View source for Science studies

{{Short description|Research area analyzing scientific expertise}}
{{See also|Science and technology studies|Technology and society|Sociology of scientific knowledge|Social construction of technology}}
{{distinguish|Metascience|Scientology}}
{{Cleanup rewrite|the article does not provide a coherent and comprehensive account of science studies|date=September 2019}}
{{Sociology}}
'''Science studies'''  is an [[interdisciplinarity|interdisciplinary]] research area that seeks to situate scientific [[expertise]] in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation and reception of scientific knowledge and its [[epistemology|epistemic]] and [[semiotics|semiotic]] role.

Similarly to [[cultural studies]], science studies are defined by the subject of their research and encompass a large range of different theoretical and methodological perspectives and practices. The interdisciplinary approach may include and borrow methods from the humanities, natural and formal sciences, from [[scientometrics]] to [[ethnomethodology]] or [[cognitive science]]. 

Science studies have a certain importance for [[evaluation]] and science policy. Overlapping with the field of [[science, technology and society]], practitioners study the relationship between science and technology, and the interaction of expert and lay knowledge in the public realm.

== Scope ==
The field started with a tendency toward [[Omphaloskepsis|navel-gazing]]: it was extremely self-conscious in its genesis and applications.<ref name=vulc/> From early concerns with scientific [[discourse]], practitioners soon started to deal with the relation of scientific expertise to politics and lay people.<ref name=vulc/> Practical examples include [[bioethics]], [[bovine spongiform encephalopathy]] (BSE), [[pollution]], [[global warming]],<ref>Martello M (2004) Global change science and the Arctic citizen.Sci Public Policy 31(2):107–115</ref><ref>Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, Abingdon</ref> [[biomedical sciences]], [[physical sciences]], [[natural hazard]] predictions, the (alleged) impact of the Chernobyl disaster in the UK, generation and review of science policy and risk governance and its historical and geographic contexts.<ref name=vulc/> While staying a discipline with multiple metanarratives, the fundamental concern is about the role of the perceived expert in providing governments and local authorities with information from which they can make decisions.<ref name=vulc/>

The approach poses various important questions about what makes an expert and how experts and their authority are to be distinguished from the lay population and interacts with the values and policy making process in liberal democratic societies.<ref name=vulc/>

Practitioners examine the forces within and through which scientists investigate specific phenomena such as
* technological milieus, epistemic instruments and [[Epistemic cultures|cultures]] and [[laboratory life]] (compare [[Karin Knorr-Cetina]], [[Bruno Latour]], Hans-Jörg Rheinberger)
* science and technology (e.g. [[Wiebe Bijker]], [[Trevor Pinch]], [[Thomas P. Hughes (historian)|Thomas P. Hughes]])
* science, technology and society (e.g. [[Peter Weingart]], [[Ulrike Felt]], [[Helga Nowotny]] and [[Reiner Grundmann]])
* language and  [[rhetoric of science]] (e.g. [[Charles Bazerman]], [[Alan G. Gross]], Greg Myers)
* [[Aesthetics#Aesthetics and science|aesthetics of science]] and visual culture in science (u.a. [[:de:Peter Geimer|Peter Geimer]]), the role of aesthetic criteria in scientific practice (compare [[mathematical beauty]]) and the relation between emotion, [[cognition]] and rationality in the development of science.<ref>International Studies in the Philosophy of Science   Volume 16,  Issue 1, 2002, Recent work on aesthetics of science DOI:10.1080/02698590120118783 James W. McAllister pages 7-11, 21 Jul 2010</ref>
* [[semiotics|semiotic]] studies of creative processes, as in the discovery, conceptualization, and realization of new ideas.<ref>Zeichen für Kunst: Zur Organisierbarkeit von Kreativität Detlev Nothnagel, ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 {{ISBN|978-3-86057-887-2}}</ref> or the interaction and management of different forms of knowledge in cooperative research.<ref>Organisierte Kreativität: Die vielen Gesichter der Innovation, Rene J.Jorna, in Zeichen für Kunst: Zur Organisierbarkeit von Kreativität Detlev Nothnagel, ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 ZfS, Band 29, Heft 4/2007 {{ISBN|978-3-86057-887-2}}</ref> 
* large-scale research and research institutions, e.g. particle colliders ([[Sharon Traweek]])<ref>{{cite book | last = Traweek | first = Sharon | author-link = Sharon Traweek | title = Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists | publisher = Harvard University Press | location = Cambridge, Massachusetts | year = 1992 | isbn = 9780674044449 }}</ref>
* [[research ethics]], [[science policy]], and the role of the university.<ref>Mario Biagioli: ''The science studies reader''. Routledge, New York 1999, {{ISBN|0-415-91867-7}}</ref><ref>[[Derek de Solla Price]]: ''Little Science, Big Science. Von der Studierstube zur Großforschung.'' Suhrkamp, 1982, {{ISBN|978-3518076484}}.</ref>

== 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>

== Application to natural and man-made hazards ==

=== Sheepfarming after Chernobyl ===
[[File:Pair of Herdwicks grazing.jpg|thumb|[[Herdwick]]s grazing in Cumbria]]

A showcase of the rather complex problems of scientific information and its interaction with lay persons is [[Brian Wynne]]'s study of Sheepfarming in Cumbria after the [[Chernobyl disaster]].<ref name=vulc/><ref name=mah>Wynne B (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: a case study in communicating scientific information. ''Environment'' 31(2):33–39.</ref> He elaborated on the responses of sheep farmers in [[Cumbria]], who had been subjected to administrative restrictions because of [[radioactive contamination]], allegedly caused by the nuclear accident at [[Chernobyl]] in 1986.<ref name=mah/>  The sheep farmers suffered economic losses, and their resistance against the imposed regulation was being deemed irrational and inadequate.<ref name=mah/>  It turned out that the source of radioactivity was actually the [[Sellafield]] nuclear reprocessing complex; thus, the experts who were responsible for the duration of the restrictions were completely mistaken.<ref name=mah/> The example led to attempts to better involve local knowledge and lay-persons' experience and to assess its often highly geographically and historically defined background.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lash |first1=Scott |last2=Szerszynski |first2=Bronislaw |last3=Wynne |first3=Brian |date=1996 |title=Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology |series=Theory, culture & society |location=London |publisher=[[SAGE Publications]] |isbn=978-0803979376 |doi=10.4135/9781446221983}}</ref>

=== Science studies on volcanology ===
[[File:Soufrière Hills volcanic aftermath (Aerial views, Montserrat, 2007) 02.jpg|thumb|The aftermath of the 2007 [[Soufrière Hills]] eruption in Montserrat]]

Donovan et al. (2012) used social studies of [[volcanology]] to investigate the generation of knowledge and expert advice on various active volcanoes.<ref name=vulc>Amy Donovan, Clive Oppenheimer, Michael Bravo. Social studies of volcanology: knowledge generation and expert advice on active volcanoes. Bulletin of Volcanology, Springer Verlag (Germany), 2012, 74 (3), pp.677-689. doi:<10.1007/s00445-011-0547-z insu-00691620</ref> It contains a survey of volcanologists carried out during 2008 and 2009 and interviews with scientists in the [[List of volcanoes in the United Kingdom|UK]], [[Soufrière Hills|Montserrat]], [[Volcanism of Italy|Italy]] and [[Volcanism of Iceland|Iceland]] during fieldwork seasons. Donovan et al. (2012) asked the experts about the felt purpose of volcanology and what they considered the most important eruptions in historical time. The survey tries to identify eruptions that had an influence on volcanology as a science and to assess the role of scientists in policymaking.<ref name=vulc/>

A main focus was on the impact of the Montserrat eruption 1997. The eruption, a classical example of the [[black swan theory]]<ref>Donovan et al. (2012) cite Taleb NN (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Allen Lane, London.</ref> directly killed (only) 19 persons. However the outbreak had major impacts on the local society and destroyed important infrastructure, as the [[W. H. Bramble Airport|island's airport]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/3666502.stm |title=BBC country profile: Montserrat |access-date=2008-03-08 | date=22 September 2009 | work=BBC News}}</ref> About 7,000 people, or two-thirds of the population, left Montserrat; 4,000 to the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4237882.stm |date=12 September 2005 |title=Montserrat evacuation remembered |publisher=BBC |access-date= 19 November 2010}}</ref>

The Montserrat case put immense pressure on volcanologists, as their expertise suddenly became the primary driver of various public policy approaches.<ref name=vulc/> The science studies approach provided valuable insights in that situation.<ref name=vulc/> There were various miscommunications among scientists. Matching scientific uncertainty (typical of volcanic unrest) and the request for a single unified voice for political advice was a challenge.<ref name=vulc/> The Montserrat Volcanologists began to use statistical elicitation models to estimate the probabilities of particular events, a rather subjective method, but allowing to synthesizing consensus and experience-based expertise step by step.<ref name=vulc/> It involved as well local knowledge and experience.<ref name=vulc/>

[[Volcanology]] as a science currently faces a shift of its epistemological foundations of volcanology. The science started to involve more research into risk assessment and risk management. It requires new, integrated methodologies for knowledge collection that transcend scientific disciplinary boundaries but combine qualitative and quantitative outcomes in a structured whole.<ref>Horlick-Jones T, Sime J (2004) Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4):441</ref>

== Experts and democracy ==
Science has become a major force in Western democratic societies, which depend on innovation and technology (compare [[Risk society]]) to address its risks.<ref name="Ulrich Beck">{{cite book |title=Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity |author=Ulrich Beck |author-link=Ulrich Beck |publisher=SAGE Publications |location=New Delhi |date=1992 |isbn=978-0803983465}} (in German: Die Risikogesellschaft 1986)</ref> Beliefs about science can be very different from those of the scientists themselves, for reasons of e.g. moral values, epistemology or political motivations. The designation of expertise as authoritative in the interaction with lay people and decision makers of all kind is nevertheless challenged in contemporary risk societies, as suggested by scholars who follow [[Ulrich Beck]]'s theorisation. The role of expertise in contemporary democracies is an important theme for debate among science studies scholars. Some argue for a more widely distributed, pluralist understanding of expertise ([[Sheila Jasanoff]] and [[Brian Wynne]], for example), while others argue for a more nuanced understanding of the idea of expertise and its social functions (Collins and Evans, for example).<ref name="CollinsEvans">{{cite book|title=Rethinking Expertise |first1= Harry |last1=Collins |first2=Robert |last2=Evans |publisher=University of Chicago Press |date=2007 |isbn=978-0226113623}}</ref><ref name="Collins2004">{{cite journal |last1=Collins|first1=Harry |title=Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge |journal=Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences |volume=3 |issue=2 |year=2004 |pages=125–143 |issn=1568-7759 |doi=10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a|s2cid=143072688 }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Merton thesis]]
* [[Public awareness of science]]
* [[Science and technology studies]]
* [[Science and technology studies in India]]
* [[Social construction of technology]]
* [[Sociology of scientific knowledge]]
* [[Sokal affair]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Bibliography==
;Science studies, general

* Bauchspies, W., Jennifer Croissant and Sal Restivo: ''Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Perspective'' (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).
* Biagioli, Mario, ed. ''The Science Studies Reader'' (New York: Routledge, 1999).
* Bloor, David; Barnes, Barry & Henry, John, ''Scientific knowledge: a sociological analysis'' (Chicago: University Press, 1996).
* Gross, Alan. ''Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies''. Carbondale: SIU Press, 2006.
* [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Fuller, Steve]], ''The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies'' (New York: Routledge, 2006).
* Hess, David J. ''Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction'' (New York: NYU Press, 1997).
* [[Sheila Jasanoff|Jasanoff, Sheila]], ed. ''Handbook of science and technology studies'' (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1995).
* [[Bruno Latour|Latour, Bruno]], "The Last Critique," ''Harper's Magazine'' (April 2004): 15–20.
* Latour, Bruno. ''Science in Action''. Cambridge. 1987.
* Latour, Bruno, "Do You Believe in Reality: News from the Trenches of the Science Wars," in ''Pandora's Hope'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999)
* Vinck, Dominique. ''The Sociology of Scientific Work. The Fundamental Relationship between Science and Society'' (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010).
* Wyer, Mary; Donna Cookmeyer; Mary Barbercheck, eds. ''Women, Science and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies'', Routledge 200
* [[Donna Haraway|Haraway, Donna J.]] "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," in ''Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature'' (New York: Routledge, 1991), 183–201. Originally published in ''Feminist Studies'', Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp.&nbsp;575–599. ([http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Haraway,%20Situated%20Knowledges.pdf available online])
* [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]], "Truth and Power," in ''Power/Knowledge'' (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997), 109–133.
* [[Theodore Porter|Porter, Theodore M.]] ''Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life'' (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
* [[Sal Restivo|Restivo, Sal]]: "Science, Society, and Values: Toward a Sociology of Objectivity" (Lehigh PA: Lehigh University Press, 1994).

;Medicine and biology

* {{cite book |title=Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity |last=Dumit |first=Joseph |year=2003 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |location=[[Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton]] |isbn=9780691113982 |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7674.html}}
* {{cite book |title=The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down |last=Fadiman |first=Anne |author-link=Anne Fadiman |year=1997 |publisher=[[Farrar, Straus and Giroux]] |location=New York |title-link=The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down }}
* {{cite book |title=The Science Studies Reader |chapter=Toward an Anthropology of Immunology: The Body as Nation State |last=Martin |first=Emily |author-link=Emily Martin (anthropologist) |editor-last=Biagioli |editor-first=Mario |year=1999 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=New York |pages=358&ndash;71}}

;Media, culture, society and technology

* [[Jeff Hancock|Hancock, Jeff]]. ''[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=985709&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=35172167&CFTOKEN=76650139&ret=1#Fulltext/ Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior]''
* [[Lawrence Lessig|Lessig, Lawrence]]. ''[[Free Culture (book)|Free Culture]].'' Penguin USA, 2004. {{ISBN|1-59420-006-8}}
* [[Donald Angus MacKenzie|MacKenzie, Donald]]. ''The Social Shaping of Technology'' Open University Press: 2nd ed. 1999.  {{ISBN|0-335-19913-5}}
* Mitchell, William J. ''[http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9606&ttype=2/ Rethinking Media Change]{{Dead link|date=October 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}'' Thorburn and Jennings eds. Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press, 2003.
* [[Neil Postman|Postman, Neil]]. ''[[Amusing Ourselves to Death]]: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.'' Penguin USA, 1985. {{ISBN|0-670-80454-1}}
* [[Howard Rheingold|Rheingold, Howard]]. ''[[Smart Mob]]s: The Next Social Revolution.'' Cambridge: Mass., Perseus Publishing. 2002.

==External links==
{{Commons category|Science studies}}
* [http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Ben%20David%20&%20Sullivan%20Sociology%20of%20Science%20ARS%201975.htm Sociology of Science], an introductory article by Joseph Ben-David & Teresa A. Sullivan, Annual Review of Sociology, 1975
* [http://www.oikos.org/vGknowl.htm The Incommensurability of Scientific and Poetic Knowledge]
* [http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/ University of Washington Science Studies Network]

{{Navboxes
|list=
{{Philosophy of science}}
{{Science and the public}}
{{Science and technology studies}}
{{Social sciences}}
}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Studies, Science}}
[[Category:Science studies| ]]
[[Category:Historiography of science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Pedagogy]]
[[Category:Science and technology studies]]