Abstract
In this chapter various research sites which have been proposed for empirical sociological work upon science will be examined. In particular, I want to explore how these different sites enable the explanatory goals for the sociology of scientific knowledge, outlined in the previous chapter, to be carried through. Brief details of the case study — solar-neutrino detection — will be outlined. I will conclude by discussing some of the practicalities of the present research which have made it necessary to deviate from the ideal.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A comprehensive review of the sociology of scientific knowledge can be found in Mulkay and Milic (1980).
For a general discussion of this problem and how it has received various treatments in sociology of science see Pinch (1982a).
W.O. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community, New York, Basic Books (1965).
See, for example, D. J. de Solla Price and D. de Beaver, ‘Collaboration in An Invisible College’, American Psychologist, 21, 1011–18 (1962),
and Diana Crane, Invisible Colleges, Chicago, University of Chicago Press (1982).
N.C. Mullins, ‘The Development of a Scientific Specialty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology’, Minerva, 10, 51–82 (1972).
Henry Small, ‘A Co-Citation Model of a Scientific Specialty: A Longitudinal Study of Collages Research’, Social Studies of Science, 7, 139–66 (1977).
See, J. Law, ‘The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography’, Science Studies, 3, 275–303 (1973);
G.N. Gilbert, ‘The Development of Science and Scientific Knowledge: The Case of Radar Meteor Research’, in G. Lemaine, R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay and P. Weingart (eds), Perspectives in the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, The Hague, Mouton/Aldine, 187–203 (1976);
and D. O. Edge and M.J. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed, New York, Wiley Interscience (1976).
R. D. Whitley, ‘Components of Scientific Activities, Their Characteristics and Institutionalisation in Specialties and Research Areas’, in K. Knorr, H. Strasser and H.G. Zilian, Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, Dordrecht, Reidel, 37–73 (1975),
and P. Weingart, ‘On a Sociological Theory of Scientific Change’, in R.D. Whitley (ed.), Social Processes of Scientific Development, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 45–68 (1974). See also, Whitley (1985).
Some studies which fall within this location are: Collins (1975, 1981b, 1985); Harvey (1981); Pickering (1981); Pinch (1977, 1981); Travis (1981); Wynne (1976); and Collins and Pinch (1979, 1982).
The ‘core set’ is Collins’ term: see, H.M. Collins, ‘The Place of the Core-Set in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety in Science’, History of Science, 19, 6–19 (1981).
See, Latour and Woolgar (1979); Knorr-Cetina (1981); and Lynch (1985).
Of course data from other sources can be brought in to provide a richer account of consensus. This seems to have been the procedure used by Latour and Woolgar (1979) in their study of how consensus developed over TRF.
B. Latour ‘Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World’, in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983:141–70).
S. Woolgar, ‘Writing an Intellectual History of Scientific Development: The Use of Discovery Accounts’, Social Studies of Science, 6, 395–411 (1976).
H. Garfinkel, M. Lynch and E. Livingston, ‘The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–58 (1981).
G. Nigel Gilbert and M. Mulkay, Opening Pandora’s Box, Cambridge, Cambridge university Press (1984). See also, Brannigan (1981).
This argument is made particularly forcefully by Gilbert and Mulkay, op.cit., note [16]. It may be the case that consensus is harder to impute in biochemistry (where Gilbert and Mulkay’s study is located) than in physics.
See especially, M. Mulkay, ‘Action and Belief or Scientific Discourse? A Possible Way of Ending Intellectual Vassalage in Social Studies of Science’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 163–72 (1981),
and M. Mulkay, J. Potter and S. Yearley, ‘Why an Analysis of Discourse is Needed’, in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983: 171–203).
See, for instance, Collins (1983).
B. Latour, ‘Les “Vues” del’espirit’, Culture Technique, 14, 5–30 (1985).
K.D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, ‘Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science’, in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983: 1–7).
For an example of this approach to texts, see Greg Myers, ‘Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles’, Social Studies of Science, 15 (in press), and C. Bazerman, ‘The Writing of Scientific Non-Fiction’, Pre/Text, 5, 39–74 (1984).
See, for instance, Collins (1975, 1981b). A similar method (although used for different purposes) was followed by Mitroff (1974) in his study of moon scientists.
But, for an exception, see Rudwick (1985).
A list of the interviews is given in the Appendix. Nearly all the US and UK scientists who have made contributions to the debate have been interviewed.
It was not uncommon in the course of the present study to be told that I was very lucky to get copies of correspondence because the scientists were thinking of throwing such material away. The historian working on earlier periods (and especially before the widespread use of the telephone) has some advantages here.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinch, T. (1986). Strategic Research Sites for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. In: Confronting Nature. Sociology of the Sciences Monographs, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7729-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7729-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8424-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7729-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive