Department of Science and Studies

HPSCG42 of Science and Technology

Course Description and Objectives

This course introduces students to a set of concepts that will allow them to understand science and technology as social and systems of production. It takes a sociological look at the process by which knowledge is collectively produced by communities through historical and contemporary studies. This module also provides an introduction to the main scholars and traditions in the sociology of science and technology. By the end of this module students should:  Have an understanding of the way science and technology work as social processes, e.g. the way technical knowledge is produced by communities.  Have a detailed knowledge of the main concepts and theories in the sociology of science and technology.  Have developed a curiosity about the ways in which both influence and are influenced by science and technology.

Key Information

Session 2016-17 (1st semester). Postgraduate course. Timetable and Lecture Mondays 1pm-2pm Birkbeck Gordon Square (43) 122 Venue Seminar Mondays 2pm-3pm Birkbeck Gordon Square (43) 122 Assessment Analogy Essay (20%) – 1,000 words – 4 Nov.2016, 9pm. Applied Essay (80%) – 4,000 words - 14.Dec 2016, 9pm. Attendance requirement 70% Course tutor and contact Dr Meritxell Ramirez-i-Olle [email protected] Department of Science and Technology Studies, 22 Gordon Square, Room B15 (basement). Office hours Mondays 3-4pm or by appointment Topics and Schedule

UCL Lecture Topic and Seminar Reading Dates week (see reading list on Moodle) 1 The Sociological View(s) of Science: the “” 26-27 Sep

What is sociological about science? The lecture will introduce the arguments in favour of and against the sociology of scientific knowledge.

David Bloor (1991) [1976] “The Strong Programme in the Sociology of Knowledge”, in Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 3-23.

2 Observation and Interpretation: “ Shift” 3-4 Oct

Why do scientists see different things in nature? The lecture will examine the idea that scientists draw upon different cultural resources to interpret a diverse natural world.

Thomas Kuhn (1970) [1962] “Scientific Revolutions as Changes of World-View”, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 111-136.

3 Experimentation, Testing and Replication: “Experimenter’s 10-11 Oct Regress”

What role do experiments and tests play in science? The lecture will look at the ways in which scientists create experiments and draw conclusions from them.

Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch (1998) [1993] “A New Window on the Universe: The Non-Detection of Gravitational Radiation”, in The Golem: What You Should Know About Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 91-108.

4 Transmission: “Tacit Knowledge” 17-18 Oct

How is scientific knowledge transmitted? The lecture will investigate the conditions by which knowledge can and cannot be shared between individuals.

Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi (1995) “Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons”, American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1: 44-99.

5 Representations and Performances: “Inscription Devices” 24-25 Oct

How do scientists represent what they know? The lecture will inspect the work involved in producing scientific objects and the effects of these representations.

Bruno Latour (1986) [1976] “An Anthropologist visits the Laboratory”, in Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, N.J; Chichester: Princeton University Press: 43-88.

6 The Laboratory and Places of Knowledge: “Epistemic Culture” 31 Oct – 1 Nov

Where does science take place? The lecture will explore the laboratory as the main place where scientists generate knowledge.

Karin Knorr-Cetina (1999) “From Machines to Organisms: Detectors as Behavioural and Social Beings”, in Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University: 111-135.

7 Reading Week 7 Nov 8 Professional : “Boundary Work” 14-15 Nov

Why is science special? The lecture will look at the specialisation of scientists as a professional group.

Thomas Gieryn (1983) ‘‘Boundary Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists”, American Sociological Review, 48: 781- 795.

9 Gender and Racial Ideologies: “Situated ” 21-22 Nov

How do social understandings of gender and race affect scientific knowledge? The lecture will evaluate the institutional factors that exclude knowledge from women and non-European groups.

Donna Haraway (1988) “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, Feminist Studies, 14, 3: 575-599.

10 Networks of Reputation and Credit: “Matthew Effect” 28-29 Nov

What motivates scientists to do science? The lecture will consider the system of rewards and the political economy of science.

Robert K. Merton (1968) “The Matthew Effect in Science”, Science, Vol. 159, Nom. 3810.

11 The Proliferation of Experts: “” 5-6 Dec

Who else knows about the world? The lecture will inspect the groups who compete for or complement scientific authority and their strategies and sources of knowledge.

Epstein, Steven (1995) “The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20: 408-437.

12 Wrap-Up Session 12-13 Dec

Additional Sources

See lecture notes on Moodle for recommendations on specific readings for each session.

Barnes, Barry (1972) Sociology of Science: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barnes, Barry (1974) Scientific Knowledge and . London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David and Henry, John (1996) Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Barnes, Barry and Edge, David (eds) (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes: Open UP. Biagioli, Mario and Galison, Peter (eds) (1999) The Reader. New York: Routledge. Collins, Harry M. and Pinch, Trevor (2005) Dr. Golem: How to Think about Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Collins, Harry M. and Pinch, Trevor (1998) [1993] The Golem: What You Should Know about Science (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England; New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Collins, Harry M. and Pinch, Trevor (2014) [1998] The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleck, Ludwig (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fox Keller, Evelyn (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale UP. Gilbert, Nigel and Mulkay, Michael (1984) Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golinski, Jan (1998) Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Gooding, David, Pinch, Trevor and Schaffer, Simon (eds) (1989) The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Hackett, Edward et al. (2008) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Haraway, Donna (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and . New York: Routledge. Harding, Sandra (2008) Sciences From Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialisms and Modernities. Jasanoff, Sheila et al. (1995) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: Sage Publications. Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Mulkay, Michael (eds) (1983) Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage. Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Law, John (ed.) (1991) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge. Law, John, Callon, Michel and Rip, Arie (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Law, John; Mol, Annemarie (2002). Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. Lynch, Michael (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy (eds) (1999) [1985] The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham England: Open University Press 2nd ed. 2nd edition. Merton, Robert (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Mol, Annemarie (2002). The body multiple: in medical practice. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press Mulkay, Michael (1992) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge. Gregg Revivals. Pickering, Andy (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, , and Science. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Pickering, Andy (ed.) (1992) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shapin, Steven (1998) “Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociological Problems in the Location of Science”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23 (1): 5-12. Shapin, Steven (1995) “Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 211 (1): 289-321. Shapin, Steven (1992) “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate”, , 30: 333-69. Shapin, Steven (1995) “Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science”, Perspectives on Science, 3: 255-275. Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon (2011) [1985] Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2nd edition. Sismondo, Sergio (2004) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Oxford: Blackwell. Suchman, Lucy (2007) [1987] Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd edition. Yearley, Steve (2005) Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. London: Sage.

Podcasts

“The Life Scientific”, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Radio 4, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7

“How To Think About Science”(2012) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-to-think-about-science-part-1-24-1.2953274

“Thinking Allowed”, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Radio 4, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qy05

Assignments

Deadline Word Limit Analogy Essay (20%) 4 Nov. 2016, 9pm. 1000 word Applied Essay (80%) 14 Dec. 2016, 9pm. 4000 word

Analogy Essay

The analogy essay involves discussing one (any) seminar reading in relation to another scholarly text not included in the syllabus and selected by the student (previously agreed upon with me). The student will need to draw upon his/her personal experience and knowledge of other topics and social activities to expand and/or critique the argument put forward by the author of the seminar reading. To understand the purpose of the analogy essay, I recommend reading the essay by the sociologist of science Diane Vaughan, arguing for the importance of analogical reasoning (models, metaphors) in the refinement of ideas and theories. See “Theorizing: Analogy, Cases, and Comparative Social Organization”, in Richard A. Swedberg (ed.) (2014) Theorizing in Social Science, Stanford: Stanford University Press: 61-84.

Applied Essay

The applied essay involves applying one or a few course concepts (you should select at least one concept discussed after reading week) to analyse contemporary social issues. Below I offer five magazine articles, but you may choose others (you should consult with me about this first).

1. The real culprit behind the automaker’s woes may be the nature of engineering organizations themselves. Paul Kedrowsky, “An engineering theory of the Wolkswagen scandal, The New Yorker, October 15 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the- volkswagen-scandal .

2. Two opposed opinions about Caster Semenya’s participation at the Olympics Games in Rio 2016. Malcolm Gladwell and Nicholas Thompson “Caster Semenya and the Logic of Olympic Competition”, The New Yorker, August 12 2016, /http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/caster-semenya-and-the-logic-of- olympic-competition and Madeleine Pape (2016) “Why I now stand with Caster Semenya”, Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), August 8 2016 pro: http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/zela/article/2016/08/08/why-i-now-stand-caster- semenya

3. Exploring a Himalayan glacier. Dexter Filkins, “The End of Ice”, The New Yorker, April 4 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/04/investigating-chhota-shigri- glacier .

4. The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it. Ben Taub, “The Shadow Doctors”, The New Yorker, June 27 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/syrias-war-on-doctors.

5. Millions of microbes are yet to be discovered. Will one hold the ultimate cure? Raffi Khatchadourian, “The Unseen”, The New Yorker, June 20 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/20/miracle-microbes

Seminars

Students are expected to read all seminar readings and contribute to all seminar discussions. Each week one group of students will present one seminar reading and moderate the discussion. For each seminar reading, students should come prepared to answer these questions:

1. To what extent has the author identified a reasonable and relevant problem?

2. What are the advantages and limitations of the solution offered by the author?

3. Can the conclusions be generalised further?

Reading articles and books on the sociology of science can be particularly difficult as they often include detailed technical discussions about the specific scientific field and artefact of study. Below, I offer 12 reading strategies that should help you to read these articles more efficiently.

1. Start by understanding how a journal article, chapter or book is structured (sections). 2. Identify and clarify the specific terminology of the article. 3. Focus on the parts with high information content (title, table, images, section titles, beginning of paragraphs). 4. As you read, rely on your prior knowledge of other scholarly work and your world experience of other social activities to draw inferences from the reading. 5. Check the citations and references to see if you find other familiar sources. 6. Find out biographical information about the author (when he/she was born, where he studied, who was his/her supervisor). 7. Identify the purpose of the study and the audience at whom the article is aimed. 8. Work out the methodology (how the author generated data) and the secondary evidence (if any) that the author draws upon to put forward an argument. 9. Summarise the argument of the article in 50 words. 10. Clarify the significance that the author attributes to the results. 11. Draw a diagram of the argument put forward by the author. 12. Think of an alternative interpretation of the data that the author did not address.

Important Policy Information

Details of college and departmental policies relating to modules and assessments can be found in the STS Student Handbook: www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/handbook.

Coursework that is 10% or more over the word limit automatically gets 0%. Full details can be found in the following academic manual: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/ug-assessment/penalties.

UCL requires that you attend 70% of classes to qualify for a module pass. In order to be deemed “complete” on this module, students must attempt the two assignments.

Students who do not credit their sources of information will be penalised for plagiarism. Full details on acknowledging sources properly can be found here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism.