Sociologics: An analytical tool for examining socioscientific discourse
- 122 Downloads
Latour (1987) introduced the framework of sociologics to study the construction, accumulation, and mobilisation of knowledge in the face of controversy by means of unpredictable and heterogeneous networks. The framework centres around five questions: How are causes and effects attributed? What points (ideas) are linked to which other? What are the size and strength of these links? Who are the most legitimate spokespersons? and How are the elements in a network modified during the controversy? Latour calls the method of deriving answers to these five questions “sociologics”. Recognising the usual asymmetry of knowledge production, sociologics is concerned with how some knowledge is rendered more credible and powerful than others. The production of knowledge is considered contentious because knowledge is socially constructed in a world where discourse, politics, knowledge, and power are inextricably related. I argue that the framework of sociologics extends commonly used analytical frameworks in socioscientific research in education as, unlike many previous forms of analysis, sociologics foregrounds the social construction of knowledge (as evidenced in discourse) and highlights the contentious, complex, unpredictable, and dynamic nature of knowledge production prevalent in these issues.
KeywordsAnalytical Framework Knowledge Production Social Construction Toxic Waste Actor Network Theory
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bernstein, R. J. (1991).The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.Google Scholar
- Fountain, R. M. (1995). Sociologics as an analytical framework to examine students' discourse in socioscientific issues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
- Fraser, N. (1989).Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Gaskell, P. J. (1994, August).Assessing STS Literacy: What's rational? Paper presented at the IOSTE Symposium, De Koningshos Veldhouen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Gaskell, P. J., Fleming, R., Fountain, R., & Ojelel, A. (1992). British Columbia Assessment of Science. 1991. Technical Report III: Socioscientific Issues Component (FCG 188). Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data (ISBN 0-7726-1653-1).Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987).Science in action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987).Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Science in schools and everywhere else: what science educators should know about science and technology studies.Studies in Science Education, 29, 1–44.Google Scholar
- Rouse, J. (1993). Foucault and the natural sciences. In J. Caputo, & M. Yount (Eds.),Foucault and the critique of institutions (pp. 137–162). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
- Schwab, J. (1960). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.),The teaching of science. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values.International Journal of Science Education, 14, 431–444.Google Scholar