In academic research, science studies (also known as science and technology studies and sometimes science, technology, and society, or simply STS) is an umbrella term for a number of approaches devoted to studying science that emerged from developments in the history and philosophy of science (HPS) and the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) in the 1960s. Its practitioners often come from a wide variety of disciplines, usually history of science and technology, sociology of science, philosophy of science, anthropology, but also sometimes literature, art history, cultural studies, gender studies, history of consciousness, medicine, and law. While the scope of science studies is generally quite large, an overarching goal that applies to many science studies research projects is to understand how scientific knowledge is created, maintained, and used. Science studies deals with knowledge claims, which are ordinarily interpreted as claims to truth. Much research in science studies, however, takes a broad view of notion of "truth", preferring to note simply that science "works" to the extent that relevant communities believe in its claims. This has made the issue of relativism a prominent feature of debates within and about science studies. This is part of the legacy of the seminal contributions made by Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn to the field (Foucault's ''Archaeology of Knowledge'' and Kuhn's ''Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' provide useful statements of their positions at the time). Both of these approaches stress that "truth" is a historical construction which cannot be appealed to in order to explain the "success" of science, but is itself that which is explained by a careful study of how knowledge is actually produced. There is a general consensus in the field that the development of scientific knowledge, the development of technology, and the development of social institutions quite generally are related phenomena. The word "studies" is apt (as opposed to, for example, "theory") in that the majority of science studies practitioners carry out detailed investigations of particular phenomena (technological milieus, laboratory culture, science policy, the role of the university, etc.) without subscribing to any single comprehensive view of the topic. ==See also== ===Related topics=== * History of science and technology * Sociology of scientific knowledge * Theories of technology * List of topics (scientific method) * Philosophy of science * List of academic disciplines * Scientific method * Media Literacy * Free Culture * Media ecology * Open Source * Media studies * ''A Rape in Cyberspace'' * Computer-mediated communication * Science wars ===Related people=== * Bruno Latour * Michel Foucault * Donna Haraway * C. P. Snow * Neil Postman * Walter J. Ong * Marshall McLuhan * Lawrence Lessig * Howard Rheingold * Eric S. Raymond * [http://www.frontlist.com/catalog/detail.htm/0226401227/ Adrian Johns] * [http://www.cs.cornell.edu/annual_report/00-01/bios.htm/ William Arms] * [http://www.eastgate.com/people/Bolter.html/ Jay David Bolter] * [http://www.alteich.com/links/ceruzzi.htm/ Paul Ceruzzi] ==References== ===Journals=== ''Technology and Culture'', Johns Hopkins University Press ===General Science Studies=== * Biagioli, Mario, ed. ''The Science Studies Reader'' (New York: Routledge, 1999). * Snow, C.P. ''The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution'' (Cambridge: New York, 1993). * Latour, Bruno, "The Last Critique," ''Harper's Magazine'' (April 2004): 15-20. * Latour, Bruno. "Science in Action". Cambridge. 1987. * Latour, Bruno, "Do You Believe in Reality: News from the Trenches of the Science Wars," in ''Pandora's Hope'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999) * Mary Wyer, Donna Cookmeyer, Mary Barbercheck ed. ''Women, Science and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies'', Routledge 2001 ===Objectivity and Truth=== *Haraway, Donna J. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," in ''Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature'' (New York: Routledge, 1991), 183-201. ([http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/rt21/concepts/HARAWAY.html available online]) *Foucault, Michel, "Truth and Power," in ''Power/Knowledge'' (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997), 109-133. *Porter, Theodore M. ''Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). ===Medicine and Biology=== * Fadiman, Anne, ''The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down'' (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997). ([http://www.spiritcatchesyou.com/ website]) * Martin, Emily, "Toward an Anthropology of Immunology: The Body as Nation State," in Mario Biagioli, ed., ''The Science Studies Reader'' (New York: Routledge, 1999), 358-371. ===Media, Culture, Society and Technology=== * Neil Postman. ''Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.'' Penguin USA, 1985. ISBN 0670804541 * Lawrence Lessig. ''Free Culture.'' Penguin USA, 2004. ISBN 1594200068 * Howard Rheingold. ''Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution.'' Cambridge: Mass., Perseus Publishing. 2002. * Jeff Hancock. ''[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985709&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=35172167&CFTOKEN=76650139&ret=1#Fulltext/ Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior]'' * William J. Mitchell. ''[http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9606&ttype=2/ Rethinking Media Change]'' Thorburn and Jennings eds. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2003. * Donald MacKenzie. ''The Social Shaping of Technology'' Open University Press: 2nd ed. 1999. ISBN 0335199135 ==External links== *[http://www.brown.edu/Faculty/COSTS/ Committee on Science & Technology Studies (Brown University)] *[http://www.newscientist.com/ New Scientist] History of science Philosophy of science Sociology Anthropology Science studies __NOTOC__
The range of disciplines involved in this field is very large - economists (especially evolutionary economics), management scientists, geographers (especially looking at technological divisions of labour), political and policy researchers,and humanities like ethics, legal studies. There has been a major development of the field of "innovation studies", fusing many of the above, and focusing not just on invention and development of new technologies, but also on diffusion, implementation and use, reinvention, consumption processes, and the generation of knowledge in these processes. Technology studies differ from science studies in several ways, while using some of the same methods and concepts (e.g. paradigm). One key difference relates to the fact that technologies "work", they transform the world materially. In science studies, whether science "works" is often taken to be mainly a matter of convincing social constituencies as to its validity, since social researchers are loath to adjudicate on the knowledge claims of other scientists. ==Expansion== This article is very short, and hardly describes anything about how science as a social enterprise works. It's at least got to start with peer review, and should cover how explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge about techniques are dispersed throughout the community, the incentives to do science (economics, the reputation system, the tenure carrot), standards for behavior (and examples of violations), the peculiarly open nature of the enterprise, and its relationship to other social system, like government, the economy, and culture. -- User:Beland 02:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Should the article be about Science studies as a subject/discipline/approach or about one particular set of conclusions about how science works? I think the former—I don't think you'll ever come up with a model of "how science as a social enterprise works" that will really be representative of the gamut of even the most popular scholars on the subject. Additionally, it looks like you are just describing 20th century scientific enterprise at best. And Latour at the very least would object to any categorization which contains "economy," "government" and "culture" as entities independent from themselves, much less science! ;) --User:Fastfission 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree with Fastfission about the focus of the article. But Beland is right to point out that the survey of the object science studies (i.e. science) is very thin. Can the technology studies stuff be moved to its own entry, which could then be linked to? The subdisciplines of STS could also get their own entries. Things that are POV from the POV of STS, may be wholly objective from within, say, ANT, social epistemology, SSK, etc. The fact that these fields are part of STS, however, seems to be beyond dispute. As would be a history of STS as an "open site" for various approaches to the study (descriptive, empirical) and policing (prescriptive, normative) of research. An important turning point here is the status of Kuhn and Foucault in the late 60s, which seemed also to mark a convergence of concerns derives from Phil og Sci, Hist of Sci, Soc. of Sci Know, etc. In any case, the dominance of technology in the article is a bit odd. I'm new here so I don't know how one goes about moving a big chunk of text like that into its own article or how one makes the decision to do so. But I'm looking forward to getting to work on this. (I'm going to be working more or less simultaneously on the social epistemology entry.)--User:Peloria 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Whoa== I haven't looked at this article for awhile and now it has gigantic Excel images pasted in. I'm not sure I understand what they have to do with science studies or even technology studies. I am thinking that, if they belong somewhere, they don't belong in this article, which is on an academic discipline. Anybody else have thoughts on this? --User:Fastfission 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. An article on "Science Studies" should not have such a strong emphasis on "communication mediums and data storage mediums" - looks like someone pasted their school project or something.--User:Mtz206 14:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) ::I agree also. I've removed the passages and images and brought the article into sharper focus. Hope you like it.--User:Peloria 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Some changes== I've tried to be a little more specific about SS's interdisciplinary history, making it clear that SS emerges from SSK (among other things) rather than SSK being a subfield within SS. This also allowed me to free the names of Kuhn and Foucault from any direct association with these large background contexts, respecting their canonical status in many different fields. I'll be re-reading the whole entry and fixing the sentences as I add things over the next few weeks.--User:Peloria 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Science studies interdisciplinary fields
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Science_studies:
Science_studies
Science_studies
Science_studies
Science studies
In academic research, science studies (also known as science and technology studies and sometimes science, technology, and society, or simply STS) is an umbrella term for a number of approaches devoted to studying science that emerged from developments in the history and philosophy of science (HPS) and the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) in the 1960s. Its practitioners often come from a wide variety of disciplines, usually history of science and technology, sociology of science, philosophy of science, anthropology, but also sometimes literature, art history, cultural studies, gender studies, history of consciousness, medicine, and law. While the scope of science studies is generally quite large, an overarching goal that applies to many science studies research projects is to understand how scientific knowledge is created, maintained, and used. Science studies deals with knowledge claims, which are ordinarily interpreted as claims to truth. Much research in science studies, however, takes a broad view of notion of "truth", preferring to note simply that science "works" to the extent that relevant communities believe in its claims. This has made the issue of relativism a prominent feature of debates within and about science studies. This is part of the legacy of the seminal contributions made by Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn to the field (Foucault's ''Archaeology of Knowledge'' and Kuhn's ''Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' provide useful statements of their positions at the time). Both of these approaches stress that "truth" is a historical construction which cannot be appealed to in order to explain the "success" of science, but is itself that which is explained by a careful study of how knowledge is actually produced. There is a general consensus in the field that the development of scientific knowledge, the development of technology, and the development of social institutions quite generally are related phenomena. The word "studies" is apt (as opposed to, for example, "theory") in that the majority of science studies practitioners carry out detailed investigations of particular phenomena (technological milieus, laboratory culture, science policy, the role of the university, etc.) without subscribing to any single comprehensive view of the topic. ==See also== ===Related topics=== * History of science and technology * Sociology of scientific knowledge * Theories of technology * List of topics (scientific method) * Philosophy of science * List of academic disciplines * Scientific method * Media Literacy * Free Culture * Media ecology * Open Source * Media studies * ''A Rape in Cyberspace'' * Computer-mediated communication * Science wars ===Related people=== * Bruno Latour * Michel Foucault * Donna Haraway * C. P. Snow * Neil Postman * Walter J. Ong * Marshall McLuhan * Lawrence Lessig * Howard Rheingold * Eric S. Raymond * [http://www.frontlist.com/catalog/detail.htm/0226401227/ Adrian Johns] * [http://www.cs.cornell.edu/annual_report/00-01/bios.htm/ William Arms] * [http://www.eastgate.com/people/Bolter.html/ Jay David Bolter] * [http://www.alteich.com/links/ceruzzi.htm/ Paul Ceruzzi] ==References== ===Journals=== ''Technology and Culture'', Johns Hopkins University Press ===General Science Studies=== * Biagioli, Mario, ed. ''The Science Studies Reader'' (New York: Routledge, 1999). * Snow, C.P. ''The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution'' (Cambridge: New York, 1993). * Latour, Bruno, "The Last Critique," ''Harper's Magazine'' (April 2004): 15-20. * Latour, Bruno. "Science in Action". Cambridge. 1987. * Latour, Bruno, "Do You Believe in Reality: News from the Trenches of the Science Wars," in ''Pandora's Hope'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999) * Mary Wyer, Donna Cookmeyer, Mary Barbercheck ed. ''Women, Science and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies'', Routledge 2001 ===Objectivity and Truth=== *Haraway, Donna J. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," in ''Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature'' (New York: Routledge, 1991), 183-201. ([http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/rt21/concepts/HARAWAY.html available online]) *Foucault, Michel, "Truth and Power," in ''Power/Knowledge'' (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997), 109-133. *Porter, Theodore M. ''Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). ===Medicine and Biology=== * Fadiman, Anne, ''The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down'' (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997). ([http://www.spiritcatchesyou.com/ website]) * Martin, Emily, "Toward an Anthropology of Immunology: The Body as Nation State," in Mario Biagioli, ed., ''The Science Studies Reader'' (New York: Routledge, 1999), 358-371. ===Media, Culture, Society and Technology=== * Neil Postman. ''Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.'' Penguin USA, 1985. ISBN 0670804541 * Lawrence Lessig. ''Free Culture.'' Penguin USA, 2004. ISBN 1594200068 * Howard Rheingold. ''Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution.'' Cambridge: Mass., Perseus Publishing. 2002. * Jeff Hancock. ''[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985709&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=35172167&CFTOKEN=76650139&ret=1#Fulltext/ Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior]'' * William J. Mitchell. ''[http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9606&ttype=2/ Rethinking Media Change]'' Thorburn and Jennings eds. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2003. * Donald MacKenzie. ''The Social Shaping of Technology'' Open University Press: 2nd ed. 1999. ISBN 0335199135 ==External links== *[http://www.brown.edu/Faculty/COSTS/ Committee on Science & Technology Studies (Brown University)] *[http://www.newscientist.com/ New Scientist] History of science Philosophy of science Sociology Anthropology Science studies __NOTOC__
Science studies
The range of disciplines involved in this field is very large - economists (especially evolutionary economics), management scientists, geographers (especially looking at technological divisions of labour), political and policy researchers,and humanities like ethics, legal studies. There has been a major development of the field of "innovation studies", fusing many of the above, and focusing not just on invention and development of new technologies, but also on diffusion, implementation and use, reinvention, consumption processes, and the generation of knowledge in these processes. Technology studies differ from science studies in several ways, while using some of the same methods and concepts (e.g. paradigm). One key difference relates to the fact that technologies "work", they transform the world materially. In science studies, whether science "works" is often taken to be mainly a matter of convincing social constituencies as to its validity, since social researchers are loath to adjudicate on the knowledge claims of other scientists. ==Expansion== This article is very short, and hardly describes anything about how science as a social enterprise works. It's at least got to start with peer review, and should cover how explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge about techniques are dispersed throughout the community, the incentives to do science (economics, the reputation system, the tenure carrot), standards for behavior (and examples of violations), the peculiarly open nature of the enterprise, and its relationship to other social system, like government, the economy, and culture. -- User:Beland 02:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Should the article be about Science studies as a subject/discipline/approach or about one particular set of conclusions about how science works? I think the former—I don't think you'll ever come up with a model of "how science as a social enterprise works" that will really be representative of the gamut of even the most popular scholars on the subject. Additionally, it looks like you are just describing 20th century scientific enterprise at best. And Latour at the very least would object to any categorization which contains "economy," "government" and "culture" as entities independent from themselves, much less science! ;) --User:Fastfission 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree with Fastfission about the focus of the article. But Beland is right to point out that the survey of the object science studies (i.e. science) is very thin. Can the technology studies stuff be moved to its own entry, which could then be linked to? The subdisciplines of STS could also get their own entries. Things that are POV from the POV of STS, may be wholly objective from within, say, ANT, social epistemology, SSK, etc. The fact that these fields are part of STS, however, seems to be beyond dispute. As would be a history of STS as an "open site" for various approaches to the study (descriptive, empirical) and policing (prescriptive, normative) of research. An important turning point here is the status of Kuhn and Foucault in the late 60s, which seemed also to mark a convergence of concerns derives from Phil og Sci, Hist of Sci, Soc. of Sci Know, etc. In any case, the dominance of technology in the article is a bit odd. I'm new here so I don't know how one goes about moving a big chunk of text like that into its own article or how one makes the decision to do so. But I'm looking forward to getting to work on this. (I'm going to be working more or less simultaneously on the social epistemology entry.)--User:Peloria 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Whoa== I haven't looked at this article for awhile and now it has gigantic Excel images pasted in. I'm not sure I understand what they have to do with science studies or even technology studies. I am thinking that, if they belong somewhere, they don't belong in this article, which is on an academic discipline. Anybody else have thoughts on this? --User:Fastfission 04:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. An article on "Science Studies" should not have such a strong emphasis on "communication mediums and data storage mediums" - looks like someone pasted their school project or something.--User:Mtz206 14:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) ::I agree also. I've removed the passages and images and brought the article into sharper focus. Hope you like it.--User:Peloria 22:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Some changes== I've tried to be a little more specific about SS's interdisciplinary history, making it clear that SS emerges from SSK (among other things) rather than SSK being a subfield within SS. This also allowed me to free the names of Kuhn and Foucault from any direct association with these large background contexts, respecting their canonical status in many different fields. I'll be re-reading the whole entry and fixing the sentences as I add things over the next few weeks.--User:Peloria 05:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Science studies
Science studies interdisciplinary fields
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Science_studies:
Science_studies
Science_studies
Science_studies
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
