No “Real” Experts: Unexpected Agreement Over Disagreement in STS and Philosophy of Science

Lundgren, Jakob

doi:10.1162/posc_a_00295

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While much of medical sociology leaves intact the fundamental analytic bifurcation of the natural and the social world—creating a semi‐sharp line in the intellectual division of labor between the physical/natural sciences and the social sciences and humanities—much STS is built on an assumption of analytic or methodological “symmetry [that] refuses a priori distinctions between the social and the nonsocial” (Jasanoff, 2017, p. 270). By refusing to rely on analytic and theoretical categories produced within the modern occlusion of material/nonhuman actors' role in social processes (Latour, 1993), STS must rely on diverging philosophies of science (Lundgren, 2018), ontological multiplicities (Mol, 1999), non‐positivist epistemologies (Decoteau, 2018), and other approaches to claims making and social knowledge production that are only recently entering the sociological mainstream (Decoteau, 2017a, 2017b). One view describes STS as “an interdisciplinary field that investigates the institutions, practices, meanings, and outcomes of science and technology and their multiple entanglements with the world's people inhabit, their lives, and their values.…”

Section: Social Constructionism In Stsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, boundaries, and bodies: Social construction between medical sociology and science and technology studies

Shaffer

2021

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical sociology and science and technology studies (STS) emerged from different positions, but often closely related concerns, within the broad discipline of sociology. Their interface and areas of overlap have mostly been shaped by theoretical positions broadly considered "social constructionist. " Taken together, these perspectives provide empirical and theoretical tools to analyze important questions about how social inequalities, forms of scientific knowledge, and patterns of human health come to be produced and feedback into one another. Examining their intersection enables sociological questions such as: How is medical and public health scientific knowledge produced, stabilized, and taken as fact? How are scientific facts about health and illness used, experienced, and challenged? What is the relationship between health inequalities and public health or medical knowledge? This article seeks to briefly trace the important contributions that social constructionist research has made at the interstices of medical sociology and STS, further clarifying the history, points of intersection, and areas of diversion between them. The current COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled the political struggles that constitute public health scientific knowledge and circulation. The interface between STS and medical sociology can help us to make sense of the interrelationships between politics, power inequalities, and public health scientific knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Social Constructionism In Stsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, boundaries, and bodies: Social construction between medical sociology and science and technology studies

Shaffer

2021

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences 2020

2020

Isis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notes on Usage and Other Resources Usage NotesNaming conventions. Family names are in small caps throughout the bibliography. Articles such as von, de, and della are usually not considered to be part of the last name, but this varies by person, country, and language. Unlike in past issues of the Bibliography, Asian names are given in Western order. Alphabetization is by last name of the individual with primary responsibility for the text.Cross-referencing. Cross-references are indicated with [ref.] throughout. Crossreferences to book reviews are identified by an R before the number, and refer to items in the book review section that follows the classified listing.Indexing of author names. In some instances an item will appear twice, once alone and once as part of an encompassing work (such as a chapter in an edited volume). In those instances, the author index lists only the independent citation.Subject index. The terminology used in the subject index corresponds as closely as possible to terminology already in use either in the old Isis classification system or in one of the companion bibliographies in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine database (see below). New subject index terms are drawn from the Library of Congress where possible. Entirely new terminology is added at the discretion of the bibliographer.Book reviews. In the book review section, reviews are listed alphabetically by author or editor of the book. In the author index, they are listed under the author of the review, but not author of the book.Dissertations. Dissertations have been entered from the information in the electronic database UMI ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, a subscription database. General Note on Classification List of Abbreviations of Journals Cited in this IssueListed here are journals cited in this volume of the bibliography.

show abstract

No “Real” Experts: Unexpected Agreement Over Disagreement in STS and Philosophy of Science

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Knowledge, boundaries, and bodies: Social construction between medical sociology and science and technology studies

Knowledge, boundaries, and bodies: Social construction between medical sociology and science and technology studies

Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences 2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About