What is context and how to deal with it? The context issue has been a key concern in Science and Technology Studies (STS). This is linked to the understanding that science is culture. But how? The irreductionist program from the early eighties sought to solve the problem by doing away with context altogether—for the benefit of worlds in the making. This special issue takes its points of departure in this irreductionist program, its source of inspirations, as well as its reworkings. The aim is not to solve the context problem but rather to experiment with context and what we label contexting.
AsdalK.2005. “Returning the Kingdom to the King: A Post-constructivist Response to the Critique of Positivism.”Acta Sociologica48 (3): 253–62.
2.
AsdalK.BrennaB.MoserI., eds. 2007. Technoscience. The Politics of Interventions. Oslo, Norway: Oslo Academic Press.
3.
AsdalK.BrennaB.MoserI.RefsethN., eds. 1995. En kyborg til forandring—nye politikker i moderne vitenskaper og teknologier[A cyborg for change—new politics in modern sciences and technologies]. Oslo, Norway: TMV Report Series12/1995.
4.
BarnesB.EdgeD., eds. 1982. Science in Context. Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
BeckU.GiddensA.LashS.. 1984. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
7.
BowkerG.2006. Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge: MIT.
8.
CallonM. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translations. Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay, 196-223.” In Power, Action and Belief. A new Sociology of Knowledge? edited by LawJ., Sociological Review Monograph 32. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
9.
CallonM. 1999. “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.”Science, Technology and Society4 (1): 81–94.
10.
CallonM.LawJ.. 1982. “On Interests and Their Transformation: Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment.”Social Studies of Science12 (4): 615–25.
11.
FlyvbjergB.2001. Making Social Science Matter. Why Social Inquiry fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12.
GalisonP. 2008. “Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science.”ISIS. 99(1): 111–24.
13.
GarfinkelH.1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
GoffmanE.1971 [1959]. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
15.
HarawayD.1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London, England: Free Association Books.
16.
HarawayD.1992a. “Otherwordly Conversations. Terran Topics, Local Terms.”Science as Culture3 (1): 59–92.
17.
HarawayD.1992b. “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d others.” In Cultual Studies, edited by TreichlerL. Grossberg, C. Nelson and P., 295-337. NY: Routledge.
LatourB.1988a. Irréductions. Published with The Pasteurisation of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LatourB.1988b. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LatourB.1990. “Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern! Steps towards an Anthropology of Science.”Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science21 (1): 145–171.
22.
LawJ. 1986. “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of the Portuguese Expansion.” In The Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by BijkerW.HughesTh.PinchT., 111–134. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23.
MarcusG.FischerM.. 1999. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: an Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
MjøsetL. 2009. “The Contexualist Approach to Social Science Methodology.” In The SAGE handbook of Case-Based Methods, edited by ByrneD.RaginC. C., 39–68. London, England: SAGE.
26.
MolA.LawJ.. 2002. “Introduction. Complexities.” In Complexities. Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, edited by LawJ.MolA., 1–22. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
RabeharisoaV. 2008. “Patient Organisations, Scientific Activism and the Politics of Causes: between Singularization and Generalization.” Paper presented at Constructing/Contesting Mobilizations: Activism, Biopolitics and Identity, IAS, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
28.
SchegloffE. A. 1992. “Introduction.” In Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols. edited by JeffersonG.SchegloffE. A.. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
29.
SchegloffE. A.1997. “Whose Text? Whose Context?”Discourse and Society8 (2): 165–87.
30.
ShapinS.1995. “Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.”Annual Review of Sociology21 (1995): 289–321.
31.
ShapinS.SchafferS.. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
StarS. L. 1991. “Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic to Onions.” In A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by LawJ., 26–56. London, England: Sociological Review Monograph/Routledge.
33.
StrathernM.1996. “Cutting the Network.”Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute2 (3): 517–35.
34.
StrathernM.1999. “What is Intellectual Property After?” In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by LawJ.HassardJ., 156–80. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
StrathernM.2004. Partial Connections. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
37.
TraweekS.1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
TsingA. 2010. Alien vs Predator. Presentation to the Danish Association for Science and Technology Studies annual meetings, June 6, 2008STS Encounters. Research papers from DASTS, Vol. 1, No.1, 2010: 1–22.
39.
WatertonC.2010. “Experimenting with the Archive: STS-ers As Analysts and Co-constructors of Databases and Other Archival Forms.”Science, Technology & Human Values35 (6): 645–76.
