Advertisement

Minerva

, 49:333 | Cite as

Bourdieu and Science Studies: Toward a Reflexive Sociology

  • David J. HessEmail author
Article

Abstract

Two of Bourdieu’s fundamental contributions to science studies—the reflexive analysis of the social and human sciences and the concept of an intellectual field—are used to frame a reflexive study of the history and social studies of science and technology as an intellectual field in the United States. The universe of large, Ph.D.-granting graduate programs is studied in two parts. In the first analysis, relations between institutional position and disciplinary type are explored by department. A positive correlation exists between historians of science and institutional position (as higher prestige or capital). In the second analysis, attention to intellectual tastes for research topics is explored at an individual level with respect to departmental position and the individual’s discipline and gender. Scholars in nonelite history of science departments have low field interest in democracy, social movements, or public participation; environment or sustainability; and gender, race, or sexuality; whereas those in history of technology programs and nonelite STS programs have a higher field interest in those areas, and historians of technology have a higher interest in class or labor issues. Among social scientists, there is a higher interest among scholars in nonelite programs in environment or sustainability and in democracy, social movements, or public participation.

Keywords

Bourdieu Inequality Science STS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Ken Simons for comments the regression table, and the many helpful suggestions from the editors and reviewers.

References

  1. Albert, Mathieu. 2003. Universities and the Market Economy: The Differential Impact on Knowledge Production in Sociology and Economics. Higher Education 45: 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnoldi, Jakob. 2007. Universities and the Public Recognition of Expertise. Minerva 45: 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Social Science Information 14(6): 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1981. The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Animadversiones in Mertonem. In Robert Merton: Consensus and Controversy, eds. Jon Clark, Celia Modgil, and Sohan Midgil, 297–301. New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The History of Scientific Reason. Sociological Forum 6(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Science of Science and Reflexivity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burris, Val. 2004. The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in Ph.D. Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review 69(2): 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutliffe, Stephen. 1989. The Emergence of STS as an Academic Field. Research in Philosophy and Technology, vol. 9: Ethics and Technology, ed. Carl Mitcham, pp. 287–301.Google Scholar
  14. Fox, Mary Frank. 1994. Women and Science Careers. In Handbook of Science and Technology, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerry Markle, James Peterson, and Trevor Pinch, 205–223. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, Mary Frank. 2005. Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity among Scientists. Social Studies of Science 35(1): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frickel, Scott, Sahra Gibbon, Jeff Howard, Joana Kempner, Gwen Ottinger, and David Hess. 2010. Undone Science: Social Movement Challenges to Dominant Scientific Practice. Science, Technology and Human Values 35(4): 444–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore, (eds.) 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gieryn, Thomas. 2006. Review of Science of Science and Reflexivity. Contemporary Sociology 35: 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenacre, Michael. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hess, David. 1997. Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hess, David. 2007. Alternative Pathways in Science and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hess, David. 2009. The Potentials and Limitations of Civil Society Research: Getting Undone Science Done. Sociological Inquiry 79(3): 306–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, Kyung-Man. 2009. What Would a Bourdieuian Sociology of Scientific Truth Look Like? Social Science Information 48(1): 57-79.Google Scholar
  24. Kleinman, Daniel. 1998. Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in a Commercial World. Science, Technology, and Human Values 23(3): 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleinman, Daniel. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology at the Millennium. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  26. Knorr, Karin. 1977. Producing and Reproducing Knowledge. Social Science Information 16: 669–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Long, J., and Mary Fox Scott. 1995. Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mialet, Hélène. 2003. The ‘Righteous Wrath’ of Pierre Bourdieu. Social Studies of Science 33(4): 613–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Panofsky, Aaron. nd. “Interdisciplinarity as Scientific Capital Exchange: The Case of Behavioral Genetics.” http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/4/8/0/pages184808/p184808-1.php.
  32. Roy, Rustum. nd. History of the STS Program at Penn State. http://www.sts.psu.edu/contact-about/history-of-the-sts-program-at-penn-state.
  33. Sallas, Jeffrey, and Jane Zavisca. 2007. Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sismondo, Sergio. 2005. “Review of Science of Science and Reflexivity.” Canadian Journal of Sociology online March-April 1-2.Google Scholar
  35. Wainwright, Steven, Mike Michael, and Clare Williams. 2009. Shifting Paradigms? Reflections on Regenerative Medicine, Embryonic Stem Cells, and Pharmaceuticals. Sociology of Health and Illness 30(6): 959–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wynne, Brian. 2005. Risk as Globalizing ‘Democratic’ Discourse? Framing Subjects and Citizens. In Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, eds. Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones, and Brian Wynne, 66–82. London: Zed.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Science and Technology Studies DepartmentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations