Cross-National Education and the Making of Science,Technology and Medicine

On globalization and global history see O'Brien P. , “Historiographical traditions and modern imperatives for the restoration of global history”, Journal of global history, 1 (2006), 3–39; Gills B. K. , The global politics of globalization: “Empire” vs “Cosmopolis” (London and New York, 2008).

I use here a broad definition of social constructivism. See Golinski J. , Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science (Cambridge, 1998).

In this context, Margaret Jacob's criticisms are particularly relevant. See Jacob M. C. , “Science studies after social construction: The turn toward the comparative and the global”, in Bonnell V. E. Hunt L. (ed.), Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1999), 95–120. see also Kohler R. , “A Generalist's vision”, Isis, xcvi (2005), 2005–9; Kaiser D. , “Training and the generalist's vision in the history of science”, Isis, xcvi (2005), 2005–51.

Pyenson L. , “An end to national science: Extension of local knowledge”, History of science, xl (2002), 251–90; idem, “Comparative history of science”, History of science, xl (2002), 2002–33.

Exceptions to this rule are for instance Morrell J. B. , “The Chemist breeders: The research schools of Liebig and Thomas Thomson”, Ambix, xix (1972), 1–46; Forman P. Heilbron J. L. Weart S. , “Physics circa 1900: Personnel, funding, and productivity of the academic establishments”, Historical studies in the physical sciences (1975), 1–185; Graham L. R. , “Science and values: The eugenics movement in Germany and Russia in the 1920s”, American historical review, lxxxii (1977), 1977–64; Sheets-Pyenson S. , “Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: The emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820–1875”, Annals of science, xlii (1985), 1985–72; Harwood J. , “National styles in science: Genetics in Germany and the United States between the World Wars”, Isis, lxxviii (1987), 1987–414; Crawford E. , Nationalism and internationalism in science, 1880–1939: Four studies of the Nobel population (Cambridge, 1992); Kranakis E. , Constructing a bridge: An exploration of engineering culture, design, and research in nineteenth-century France and America (Cambridge, Mass., 1997); Walker M. (ed.)., Science and ideology: A comparative history (London and New York, 2003); Sachse C. Walker M. (eds)., “Politics and science in wartime: Comparative international perspectives on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute”, Osiris, xx (2005); Weisz G. , Divide and conquer: A comparative history of medical specialization (Oxford, 2006); Quirke V. , Collaboration in the pharmaceutical industry: Changing relationships in Britain and France, 1935–1965 (London, 2007); Simon J. , Communicating physics: The production, circulation and appropriation of Ganot's textbooks in France and England, 1851–1887 (London, 2011).

Secord J. A. , “Knowledge in transit”, Isis, xcv (2004), 654–72; Schaffer S. (eds)., The brokered world: Go-betweens and global intelligence, 1770–1820 (Sagamore Beach, Mass., 2009).

Simoes A. Carneiro A. Diogo M. P. (eds)., Travels of learning: A geography of science in Europe (Berlin, 2003); Gavroglu K. , “Science and technology in the European periphery: Some historiographical reflections”, History of science, xlvi (2008), 153–75; Espagne M. , Les transferts culturels franco-allemands (Paris, 1999); Espagne M. Werner M. , “La construction d'une référence culturelle allemande en France, genèse et histoire”, Annales ESC, xlii (1987), 1987–92; Cañizares-Esguerra J. Seeman E. R. (eds)., The Atlantic in global history, 1500–2000 (Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2007); Canny N. , “Atlantic history and global history”, in Greene J. P. Morgan P. D. (eds), Atlantic history: A critical appraisal (Oxford, 2009), 317–36; Safer N. (ed.)., “Itineraries of Atlantic science: New questions, new approaches, new directions”, Atlantic studies, vii (2010); Bénat-Tachot L. Gruzinski S. (eds)., Passeurs culturels: Mécanisme de métissage (Paris, 2001).

In this context, it is particularly useful to take into account debates which have already reached a higher degree of maturity in other areas of history. See for instance, Cohen D. O'Connor M. , Comparison and history: Europe in cross-national perspective (New York, 2004).

See for instance Ringer F. K. , Education and society in modern Europe (Bloomington, 1979); Jarausch K. H. (ed.)., The transformation of higher learning, 1860–1930: Expansion, diversification, social opening, and professionalization in England, Germany, Russia, and the United States (Chicago, 1983).

Olesko K. , Physics as a calling: Discipline and practice in the Königsberg seminar for physics (Ithaca, 1991); Kaiser D. , Drawing theories apart: The dispersion of Feynman diagrams in postwar physics (Chicago, 2005), and Pedagogy and the practice of science: Historical and contemporary perspectives (Cambridge, Mass., 2005); Rudolph J. L. , Scientists in the classroom: The Cold War reconstruction of American science education (New York and Basingstoke, 2002); Bensaude-Vincent B. Belmar A. García Sánchez J. R. Bertomeu , L'émergence d'une science des manuels: Les livres de chimie en France (1789–1852) (Paris, 2003).

On the meeting points and distances between the history of science and the history of education in the study of science education see Olesko K. , “Science pedagogy as a category of historical analysis: Past, present, and future”, Science and education, xv (2006), 863–80; Rudolph J. L. , “Historical writing on science education: A view of the landscape”, Studies in science education, xliv (2008), 2008–82; Simon , Communicating Physics (ref. 5), pp. 1–5, 15–18, and “Physics textbooks and textbook physics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries”, in Fox R. Buchwald J. Z. (eds), The Oxford handbook of the history of physics (Oxford, 2012).