Advertisement

A Conceptual Framework

  • John H. Perkins

Abstract

Understanding the relationships between science and technology has long been a central problem for those who have studied the generation of expertise. The fundamental questions focus on (1) What is the relationship between changes in the two, i.e., does technological change depend upon scientific change or vice versa, are the two best seen as independent ventures, or is a more complex relationship based upon mutual interactions involved? (2) How do the two areas compare in their modes of work, social organizations, motivations, and personnel? (3) What relationship does each bear to the reality of the natural, material world that exists independently of human society?

Keywords

Insect Control Scientific Change Technological Expertise Boll Weevil Entomological Society 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Industrialized societies of the twentieth century can make a sharp distinction between scientist and technologist on the basis of separate professional organizations. Distinctions between the two modes of activity were more difficult to make before the mid-nineteenth century, and contrasting interpretations of their relationships have been presented. R. A. Buchanan argues that science and technology before 1850 are both reflections of a single “Promethean Revolution” that began in Medieval Europe. The distinctions we see today have been the result of professionalization [“The Promethean Revolution: Science Technology and History” in History of Technology 1976, A. Rupert Hall and Norman Smith, eds. (London: Mansell, 1976), pp. 77–83]. Otto Mayr argues that a search for one relationship between science and technology is bound to fail because there have been many [The science-technology relationship as a historiographie problem, Technology and Culture 17 (1976): 663–673]. Edwin Layton has argued that science and technology were separate before the nineteenth century but came into closer relationships afterward; they still can be distinguished, however, by professional organization and the element of design in technology, among other factors [American ideologies of science and engineering, Technology and Culture 17 (1976): 688–701].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The nature of scientific knowledge and how it is created has been a lively field of study since the appearance of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. A convenient collection of some of the important papers surrounding Kuhn’s work is in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970), 282 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carl Mitcham, “Types of Technology,” in Research in Philosophy and Technology, Paul T. Durbin, ed., 1 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1978): 229–294.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carl Mitcham, “Types of Technology,” in Research in Philosophy and Technology, Paul T. Durbin, ed., 1 (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1978): p. 242.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. G. Linsley, Consolidation of the Entomological Society of America and the American Association of Economic Entomologists, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 45 (1952): 359.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betty Hardee and Kazuo Tomita, “A Survey of Scientific and Professional Characteristics of the General Membership of the Entomological Society of America,” Report No. 25, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Scientific Communication, July, 1973, p. 6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Betty Hardee and Kazuo Tomita, “A Survey of Scientific and Professional Characteristics of the General Membership of the Entomological Society of America,” Report No. 25, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Scientific Communication, July, 1973, p. 9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Betty Hardee and Kazuo Tomita, “A Survey of Scientific and Professional Characteristics of the General Membership of the Entomological Society of America,” Report No. 25, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research in Scientific Communication, July, 1973, p. 6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See for example, E. F. Knipling and B. V. Travis, Relative importance and seasonal activity of C. americana C. and P. and other wound-infesting blowflies, Valdosta, Ga., 1935–36, J. Econ. Entomol. 30 (1937): 727–735.Google Scholar
  10. 9a.
    E. F. Knipling, personal communication, Nov. 10, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    A. E. Michelbacher and Ray F. Smith, Some natural factors limiting the abundance of the alfalfa butterfly, Hilgardia 15 (1943): 369–397.Google Scholar
  12. 10a.
    V. M. Stern, Ray F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen, The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid: The integrated control concept, Hilgardia 29 (1959): 81–101.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    J. R. Brazzel and L. D. Newsom, Diapause in Anthonomusgrandis Boh.,J. Econ. Entomol. 52 (1959): 602–611.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    C. M. Williams, Third-generation pesticides, Scientific American 217 (July, 1967): 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 13.
    Richard L. Doutt, “The historical development of biological control,” in Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds, Paul DeBach, ed. (New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1964), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    L. O. Howard, A History of Applied Entomology, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 84, Nov., 1930, pp. 155–156.Google Scholar
  17. 14a.
    L. O. Howard to Harry S. Smith, June 20, 1921, copy supplied by Harold Compere.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, DDT (Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1975), 300 pp.Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    Pest Control: An Assessment of Present and Alternative Technologies (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975), pp. 343–344.Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    Robert van den Bosch, The Pesticide Conspiracy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.), p. 173.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    L. D. Newsom, M. Kogan, F. D. Miner, R. L. Rabb, L. G. Turnipseed, and W. H. Whitcomb, “General accomplishments toward better pest control in soybean,” in New Technology of Pest Control, Carl B. Huffaker, ed. (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1980), pp. 74–75, Table 3.11.Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    P. L. Adkisson, Erma S. Vanderzant, D. L. Bull., and W. E. Allison, A wheat germ medium for rearing the pink bollworm, J. Econ. Entomol. 53 (1960): 759–762.Google Scholar
  23. 19a.
    Milton T. Ouye, Effects of antimicrobial agents on micro-organisms and pink bollworm development,J. Econ. Entomol. 55 (1962): 854–857.Google Scholar
  24. 19b.
    Clyde A. Richmond and Carlo Ignoffo, Mass rearing pink bollworms, J. Econ. Entomol. 57 (1964): 503–505; Agricultural Research Service, Plant Protection Division 1970 (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1971), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  25. 20.
    The continuum described here is adapted from a general scheme proposed by Edwin T. Layton, American ideologies of science and engineering, Technology and Culture 17 (1976): 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 21.
    Charles E. Rosenberg has written extensively on the tension impinging upon applied sciences. See No Other Gods (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976), 273 pp., for a convenient summary of his work. Chapter 9, “Science, technology, and economic growth,” is particularly important.Google Scholar
  27. 22.
    Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 210 pp. (hereafter cited as Kuhn, Structure). Google Scholar
  28. 22a.
    Thomas S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977), 366 pp. (hereafter cited as Kuhn, Tension). Google Scholar
  29. 22b.
    Harold I. Brown, Perception, Theory, and Commitment (Chicago: Precedent Publishing, Inc. 1977), 203 pp. (hereafter cited as Brown, Perception). Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    Kuhn, Tension, p. 326.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    Karl R. Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 480 pp., is frequently contrasted with Kuhn’s work. Popper acknowledged that historically science frequently developed with irrational elements, but he believed that an empiricist-derived logic enabled scientists to construct ever closer approximations of truth. A standard compendium of the issues involved is Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 282 pp. Recent articles exploring the epistemological issues include John Krige, Popper’s epistemology and the autonomy of science, Social Studies of Science 8 (1978): 287–307, and Michael Mulkay, Knowledge and utility: Implications for the sociology of knowledge, Social Studies of Science 9 (1979): 63–80. Current literature on the philosophy of science can be traced through the “Critical Bibliography,” an annual publication of the History of Science Society in Isis; e.g., for 1979 see Isis 70 (1979), “Critical Bibliography 1979,” pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
  32. 25.
    Brown, Perception, p. 81.Google Scholar
  33. 26.
    Ibid., p. 101.Google Scholar
  34. 27.
    Ibid., pp. 111–116.Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    Ibid., pp. 95–101.Google Scholar
  36. 29.
    Kuhn, Tension, pp. 266–292.Google Scholar
  37. 30.
    îbid., pp. 320–339.Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    Brown, Perception, pp. 147–148.Google Scholar
  39. 32.
    Kuhn, Tension, pp. 237–239; Margaret Masterman, “The nature of a paradigm,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 71.Google Scholar
  40. 33.
    Edward W. Constant, A model for technological change applied to the turbojet revolution, Technology and Culture 14 (1973): 553–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 34.
    Derek L. Phillips, Wittgenstein and Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Perspective (London: The Macmillan Press, Ltd., 1977), p. 47.Google Scholar
  42. 35.
    Brown, Perception, pp. 145–151; Kuhn, Tension, pp. 330–331.Google Scholar
  43. 36.
    Brown, Perception, pp. 154–155.Google Scholar
  44. 37.
    Ibid., p. 153.Google Scholar
  45. 38.
    Ibid., pp. 145–154.Google Scholar
  46. 39.
    Kuhn, Structure, p. 10.Google Scholar
  47. 40.
    Kuhn, Tension, pp. 293–319; Martin J. Klein, Aber Shimony, and Trevor J. Pinch, Paradigm lost? A review symposium, Isis 70 (1979): 429–440.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Perkins
    • 1
  1. 1.The Evergreen State CollegeOlympiaUSA

Personalised recommendations