Science and Technology Studies, History of

Harald Rohracher, Linkping University, Linkping, Sweden

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The interdisciplinary eld of science and technology studies (STS) has only emerged in the late 1970s but has been inuenced
by various lines of thought in sociology, philosophy, and economics. At its basis is the claim that not only the social
institution of science or the impact of technological change on society is open to social analysis but also the very content of
science and engineering, i.e., scientic facts and technological objects. This article sketches out the development of STS from
its roots, among others in the sociology of knowledge and history of technology, to contemporary issues such as the problem
of expertise and transformations in the production of knowledge.

Introduction these contributions and given the heterogeneity and ongoing

Science and technology studies (STS) have emerged in the
1970s and 1980s as a distinct interdisciplinary eld or
intradisciplinary as Jasanoff (2010) puts it to stress its focus on
questions not raised within existing disciplines which deals
with the inseparability of science and technology from social
structures and practices. The constitutive idea in contrast to its
precursors in the sociology, history, or economics of science
and technology is an understanding that also the content of
science and engineering (scientic facts, technologies, objects)
is open to social analysis and not the result of a privileged form
of knowledge about nature. Facts and artifacts are but tempo-
rarily stable outcomes of heterogeneous activities of scientists
and engineers and their entanglement in wider social and
political relations. From a STS perspective sociotechnical
assemblages are the smallest units of analysis and cannot be
simply split into preexisting social and material dimensions,
which are then analyzed separately. Society and technology/
materiality coconstitute each other and mutually shape each
other through processes of translation, inscription, and enact-
ment. At its best, STS thus not only contributes to a more
appropriate understanding of science and technology but also
of society.
There are no strict demarcations of what counts as STS and
what is already outside its realm. One may take a narrower view
on the formation of core concepts and emerging disciplinary
structures, or a broader view on STS as a multifaceted and
heterogeneous eld overlapping with, e.g., economic innova-
tion studies, anthropology or cultural studies, and also
comprising of a broad range of problem- and application-
oriented STS research on health, climate change, or the
democratization of science and technology. This article takes
the broader view and complements the formation of an
academic canon with the development of an engaged program
of STS (Sismondo, 2008). A number of introductory textbooks
(e.g., Fuller, 2007; Hess, 1997; Sismondo, 2010; Yearley, 2005)
as well as articles on the history and development of the eld
(e.g., Jasanoff, 2010; Latour, 2004; Pestre, 2004; Woolgar,
2004) along with the STS-related entries in earlier versions of
this encyclopedia have already contributed to an ex-post
consolidation and ordering of the eld (and at the same time
self-critical reection on such attempts). This article builds on
dynamic of the eld presents a somewhat eclectic selection of
further lines of thought and reasoning.
Precursors of STS
Science and technology have been an object of social sciences
and humanities for a long time and various approaches and
schools of thought have led up to the current concepts used in
STS. Science has been regarded a crucial element in processes of
modernization and the rise of a capitalist economy, as, e.g.,
expressed in the writings of Karl Marx or Max Weber. Only later,
science and knowledge generation became direct objects of
social scientic research, as in Karl Mannheims sociology of
knowledge and in the investigation of science as a social system
in Robert K. Mertons work. Technology also has played a long-
standing role in the social sciences and humanities, whether in
social history (Mumford), political economy (Marx), or
philosophy (Heidegger).
Science as a Social Institution
The development of a sociology of science is closely interwoven
with the scholarly work of American sociologist Robert K.
Merton. Merton analyzes science as a social phenomenon in at
least three distinct ways (Barnes, 2007): (1) as a social unit
functioning in a larger social system and being affected by the
development of its social surroundings as, e.g., analyzed in
Mertons early work on the emergence of science in puritan
seventeenth-century England; (2) as a set of peers, a moral
community and a subculture with a distinctive normative order
Mertons work on the ethos of science expressed by four basic
norms stands for this dimension of his work; and (3) the
question of how the normative order in science is sustained
by a specic reward system encouraging original research.
Mertons article on The normative structure of science
(Merton, 1973[1942]) is probably his most popular and well-
known contribution to the sociology of science and reects the
political context of the 1940s by emphasizing the importance
of a democratic social structure for science to thrive and to let
scientists live up to their ethos expressed by a set of four norms:
communism (later termed communalism), universalism,

200 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03064-6

disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. The institutional
goal of science depending on these norms is the extension of
certied knowledge pointing clearly to the assumption that
science as a social phenomenon only extends to the social
behavior and practices of scientists but not to the content of
science itself. This strand of a sociology of science has remained
inuential throughout the postwar period with often contro-
versial discussions about the need for additional norms, their
empirical validity, and relevance for the social analysis of the
community, culture, and institutional makeup of science (see
e.g., Zuckerman, 1988).
The Social Constitution of Knowledge
Another strand of sociological thinking preparing the ground
for STS is the sociology of knowledge, best represented in the
work of Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim particularly in his
book Ideology and Utopia (Mannheim, 1929). The key argument
is that knowledge is conditioned by the social position of the
person or group who formed these thoughts. Everyones belief
and possibility to know depends on the social context he/she is
immersed in, be it social class, religion, profession, or age
cohort. Obviously, such a position has to deal with both
(Heintz, 1993), the problem of relativism (no overarching
criteria for the evaluation of knowledge claims) and reexivity
(as the positionality of knowledge also applies to the social
scientist). Mannheim sought an answer to relativism in the
multiperspectivity of different knowledge claims and the aim
of sociology of knowledge to understand why and how these
different perspectives and knowledge claims differed. His
strategy to deal with reexivity, however, sets Mannheim apart
from the later STS, as he chooses to exclude science and
mathematics from the program of a sociology of knowledge
and assign them a privileged epistemological status. His
contemporary Ludwik Fleck (see next section) developed
precisely such a program of a sociology of scientic facts.
History and Philosophy of Science and the Structure
of Scientic Revolutions
Thinking about the constitution and development of scientic
knowledge has long been a prerogative of epistemology and
the philosophy of science, which upheld the special status of
scientic knowledge and its exclusion from sociological or
historic analysis. However, not least developments within the
theory of science paved the way to historic analyses of the
development of scientic knowledge by Thomas Kuhn and
others. Two core theses set the scene for the so-called anti-
positivist or historic turn in the philosophy of science: the
underdetermination of scientic theory as argued by Pierre
Duhem and W.V.O. Quine and the theory-ladenness of
observation. If isolated theoretical hypotheses cannot be
simply falsied by contradictory observations and if theory and
observation cannot be strictly separated, historic or sociological
arguments need to stand in to explain the development and
constitution of scientic knowledge. This program has been
taken up in the book The Structure of Scientic Revolutions by
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) who (despite being criticized on
various grounds) created an intellectual space for STS analyses
of the social constitution of scientic knowledge. Kuhn
Science and Technology Studies, History of 201
essentially made an argument against the linear and cumulative
growth of scientic knowledge and illustrated with various
cases from the history of science, how scientic development is
characterized by (rarely occurring) shifts in scientic paradigms
(scientic revolutions), which are shared within a scientic
community and incommensurable with each other. By far the
largest part of scientic activity (normal science) is engaged in
problem solving within the framework of an existing paradigm.
Seen from an STS perspective, one can distinguish between
a more radical and a more conservative interpretation of
Kuhns work (Pinch, 1997). This is particularly visible in the
use of the concept of paradigm either as a description of
a shared social activity or social network in science (similar to
an invisible college) distinct from the cognitive dimension of
science, or as a term emphasizing the combined sociocognitive
nature of science, i.e., science understood as doing and practice.
Kuhns work also laid the ground for a rediscovery of Ludwik
Flecks (1979[1935]) book on The Genesis and Development of
a Scientic Fact where Polish medical doctor Fleck developed
his concept of thought collectives and thought style and
a concept of scientic truth relative to these social collectives,
which anticipated much of STS and social constructivism in
a more contemporary way than Kuhns writings, which took
most of the credit.
The Social Impact of Technology
While the sections above sketched out different lines of
thought about science as a social phenomenon, sociological
and philosophical engagement with technology and artifacts
took place rather separate from these approaches. The main
thrust of theses approaches was to understand the impact of
modern technology on society and going beyond a one-
sided relationship the interdependence of changes in
social structure (or: civilization) and technological develop-
ment. Lewis Mumford and Jacques Ellul can exemplarily be
mentioned in this context. In The Myth of the Machine
Mumford (1967) develops a universal history of civilization
with the development of order as the pervasive formative
principle. As he points out with examples of megamachines
such as pyramids, but also polytechnic traditions of medieval
times, the idea of the machine is deeply entrenched in the
history and development of civilization, in its organization
but also its ethics and aesthetics. For Jacques Ellul too, human
history and condition is intricately interwoven with tech-
nology. However, where Mumford puts some hope in alter-
native (democratic) technological traditions, Ellul draws
a more pessimistic picture of technology taking control of
modern society. And similar to Mumford, la technique is
more than just machine technology it is any complex of
standardized means to attain predetermined results. Tech-
nique integrates the machine into society. It constructs the
kind of world the machine needs and introduces order (.),
claries, arranges, and rationalizes. (.) It is efcient and
brings efciency to everything (Ellul, 1964: 5).
Undoubtedly, various other lines of inquiry can be identi-
ed, which prepared the ground for understanding artifacts as
being deeply intertwined with social, cultural, and political
phenomena. Important inputs have, e.g., come from the soci-
ology of industrial organizations (e.g., studies of the industrial
202 Science and Technology Studies, History of
workplace and its interrelations with technological change); the
economics of innovation and technological change (such as the
work of Joseph Schumpeter and its later uptake in theories of
evolutionary economics); or early sociological analyses of the
social and cultural factors that shape technical invention (e.g.,
Gilllan, 1935).
The Emergence of a New Field
Only in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a new eld of scientic
inquiry took shape, which later came to be known as STS
though terms such as Social Studies of Science and Tech-
nology or Science, Technology, and Society existed in
parallel and are sometimes still used. The common focus of
early STS was to gain an understanding of the social fabri-
cation of scientic facts be it as a product of discourses,
social interests, or the heterogeneous social practices involved
in producing scientic knowledge. Much of the ground for
this new line of inquiry was prepared by Kuhns writings and
a linguistic turn inspired by Ludwig Wittgensteins philos-
ophy. Two sets of approaches stood at the center of early STS:
the sociology of scientic knowledge (SSK) and ethnographic
studies of scientic knowledge production in laboratories. In
both cases, the focus was on natural sciences, which repre-
sented the hardest possible case to show how scientic
knowledge was imbued with social and cultural inuences
and did not constitute a separate, asocial, and ahistoric realm
of positive knowledge.
The Sociology of Scientic Knowledge
Two UK schools stood at the center of early debates about the
social construction of scientic knowledge: a group of
researches at the University of Edinburgh (David Bloor, Barry
Barnes, Donald MacKenzie, Steven Shapin, and others) devel-
oping the strong program as well as interest theory of scientic
knowledge, and a group at the University of Bath (Harry
Collins, Trevor Pinch, and others) with their empirical
programme of relativism (EPOR) and a focus on the analysis
of discourses and scientic controversies. The strong program
was based on several methodological claims for a more
symmetric analysis of scientic knowledge generation
meaning that empirical analysis should be ignorant to
whether a scientic claim was true or false (contrary to the
philosophy of science approach, which is just about ways of
evaluating the truth or falsity of such beliefs). The aim thus was
not to methodologically decide on scientic truth claims, but
to understand how they emerged, were accepted or rejected in
social interactions. Historical case studies, moreover, eluci-
dated how decisions about scientic beliefs and knowledge
claims were inuenced by wider social interests (interest
theory), e.g., how statistical concepts originating in early
twentieth-century England were ultimately grounded in
debates about eugenics (MacKenzie, 1978). Instead of search-
ing for such external social factors the Bath school with their
EPOR along with scholars such as Michael Mulkay rather
focused on processes of inner-scientic discourses and
controversies to understand how interpretations of scientic
facts were developed, rejected, or stabilized.
Laboratory Studies
Along with the SSK, another more ethnographically inspired
eld of research developed around the analysis of knowledge
production in scientic laboratories. Key representatives of this
approach were Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar, Karin Knorr-
Cetina, and Michael Lynch. Not science as knowledge was at
the center of these studies, but science as a localized practice,
which was analyzed through participant observation and the
analysis of documents and discourses at the locus of knowledge
production, the scientic laboratory. As Knorr-Cetina (1995)
points out, these studies showed how scientic objects were
not only technically manufactured in laboratories but also
symbolically and politically construed. Scientic knowledge
thus is not only embedded in controversies and wider social
processes, but also socially fabricated in concrete locales
with their specic knowledge cultures and idiosyncrasies.
Particularly, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar in their study
Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar, 1979) do not focus on
concepts of intentionality, but rather on the detailed descrip-
tion of the gestures and action observed in scientic work
(Pestre, 2004). Scientic facts are not correspondents of
observation, textual representation, and things, but gain
reality only through series or networks of translations that can
each be contested and renegotiated. Particularly, Latours study
on Louis Pasteur, Give me a laboratory and I will raise the
world (Latour, 1983), makes clear, how laboratory practices
transcend the boundaries of the laboratory and modify social
order and eventually transform the world.
The Technological Turn in Science Studies
During the 1980s, the program of understanding the social
fabrication of scientic facts was extended to the study of
technology. Central to these concepts is that there are potential
choices (not necessarily conscious and manifest ones) inherent
in the design of artifacts and technical systems. There is no
inherent and compelling logic of technical development; the
choices made depend on organizational, political, or economic
factors and on actor-strategies.
The Social Construction of Technology
In their article The social construction of facts and artifacts: or
how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology
might benet each other, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker
(1984) apply the methodological principles and strategies of
the EPOR to the study of technological innovation. Their aim
is to understand technology from inside, as a body of
knowledge and as a social system. This may be achieved
(following EPOR) by a symmetric and impartial treatment of
technical artifacts without an external reference in deciding why
one technology works and another one does not. At the basis is
the concept of interpretative exibility, meaning that technol-
ogies are open to more than one interpretation by different
relevant social groups; the existence of social mechanisms that
lead to a closure of the controversy at a second stage, and nally
the relation of such closure mechanisms to the wider context,
which they call the technological frame to contrast the

contingency and to an extent arbitrariness of interpretative
exibility. Along with the historic analyses of the messy and
nonlinear ways of developing artifacts inspired by the Social
Construction of Technology approach, another historian of
technology gained an important inuence on the social
understanding of technology. In his seminal work Networks of
Power Thomas P. Hughes (1983) demonstrated the funda-
mental inseparability of the social and the technical in the
analysis of artifacts in his historic analysis of the development
of the electricity system in the US, the UK, and Germany as an
example of other large technical systems and infrastructure
technologies. Efforts of system building as a heterogeneous
social, economic, and technical ability stood at the center of
this analysis, but also the momentum and obduracy gained as
such large sociotechnical ensembles mature and become
increasingly entrenched in society and material structures.
Actor-Network Theory
A second direct line from science to technology studies is
established by actor-network theory (ANT) closely linked to
the names of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law
who already studied science as a practice of creating heteroge-
neous networks of actors, inscriptions, theories as well as
scientic instruments and other artifacts and accordingly put
forward the notion of technoscience to stress the increasing
convergence of producing scientic knowledge and technical
objects. ANT follows the consequences of the new social
studies of science approach, especially its transgression of the
separation of an internalist and externalist analysis of science to
its radical end. If the social realm of subjects and the realm of
scientic facts or things is not separable and reducible to each
other any more, if neither nature nor society are objective
arbiters, social theory has to be rebuild and conceptualized in
a way that simultaneously includes humans and things. This
results in a generalized principle of symmetry between human
and nonhuman actants (as a term for anything that has force to
change things), famously put forward in Michel Callons
(1986) article on the scallops of St. Brieuc bay, which are as
much granted agency as the scientists or shermen struggling
with a solution to cultivate such mussels. The stability of
human social assemblage is always shared with the nonhu-
mans mobilized to this end. The same holds true the other way
round: what we call things or scientic facts are also highly
impregnated with sociality and need constant work to
stabilize as Latour once called it: technology is society made
durable. Central terms employed to explain the eventual
constitution of these heterogeneous assemblages are trans-
lation signifying an active element in the network connections
as an enrollment into an actor-network always involves
displacements and changes in the identity of actors; or
heterogeneous engineering as the tactics of network-building,
which depends on the interrelation of a range of disparate
elements of varying degrees of malleability. Though frequently
at the center of controversies within science studies or criticized
from outside (e.g., in the so-called science wars, pitching so-
called postmodernists against scientic realists or construc- meaning through a given context, as Woolgar and Lezaun point
tivism against objectivity in science), ANT still is at the center of
much of the research carried out in STS and has not lost its
provocative power.
Science and Technology Studies, History of 203
Toward an Engaged Program
Building on and extending these core approaches of STS and
crossing over with other theories and research elds such as
cultural studies, history or gender studies, STS has developed
into a versatile and heterogeneous research eld. Many of these
subelds and specialties, however, have in common that they
share an engagement with critically analyzing and decon-
structing dominant social discourses and power structures
enacted in sociomaterial relationships and reect on the
possibility of strategies and policies toward a more democratic,
sustainable, or gender-equal society informed by such insights.
The following section highlights a selection of these engaged
approaches in STS.
Feminist STS
STS have had a productive relationship with feminist theory
and perspectives since its beginning. Uncovering gender rela-
tions in science and technology and analyzing the role of
science in legitimizing social forms of domination largely
parallels the STS program of understanding the social
construction of the content of science and technology. Feminist
standpoint theory (e.g., Harding, 1991) claims that all attempts
to know are socially situated and that the particular social
position of women and their distinctive experiences of
discrimination is not reected in a male-dominated science.
The social location of women and other oppressed can be an
important source to increase objectivity in science. Donna
Haraway takes this perspective further, particularly, in her
seminal essay Situated knowledges: the science question in
feminism and the privilege of partial perspective (1991),
where she develops a more dynamic and hybrid epistemology
granting privilege to partial perspectives, which takes the
position of the knower seriously. In her notion of situated
knowledges, Haraway problematizes both subject and object
and aims at thinking the world in terms of the apparatus of
bodily production, which brings her work in close interrela-
tion with ANT and other STS approaches. Feminist positions
have also been inuential for the discussion of the social
shaping of technology. As Wajcman (1991) points out, tech-
nology itself is imbued with male power and male interests,
and technologies reveal a lot about the societies within which
they are invented and used, about dominant images of social
status and distributive justice, they currently reect a male-
dominated world.
From Epistemology to Ontology?
A recent issue of the journal Social Studies of Science asks
whether one can speak of an ontological turn in STS (Woolgar
and Lezaun, 2013). In fact, important lines of discussion within
feminist STS such as Haraways above-mentioned situated
knowledges can be understood as a shift in analysis from
different modes of knowing to different modes of being.
Within this perspective, objects do not acquire a particular
out, but they are enacted in practices, they are brought into
being, or realized, in the course of a certain practical activity.
What we perceive as things or social phenomena are not just
204 Science and Technology Studies, History of
intertwined but constantly in the making and the (temporarily
stable) outcome of social and material processes. STS research
does not just observe disembedded things, but performances,
realities enacted into being, as John Law puts it. Objects
become ambivalent and uid and various modes of enactment
may bring about a multiplicity of objects, as, e.g., Annemarie
Mol (2003) argues in The Body Multiple with respect to
medical practices. In a similar vein, Karen Barad is concerned
with the constitution of material objects in her concept of
agential realism, where materiality is understood as a practical
achievement, a contingent upshot of practices and produced
through intra-action in an apparatus consisting of bodies,
norms, technologies, and other sociomaterial elements. If
however, as Mol (2013) points out, realities are adaptive and
multiple, if they take different shapes as they engage, and are
engaged, in different relations, then questions of ontological
politics become important and STS may create new normative
concerns with the making-up of alternative worlds (see also
Latour, 2004).
New Modes of Knowledge Production
During the past decades, STS have also increasingly turned to
analyzing the changing role of science in economy, policy, and
society. During the 1990s, a new phase of science-related policy
has taken shape, where basic research has become intimately
intertwined with production of goods and technological
development of relevance for all realms of society (Elzinga,
1997). At the same time parts of science have undergone
substantial transformations addressed, e.g., with the notion
mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994) characterized by
a diversication of the locations of scientic knowledge
production, an orientation toward problems that cannot be
solved by scientic research alone, require the participation of
actors outside academia and are situated in a context of high
uncertainty, and by demands for more social accountability
and reexivity.
STS interest has shifted accordingly to issues such as credi-
bility (whose knowledge-claims are accepted as trustworthy?),
expertise, the relation of science and policy, and the role of the
wider public and civil society in science and technology.
Science has become increasingly contested and at the same
time plays an ever more important role in policy, court rooms
the media or public controversies about various types of
problems. STS analyses various sites of such contestation, such
as the role of science in regulation and judiciary processes (e.g.,
Jasanoff, 1990), the inuence AIDS activists got on the design
of clinical trials for new AIDS drugs (Epstein, 1996), or patient
groups on pharmacological research (Callon and Rabeharisoa,
2003).
This potential conict between democracy and expertise is
also discussed in terms of a problem of extension by Collins
and Evans (2002), i.e., the question who should legitimately
participate in technical decision-making (see also Sismondo,
2010). Legitimate expertise extends beyond the provision of
scientic knowledge and encompasses other forms such as
contributory or interactional expertise, which facilitates
meaningful interaction between experts and nonscientic
groups. As Sheila Jasanoff highlights with her concept of
civic epistemologies (Jasanoff, 2005) such sciencepolicy
interactions crucially depend on, and interact with, political
culture and must conform to established ways of public
knowing in order to gain broad-based support.
Moreover, STS approaches have increasingly become
involved in studying and understanding various other
contemporary social and political issues and challenges,
such as climate change and the transition of systems of
mobility, energy, or agriculture toward greater sustain-
ability, the functioning of nancial markets and wider
processes of marketization and valuation, or the governance
of innovation and technological change to name but a few
of the pathways an engaged program of STS is currently
taking.
See also: Actor-Network Theory; Culture and Actor Network
Theory; Gender and Technology: From Exclusion to Inclusion?;
Reexivity in Science and Technology Studies; Science and
Technology Studies, Ethnomethodology of; Science, Sociology
of; Scientic Knowledge, Sociology of; Situated Knowledge,
Feminist and Science and Technology Studies Perspectives;
Social Constructionism; Technology, Social Construction of.
Bibliography
Barnes, B., 2007. Catching up with Robert Merton: scientic collectives as status
groups. Journal of Classical Sociology 7 (2), 179192.
Callon, M., 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the
scallops and the shermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and
Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,
pp. 196233.
Callon, M., Rabeharisoa, V., 2003. Research in the wild and the shaping of new
social identities. Technology in Society 25, 193204.
Collins, H.M., Evans, R., 2002. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise
and experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2), 235296.
Ellul, J., 1964. The Technological Society. Vintage Books, New York.
Elzinga, A., 1997. The science-society contract in historical transformation: with
special reference to epistemic drift. Social Science Information 36 (3),
411445.
Epstein, S., 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Fleck, L., 1979[1935]. Genesis and Development of a Scientic Fact. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fuller, S., 2007. New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. Polity, Cambridge.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994.
The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.
Gilllan, S.C., 1935. The Sociology of Invention; an Essay in the Social Causes of
Technic Invention and Some of its Social Results. Follett Publishing Company,
Chicago.
Haraway, D., 1991. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective. In: Haraway, D. (Ed.), Simians, Cyborgs, and
Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York, pp. 183276.
Harding, S.G., 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Womens
Lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Heintz, B., 1993. Wissenschaft im Kontext. Neuere Entwicklungstendenzen der Wis-
senschaftssoziologie. Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 45,
528552.
Hess, D.J., 1997. Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. NYU Press, New York;
London.
Hughes, T.P., 1983. Networks of Power. Electrication in Western Societies
18801930. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Jasanoff, S., 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the
United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Jasanoff, S., 2010. A eld of its own: the emergence of science and technology
studies. In: Frodeman, R., Thompson Klein, J., Mitcham, C. (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 191205.
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1995. Laboratory studies. The cultural approach to the study of science.
In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G.E., Petersen, J.C., Pinch, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Science
and Technology Studies. Sage Publications Inc, USA, pp. 140166.
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago; London.
Latour, B., 1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In: Knorr-Cetina, K.D.,
Mulkay, M. (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science.
Sage, London, pp. 141170.
Latour, B., 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters
of concern. Critical Inquiry 30, 225248.
Latour, B., Woolgar, S., 1979. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientic Facts.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
MacKenzie, D., 1978. Statistical theory and social interests: a case-study. Social
Studies of Science 8, 3583.
Mannheim, K., 1929. Ideologie und Utopie. F. Cohen, (Bonn).
Merton, R.K., 1973[1942]. The Normative structure of science. In: Merton, R.K.,
Storer, N.W. (Eds.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investi-
gations. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 267278.
Mol, A., 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press,
Durham, NC; London.
Mol, A., 2013. Mind your plate! the ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Social Studies of
Science 43 (3), 379396.
Science and Technology Studies, History of 205
Mumford, L., 1967. The Myth of the Machine. Technics and Human Development.
Secker & Warburg, London.
Pestre, D., 2004. Thirty years of science studies: knowledge, society and the political.
History & Technology 20 (4), 351369.
Pinch, T.J., 1997. Kuhn the conservative and radical interpretations: are some
mertonians Kuhnians and some Kuhnians Mertonians? Social Studies of Science
27 (3), 465482.
Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E., 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benet each other.
Social Studies of Science 14 (3), 399441.
Sismondo, S., 2008. Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In:
Hackett, E.J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies. MIT Press, London, pp. 1331.
Sismondo, S., 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Wiley-
Blackwell, Chichester.
Wajcman, J., 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity Press, Cam-
bridge, UK.
Woolgar, S., 2004. What happened to provocation in science and technology studies?
History and Technology: An International Journal 20 (4), 339349.
Woolgar, S., Lezaun, J., 2013. The wrong bin bag: a turn to ontology in science and
technology studies? Social Studies of Science 43 (3), 321340.
Yearley, S., 2005. Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of
Science. SAGE, London.
Zuckerman, H., 1988. The sociology of science. In: Smelser, N. (Ed.), Handbook of
Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 511574.