Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Bruno Latour , Steve Woolgar

Isis ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-149
Author(s):  
H. M. Collins
Keyword(s):  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Scientific Facts ◽  
Laboratory Life

Latour’s Prosaic Science

1991 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Robert Brown
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
Detailed Knowledge ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
The Social ◽  
Field Notes ◽  
Scientific Facts ◽  
Laboratory Life ◽  
Work First

The most embarrassing thing about ‘facts’ is the etymology of the word. The Latin facere means to make or construct. Bruno Latour, like so many other anti-realists who revel in the word’s history, thinks facts are made by us: they are a social construction. The view acquires some plausibility in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (hereafter LL) which Latour co-authored with Steve Woolgar.1 This work, first published a decade ago, has become a classic in the sociology of science literature. It is in the form of field notes by an ‘anthropologist in the lab.’ This may seem an odd place for an anthropologist, but Latour finds his presence easy to justify. ‘Whereas we have a fairly detailed knowledge of the myths and circumcision rituals of exotic tribes, we remain relatively ignorant of the details of equivalent activity among tribes of scientists … ’ (LL, 17).

scholarly journals Has Latour Real-ly Unravelled the Real: The Journey from Laboratory Life to Down to Earth?

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-41
Author(s):  
Charles Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
The Real ◽  
Truth Claim ◽  
The Social ◽  
Truth Claims ◽  
Scientific Facts ◽  
Laboratory Life

This article traces Bruno Latour’s answer to the question ‘what is real?’ from Latour and Steve Woolgar in Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (1979) through to Latour in Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climate Change (2018). This intriguing question arises because Latour’s hypothesis in Down to Earth presumes that climate change is ‘real’, while in Laboratory Life, hard facts were considered constructions. The journey reveals Latour’s own ‘real’ lies between the extreme science realists (facts are either true or false) and extreme social relativists (facts are a social construction), although favouring the relativists. A closer analysis, however, shows that Latour’s project is really about truth claims and that the real question is couched in terms rejecting the modernist settlement of ontological assumptions and basing truth on credibility determined by the strength of associations; the more associations, the more ‘real’ the truth claim. Ultimately, Latour elegantly sidesteps the real question and how he does this is real-ly unrivalled.

scholarly journals The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 251-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Rüdiger ◽  
Daria Dayter
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Open Forum ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
Linguistic Research ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Scientific Facts ◽  
Male Heterosexual ◽  
Laboratory Life

AbstractThis article explores ethical conundrums in linguistic research on online platforms populated by ‘pick-up artists’ (PUAs), a community that learns and practices speed-seduction for short-term mating. Originally a male heterosexual community, PUAs encourage men to use manipulative strategies to select, pursue, isolate and sexually conquer women (Hall, Jeffrey A. & Melanie Canterberry. 2011. Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles 65(11). 840–853). Using so-called ‘field reports’ – detailed accounts of interactions with women – from Anglophone PUA forums as our data, we investigate the narrative stance devices that PUAs use to impose the game frame on their activities. Unavoidably, sampling language in an environment where risky topics are under constant discussion presents ethical dilemmas. The article focuses on how conducting research in a hostile community may influence traditional methodological decisions. Through the example of the PUA community, we discuss the vulnerability of subjects and potential harm in linguistic research, and whether anything gives the researcher the freedom to forego informed consent, especially when dealing with publicly available data in an open forum. We also address the myth of the unbiased researcher that is prevalent in contemporary social science, arguing that an analysis should benefit from the fact that the analyst inevitably takes part in the “fight to construct reality” (Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

scholarly journals Bruno Latour and actor-network-theory

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-149
Author(s):  
Bozidar Filipovic
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Bruno Latour ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Laboratory Life

This paper identifies the key moments in the development of Actor-Network-Theory through several important work by Bruno Latour. It is possible to discern a number of departures from the initial position of the author (articulated in Laboratory Life) in his latter works. Actor-Network-Theory is presented through a series of ?neuralgic? points inherent to and visible within the theory. The solutions which Actor-Network-Theory offers for fundamental problems of sociology, as defined by Latour, are discussed at the end of the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document