AndersonBenedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
2.
AndersonWarwick. 2024. “Islands and Beaches in Science and Technology Studies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values49(6): 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241236544.
3.
BurgessHanaCormackDonnaReidPapaarangi. 2021. “Calling Forth Our Pasts, Citing Our Futures: An Envisioning of a Kaupapa Māori Citational Practice.” MAI Journal: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship10 (1): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.20507/MAIJournal.2021.10.1.8.
ClarkeAdele E.StarSusan Leigh. 2008. “The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods Package.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Third Edition), edited by HackettEdward J.AmsterdamskaOlgaLynchMichaelWajcmanJudy, 113–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
EzrahiYaron.2012. Imagined Democracies: Necessary Political Fictions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
FujimuraJoan H.1987. “Constructing “Do-Able” Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment.” Social Studies of Science17 (2): 257–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631287017002003.
GülZeynelHarbJenna ImadShaik AliMisriaPandianSharad. 2025. “Doing STS now: Of Hackers and Angels in Technoscience.” Science, Technology, & Human Values50 (1): 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241298009.
10.
HardingSandra G.1998. Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
11.
HughesStephen.2024. “Hearts and Minds: The Technopolitical Role of Affect in Sociotechnical Imaginaries.” Social Studies of Science54 (6): 907–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241257489.
12.
JasanoffSheila.2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.
13.
JasanoffSheilaKimSang-Hyun. 2009. “Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva47 (2): 119–46.
14.
KeltyChristopher M.2020. The Participant: A Century of Participation in Four Stories. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Knorr CetinaKarin.1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LancasterKariNealeTimothyAddisonCourtneyKearnesMatthew. 2024. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Science and Technology Studies (STS).” Science, Technology, & Human Values49 (6): 1163–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241285624.
18.
LandeckerHannah.2025. “Life as Aftermath: Social Theory for an Age of Anthropogenic Biology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values50 (4): 679–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241233946.
19.
LatourBruno.2004. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry30 (2): 225–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123.
20.
LatourBruno.2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LawJohn.2016 “STS as Method.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Fourth Edition), edited by FeltUlrikeFouchéRayvonMillerClark A.Smith-DoerrLaurel, 31–58Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
MarresNoortje.2016. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. Basingstoke, UK: Springer.
24.
NealeTimothyLancasterKariAddisonCourtneyKearnesMatthew. 2023. “What Is an STS Contribution Now?” Science, Technology, & Human Values48 (1): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439221138631.
25.
PinchTrevor JBijkerWiebe 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.
26.
RicaurtePaolaGómez-CruzEdgarSilesIgnacio. 2024. “Algorithmic Governmentality in Latin America: Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Neocolonial Soft Power, and Authoritarianism.” Big Data & Society11 (1): 1–6.
27.
RudekTadeusz Józef. 2021. “Capturing the Invisible. Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Energy. The Critical Overview.” Science and Public Policy49 (2): 219–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab076.
SonerydLinda.SundqvistGöran.. 2023. Science and Democracy: A Science and Technology Studies Approach. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
32.
StarSusan Leigh. 2010. “This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 601–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624.
33.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames R. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.
34.
TaylorCharles.2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
35.
VoßJan-PeterAmelungNina. 2016. “Innovating Public Participation Methods: Technoscientization and Reflexive Engagement.” Social Studies of Science46 (5): 749–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716641350.