DOCSLIB.ORG

HPSCG42 Sociology of Science and Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HPSCG42 Sociology of Science and Technology Department of Science and Technology Studies HPSCG42 Sociology 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 institutions and systems of knowledge 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 societies 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 “Strong Programme” 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: “Paradigm 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 Ideologies: “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 Knowledges” 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: “Citizen Science” 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 Sociological Theory. 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 Science Studies 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' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golinski, Jan (1998) Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History 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 Technoscience. 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 Society. 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: Ethnomethodology 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: ontology 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, Agency, 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:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TOWARDS a SOCIOLOGY of CURIOSITY Theoretical and Empirical Consideration of the Epistemic Drive Notion
    TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF CURIOSITY Theoretical and Empirical Consideration of the Epistemic Drive Notion by Ariel Bineth Supervisor: Dr. Jean-Louis Fabiani Second Reader: Dr. Alexandra Kowalski A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Central European University In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts Budapest, Hungary June 2020 i ABSTRACT Curiosity has long been a taken for granted concept in the popular imagination and a marginalized topic in academic discourse, especially in the field of sociology. However, studies in history and philosophy bring key reasons for developing an explicitly sociological treatment of the concept. This thesis provides an argument for the social production of curiosity. On the strength of its motivating characteristic, the essay reformulates curiosity as an epistemic drive in society which organizes the social production of knowledge under given socio-historical and local-cultural circumstances. In the first part of the thesis, historical, philosophical, and sociological literature is reviewed to address common preconceptions of curiosity and give a context for the argument. Then a theoretical apparatus is developed considering the emergence, development, and impact of epistemic drives which serves as a foundation for a new perspective on what motivates the social production of knowledge. The second part of the thesis focuses on the empirical applicability of the epistemic drive notion of curiosity. As a case study, the problem of economic incentives in scientific research is considered. After presenting data on global climate change investments and U.S. federal research funding, the proposition is formed that economic incentives put research projects with short-term profitability at a significant advantage in acquiring funding compared to projects with little to none immediate economic return.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociology As Scientific Knowledge
    E-ISSN 2240-0524 Journal of Educational and Vol 9 No 3 ISSN 2239-978X September 2019 Social Research . Research Article © 2019 Sandro Serpa and Carlos Miguel Ferreira. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Sociology as Scientific Knowledge Sandro Serpa Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of the Azores, Portugal; Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences – CICS.UAc/ CICS.NOVA.UAc, Interdisciplinary Centre for Childhood and Adolescence – NICA – UAc Carlos Miguel Ferreira Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences—CICS.NOVA Doi: 10.2478/jesr-2019-0035 Abstract Sociology is a science with specificities and which can potentially offer a more rigorous knowledge about reality. The goal of this position paper is, by means of a thorough literature review, to contribute to demonstrating the urgency of using a sociological stance in a more complete understanding of the social, as well as of Sociology itself as a science. It is concluded that Sociology, a multi-paradigmatic science, seeks to articulate macro-social dynamics with local processes, allowing to connect the subjective significances with the practices, and which focus on the articulations between systems and actors, between structures and practices, between the reality of the social conditions of existence, and the social construction of reality. As an implication, Sociology as a scientific representation and practice of the social, can be cumbersome by helping to dismantle commonly shared preconceived ideas about the instituted social order. Keywords: sociology, scientific knowledge, science, research 1. Introduction In today’s world, obtaining knowledge is critical in a context of the weakening of the classic frameworks of several of the socialisation institutions (Torres, 2016; Lellouche, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Sociology of Software Architecture
    THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIOLOGY OF SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE H. A. KASSIR Ph.D. 2019 THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIOLOGY OF SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE HASSAN ABBAS KASSIR A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of East London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2019 2 of 389 Abstract The dialectical interplay of technology and sociological development goes back to the early days of human development, starting with stone tools and fire, and coming through the scientific and industrial revolutions; but it has never been as intense or as rapid as in the modern information age of software development and accelerating knowledge society (Mansell and Wehn, 1988; and Nico, 1994, p. 1602-1604). Software development causes social change, and social challenges demand software solutions. In turn, software solutions demand software application architecture. Software architecture (“SA”) (Fielding and Taylor, 2000) is a process for “defining a structural solution that meets all the technical and operations requirements...” (Microsoft, 2009, Chapter I). In the SA process, there is neither much emphasis on the sociological requirements of all social stakeholders nor on the society in which these stakeholders use, operate, group, manage, transact, dispute, and resolve social conflicts. For problems of society demanding sociological as well as software solutions, this study redefines software application architecture as “the process of defining a structured solution that meets all of the sociological , technical, and operational requirements…” This investigation aims to lay the groundwork for, evolve, and develop an innovative and novel sub-branch of scientific study we name the “Sociology of Software Architecture” (hereinafter referred to as “SSA”).
    [Show full text]
  • Science Studies Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge
    Sabine Maasen / Matthias Winterhager (eds.) Science Studies Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 1 ) T00_01 schmutztitel.p 286938514390 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 2 ) vakat 002.p 286938514406 Sabine Maasen / Matthias Winterhager (eds.) Science Studies Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 3 ) T00_03 innentitel.p 286938514414 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Science studies : probing the dynamics of scientific knowledge / Sabine Maasen / Matthias Winterhager (ed.). – Bielefeld : transcript, 2001 ISBN 3-933127-64-5 © 2001 transcript Verlag, Bielefeld Umschlaggestaltung: Kordula Röckenhaus, Bielefeld Satz: digitron GmbH, Bielefeld Druck: Digital Print, Witten ISBN 3-933127-64-5 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 4 ) T00_04 impressum.p 286938514422 To Peter Weingart and, of course, Henry Holorenshaw 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 5 ) T00_05 widmung.p 286938514430 09.05.01 --- Projekt: transcript.maasen.winterhager / Dokument: FAX ID 012a286938514334|(S. 6 ) vakat 006.p 286938514438 Contents Introduction 9 Science Studies. Probing the Dynamics of Scientific Knowledge Sabine Maasen and Matthias Winterhager 9 Eugenics – Looking at the Role of Science Anew 55 A Statistical Viewpoint on the Testing of Historical Hypotheses: The Case of Eugenics Diane B. Paul 57 Humanities – Inquiry Into the Growing Demand for Histories 71 Making Sense Wolfgang Prinz 73 Bibliometrics – Monitoring Emerging Fields 85 A Bibliometric Methodology for Exploring Interdisciplinary, ‘Unorthodox’ Fields of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology: Theory and Applications
    1 2 Social Epistemology: Theory and 3 Applications 4 5 6 ALVIN I. GOLDMAN 7 8 9 1. Mainstream Epistemology and Social Epistemology 10 11 Epistemology has had a strongly individualist orientation, at least 12 since Descartes. Knowledge, for Descartes, starts with the fact of 13 one’s own thinking and with oneself as subject of that thinking. 14 Whatever else can be known, it must be known by inference from 15 one’s own mental contents. Achieving such knowledge is an individ- 16 ual, rather than a collective, enterprise. Descartes’s successors largely 17 followed this lead, so the history of epistemology, down to our own 18 time, has been a predominantly individualist affair. 19 There are scattered exceptions. A handful of historical epistemolo- 20 gists gave brief space to the question of knowing, or believing justifi- 21 ably, based on the testimony of others. Testimony-based knowledge 22 would be one step into a more social epistemology. Hume took it for 23 granted that we regularly rely on the factual statements of others, and 24 argued that it is reasonable to do so if we have adequate reasons for 25 trusting the veracity of these sources. However, reasons for such 26 trust, according to Hume, must rest on personal observations of 1 27 people’s veracity or reliability. Thomas Reid took a different view. 28 He claimed that our natural attitude of trusting others is reasonable 29 even if we know little if anything about others’ reliability. 30 Testimony, at least sincere testimony, is always prima facie credible th 31 (Reid, 1970: 240–241).
    [Show full text]
  • From Fleck's Denkstil to Kuhn's Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability Babette E
    Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Philosophy Collections 2003 From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability Babette Babich Fordham University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, Medicine and Health Commons, Philosophy of Science Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons Recommended Citation Babich, Babette, "From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability" (2003). Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections. 7. https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This article was downloaded by:[Ingenta Content Distribution] On: 23 December 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 768420433] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427740 From Fleck's Denkstil
    [Show full text]
  • HPSC0105 Sociology of Science & Technology Course Syllabus
    HPSC0105 Sociology of Science & Technology Course Syllabus 2019-20 session | Edward Thomas Bankes | [email protected] Course Information This course examines the complex relationship between science and society. It also takes a sociological look at the process by which knowledge is constructed, using both historical and contemporary studies. The module also introduces students to the main currents of thought which have been influential in sociology of science. Basic course information Course See Moodle website: Moodle Web See Moodle, search HPSC0105 site: Assessment: 3-hour exam - 50% and essay (2500 words) - 50% Timetable: See UCL online timetable Prerequisites: None. Course aimed at 2nd and 3rd years Required texts: See below Course tutor(s): Mr Edward Thomas Bankes Contact: [email protected] Web: - Office location: 22 Gordon Square, Room B14 1 Schedule The course is split between nine topics in the sociology of science and sociology. The first four topics explore the history of the field, looking to the key moments in the maturation of the sociology of science as an academic discipline in its own right and as a way of understanding science in the world. The subsequent topics are more thematic, looking at issues that have been (and continue to be) of interest to scholars in the field. Following an introductory seminar in the first session, the lecture for each topic will take place in the second half of the session. The seminar will take place the following week in the first half of the next session. UCL Topic Activity Week 6 Introductory Seminar Core What does it mean to study science sociologically? readings can 1: Starting points: From Functionalist Sociology of be found in this syllabus.
    [Show full text]
  • Postpositivism and Accounting Research : a (Personal) Primer on Critical Realism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Online Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal Volume 4 Issue 4 Australasian Accounting Business and Article 2 Finance Journal 2010 Postpositivism and Accounting Research : A (Personal) Primer on Critical Realism Jayne Bisman Charles Sturt University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/aabfj Copyright ©2010 Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal and Authors. Recommended Citation Bisman, Jayne, Postpositivism and Accounting Research : A (Personal) Primer on Critical Realism, Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 4(4), 2010, 3-25. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Postpositivism and Accounting Research : A (Personal) Primer on Critical Realism Abstract This paper presents an overview and primer on the postpositivist philosophy of critical realism. The examination of this research paradigm commences with the identification of the underlying motivations that prompted a personal exploration of critical realism. A brief review of ontology, epistemology and methodology and the research philosophies and methods popularly applied in accounting is then provided. The meta-theoretical basis of critical realism and the ontological and epistemological assumptions that go towards establishing the ‘truth’ and validity criteria underpinning this paradigm are detailed, and the relevance and potential applications of critical realism to accounting research are also discussed. The purpose of this discussion is to make a call to diversify the approaches to accounting research, and – specifically – ot assist researchers to realise the potential for postpositivist multiple method research designs in accounting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Positivism
    Dylan Riley The Paradox of Positivism The essays in The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences contribute to a historical and comparative sociology of social science by systematically com- paring the rises, falls, and absences of ‘‘methodological positivism’’ across the human sciences. Although all of the essays are of extremely high quality, three contributions develop the argument most fully: George Steinmetz’s introduction and William H. Sewell Jr.’s and Steinmetz’s contributions to the volume. My remarks focus on these three pieces, drawing on the other contributions to illustrate aspects of the argument or to suggest tensions that need exploration. What Is Positivism? What are the authors trying to explain? The term positivism has at least three meanings. It can be a commitment to social evolution in the sense of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. It can refer to an articulated philosophical tra- dition: logical positivism. Or it can refer to a set of scientific research prac- tices: methodological positivism. It is the last meaning that is most relevant for Steinmetz (2005c: 109). Methodological positivism refers to a concept of knowledge, a concept of social reality, and a concept of science. First, it is an epistemology that identifies scientific knowledge with covering laws—that is, statements of the type ‘‘if A occurs, then B will follow.’’ Second, it is an ontology that equates existence with objects that are observable. Third, it is associated with a self- understanding of scientific activity in which social science is independent
    [Show full text]
  • (Post-)Positivism, Social Constructionism
    Alvesson 2e-3878-Ch-02:Gergen(2e)-3810-ch-06.qxp 4/7/2009 8:54 PM Page 15 2 (P OST -) POSITIVISM , SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM , CRITICAL REALISM : THREE REFERENCE POINTS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE In this chapter we will discuss three overarching philosophies of science: positivism and post-positivism, social constructionism, and finally, critical realism. We take up the three orientations as a conceptual, terminologic, and thematic general background to the qualitative methodologies that follow. All three cut across the quantitative/ qualitative dividing-line. Although the main thrust of positivism is quantitative, there have been cases of qualitative positivism, for instance in historiography. Conversely, social constructionism is mainly qualitative, but quantitative social constructionist studies do exist. Finally, critical realism bridges quantitative and qualitative studies – there is no tendency for critical realists to favour either of these type of studies. During the twentieth century, positivism became, and remained for a long time, the dominating philosophy of science. Theory and data, induction and deduction, law-like statements, verification and falsification, were key words. In the second half of the century, positivism came under increasing attack from internal sources – the post-positivists – as well as external opponents; and in the last third of the century, philosophical positivism rapidly deflated. Positivism has some similarities to the data-oriented methods discussed in Chapter 3, especially grounded theory; what is perhaps less well known is that it has also been alluded to by Foucault, and has some paradoxical traits in common with postmodernism; important ideas in post-positivism have been influential to postmodernist thought (see Chapter 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Post Positivism Final Draft
    Aberystwyth University Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism Hamati-Ataya, Inanna Published in: International Studies Quarterly DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00710.x Publication date: 2012 Citation for published version (APA): Hamati-Ataya, I. (2012). Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism. International Studies Quarterly, 56(2), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00710.x General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Aberystwyth Research Portal (the Institutional Repository) are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Aberystwyth Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Aberystwyth Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. tel: +44 1970 62 2400 email: [email protected] Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 Beyond Post/Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism INANNA HAMATI-ATAYA International Studies Quarterly (2012) 56(2): 291-305 This paper explores Pragmatism’s potential for transcending the antagonism between positivism and post-positivism, through the work of Morton Kaplan, who combines a Pragmatist theory of knowledge with a systems theory of world politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Imaginaries – P. 1 Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity Sheila Jasanoff Techn
    Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity Sheila Jasanoff Technological innovation often follows on the heels of science fiction, lagging authorial imagination by decades or longer. A hundred and fifty years passed between the youthful Mary Shelley’s fantastic story of a vengeful creature brought to life by Dr. Frankenstein and the production of new life forms in twentieth-century biological laboratories (Shelley 2008 [1818]). Jules Verne’s Nautilus, piloted by Captain Nemo, took to the ocean depths well before real submarines went on such long or distant voyagings (Verne 1887). At the dawn of the Progressive era, the American socialist Edward Bellamy (1889) foresaw an economy fueled by rapid communication, credit cards, and in-home delivery of goods; a hundred years on, those imagined revolutions have become routine. Aldous Huxley (1932) fantasized an assembly-line of artificial human reproduction to serve state purposes twenty years before the unraveling of the structure of DNA, which in turn paved the way for the currently forbidden cloning of human beings. Arthur C. Clarke (1968) created the scheming, lip-reading computer Hal thirty years before IBM programmers developed Deep Blue to beat chess master Gary Kasparov at his own game. And interplanetary travel was in the minds of such writers as H. G. Wells, Fred Wilcox, and Fred Hoyle appreciably before Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon with his “giant leap for mankind.” Belying the label “science fiction,” however, works in this genre are also fabulations of social worlds, both utopic and dystopic. Shelley’s lab-generated monster turns murderous because he is excluded from society by his abnormal birth, and hence is denied the blessings of companionship and social life enjoyed by his creator.
    [Show full text]