Advertisement

Configuring New Research Fields: How Policy, Place, and Organization Are Made to Matter

  • Martina MerzEmail author
  • Philippe Sormani
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 29)

Abstract

Contemporary science is typically conceived as an international endeavor. Especially the natural and technical sciences are seen as internationally constituted with their adoption of English as a lingua franca as well as widespread cooperation and mobility of researchers across national borders and continents. Such an international perspective on science, however, should not neglect that the configuration of individual research fields may vary considerably between locations, regions, and national contexts. Variation is particularly noticeable in the case of research fields in their nascent and early stages such as current nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and the neurosciences. It is this locally specific character of new research fields and how they come into being that this chapter and the present volume move into the spotlight.

Keywords

Research Field Synthetic Biology Scientific Practice Scientific Change Local Configuration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Most of the contributions to this volume were first presented at an international workshop, entitled The Local Configuration of New Research Fields: On Regional and National Diversity, which was held at the Department of Sociology, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, from June 14 to 16, 2012. We would like to thank all workshop participants and subsequent contributors to the volume for their respective contributions, as well as their patience regarding the editorial process. The initial workshop was financially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Research Committee of the University of Lucerne, and the Swiss Association for the Studies of Science, Technology, and Society (STS-CH). Acknowledgments are thus also due to these institutions.

References

  1. Benninghoff, M., and D. Braun. 2003. Policy learning in Swiss research policy – the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research. Research Policy 32: 1849–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bensaude Vincent, B. 2014. The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of “public engagement in science”. Public Understanding of Science 23: 238–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers, H., G. Button, and W. Sharrock. 1995. Workflow from within and without. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September 10–14, eds. H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, and K. Schmidt, 51–66. Stockholm: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-0349-7_4.
  4. Chubin, D.E. 1976. The conceptualization of scientific specialties. The Sociological Quarterly 17: 448–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, H. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, E., T. Shinn, and S. Sörlin. 1993a. The nationalization and denationalization of the sciences: An introductory essay. In Denationalizing science: The contexts of international scientific practice, Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 16, eds. E. Crawford et al., 1–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, E., T. Shinn, and S. Sörlin (eds.). 1993b. Denationalizing science: The contexts of international scientific practice, Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Dell’Ambrogio, M. (2014), Priorities and Challenges for the Swiss State Secretariat of Education, Research, and Innovation. Talk given at the Annual meeting of the Swiss Education, Research and Innovation Network (ERI-Net), Lugano, 23 Oct 2014.Google Scholar
  9. Doing, P. 2008. Give me a laboratory and I will raise a discipline: The past, present, and future politics of laboratory studies in STS. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, eds. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 279–318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edge, D.O., and M.J. Mulkay. 1976. Astronomy transformed: The emergence of radio astronomy in Britain. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Felt, U. 2009. Introduction: Knowing and living in academic research. In Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context, ed. U. Felt, 17–39. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  12. Felt, U., and T. Stöckelová. 2009. Modes of ordering and boundaries that matter in academic knowledge production. In Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context, ed. U. Felt, 41–124. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, M. 1998. On the sociology of scientific knowledge and its philosophical agenda. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29A(2): 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gläser, J. 2012. Scientific communities. In Handbuch Wissenschaftssoziologie, eds. S. Maasen, M. Kaiser, M. Reinhart, and B. Sutter, 151–162. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. 1981. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18(2): 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hackett, E. 2005. Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science 35: 787–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hacking, I. 1992. The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering, 29–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hacking, I. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hagstrom, W.O. 1970. Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields. In Communication among scientists and engineers, eds. C.E. Nelson and D.K. Pollock, 85–124. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. Hallonsten, O., and T. Heinze. 2012. Institutional persistence through gradual organizational adaption: Analysis of national laboratories in the USA and Germany. Science and Public Policy 39: 450–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hessels, L.K., and H. van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37: 740–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howlett, P., and M.S. Morgan (eds.). 2011. How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Isaac, J. 2012. Working knowledge: Making the human sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jasanoff, S. 2004a. The idiom of co-production. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, ed. S. Jasanoff, 1–12. Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jasanoff, S. 2004b. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, ed. S. Jasanoff, 13–45. Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, S. (ed.). 2004c. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, S. 2010. The politics of public reason. In The politics of knowledge, eds. P. Baert and F.D. Rubio, 11–32. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Kaiser, D. (ed.). 2005. Pedagogy and the practice of science: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1982. Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science 12: 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1983. The ethnographic study of scientific work: Toward a constructivist interpretation of science. In Science observed, eds. K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 115–140. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Knorr Cetina, K. 1995. Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 140–166. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  36. Kohler, R.E. 1978. Research specialties (Review of perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines), Science 199 (17 March): 1196–1197.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T.S. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Lemaine, G., R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay, and P. Weingart (eds.). 1976a. Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines. The Hague/Chicago: Mouton/Aldine.Google Scholar
  41. Lemaine, G., R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay, and P. Weingart. 1976b. Introduction. In Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines, eds. G. Lemaine et al., 1–23. The Hague/Chicago: Mouton/Aldine.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Livingstone, D.N. 2003. Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lynch, M. 1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  44. Lynch, M. 1988. Alfred Schutz and the sociology of science. In Worldly phenomenology: The continuing influence of Alfred Schutz, ed. L. Embree, 71–100. Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America.Google Scholar
  45. Lynch, M. 1993. Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lynch, M. 2014. From normative to descriptive and back: Science and technology studies and the practice turn. In Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science, eds. L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch, and V. Israel-Jost, 93–113. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Merton, R.K. 1973 [1942]. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Merz, M. 2006. The topicality of the difference thesis: Revisiting constructivism and the laboratory. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 1 (Special Issue): 11–24.Google Scholar
  49. Merz, M. 2015. Dynamique locale des nanosciences au croisement de disciplines établies. In Disciplines académiques en transformation: Entre innovation et résistance, eds. A. Gorga and J.-P. Leresche, 105–118. Paris: Editions des archives contemporaines.Google Scholar
  50. Michels, C., and U. Schmoch. 2012. The growth of science and database coverage. Scientometrics 93: 831–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mulkay, M.J., and D. Edge. 1976. Cognitive, technical and social factors in the growth of radio astronomy. In Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines, eds. G. Lemaine, R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay, and P. Weingart, 153–186. The Hague/Chicago: Mouton/Aldine.Google Scholar
  52. Münch, R. 2011. Akademischer Kapitalismus: Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  53. Nye, M.-J. 2011. Michael Polanyi and his generation: Origins of the social construction of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  55. Pickering, A. (ed.). 1992a. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Pickering, A. 1992b. From science as knowledge to science as practice. In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering, 1–26. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quéré, L. 1998. The still-neglected situation? Réseaux 6(2): 223–253.Google Scholar
  58. Rip, A. 1997. A cognitive approach to the relevance of science. Social Science Information 36(4): 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rip, A., and J.-P. Voss. 2013. Umbrella terms as mediators in the governance of emerging science and technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2): 39–59.Google Scholar
  60. Rouse, J. 2002. How scientific practices matter: Reclaiming philosophical naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Saxenian, A.L. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds.). 2001. The practice turn in contemporary theory. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Scott, W.R. 2004. Reflections on a half-century of organizational theory. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Shinn, T., and P. Ragouet. 2005. Controverses sur la science: Pour une sociologie transversaliste de l’activité scientifique. Paris: Editions Raisons d’agir.Google Scholar
  66. Sismondo, S. 2008. Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, eds. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 13–31. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Soler, L., S. Zwart, M. Lynch, and V. Israel-Jost (eds.). 2014a. Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Soler, L., S. Zwart, V. Israel-Jost, and M. Lynch. 2014b. Introduction. In Science after the practice turn in the philosophy, history, and social studies of science, eds. L. Soler, S. Zwart, M. Lynch, and V. Israel-Jost, 1–43. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Sormani, P. 2011. The Jubilatory YES! On the instant appraisal of an experimental finding. Ethnographic Studies 12: 59–77.Google Scholar
  70. Sormani, P. 2014. Respecifying lab ethnography. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  71. Sormani, P., E. Gonzalez-Martinez, and A. Bovet. 2011. Discovering work: A topical introduction. Ethnographic Studies 12: 1–11.Google Scholar
  72. Star, S.L., and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weick, K.E. 1969. The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  74. Weingart, P. 2001. Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  75. Weingart, P. 2003. Growth, differentiation, expansion and change of identity: The future of science. In Social studies of science and technology: Looking back ahead, Sociology of the sciences yearbook, vol. 23, eds. B. Joerges and H. Nowotny, 183–200. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  76. Weingart, P. 2005. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics 62(1): 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zammito, J.H. 2004. A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education ResearchAlpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtViennaAustria
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (TINT)University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Istituto Svizzero di RomaRomeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations