Abstract
In this chapter a theoretical framework will be introduced, drawn from the heterogeneous field called Science and Technology Studies (S&TS).1 Before introducing some concepts and theoretical considerations from S&TS, which will prove useful for my later aims of analysing nuclear waste management in Sweden, I first want to say something about what S&TS, and hence this study, is not about.
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.
Notes
See Jasanoff et al. 1995 for a substantial introduction to the field of SandTS.
For studies focusing on the relevance of lay people’s knowledge see Irwin 1995 and Irwin and Wynne 1996.
See Douglas 1978 for the concept of cultural bias.
Nelkin (1979, 1984) has edited the book Controversy along those four sets of conflicting values.
Nelkin is not always explicit on this point, but by using words like obscure, her position could be revealed. See for example Nelkin 1984: 14, 17, 26.
Personal notes from the meeting. See the Prologue.
See for example Hollis and Lukes 1982; Barnes and Edge 1982; Shapin 1995.
Already in the beginning of the century Durkheim (1912) formulated a strong epistemological relativism focusing on the credibility of knowledge, stating that we do not believe in knowledge because it is true, but that it is true because we believe in it.
Robert Merton pioneered a sociology of science focusing on the organization of the scientific community, see Merton 1973 and also Hagstrom 1966. This kind of sociology of science is able to coexist with a rationalistic perspective, separating validity from credibility.
See Pinch and Bijker 1984. The critique of technological determinism is older than SSK’s critique of epistemological rationalism
According to Bowden (1995: 69f), both Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford tried to go beyond the perspective of autonomous technology.
Collins 1981b; cf. Pinch and Bijker 1984 and Bijker 1995.
For an overview see Barnes, Bloor and Henry 1996: ch. 5.
Jasanoff 1996; cf. Jasanoff 1995: ch. 10, Jasanoff and Wynne 1998 and Wynne 1996.
For an overview see Douglas 1996; cf. Thompson, Ellis and Wildaysky 1990.
Callon and Latour 1981; Latour 1987, 1988.
Gieryn 1983, 1995, 1999; cf. Barnes and Edge 1982: 152 and Pinch and Bijker 1984.
For a short summary of this criticism see Schytt 1990: 88.
For such an enterprise see Bijker 1995; cf. the methodological principle of compartmentalisation proposed by Collins (1992: 187–189).
Woolgar 1981; cf. Ashmore 1989; for the concept of god-trick see Haraway 1991: ch. 9.
Scott, Richards and Martin 1990; see also Martin, Richards and Scott 1991, Ashmore 1996, and Collins 1991; 1996.
See Chapter 1 “Author’s Position” for the social context of my story.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sundqvist, G. (2002). Constructing a Theoretical Framework. In: The Bedrock of Opinion. Environment & Policy, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5958-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9950-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive