, M. (2012), What are we busy doing? Engaging the Idiot, Science, Technology and Human Values, 37, 5, Michael, M. & Rosengarten,M. (2013), Innovation and Biomedicine: Ethics, Evidence and Expectation in HIV. London: Palgrave. Gomart, E. (2004), Surprised by Methadone: In praise of Drug substitution Treatment in a French Clinic, Body & Society, 10, Week 9: The Making of Scientific Selves: History, Epistemology, Subjectivity Recently there has been a renewed interest in the question of the scientific ethos and the ways in which scientific practices and concepts contribute to cultivating certain forms of 12

13 scientists, or what we will call scientific selves. How do certain scientific practices shape not only the objects they address but also the subjects that are involved in them? While there are connections to the work of Merton, this revitalisation has drawn on the work of other historical sociologists and philosophers, particularly Michel Foucault, Norbert Elias, and Marcel Mauss. Essential Readings Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2010), Objectivity. Brooklyn: Zone Books. Ch. 4 Foucault, M. (1997), Technologies of the Self. In Rabinow, P. (ed), Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault , vol. 1. London: Penguin. Recommended Readings Hacking, I. (1986), Making Up People. In T. Heller et al. (eds), Reconstructing Individualism. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Browne, J. (2003), Charles Darwin as a Celebrity. Science in Context, 16, Daston, L. & Sibum, P. (2003), Introduction: Scientific Personae and their Histories, Science in Context, 16, 1-8 Daston, L. & Lunbeck, E. (2003), Histories of Scientific Observation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elias, N. (2000), The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Willey-Blackwell Holden, K. (2014), Lamenting the Golden Age: Love, Labour and Loss in the Collective Memory of Scientists, Science as Culture, forthcoming. Rose, N. (1998), Inventing Our Selves: Psychlogy, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Savransky, M. (2014), Of Recalcitrant Subjects. Culture, Theory & Critique, 55 (1), Shapin, S. (1991). A Scholar and a Gentleman : The Problematic Identity of the Scientific Practitioner in Early Modern England. History of Science 29: Shapin, S (2008), The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation (University of Chicago Press) Shortland, M. and R. Yeo, eds. (1996). Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Week 11 Beyond War, Peace: Science in an Ecology of Practices The course finishes with an introduction to the work of one of the most innovative recent thinkers in science studies, namely, Isabelle Stengers. We will explore several aspects of her work and the distinct way in which she challenges both scientists and what she calls the interpreters of science. We will consider how the sociologist, or the social thinker of science more generally, might contribute to a productive dialogue across practices instead of fuelling the so-called science wars. 13

14 Essential Readings Stengers, I. (2011), Wondering About Materialism. In Bryant, L. et al. (Eds.), The Speculative Turn. Melbourne: re.press. Chapter 22. Recommended Readings Stengers, I (2005), Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11, 1, Haraway, D. (1997), enlightenment@science_wars.come: A Persona Reflection on Love and War, Social Text, 50, Serres, M. (1995), The Natural Contract. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Latour, B. (2002), War of Worlds: What about Peace?. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Stengers, I. (2005), The Cosmopolitical Proposal. In Latour, B. & P. Weibel (eds), Making Things Public. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press. Stengers, I. (2010), Cosmopolitcs I. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stengers, I. (2011), Comsopolitics II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stengers, I. (2011), Wondering about Materialism. In Bryant et al. (eds), The Speculative Turn. Melbourne: Re.press. Whitehead, A. N. (1967), Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free press. Watson, M. (2013), Derrida, Stengers, Latour, and Subalternist Cosmopolitics. Theory Culture and Society, 31, Assessment summary Description Deadline Word limit Focused Review 11 Nov 1000 words Essay 16 Dec 4000 words coursework Assignment 1: Focussed Review By this stage of the MSc course you should be able to read, understand and start to provide your own evaluation of research articles that draw on the main approaches to sociology of science covered in this course. Select one research article from either Social Studies of Science or Science, Technology & Human Values or Science as Culture journals, written since January You may choose other journals that publish research drawing on sociology of science but should confirm this with me first (eg Biosocieties, Public Understanding of Science). The article should relate to one or more themes or topics from the course (e.g. it uses actor- network theory, it employs ethnographic methods, it adopts a postcolonial 14

15 perspective, etc). You must make this a different topic to your essay two topic (you are permitted some overlap, but it should mainly link to a different topic). Write a 1000 word critical review of the article. The review should have a title of your choosing, and you should also clearly state which article you are reviewing. [don t add this to the word count] The review must explain (even if only in a sentence or two) how the article relates to the course. You should also read at least 3-4 pieces from the most relevant topic on the reading list as contextual material. The review should describe and explain the main argument(s) presented in the article. Your review should also leave space for critical discussion of the material presented in the piece (e.g. strengths, weaknesses, comparison with other literature on the topic, or with other approaches on the course, does it really achieve what it claims to have done?). Hint: It helps here to have one main message that runs through your review. You should cite other work from the reading list (or beyond) in your review but are expected to mainly focus on your chosen article. Perhaps 2-3 contextual citations would be a very rough guideline [don t add your bibliography to the word count] You might want to skim through an example of one article (and its critical response in Social Studies of Science: Jorges, B (1999) Do Politics Have Artefacts?, Social Studies of Science 29(3): Woolgar, S and Cooper, G (1999) Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence: Moses Bridges, Winners Bridges and Other Urban Legends, Social Studies of Science 29(3): If you need reminding of the original debate see section entitled technical arrangements and social order in: Winner, L (1999), Do Artefacts Have Politics?, in MacKenzie D and Wajcman J (Eds), The Social Shaping of Technology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press) pp28-39 (Also in 1st edition). (Also widely available on- line, eg Assignment 2 Indicative Essay Questions (4000 words) You can use these questions or devise your own question. I am happy to discuss this question during my office hours but as rough guidance any well-phrased essay question will have both a descriptive (what do you know) and evaluative (what do think about the topic) element to it. 15

16 1. Does the strong programme have any strengths? 2. Ethnographers of science have claimed that their fieldwork demonstrates that nothing epistemologically special happens in laboratories. Critically evaluate this claim. 3. Feminist approaches to gender and science have demonstrated modern scientific knowledge tends to embody masculine presuppositions. What, if any alternatives have feminist approaches propose or could they propose to our understanding of science? 4. Despite claims to the contrary, Actor-Network Theory cannot be reduced to social constructivism. Discuss. 5. According to sociologists of science, what is at stake when scientists contest or defend the boundaries of science? How convincing are these sociologists arguments? 6. What, if anything, does co-production AND/OR framing add to our understanding of controversies involving science and technology? 7. Even if Science is a Western, modern, enterprise, is scientific knowledge not universal?. Discuss 8. What, if anything, does an attention to scientific selves add to our understanding of scientific practices and knowledge? 9. What are the main differences between some post-ant developments (pick one) and ANT s classical tenets, and how might these new developments contribute to a more/less productive sociology of science? 10. What, if any, would be the implication of Stengers s insistence on the role of wonder for sociology of science? Discuss. 16