Species of Science Studies by Paul Alexander Armstrong A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Toronto © Copyright by Paul Alexander Armstrong 2013 Species of Science Studies Paul Alexander Armstrong Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Following Merton (1942) science studies has moved from the philosophy of science to a more sociologically minded analysis of scientific activity. This largely involves a shift away from questions that bear on the context of justification – a question of rationality and philosophy, to those that deal with the context of discovery. This thesis investigates changes in science studies in three papers: sociocultural evolutionary theories of scientific change; general trends in science studies - especially concerning the sociology of science; and a principle component analysis (PCA) that details the development and interaction between research programmes in science studies. This thesis describes the proliferation of research programmes in science studies and uses evolutionary theory to make sense of the pattern of change. ii Acknowledgments I am deeply indebted to many people for supporting me during this journey and contributing to this thesis. Throughout my graduate experience I have increasingly come to realize that mentorship is the single greatest factor that influences success. I am extremely grateful to my co-supervisor and mentor Professor Marion Blute for her faith in me and for sticking with me throughout my graduate career. There is no question that she saved my graduate career and for this I am grateful beyond words. Professor Blute has been the archtype of a mentor for me throughout the years. Her unwavering support and commitment helped me through many difficult times. She showed tremendous patience as I developed into a more mature, responsible student and her influence has set me on a path in academia that I am excited for. I wish to thank Professor Zaheer Baber and Professor Bernd Baldus for their help throughout this process and for their contributions throughout my graduate experience. Between last minute meetings for comprehensive exams to working together in courses I am most grateful for their help and mentorship. I owe a special thanks to the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto for giving me the opportunity to conduct my doctoral research. The faculty and staff I have encountered along the way have been professional, courteous, helpful, and understanding. I have made many friends along the way and I thank them all for their friendship, patience, and their support as I struggled both professionally and personally through this sometimes difficult process. Finally, it is difficult to express in words the feelings of love and gratitude I have for my parents and my brothers. Had it not been for their unconditional support I would not have had the confidence in myself to start on this path let alone persevere through the immense challenges I faced. I deeply regret not completing this thesis before my mother’s passing in July but she, and my father and brothers, was on my mind throughout my writing. Her strength and courage and the strength she brought out in all of us during her battle was my single greatest motivation to complete my research and it continues to motivate me as I start along a new path in life. iii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Unraveling Scientific Development: Sociocultural Evolutionary Theories of Science as a Process. .................................................................................................................. 4 1 Evolutionary Theory and Cultural Change ................................................................................ 4 2 General Theories of Scientific Change ...................................................................................... 4 3 Scientific Change: Variation, Selection, Reproduction, Pattern. ............................................... 5 4 Primary Considerations .............................................................................................................. 6 5 Evolutionary Theories of Science .............................................................................................. 8 5.1 Thomas Kuhn ...................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 Stephen Toulmin ................................................................................................................. 9 5.3 Karl Popper ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.4 David Hull ......................................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Marion Blute & Paul Armstrong ....................................................................................... 13 6 Debates and Criticism .............................................................................................................. 14 7 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 15 Chapter 3 Reports of the Death of the Sociology of Science Have Been Greatly Exaggerated ... 16 8 Introduction: The legend .......................................................................................................... 16 9 Data source and methods ......................................................................................................... 20 10 Research questions and results ................................................................................................. 22 10.1 Has the sociology of science become extinct? .................................................................. 22 iv 10.2 Given that it has not become extinct, has the “sociology of science” continued to be dominated by its parent, the “sociology of knowledge”, or come to be dominated by newer offshoots - for example the “sociology of scientific knowledge”, “social studies of science”, “social epistemology”, or “scientometrics”? ................................................ 23 10.3 Whatever the appropriate description of the level of institutionalization achieved (e.g. topic, field, research programme, paradigm, discipline etc.), does the sociology of knowledge, sociology of science and the newer enterprises constitute distinct ‘species’ in the sense that they are socially isolated from each other and fail to intercommunicate (in the way that members of different biological species fail to exchange genes or speakers of different languages fail to communicate with each other)? Or, on the other hand, are they varieties of the same species? ............................. 24 11 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 26 Chapter 4 The Evolution of Research Programmes: An Author Co-citation Analysis of Science Studies, 1949-2011 ..................................................................................................... 34 12 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 34 13 Sociology of Science and Theories of Scientific Change ........................................................ 34 14 Data Source and Methods ........................................................................................................ 37 15 Author Co-citation Analysis .................................................................................................... 38 16 Selection of Authors ................................................................................................................. 39 17 Proximity Matrix, Factor Analysis ........................................................................................... 40 18 Findings: 1964-1978 ................................................................................................................ 40 19 Findings: 1979-1993 ................................................................................................................ 45 20 Findings: 1994-2011 ................................................................................................................ 50 21 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 55 21.1 What is the level of substantive variation in science studies? .......................................... 55 21.2 How has this variation changed in time? .........................................................................