The Labyrinth of ScienceScience in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.Bruno LatourMapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World.Michel Callon , John Law , Arie RipThe Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology.Wiebe E. Bijker , Thomas P. Hughes , Trevor J. Pinch

Science and technology are composed of several regimes of production, each having its own research axis and mode of diffusion - the disciplinary regime, transitory regime, utilitarian regime, and transverse regime. This article discusses research-technology, an example of the transverse regime of cognitive and artefact production. Research-technologists stand between science and engineering, between academia and enterprise. They design and build a special category of instrumentation (open-ended, multi-purpose generic instrumentation) and they operate out of an interstitial arena that lies between the usual poles of interest and organization - university, firms, the state, military etc. By virtue of their interstitial position and development of generic multi-audience devices, research-technologists exhibit a highly dynamic division of socio-cognitive labor. They sometimes engage in boundary crossings, in order to acquire data for instrument design or for purposes of instrument diffusion. Conversely, they sometimes close borders, protecting themselves from the exogenous pressures of short-term audience demand. One sees that selective boundary-crossing is not inconsistent with community closure! This article outlines the history of research-technology in Germany and the US, shows how the research-technology perspective differs from the new orthodoxy in the sociology of knowledge, and points to how a better grasp of the workings of the division of socio-cognitive labor may prove fruitful beyond the sociology of science and technology.

Download Full-text

The Sokal Affair in Context

Science Technology & Human Values ◽

10.1177/016224399702200404 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 506-522 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Stephen Hilgartner

Keyword(s):

History Of Science ◽

Science And Technology Studies ◽

Science And Technology ◽

Sociology Of Science ◽

Science History ◽

Central Lines ◽

Technology Studies ◽

History Of ◽

Research Questions ◽

Social Scientific

The failure to consider the Sokal affair in light of other, related episodes has contributed to a wholesale misreading of its significance. The episode has often been offered as evidence for the bankruptcy of a broad and diverse collection offields, variously referred to as cultural studies of science, sociology of science, history of science, and science and technology studies. However, when viewed in context, the Sokal affair illustrates pre cisely why social scientific and humanistic studies of science are necessary. To develop this argument, the author explicitly compares Alan Sokal's experiment with a similar experiment, performed by William M. Epstein and published in this very journal. Comparing the research questions, methods, ethics, and reception of these two experi ments not only reveals the limitations of Sokal's critique but also shows that Sokal has unwittingly endorsed one of the central lines of research in science and technology studies.

Download Full-text