What happened to provocation in science and technology studies?

Science and technology studies (STS) is an important and often controversial interdisciplinary field which has proved to be provocative and influential. But has its institutionalization and influence occurred at the expense of some of its provocative power? This paper considers the fate of provocative ideas associated with STS as they become appropriated and transformed by new social institutions and audiences. It aims to sketch a preliminary framework for analysing the social dynamics of the persistence and/or attenuation of its ideas and impacts. The argument reviews the main early aspirations and targets of STS. It suggests that changing emphases in STS can be understood as responses to successive versions of the principle of symmetry. It argues that the continual renewal and recruitment of audiences for STS is central to sustaining its capacity for provocation.

[1]  C. Geertz,et al.  The Interpretation of Cultures , 1973 .

[2]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  Malcolm Ashmore,et al.  The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge , 1989 .

[4]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization , 1997 .

[5]  A. Barry.  Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society , 2001 .

[6]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[7]  Damian Tambini,et al.  Book review: political machines: governing a technological society, by Andrew Barry. New York: Athlone, 2001 , 2002 .

[8]  D. Bloor,et al.  Knowledge and Social Imagery , 1977 .

[9]  S. Woolgar.  The Turn to Technology in Social Studies of Science , 1991 .

[10]  S. Woolgar.  Social basis of interactive social science , 2000 .

[11]  A. Mol,et al.  Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology , 1994, Social studies of science.

[12]  Brian Rappert,et al.  The Distribution and Resolution of the Ambiguities of Technology, or Why Bobby Can't Spray , 2001 .

[13]  Bernard Cova,et al.  From Marketing to Societing: When the Link is more Important than the Thing , 1999 .

[14]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  Ontological Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems Explanations , 1985 .

[15]  A. Pickering.  Science as practice and culture , 1992 .

[16]  K. Hetherington,et al.  Museum Topology and the Will To Connect , 1997 .

[17]  Douglas Odegard,et al.  Knowledge and Reflexivity , 1976, Dialogue.

[18]  M. Assimakopoulos.  Introduction: Why have an STS meeting in Greece? , 2004 .

[19]  Melvin Pollner,et al.  Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of Radical Reflexivity , 1991 .

[20]  John Law,et al.  Notes on Materiality and Sociality , 1995 .

[21]  B. Latour,et al.  Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? , 1986 .

[22]  M. Callon.  Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay , 1984 .

[23]  Marianne de Laet,et al.  The Zimbabwe Bush Pump , 2000 .

[24]  B. Latour.  Technology is Society Made Durable , 1990 .

[25]  Geoffrey Scott-Baker.  Turn on to technology , 2005 .

[26]  B. Sriraman.  Call for papers. , 2021, Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation.