Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 101–112 | Cite as

Social Constructivism in Science and Technology Studies

  • Michael LynchEmail author
Theoretical / Philosophical Paper

Abstract

Berger and Luckmann’s concept of “social construction” has been widely adopted in many fields of the humanities and social sciences in the half-century since they wrote The Social Construction of Reality. One field in which constructivism was especially provocative was in Science and Technology Studies (STS), where it was expanded beyond the social domain to encompass the practices and contents of contemporary natural science. This essay discusses the relationship between social construction in STS and Berger and Luckmann’s original conception of it, and identifies problems that arose from indiscriminate uses of constructivism.

Keywords

Science and Technology Studies (STS) Sociology of scientific knowledge Social constructivism Natural science 

References

  1. Anderson, R., & Sharrock, W. W. (1992). Epistemology: Professional skepticism. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 51–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, P. L. (1963). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. New York: Anchor, Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor, Doubleday.Google Scholar
  4. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Coulter, J. (1989). Mind in action. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., & Lewis, M. W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (Eds.). (1982). Rationality and relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Keller, E. F. (1984). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Labinger, J. A., & Collins, H. M. (Eds.). (2001). The one culture? A conversation about science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B. (1986). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–259). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop talk and shop work in a research laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch, M. (1998). The discursive production of uncertainty: The O.J. Simpson “dream team” and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science, 28(5/6), 829–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch, M., & Cole, S. (2005). Science and technology studies on trial: Dilemmas of expertise. Social Studies of Science, 35(3), 269–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rouse, J. (1992). What are cultural studies of scientific knowledge? Configurations, 1(1), 57–94.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shapin, S. (1975). Phrenological knowledge and the social structure of early nineteenth-century Edinburgh. Annals of Science, 32, 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations