Editing Science studies (section)

== History of the field ==
In 1935, in a celebrated paper, the Polish [[sociologist]] couple [[Maria Ossowska]] and [[Stanisław Ossowski]] proposed the founding of a "science of science" to study the scientific enterprise, its practitioners, and the factors influencing their work.<ref>[[Maria Ossowska]] and [[Stanisław Ossowski]], "The Science of Science" [originally published 1935], reprinted in Bohdan Walentynowicz, ed., ''Polish Contributions to the Science of Science'', Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 82–95.</ref><ref>Matthias Kölbel: [http://www.dart-europe.eu/full.php?id=466024 ''Wissensmanagement in der Wissenschaft''], Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung e.V. c/o Inst. f. Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2002, elektronische Bereitstellung 2011.</ref> Earlier, in 1923, the Polish sociologist [[Florian Znaniecki]] had made a similar proposal.<ref>[[Florian Znaniecki]], "The Subject Matter and Tasks of the Science of Knowledge" (first published in the Polish journal ''Nauka Polska'' [Polish Learning, or Polish Science] in 1923 as "''Przedmiot i zadania nauki o wiedzy''"), English translation in Bohdan Walentynowicz, ed., ''Polish Contributions to the Science of Science'', Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982, pp. 1-81.</ref> 

Fifty years before Znaniecki, in 1873, [[Aleksander Głowacki]], better known in Poland by his pen name "Bolesław Prus", had delivered a public lecture – later published as a booklet – ''[[:Wikisource:Translation:On Discoveries and Inventions|On Discoveries and Inventions]]'', in which he said:

{{blockquote|Until now there has been no science that describes the means for making discoveries and inventions, and the generality of people, as well as many people of learning, believe that there never will be.  This is an error.  Someday a science of making discoveries and inventions will exist and will render services.  It will arise not all at once; first only its general outline will appear, which subsequent researchers will correct and elaborate, and which still later researchers will apply to individual branches of knowledge.<ref>''O odkryciach i wynalazkach, odczyt popularny wypowiedziany dnia 23 marca 1873 r. przez Aleksandra Głowackiego'' (On Discoveries and Inventions:  A Public Lecture Delivered on 23 March 1873 by [[Aleksander Głowacki]]), p. 12.</ref>}}

It is striking that, while early 20th-century sociologist proponents of a discipline to study science and its practitioners wrote in general theoretical terms, Prus had already half a century earlier described, with many specific examples, the scope and methods of such a discipline.

[[Thomas Kuhn]]'s ''[[Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' (1962) increased interest both in the [[history of science]] and in science's [[history and philosophy of science|philosophical underpinnings]]. Kuhn posited that the [[history of science]] was less a linear succession of discoveries than a succession of [[paradigm]]s within the [[philosophy of science]]. Paradigms are broader, socio-intellectual constructs that determine which types of truth claims are permissible. 

Science studies seeks to identify key [[Dichotomy|dichotomies]] – such as those between science and technology, nature and culture, theory and experiment, and science and fine art – leading to the differentiation of scientific fields and practices. 

The [[sociology of scientific knowledge]] arose at the [[University of Edinburgh]], where [[David Bloor]] and his colleagues developed what has been termed "the [[strong programme]]". It proposed that both "true" and "false" scientific theories should be treated the same way.<ref>David Bloor, "The strengths of the strong programme", ''Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn'', Springer Netherlands, 1984, pp. 75-94.</ref> Both are informed by social factors such as cultural context and self-interest.<ref>Wiebe E. Bijker et al, ''The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology'', MIT Press, 2012.</ref> 

Human knowledge, abiding as it does within human cognition, is ineluctably influenced by social factors.<ref>Harry M. Collins, "Introduction: Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism", ''Social Studies of Science'', 1981: 3-10, in JSTOR.</ref>

It proved  difficult, however, to address natural-science topics with sociological methods, as was abundantly evidenced by the US [[science wars]].<ref name=thn/> Use of a deconstructive approach (as in relation to works on arts or religion) to the natural sciences risked endangering not only the "hard facts" of the natural sciences, but the objectivity and positivist tradition of sociology itself.<ref name=thn>{{Cite journal | last = Latour | first = Bruno | author-link = Bruno Latour | title = When things strike back: a possible contribution of 'science studies' to the social sciences | journal = [[British Journal of Sociology]] | volume = 51 | issue = 1 | pages = 107–123 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00107.x | date = March 2000 | url = http://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h61ih1289/resources/2000-latour-when-things-strike-back-vauteur.pdf }}</ref> The view on scientific knowledge production as a (at least partial) social construct was not easily accepted.<ref name=vulc/>  Latour and others identified a dichotomy crucial for modernity, the division between nature (things, objects) as being [[Transcendental idealism|transcendent]], allowing to detect them, and society (the subject, the state) as [[Immanence#Continental philosophy|immanent]] as being artificial, constructed. The dichotomy allowed for mass production of things (technical-natural hybrids) and large-scale [[list of global issues|global issues]] that endangered the distinction as such. E.g. ''[[We Have Never Been Modern]]'' asks to reconnect the social and natural worlds, returning to the pre-modern use of "thing"<ref>In premodern times (and various languages) the term both meant an object and [[Thing (assembly)|an assembly]]</ref>—addressing objects as hybrids made and scrutinized by the public interaction of people, things, and concepts.<ref>{{cite book | last = Lash | first = Scott | author-link = Scott Lash |year=1999 | title = Objects that judge: Latour's parliament of things, in another modernity, a different rationality | publisher = Blackwell | location = Oxford  | isbn = 9780631164999 }}</ref>

Science studies scholars such as [[Trevor Pinch]] and [[Steve Woolgar]] started already in the 1980s to involve "technology", and called their field "[[science, technology and society]]".<ref><span dir="ltr">An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies</span>[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Sergio+Sismondo%22 <span dir="ltr"> Sergio Sismondo</span>]<span dir="ltr"> John Wiley & Sons</span>, 17.08.2011.</ref> This "turn to technology" brought science studies into communication with academics in science, technology, and society programs.

More recently, a novel approach known as [[mapping controversies]] has been gaining momentum among science studies practitioners, and was introduced as a course for students in engineering,<ref>[http://www.demoscience.org/ MIT] web.mit.edu Retrieved on 2009-02-21</ref><ref>[http://mappingcontroversies.epfl.ch/ Ecoles Polytechniques Fédérales de Lausanne] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120712012636/http://mappingcontroversies.epfl.ch/ |date=2012-07-12 }} mappingcontroversies.epfl.ch Retrieved on 2009-02-21</ref> and architecture schools.<ref>[http://mappingcontroversies.co.uk University of Manchester] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515123357/http://www.mappingcontroversies.co.uk/ |date=2009-05-15 }} mappingcontroversies.co.uk Retrieved on 2009-02-16</ref> In 2002 [[Harry Collins]] and Robert Evans asked for a third wave of science studies (a pun on ''[[The Third Wave (Toffler)|The Third Wave]]''), namely studies of ''expertise'' and ''experience'' answering to recent tendencies to dissolve the boundary between experts and the public.<ref>Social Studies of Science April 2002 vol. 32 no. 2 235-296 The Third Wave of Science Studies Studies of Expertise and Experience H.M. Collins and Robert Evans doi: 10.1177/0306312702032002003</ref>