The belief that natural sciences are more scientific than the social sciences has been well documented in the perceptions of both lay and scientific populations. Influenced by the Kuhnian concept of “paradigm development” and empirical studies on the closure of scientific controversies, scholars from divergent traditions associate scientific development with increased consensus and stability. However, both the macro/quantitative and micro/qualitative approaches are limited in key ways. This article is the first comparative ethnography of a natural science (molecular biology) and a social science (psychology) and it highlights important differences between the fields. Molecular biologists engage in a process of “bench-building,” in which they create and integrate new manipulation techniques and technologies into their practice, whereas psychologists have far less opportunity for this type of development. This suggests an alternative conception of the natural/social divide, in which the natural sciences are defined by dynamic material evolution while the social sciences remain relatively stable.
AlacMorena. 2008. “Working with Brain Scans: Digital Images and Gestural Interaction in fMRI Laboratory.” Social Studies of Science38(4):483–508.
2.
AlmondGabriel A.1989. A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
ArsenaultDarin J.SmithLaurence D.BeauchampEdith A.2006. “Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy: Mapping the ‘Treasures of Science.’”Science Communication27(3):376–428.
4.
AshmoreMalcolmBrownSteven D.MacmillanKatie. 2005. “Lost in the Mall with Mesmer and Wundt: Demarcations and Demonstrations in the Psychologies.” Science, Technology & Human Values30(1):76–110.
BarghJohn A.ChenMarkBurrowsLara. 1996. “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(2):230–44.
BemDaryl J.2011. “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology100(3):407–425.
9.
Ben-DavidJosephCollinsRandall. 1966. “Social Factors in the Origins of a New Science: The Case of Psychology.” American Sociological Review31(4):451–65.
10.
BestLisa A.SmithLaurence D.StubbsAlan. 2001. “Graph Use in Psychology and Other Sciences.” Behavioural Processes54(1–3):155–65.
11.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BuchananRoderick D.1997. “Ink Blots or Profile Plots: The Rorschach versus the MMPI as the Right Tool for a Science-Based Profession.” Science, Technology, & Human Values22(2):168–206.
13.
BuhrmesterMichaelKwangTracyGoslingSamuel D.2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?”Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1):3–5.
14.
BurriRegula V.DumitJoseph. 2008. “Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualization.” Pp. 297–317 in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed., edited by HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
15.
CallonMichel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay.” Pp. 196–223 in Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? edited by LawJ.London, UK: Routledge.
16.
MichelCallon, ed. 1998. Laws of the Markets. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
17.
CambrosioAlbertoKeatingPeter. 1988. “‘Going Monoclonal’: Art, Science, and Magic in the Day-to-Day Use of Hybridoma Technology.” Social Problems35(3):244–60.
18.
CamicCharlesGrossNeilLamontMichèle. 2011. “The Study of Social Knowledge Making.” Pp. 1–40 in Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by CamicC.GrossN.LamontM.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ChamakBrigitte. 1999. “The Emergence of Cognitive Science in France: A Comparison with the USA.” Social Studies of Science29(5):643–84.
21.
ClarkeAdele E.StarSusan L2008. “The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods Package.” Pp. 113–38 in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed., edited by HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
ColeStephen. 1983. “The Hierarchy of the Sciences?”American Journal of Sociology89(1):111–39.
23.
ColeStephen. 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
ColeStephen. 1994. “Why Sociology Doesn’t Make Progress Like the Natural Sciences.” Sociological Forum9(2):133–54.
ColeStephenColeJonathan R.DietrichLorraine. 1978. “Measuring the Cognitive State of Scientific Disciplines.” Pp. 209–251 in Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, edited by ElkanaY.LederbergJ.MertonR. K.ThackrayA.ZuckermanH. A.New York: Wiley.
27.
CollinsHarry M.1974. “The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks.” Science Studies4(2):165–86.
28.
CollinsHarry M.1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.
29.
CollinsHarry M.2001. “Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire.” Social Studies of Science31(1):71–85.
30.
CollinsHarry M.2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
CollinsRandall. 1994. “Why the Social Sciences Won’t Become High-Consensus, Rapid-Discovery Science.” Sociological Forum9(2):155–77.
32.
CollinsRandall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
CozzensSusan E.1985. “Comparing the Sciences: Citation Context Analysis of Papers from Neuropharmacology and the Sociology of Science.” Social Studies of Science15(1):127–53.
34.
DanzigerKurt. 1990. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
DavisJames A.1994. “What’s Wrong with Sociology?”Sociological Forum9(2):179–97.
36.
DoingPark. 2004. “‘Lab Hands’ and the ‘Scarlet O’: Epistemic Politics and (Scientific) Labor.” Social Studies of Science34(3):299–323.
37.
DoingPark. 2008. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise a Discipline: The Past, Present, and Future Politics of Laboratory Studies in STS.” Pp. 279–95 in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed., edited by HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
38.
DoyenStéphaneKleinOlivierPichonCora-LiseCleeremansAxel. 2012. “Behavior Priming: It’s All in the Mind, but Whose Mind?”PLoS One7(1):e29081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
39.
Economist. 2012. “The Roar of the Crowd: Crowdsourcing is Transforming the Science of Psychology.” The Economist. Retrieved February26, 2013 (http://www.economist.com/node/21555876).
40.
EvansJohn H.2007. “Consensus and Knowledge Production in an Academic Field.” Poetics35(1):1–21.
41.
FanelliDaniele. 2012. “Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries.” Scientometrics90(3):891–904.
FourcadeMarion. 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
FourcadeMarionOllionEtienneAlganYann. 2014. “The Superiority of Economics.” MaxPo Discussion Paper14(3):1–26.
45.
FuchsStephanTurnerJonathan. 1986. “What Makes a Science ‘Mature’? Patterns of Organizational Control in Scientific Production.” Sociological Theory4(2):143–50.
46.
FujimuraJoan H.1988. “The Molecular Biological Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet.” Social Problems35(3):261–83.
47.
FujimuraJoan H.1992. “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation.’” Pp. 168–214 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringA.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
GalisonPeter. 2004. “Images of the Self.” Pp. 257–94 in Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, edited by DastonL.New York: Zone Books.
49.
GardnerHoward. 1992. “Scientific Psychology: Should We Bury It or Praise It?”New Ideas in Psychology10(2):179–90.
50.
GeertzClifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
51.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
GilbertG. NigelMulkayMichael J.1984. Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
GouldnerAlvin W.1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.
54.
GrossNeilFlemingCrystal. 2011. “Academic Conferences and the Making of Philosophical Knowledge.” Pp. 151–80 in Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by CamicC.GrossN.LamontM.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
GuetzkowJoshuaLamontMichèleMallardGrégoire. 2004. “What Is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences.” American Sociological Review69(2):190–212.
56.
HabermasJürgen. 1967. On the Logic of the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
57.
HabermasJürgen. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
58.
HackingIan. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
HargensLowell L.1988. “Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates.” American Sociological Review53(1):139–51.
60.
HartleyJamesSottoEricPennebakerJames. 2002. “Style and Substance in Psychology: Are Influential Articles More Readable Than Less Influential Ones?”Social Studies of Science32(2):321–34.
61.
HeathDeborahKochErinLeyBarbaraMontoyaMichael. 1999. “Nodes and Queries: Linking Locations in Networked Fields of Inquiry.” American Behavioral Scientist43(3):450–63.
62.
HenrichJosephHeineSteven J.NorenzayanAra. 2010. “The Weirdest People in the World.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3):61–83.
63.
IoannidisJohn P. A.2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med2(8):e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
64.
JacksonMichelleCoxD. R.2013. “The Principles of Experimental Design and Their Application in Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology39(1):27–49.
65.
JordanKathleenLynchMichael. 1998. “The Dissemination, Standardization and Routinization of a Molecular Biological Technique.” Social Studies of Science28(5–6):773–800.
Knorr CetinaKarin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
KarinKnorr CetinaPredaAlex, eds. 2005. The Sociology of Financial Markets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
KoppmanSharonCainCindy L.LeaheyErin. 2015. “The Joy of Science: Disciplinary Diversity in Emotional Accounts.” Science, Technology, & Human Values40(1):30–70.
70.
KuhnThomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
71.
LamontMichèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
LamontMichèleHuutoniemiKatri. 2011. “Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels.” Pp. 209–232 in Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by CamicC.GrossN.LamontM.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
LatourBruno. 1990. “Drawing Things Together.” Pp. 19–68 in Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by LynchM.WoolgarS.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
LatourBruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
LatourBruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
77.
LatourBrunoWoolgarSteve. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
78.
LodahlJanice B.GordonGerald. 1972. “The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments.” American Sociological Review37(1):57–72.
79.
LynchMichael. 1985. Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London, UK: Routledge.
80.
LynchMichael. 1988. “Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences.” Social Studies of Science18(2):265–89.
81.
LynchMichael. 1997. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
82.
MacKenzieDonald. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
83.
MandlerGeorge. 2011. “Crisis and the Problems Seen from Experimental Psychology.” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology31(4):240–46.
84.
MannheimKarl. [1936] 1985. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.
85.
MasonWinterSuriSiddharth. 2012. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods44(1):1–23.
86.
MenziesPeterPriceHuw. 1993. “Causation as a Secondary Quality.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science44(2):187–203.
87.
MertonRobert K.1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
88.
MyersNatasha. 2008. “Molecular Embodiments and the Body-Work of Modeling in Protein Crystallography.” Social Studies of Science38(2):163–99.
89.
NonakaIkujiro. 1991. “The Knowledge-Creating Company.” Harvard Business ReviewNov–Dec:96–104.
90.
NonakaIkujiroTakeuchiHirotaka. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
91.
Owen-SmithJason. 2001. “Managing Laboratory Work through Skepticism: Processes of Evaluation and Control.” American Sociological Review66(3):427–52.
PaolacciGabrieleChandlerJesseIpeirotisPanagiotis G.2010. “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Judgment and Decision Making5(5):411–19.
94.
PeirceCharles S.1955. The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
95.
PfefferJeffrey. 1993. “Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable.” Academy of Management Review18(4):599–620.
96.
PickeringAndrew. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97.
PinchTrevor J.BijkerWiebe E.1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science14(3):399–441.
98.
PolanyiMichael. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
99.
PorterTheodore M.1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
100.
PriceD. J. de Solla. 1970. “Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology, and Non-Science.” Pp. 3–22 in Communication among Scientists and Engineers, edited by NelsonC. E.PollackD. K.Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
101.
ReedIsaac. 2008. “Justifying Sociological Knowledge: From Realism to Interpretation.” Sociological Theory26(2):101–129.
102.
RoseNikolas. 1998. Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
103.
RosenbergerRobert. 2011. “A Case Study in the Applied Philosophy of Imaging: The Synaptic Vesicle Debate.” Science, Technology, & Human Values36(1):6–32.
SavageMikeBurrowsRoger. 2007. “The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology.” Sociology41(5):885–99.
106.
ShapinSteven. 1989. “The Invisible Technician.” American Scientist77(6):554–63.
107.
ShapinStevenShafferSimon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
108.
ShwedUriBearmanPeter S.2010. “The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.” American Sociological Review75(6):817–40.
109.
SimontonDean K.2004. “Psychology’s Status as a Scientific Discipline: Its Empirical Placement within an Implicit Hierarchy of the Sciences.” Review of General Psychology8(1):59–67.
110.
SmithLaurence D.BestLisa A.StubbsD. AlanArchibaldAndrea B.Roberson-NayRoxann. 2002. “Constructing Knowledge: The Role of Graphs and Tables in Hard and Soft Psychology.” American Psychologist57(10):749–61.
111.
SmithLaurence D.BestLisa A.StubbsD. AlanJohnsonJohnArchibaldAndrea B.2000. “Scientific Graphs in the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices.” Social Studies of Science30(1):73–94.
112.
SmythMary M.2001. “Certainty and Uncertainty Sciences: Marking the Boundaries of Psychology in Introductory Textbooks.” Social Studies of Science31(3):389–416.
113.
StinchcombeArthur L.1994. “Disintegrated Disciplines and the Future of Sociology.” Sociological Forum9(2):279–97.
114.
SudnowDavid. 1978. Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
115.
TaylorCharles. 1985. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
116.
TraweekSharon. 1992. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
117.
VertesiJanet. 2012. “Seeing Like a Rover: Visualization, Embodiment and Interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission.” Social Studies of Science42(3):393–414.
118.
Von WrightGeorg H.1971. Explanation and Understanding. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
119.
VygotskyLev S.[1927] 1997. “The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology: A Methodological Investigation.” Pp. 233–344 in The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 3, edited by RieberR. W.WollockJ.New York: Plenum.
WagenmakersEric-JanWetzelsRuudBorsboomDennyvan der MaasHan L. J.2011. “Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi: Comment on Bem (2011).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology100(3):426–32.
122.
WallersteinImmanuelJumaCalestousKellerEvelyn F.KockaJurgenLecourtDomeniqueMudkimbeV. Y.MiushakojiKinhidePrigogineIlyaTaylorPeter J.TrouillotMichel-Rolph. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
123.
WaquantLoic. 2004. Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer. New York: Oxford University Press.
124.
WeinbergRobert A.1985. “The Molecules of Life.” Scientific American253(4):48–57.
125.
WinchPeter. 1958. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge.
126.
WoodwardJames. 2005. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
127.
Yong, Ed. 2012a. “Replication Studies: Bad Copy.” Nature485(7398):298–300.
YoungIris M.2005. On Female Body Experience: “Throwing like a Girl” and Other Essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
131.
ZuckermanHarriet A.MertonRobert K.1971. “Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System.” Minerva9(1):66–100.
132.
ZuckermanHarriet A.MertonRobert K.1972. “Age, Aging, and Age Structure in Science.” Pp. 292–356 in A Sociology of Age Stratification, edited by JohnsonM. E.FonerA.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
