Abstract
It has been the programme of the sociology of science refashioned in the late 1960s “to open the black box of the production of science and technology” (1). New questions were raised, such as: How are scientific results brought about? How are knowledge claims honoured? How are the sciences organized intellectually and socially? And, in relation to the question of the “steering” of science: what exactly in the content of science can be externally influenced?
No order of seniority implied
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Cf. R. D. Whitley, “Black boxism and the sociology of science: a discussion of the major developments in the field”, Sociological Review Monographs 18, 1972, 16–92.
See also: H. M. Collins, “The sociology of scientific knowledge: studies of contemporary science”, Ann. Rev. Sociol. 9, 1983, 265–285.
R. D. Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
E.g.: M. Callon, “Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not”, in K. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitley (eds.), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks, VI. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980
K. Knorr, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon Press, 1981.
See also: S. Woolgar, “Interests and explanation in the social study of science”, Social Studies of Science 11, 1981, 365–394.
See e.g.: M. Cooley, Architect or Bee. Slough: Langley Technical Service, 1980
Lo, Forskning för arbete och demokrati, Stockholm: Tidens Forlag, 1982
P. Löw-Beer, Industrie und Glück, Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 1981.
See also: L. Leydes-dorff and P. Van den Besselaar, “Squeezed between capital and technology. On the participation of labour in the knowledge society”, Acta Sociologica (forthcoming).
E.g.: E. Altvater, “Produktivkraft Wissenschaft?”, in E. Altvater and F. Huiskens (eds.), Materialíen zur Politischen Oekonomie des Ausbildungssektors, Erlangen: Politladen, 1971.
H. Marcuse, One-dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, pp. 22f.
See also: R. Richta et al., Politische Oekonomie des 20. Jahrhunderts, Prague/Frankfurt a.M: Makol, 1968.
J. Habermas, Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1968
J. Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1968
L. Althusser, Pour Marx, Paris: Maspero, 1965.
S. Mallet, La nouvelle classe ouvrière, Paris, 1963.
H. Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York/London: Monthly Review Press, 1974.
See for empirical work e.g.: D. Gallie, In Search of the New Working Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
In 1973, at the Congress of the Scientific Workers League B.W.A., Arie Groene-veldt, the Chairman of the Industrial Workers’ League — the largest Dutch union of that time — explicitly turned down the offer of external expertise, with the sole exception of expertise on health hazards from chemicals. BWA-Ledenbrief 5, 1973/1, 9f.
BWA, “Instituten voor Maatschappelijk Gericht Onderzoek”, Wetenschap & Samenleving, 1977/1, 125.
The government had supported the idea of alternative research facilities for public interest groups in a 1976 Green Paper on so-called Sector Councils for Science Policy. In these councils, the users of scientific results, government officials and researchers would advise on research priorities. However, in the changing economic climate of those days, the official policies were more and more reluctant to follow the “left of centre” university policies elaborating these ideas.
L. Leydesdorff, “Trade unions and university research-policy”, Higher Education and Research in the Netherlands 24, 1980, nr. 3/4. 54–58
L. Leydesdorff, A. Teulings, P. Ulenbelt, “Trade union participation in university research policies”, International journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education 8, 1984/2, 135–146.
T. Ades, “Holland’s science shops for ‘made-to-measure’ research”, Nature 281, 18 October 1979
L. Leydesdorff et al., Philips en de Wetenschap, Amsterdam: SUA, 1980.
See also: L. Leydesdorff and H. van Erkelens, “Some social-psychological aspects of becoming a physicist”, Scientometrics 3, 1981, 27–46.
L. Leydesdorff and S. Zeldenrust, “Technological change and trade unions”, Research Policy 13, 1984, 153–164
Leydesdorff, Van den Besselaar, op. cit., 1986. Note 4.
Leydesdorff et al., op. cit., 1984. Note 14.
L. Leydesdorff, Werknemers en het Technologisch Vernieuwingsbeleid, Amers-foort: De Horstink, 1984.
D. Mowery, N. Rosenberg, “The influence of market demand upon innovation. A critical review of some recent empirical studies”, Research Policy 8, 1979, 102–153.
J. Langrish, M. Gibbons, W. G. Evans and F. R. Jevons, Wealth from Knowledge. New York: Halsted/John Wiley, 1972, p. 57.
Mowery et al., op. cit., 1979. Note 19, 147–153.
Among others: R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, “In search of a useful theory of innovation”, Research Policy 6, 1977, 36–76
G. Dosi, “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories”, Research Policy 11, 1982, 147–162
M. Teubal, “On user needs and need determination: Aspects of the theory of technological innovation”, in M. J. Baker (ed.), Industrial Innovation. Technology, Policy, Diffusion, London, etc.: Macmillan Press, 1979, 226–289.
See for the dynamics of technological trajectories also: D. Sahal, “Technological guideposts and innovation avenues”, Research Policy 14, 1985, 61–82.
Dosi, op. cit., 1982. Note 22, 160.
N. Rosenberg, “The direction of technological change: Inducement mechanisms and focusing devices”, Economic Development and Cultural Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Braverman, op. cit., 1974. Note 15. See also: “Technology, the labor process and the working class”, Monthly Review 28, 1976
D. F. Noble, “Social choice in machine design: The case of automatically controlled machine tools, and a challenge for labor”, Politics and Society 8, 1978, 313–347.
Leydesdorff and Van den Besselaar, op. cit., 1986. Note 4.
R. R. Nelson (ed.), Government and Technical Progress. New York etc.: Pergamon Press, 1982.
Cf. K. Fridjonsdottr, “Social change, trade unions and sociology of work”, elsewhere in this volume.
See also: R. Eyerman, J. Cramer and A. Jamison, “The knowledge interests of the environmental movement and the potential for influencing the development of science”, elsewhere in this volume.
G. Böhme, Alternative der Wissenschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1980.
A. Giddens, New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson, 1976, 15ff
R. Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Sussex: Harvester Press, 1979, 31ff.
H. Nowotny and H. Rose (eds.), Counter-movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbooks, 3, 1979.
Leydesdorff et al, op. cit., 1984. Note 16.
D. Dickson, The New Politics of Science. New York: Pantheon, 1984
R. W. Schmitt, Continuity and Change in the U.S. Research System, Washington D.C.: School of Public Policy, George Washington University, 1985. Occasional Papers No. 1.
R. Rothwell, and W. Zegveld, Reindustrialization and Technology. London: Longman, 1985, 74–80.
See for an elaboration of the Philips-example: Leydesdorff et al., op cit., 1980. Note 15.
Cooley, op. cit., 1980. Note 4.
We have to make an exception for one case in which we are not sure what caused the deterioration of working conditions which in turn gave rise to that workers’ plan. See for further details: Leydesdorff and Van den Besselaar, op. cit., 1986. Note 4.
E. Mumford and D. Henshall, A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Business Press, 1979
U. Briefs, C. Ciborra and L. Schneider (eds.), System Design For, With and By the Users. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1983.
A. Bequai, The Cashless Society. EFTS at the Crossroads. New York: John Wiley, 1981.
R. Kling, “Value conflicts and social choice in electronic funds transfer system developments”, Comm. ACM 21, 1978, 8
K. King and K. Kreamer, “EFTS as a subject of study in technology, society and public policy”, Telecommunications Policy 2, 1978, 3.
“Employment legislation, trade union pressure and the banks’ own recruitment policies will place constraints on the ability of the banks to change the number and type of staff they employ. (…) Banks who solve this problem will establish a competitive edged over their rivals. The whole area of manpower planning will present a major challenge to European banks in the 1980’s.” Pactel, Automation in European Banking. 1979–1990, Management Summary, 1980, 6.
In Holland, the Post Office has also its own R&D facility (the Dr. Neher Laboratories) which performs R & D at very high standards.
Stuurgroep Integratie Giroverkeer, Onderzoek Voorontwerp Nationaal Betalings-circuit met gebruikmaking van het openbare datanet DN-1, Amsterdam: De Nederlandse Bank, 1980.
G. M. Dobrov, “Systems assessment of new technology in decisionmaking in government and industry”, IIAS A Working paper. Laxenburg, Austria, 1977, 77–8.
W. van Gelder, Automatisering de Baas. Woerden: Dienstenbond FNV, 1983.
A. Ruiter, De werkgelegenheidskonsekwenties van het NBC. Woerden: Diensten-bond FNV, 1983. The figures are only indicative of the differences. Because with every discussion in the Parlimentary Committee new and higher figures became available, both the Steering Group and we had to adjust the estimates in each report. See for further details: P. Van den Besselaar, “Trade Unions and EFTS” (in preparation).
E. J. Kirchner, N. Hewlett and F. Sobirey, Report on the Social Implications of Introducing New Technology in the Banking Sector. Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities, 1984.
Pactel, op. cit., 1980. Note 42.
This example is also mentioned in H. Levie and R. Moore (eds.), The Control of Frontiers. Workers and New Technology; Disclosure and Use of Company Information. Oxford: Ruskin College, 1984.
See for an elaboration: A. van Asch, Case studie Nederlandse Middenstandsbank: automatisering, werknemersbelangen en bedrijfsinformatie. Amsterdam: FNV, 1985, 93.
In Leydesdorff and Van den Besselaar (op. cit., 1986. Note 4) we distinguished between two meanings of ‘technological determinism: (i) technological development is a determined process, and (ii) technologies determine their social consequences themselves. Our point here is, that for labour technologies cannot be influenced in the first sense, but that there still is room left to influence the social consequences of new technologies.
Nelson, op. cit., 1982. Note 27.
See for our more political conclusions: Leydesdorff, Van den Besselaar, op. cit., 1986. Note 4.
Cf. Fridjonsdottr, op. cit., 1987. Note 32. See also: P. C. Schmitter and G. Lehmbruch (eds.), Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage, 1979.
S. Böker, P. Ehn, S. Romberger and D. Sjören (eds.), Graffiti. The UTOPIA Project. Stockholm/Aarhus: Swedish Center for Working Life, etc., 1984.
See also: P. Ehn, M. Kyng, Y. Sundblad et al., “The UTOPIA Project” in Briefs et al. (eds.), op. cit., 1983. Note 39.
As has been said, we may have to make an exception for those specialties which focus on man-machine interactions in a very strict sense, such as “systems design”, “quality of VDUs” and “health and safety” issues, because these issues can be dealt with without affecting strategic decisions about technologies.
“It would be possible to write quite a history of inventions, made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class”. K. Marx, Capital I. Moscow, 1961, p. 436.
See also: Rosenberg, op, cit., 1969. Note 24; Noble, op. cit., 1978. Note 25.
Nelson, op. cit., 1982. Note 27.
See also: L. Leydesdorff, “The development of frames of references”, Scientometrics 9, 1986, 103–125.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leydesdorff, L., Van Den Besselaar, P. (1987). What We Have Learned from the Amsterdam Science Shop. In: Blume, S., Bunders, J., Leydesdorff, L., Whitley, R. (eds) The Social Direction of the Public Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3755-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3755-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2382-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3755-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive