The author uses personal experiences to introduce the view that the critique of science,
on entering the academy in the form of the sociology of scientific knowledge, has become
increasingly remote from crucial social issues and social movements confronting it. By
linking their analyses more with such issues and movements, science studies scholars
can serve a more useful social purpose and also reinvigorate their theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackroyd, Carol, Karen Margolis, Jonathan Rosenhead, and Tim Shallice.1977. The technology of political control . Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin.
2.
Bammer, Gabriele, Ken Green, and Brian Martin. 1986. Who gets kicks out of science policy? Search17:41-46
Bernal, J.D.1939. The social function of science. London : George Routledge.
5.
Bloor, David.1976. Knowledge and social imagery. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6.
British Society for Social Responsibility in Science. 1985. Technocop—New police technologies. London: Free Association Books.
7.
Chubin, Daryl E.1992. The elusive second "S" in "STS": Who's zoomin' who? Technoscience5(Fall): 12-3.
8.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Sal Restivo.1983. The "mooting" of science studies: Research programmes and science policy. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 53-83. London : Sage.
9.
Clarke, Robin.1971. The science of war and peace. London : Jonathan Cape.
10.
Collins, H.M.1990. Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines . Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
Collins, Randall.1979. The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Darnovsky, Marcy.1991. Overhauling the meaning machines: An interview with Donna Haraway. Socialist Review21 (April-June): 65-84.
13.
Delamont, Sara.1987. Three blind spots? A comment on the sociology of science by a puzzled outsider. Social Studies of Science17:163-70.
14.
Dickson, David.1974a. Technology and the construction of social reality. Radical Science Journal1:29-50.
15.
—. 1974b. Alternative technology and the politics of technical change. London: Fontana.
16.
Firestone, Shulamith.1971. The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution . London: Cape.
17.
Forman, Paul.1971. Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences3:1-115.
18.
Furner, Mary O.1975. Advocacy and objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American social science, 1865-1905. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
19.
Hessen, Boris.1931. The social and economic roots of Newton's "Principia." In Science at the cross roads, by N. I. Bukharin et al., 147-212. London: Kniga.
20.
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Latour, Bruno.1987. Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22.
Lynd, Robert S.1939. Knowledge for what? The place of social science in American culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
MacKenzie, Donald.1990. Inventing accuracy: An histoncal sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24.
Mulkay, Michael.1979. Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: Allen & Unwin.
25.
Ravetz, Jerome R.1971. Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26.
Rose, Hilary, and Steven Rose.1969. Science and society. London. Allen Lane.
27.
—, eds. 1976a. The political economy of science: Ideology of/in the natural sciences. London: Macmillan.
28.
—, eds. 1976b. The radicalisation of science: Ideology of/in the natural sciences. London: Macmillan .
29.
Rose, Steven.1976. Scientific racism and ideology: The IQ racket from Galton to Jensen. In The political economy ofscience: Ideology of/in the natural sciences, edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, 112-41, 202-06. London : Macmillan.
30.
Rowse, Tim.1986. Sociology pulls its punches. In Science as politics, edited by Les Levido, 139-49. London : Free Association Books.
31.
Schwendinger, Herman, and Julia R. Schwendinger.1974. Sociologists of the chair: A radical analysis of the formative years of North Amencan sociology (1883-1922 . New York: Basic Books.
32.
Silva, Edward T., and Sheila A. Slaughter.1984. Serving power: The making of the academic social science expert. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
33.
Third World Network.1988. Modern science in crisis: A Third World response. Penang: Third World Network and Consumers's Association of Penang.
34.
Woolgar, Steve.1983. Irony in the social study of science. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 239-66. London : Sage.
35.
Young, Robert M.1969. Malthus and the evolutionists: The common context of biological and social theory. Past & Present43(May): 109-45.
36.
—. 1971. Evolutionary biology and ideology: Then and now. Science Studies1:177-206.
37.
—. 1973. The historiographic and ideological contexts of the nineteenth-century debate on man's place in nature. In Changing perspectives in the history of science: Essays in honour of Joseph Needham, edited by Mikuláš Teich and Robert M. Young, 344-438London: Heinemann .
38.
Ziman, John.1976. The force of knowledge: The scientific dimension of society . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
