This article explores the practice of simulation modeling by investigating how parameterizations are constructed and integrated into existing frameworks. Parameterizations are simplified process descriptions adapted for simulation models. On the basis of a study of meteorological research, the article presents predictive and representative construction as two different ways of developing parameterizations and the trade-offs involved in this work. Because the overall aim in predictive construction is to improve weather forecasts, the most practical solutions are chosen over the best theoretical solutions. In representative construction, the situation is reversed, but while discourse focuses on theory and models, the everyday work is often tied to computer programs. These different ways of construction work are closely related to the role of the simulation models as epistemic or technical objects, and this characterization is also used to compare the results with previous research.
Appleby, D., and J.J. VandleKopple .1997. Programming languages. Paradigm and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill .
2.
Aspray, W.1990. John von Neumann and the origins of modern computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Becker, H.S.1986. Doing things together. Evanston, IL : Northwestern University Press.
4.
Becker, H.S., B. Geer, E.C. Hughes, and A. Strauss.1961. Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
5.
Ceruzzi, P.E.1998/2003. A history of modern computing. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA/ London: MIT Press.
6.
Collins, H.M.1985. Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
7.
Dowling, D.1999. Experimenting on theories. Science in Context12 (2): 261-73.
8.
Edwards, P.N.2001. Representing the global atmosphere: Computer models, data, and knowledge about climate change. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance, edited by C. A. Miller and P. N. Edwards, 31-66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Friedman, R.M.1989. Appropriating the weather. Vilhelm Bjerknes and the construction of a modern meteorology. Ithaca, NY/ London: Cornell University Press.
10.
Gieryn, T.F.1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48 (6): 781-95.
11.
Gubrium, J.F., and J.A. Holstein.1997. The new language of qualitative method . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
Harper, K.2003. Research from the boundary-layer: Civilian leadership, military funding and the development of numerical weather prediction (1946-1955) . Social Studies of Science33 (5): 667-96.
13.
Hine, C.1995. Information technology as an instrument of genetics. The Genetic Engineer and Biotechnologist15 (2-3): 113-24.
14.
Knorr Cetina, K.1997. Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture and Society14 (4): 1-30.
15.
---. 2001. Objectual practice. In The practice turn in contemporary theory, edited by T. R. Schatzki , K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny, 175-88. London: Routledge.
16.
Knuuttila, T.2006. From representation to production: Parsers and parsers in language technology. In Simulation: Pragmatic constructions of reality. Sociology of the sciences yearbook, edited by J. Lenhard, G. Küppers, and T. Shinn, 41-56. New York: Springer.
17.
Knuuttila, T., M. Merz, and E. Mattila.2006. Editorial: Computer models and simulations in scientific practice. Science Studies19 (1): 3-11.
18.
Lahsen, M.2005. Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate Models. Social Studies of Science35 (6): 895-922.
19.
Latour, B.1990. Drawing things together. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch , and S. Woolgar, 19-68. London /Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Lenhard, J., G. Küppers, and T. Shinn, eds. 2006. Simulation: Predictive constructions of reality. Sociology of the sciences yearbook. New York: Springer.
21.
Mead, G.H.1932/1964. The objective reality of perspectives . In On social psychology: Selected papers, 161-75. Repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Merz, M.1999. Multiplex and unfolding: Computer simulation in particle physics. Science in Context12 (2): 293-316.
23.
Nebeker, F.1995. Calculating the weather. Meteorology in the 20th century . San Diego, CA: Academic Press .
24.
Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Freshette, and K. Belitz.1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science263:641-6.
25.
Persson, A.2005a. Early operational numerical weather prediction outside the USA: An historical introduction. Part I: Internationalism and engineering NWP in Sweden, 1952-69. Meteorological Applications12:135-59.
26.
---. 2005b. Early operational numerical weather prediction outside the USA: An historical introduction. Part II: Twenty countries around the world. Meteorological Applications12:269-89.
27.
Randall, D.A., and B.A. Wielicki.1997. Measurements, models and hypotheses in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society78 (3): 399-406.
28.
Rheinberger, H.J.1997. Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
29.
Shackley, S.2001. Epistemic lifestyles in climate change modelling. In Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance , edited by C. A. Miller and P. N. Edwards, 107-34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Shackley, S., J. Risbey, P. Stone, and B. Wynne.1999. Adjusting to policy expectations in climate change modelling: An interdisciplinary study of flux adjustments in coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM's. Climatic Change43:413-54.
31.
Shackley, S., P. Young, S. Parkinson, and B. Wynne.1998. Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCM's the best tools?Climatic Change38:159-205.
32.
Strauss, A.1978/1991. A social world perspective. In Creating sociological awareness. Collective images and symbolic representations, 119-28. Repr. New Brunswick, NJ/ London: Transaction Publishing.
33.
Sundberg, M.2005. Making meteorology: Social relations and scientific practice. PhD diss., Stockholm University.
34.
---. 2006a. Credulous modellers and suspicious experimentalists? Comparison of model output and data in meteorological simulation modelling . Science Studies19 (1): 52-68.
35.
---. 2006b. Scientific models and simulations. In Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology, edited by G. Ritzer, 4104-6. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell .
36.
---. 2007. Parameterisations as boundary objects on the climate arena . Social Studies of Science27 (3):473-88.
37.
Winsberg, E.1999. Sanctioning models: The epistemology of models. Science in Context12 (2): 275-92.
38.
---. 2001. Simulations, models and theories: Complex physical systems and their representations. Philosophy of Science68:442-54.
39.
---. 2003. Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world . Philosophy of Science70:105-25.
40.
Wynne, B.1996. SSK's identity parade: Signing-up, off-and-on. Social Studies of Science26 (2): 357-91.
41.
Zagar, N.2004. Dynamical aspects of atmospheric data assimilation in the tropics. PhD diss., Stockholm University.
