- 수업명: <과학기술과 사회연구>
- 2017년 2학기
- 서울대 과학사 및 과학철학 협동과정 대학원
- 담당교수: 홍성욱
- 세미나 목적: “STS 통론”이라고 할 수 있는 이 수업은 과학기술학(STS)에 대한 이론적 연구 및 사례 연구를 개괄함으로써 과학기술학의 최근 성과와 동향을 이해하고 이를 바탕으로 독자적인 연구 능력을 키우는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 이 수업은 STS를 전공하는 학생들에게는 가장 중요한 수업이며, 다른 전공을 하는 학생들도 필수적으로 수강해야 하는 수업이다.
- 평가: 학생들의 성적은 출석, 요약문 제출, 발제, 토론, 학기말 보고서를 토대로 산정한다. 기말 보고서가 50%, 다른 과제들이 50%이다. 요약문은 한글, 영문 reading 모두에 대해서 제출해야 한다. 한글 문헌들은 내용을 요약하는 형태로 요약문을 작성하고, 영문 문헌들은 그 내용을 5줄-10줄로 요약한 뒤에 아래 질문에 대해서 답을 하는 형태로 요약해야 한다. 발제와 수업에서의 토론은 이 영문 reading을 위주로 진행한다.
1) 저가가 어떤 중요한 선행연구를 사용하고 있는가. 이를 어떻게 사용했는가?
2) 어떤 이론이나 모델을 사용했는가?
3) 어떤 연구 방법론을 사용했고, 이를 통해서 어떤 대상을 (어떻게) 연구했는가?
4) 이 연구에서 나오는 새로운 개념이 있는가?
5) 연구의 핵심 주장은 무엇인가? 핵심 주장을 어떻게 논증했는가?
6) 이 연구를 통해서 우리가 과학기술 혹은 과학기술과 사회와의 관계에 대해서 새롭게 얻을 수 있는 통찰력은 무엇인가?
7) 연구의 한계나 약점은 무엇인가?
학생은 수업에서 다룬 주제를 잡아서 이에 대해서 review paper를 써야 하며, 11월 16일까지 참고문헌 목록을 조사해서 제출해야 한다. 논문의 분량은 hwp 신명조 10pt 기준으로 주와 참고문헌을 포함해서 A4용지 15매이다 (행간 200%). 각주는 <과학기술학연구>의 스타일을 따를 것.
■ Discussion Topics
1. 수업 소개 (9월 7일)
2. STS란 무엇인가? (9월 14일)
3. STS의 정치성 (9월 21일)
4. 머튼의 과학사회학 (9월 28일)
5. 쿤 (10월 12일)
6. Social Constructivism (10월 12일)
7. Actor-network Theory (10월 19일)
8. ANT v. Constructivism (10월 26일)
9. 기술에 대한 STS 접근 (11월 2일)
10. Study week & 페이퍼 참고문헌 조사 (11월 9일)
11. 과학기기와 과학의 실행 (11월 16일)
12. Gender and Animal Studies (11월 23일)
13. 불확실성, 위험, 전문성 (11월 30일)
14. representation and visualization (12월 7일)
1. 수업 소개 (9월 7일)
쿤의 『과학혁명의 구조』와 내가 쓴 『홍성욱의 STS, 과학을 경청하다』를 읽을 것.
2. STS란 무엇인가? (9월 14일)
- 홍성욱 외 저. 『과학기술과 사회』 나무나무 2016, 제4부를 모두 읽을 것.
- S. Woolgar (2004), “What Happened to Provocation in Science and Technology Studies?”, History and Technology 20, 339-349.
- Alex S. Kim Pang, “STS@Work: Applying Science and Technology Studies in Technology Forecasting and Scenario Planning” (초고, 2005)
- J. A. Lopez Cerezo and C. Verdadero (2003), “Introduction: Science, Technology and Society Studies: From the European and American North to the Latin American South”, Technology in Society 25, 153-170.
- Daiwie Fu (2007), “How Far Can East Asian STS Go?” East Asian STS: An International Journal 1, 1-14. (also Sungook Hong's comment in ibid, 233-236). & Sungook Hong, “East Asian STS: Some Critical Issues”, EASTS: An International Journal 1 (2007), 233-236.
∎ Optional Readings
- Michael Friedman (1998), “On the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and its Philosophical Agenda,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 29, 215-265.
- Mario Biagioli (2009), “Postdisciplinary Liasons: Science Studies and the Humanities,” Critical Inquiry 35, 816-833.
- Mario Biagioli, “Innovation Studies” (2010. draft. available on the internet).
- Theodore M. Porter (2009), “How Science Became Technical,” Isis 100: 292-309.
- Paul Forman (2007), “The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology,” History and Technology 23, 1-152.
- 홍성욱 (2014), “과학철학과 STS: 접점의 모색을 위한 시론”, 『과학철학』 제17호 2권. 1-12.
3. STS의 정치성 (9월 21일)
- P. Scott, E. Richards, and B. Martin. “Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher in Contemporary Scientific Controversies,” STHV 15 (1990), 474-94.
- Special Issue of Social Studies of Science on the Politics of SSK (May 1996) article by Wynne.
- Bruno Latour (2004), “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30, 225-248.
- Edward Woodhouse, David Hess, Steve Breyman, and Brian Martin (2002), “Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas,” SSS 32, 297-319.
∎ Optional Readings
- David Demeritt (2006), “Science Studies, Climate Change and the Prospects for Constructivist Critique,” Economy and Society 35, 453-479.
- Special Issue of Social Studies of Science on the Politics of SSK (May 1996); other articles by Martin and Jasanoff.
- Brian Martin (1993), “The Critique of Science Goes Academic,” STHV 18, 247-59.
- William T. Lynch and Ellsworth R. Fuhrman (1991), “Recovering and Expanding the Normative: Marx and the New Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” STHV 16, 233-248.
- Mario Biagioli (1996), “From Relativism to Contingentism,” in Peter Galison and David J. Stump ed., The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp.189-206.
- Hans Radder (1992), “Normative Reflexions on Constructivist Approaches to Science and Technology,” SSS 22, 141-73.
- Brian Rappert (1999), “The Uses of Relevance: Thoughts on a Reflexive Sociology,” Sociology 33, 705-723.
- Puig de la Bellacasa M (2011), “Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things”. Social Studies of Science 41(1): 85–106
4. 머튼의 과학사회학 (9월 28일)
- Robert K. Merton, 『과학사회학』에서 “Science and the Social Order”, “The Normative Structure of Science”, “The Matthew Effect in Science”를 읽을 것.
- 김환석 외 『한국의 과학자 사회 - 역사, 구조, 사회화』 (궁리, 2010), 223-346쪽.
- Jessica Wang (1999), “Merton's Shadow: Perspectives on Science and Democracy since 1940” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 30, pp. 279-306.
- Margaret W. Rossiter (1993), “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science,” Social Studies of Science 23, 325-341.
∎ Optional Readings
- Barry Barnes and Robert G. A. Dolby (1970), “The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie (European Journal of Sociology) 11, 3-25.
- Michael Mulkay (1976), “Norms and Ideology in Science,” Social Science Information 15, 637-656.
- 김경만, 『과학지식과 사회이론』 한길사. 2004. 제1부 (96쪽까지).
- Thomas Schott (1993), “The Movement of Science and of Scientific Knowledge: Joseph Ben-David's Contribution to its Understanding,” Minerva 31, 455-477.
- David Hollinger (1995), “Science as a Weapon in Kulturkampfe in the United States during and after World War II,” Isis 86, 440-454.
- David A. Hollinger (1983), “The Defence of Democracy and Robert K. Merton’s Formulation of the Scientific Ethos,” in Robert Alun Jones and Henrika Kuklick eds., Knowledge and Society (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 1-15.
- Everett Mendelsohn (1989), “Robert K. Merton: The Celebration and Defense of Science,” Science in Context 3, 269-90.
- Boris Hessen (1971), The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s ‘Principia’, (New York: Howard Fertig), pp. 1-62.
- Loren Graham (1985), “The Socio-Political Roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and the History of Science,” Social Studies of Science 15: 705-722.
5. 쿤 (10월 12일)
- 토마스 쿤, 『과학혁명의 구조』(제4판, 김명자, 홍성욱 역. 까치, 2013)를 읽고 아래 질문에 답을 할 것.
• 왜 패러다임은 바뀌는가? 혹은 왜 normal science는 한없이 지속되지 않는가?
• 왜 두 패러다임 사이에는 공약불가능성(incommensurability)이 존재하는가?
• 왜 (쿤에 의하면) 과학의 역사는 진보라고 볼 수 없는가?
• 패러다임이 바뀌면 얻는 것과 잃어버리는 것은 무엇인가?
• 해킹의 서문은 쿤의 견해를 얼마나 잘 대변하고 있는가?
∎ Optional Readings
- Ludwig Fleck (1979), The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by Thomas Kuhn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). (English translation of his 1935 book titled Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv Schwabe und Co., Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel.) part 1. 2.
- Nicola Mößnera (2011), “Thought Styles and Paradigms: a Comparative Study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn,” Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42, 362-371.
- Struan Jacobs (2010), “J. B. Conant’s Other Assistant: Science as Depicted by Leonard K. Nash, including Reference to Thomas Kuhn,” Perspectives on Science 18, pp. 328-351.
- Maria Caamaño (2009), “A Structural Analysis of the Phlogiston Case,” Erkenntnis 70, 331-364.
- K. Brad Wray (2010), “Kuhn's Constructionism,” Perspectives on Science 18, 311-327.
- A. Baltas et al. (2000), “A Discussion with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in Thomas S. Kuhn, The Road Since Structure (Chicago), pp. 255-323.
- P. Hoyningen-Huene (1992), “The Interrelations Between the Philosophy, History, and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Development,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42, 487-511.
- B. E. Babich (2003), “From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17, 75–92.
- P. Mirowski (2004), “The Scientific Dimensions of Social Knowledge and Their Distant Echoes in 20th-century American Philosophy of Science,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 35, 283–326.
6. Social Constructivism (10월 12일)
- 홍성욱 (2014), “초기 사회구성주의와 과학철학의 관계에 대한 고찰 (1): 패러다임으로서의 쿤”, 『과학철학』 17권 2호, 13-43쪽.
- Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, ch. 2 (Seeing and Believing) & ch. 7-8.
∎ Optional Readings
- Thomas F. Gieryn (1983), “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists,” American Sociological Review 48, 781-795.
- Ian Hacking (1991), “The Making and Molding of Child Abuse,” Critical Inquiry 17, 253-288.
- W. Henry Lambright (1995), “NASA, Ozone, and Policy-relevant Science,” Research Policy 24, 747-760.
- D. Vaughan (1999), “The Role of the Organization in the Production of Techno-Scientific Knowledge,” SSS 29, 913-43.
- Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
- Peter Winch (1958), The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press), pp.21-39.
- Zheng-Feng Li & Ruey-Chyi Hwang & Chih-Tung Huang (2010), “Go Strong or Go Home: An Interview with David Bloor” EASTS 4, 419-431.
- Sergio Sismondo (1993), “Some Social Constructions,” SSS 23, 515-53.
- David Harley (1999), “Rhetoric and the Social Construction of Sickness and Healing,” Social History of Medicine 12, 407-435.
- David Demeritt (2002), “What Is the ‘Social Construction of Nature’? A Typology and Sympathetic Critique,” Progress in Human Geography December 26, 767-790.
- Roger Pielke and Michele M. Betsill (1997), “Policy for Science for Policy: A Commentary on Lambright on Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain,” Research Policy 26, 157-168.
- Ian Hacking (1999), Social Construction of What? (Harvard University Press), 특히 chapter 1 and 2.
- Ian Hacking (2005), “Why Race Still Matters,” Daedalus 134 no.1, 102-116.
7. Actor-network Theory (10월 19일)
- 『인간, 사물, 동맹』에 실린 Law, Latour, Callon의 글을 읽을 것.
- 『홍성욱의 STS』의 1부를 다시 볼 것.
- Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol (2000), “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology,” SSS 30, 225-263.
- Edwin Sayes (2014), “Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?” Social Studies of Science 44, 134-149.
- Sean Hsiang-Lin Lei (1999), “From Changshan to a New Anti-Malarial Drug: Re-Networking Chinese Drugs and Excluding Chinese Doctors,” SSS 29, 323-358.
- Atsushi Akera (2007), “Constructing a Representation for an Ecology of Knowledge: Methodological Advances in the Integration of Knowledge and its Various Contexts,” SSS 37, 413-441.
∎ Optional Readings
- Stuart Lee and Wolff-Michael Roth (2001), “How Ditch and Drain Become a Healthy Creek: Re-Presentations, Translations and Agency during the Re/Design of a Watershed,” SSS 31, 315-356.
- Jonathan Murdoch (1997), “Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15, 731-756.
- K. M. Cresswell (2010), A. Worth, and A. Sheikh, “Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 10 :67. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.
- Laurie Waller (2016), “Curating actor-network theory: testing object-oriented sociology in the Science Museum,” Museum & Society 14, 193-206.
- Karin Garrety (1997), “Social Worlds, Actor-Networks and
Controversy: The Case of Cholesterol, Dietary Fat and Heart Disease,” SSS 27, 727-773.
- Vicky Singleton and Mike Michael (1993), “Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme,” SSS 23, 227-264.
- Daniel Neyland (2006), “Dismissed Content and Discontent: An Analysis of the Strategic Aspects of Actor-Network Theory,” STHV 31, 29-51.
- Michel Callon (1992), “The Dynamics of Techno-economic Networks,” in K.M. Coombs et al. ed., Technological Change and Company Strategies (London: Academic Press), pp. 72-102.
- N. Lee and S. Brown (1994), “Otherness and the actor-network: The undiscovered continent,” American Behavioral Scientist 37, 772-90.
- N. Lee and J. Hassard (1999), “Organization unbound: Actor-network theory, research strategy and institutional flexibility,” Organization 6, 391-404.
- Bruno Latour (2005), Reassembling the Social: an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford: Clarendon).
8. ANT v. Constructivism (10월 26일)
- Andrew Pickering (ed.)(1992), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). articles by Collins and Yearley, Callon and Latour.
- David Bloor (1999), “Anti-Latour,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30, 81-112.
- Bruno Latour (1999), “For David Bloor...and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor's ‘Anti-Latour’,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30, 113-129.
∎ Optional Readings
- Andrew Pickering (ed.)(1992), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). articles by Bloor and Lynch.
- Eve Seguin (2000), “Bloor, Latour, and the Field,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 31, 503-508.
- Martin Kusch (2004), “Bloor-Lynch Debate Revisited: Rule-Scepticism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: The Bloor-Lynch Debate Revisited,” SSS 34, 571-591.
- David Bloor (2004), “Institutions and Rule-Scepticism: A Reply to Martin Kusch,” SSS 34, 593-601.
- Wes Sharrock (2004), “No Case to Answer: A Response to Martin Kusch's ‘Rule-Scepticism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’,” SSS 34, 603-614.
9. 기술에 대한 STS 접근 (11월 2일)
- Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987)과 Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (MIT Press, 1992)에 실린 논문들 중에 널리 인용되는 논문들을 읽을 것. (송성수가 편집한 책에 번역되어 있음).
- 홍성욱, “기술 패러다임과 기술 혁명: 토머스 쿤과 기술사”, 『한국과학사학회지』 제34호 3권 (12월), 563-591쪽.
- Gabrielle Hecht (1994), “Political Designs: Nuclear Reactors and National Policy in Postwar France,” Technology and Culture 35, 657-685.
- Paul Rosen (1993), “The Social Construction of Mountain Bikes: Technology and Postmodernity in the Cycle Industry,” SSS 23, 479-513.
- Nelly Oudshoorn (1999), “On Masculinities, Technologies, and Pain: The Testing of Male Contraceptives in the Clinic and the Media,” STHV 24, 265-289.
- Brian Rappert (2001), “The Distribution and Resolution of the Ambiguities of Technology, or Why Bobby Can't Spray,” SSS 31, 557-591.
∎ Optional readings
- Frank Geels (2005), “Co-evolution of Technology and Society: The Transition in Water Supply and Personal Hygiene in the Netherlands (1850-1930): A Case Study in Multi-level Perspective,” Technology in Society 27, 363-397.
- Boelie Elzen, Bert Enserink and Wim A. Smit (1996), “Socio-Technical Networks: How a Technology Studies Approach May Help to Solve Problems Related to Technical Change,” SSS 26, 95-141.
- John Law and Michel Callon (1992), “The Life and Death of an Aircraft: A Network Analysis of Technical Change,” in Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (MIT Press), pp. 21-52.
- Mughie Mackay and Gareth Gillespie (1992), “Extending the Social Shaping of Technology Approach Ideology and Appropriation,” SSS 22, 685-716.
- Keith Grint and Steve Woolgar (1992), “Computers, Guns and Roses: What's Social about being Shot?”, STHV 17, 366-80.
- Langdon Winner (1993), “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology,” STHV 18, 362-78.
- Bernward Joerges (1999), “Do Politics Have Artefacts?”, SSS 29, 411-31.
- Brian Wynne (1988), “Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding,” SSS 18, 147-67.
- K. Philip et al. (2012), “Postcolonial computing: A tactical survey.” Science Technology & Human Values 37, 3-29.
- Peter Redfield (2016), “Fluid technologies: The Bush Pump, the LifeStraw® and microworlds of humanitarian design,” Social Studies of Science 46, 159-183.
10. Study week & 페이퍼 참고문헌 조사 (11월 9일)
- 11월 9일까지 두 쪽짜리 페이퍼 프로포절을 제출해야 함. 완벽한 참고문헌 포함. 참고문헌은 논문 기준으로 10-20개 사이. 9일 오후 6시까지 내게 메일로 보낼 것
11. 과학기기와 과학의 실행 (11월 16일)
- 라투르 『판도라의 희망』 2, 3, 4, 5장.
- 홍성욱⋅장하원, “실험실과 창의성: 책임자와 실험실 문화의 역할을 중심으로,” <과학기술학연구> (2010 제 1호), 27-72쪽.
- Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg (1998), “Experimental Systems, Graphematic Spaces.” in T. Lenoir (ed.), Inscribing Science: Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication (Stanford: Stanford UP), pp. 285-303.
- Ursula Klein (2001), “Paper Tools in Experimental Cultures,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32, 265-302.
- R. M. Burian (1993), “How the choice of experimental organism matters: Epistemological reflections on an aspect of biological practice,” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 351–367.
- Robert E. Kohler (1993), “Drosophila: A Life in the Laboratory,” Journal of the History of Biology 26: 281-310.
- Wolff-Michael Roth (2005), "Making Classifications (at) Work: Ordering Practices in Science," Social Studies of Science 35, 581-621.
- Morana Alac (2009), “Moving Android: On Social Robots and Body-in-interaction,” Social Studies of Science 39, 491-528.
∎ Optional readings
- Anne Marcovich and Terry Shinn (2017), “How Scientific Research Instruments Change: A Century of Nobel Prize Physics Instrumentation,” Social Science Information 56, 348-374.
- C. Mody (2011), Instrumental Community: Probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
- Robert Kohler (1991), “Systems of Production: Drosophila, Neurospora, and Biochemical Genetics,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 22, 87-130.
- Peter Galison (1998). Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), Ch. 9 pp.781-844.
- Nicolas Rasmussen (1993), “Fact, Artifacts, and Mesosomes: Practicing Epistemology with the Electron Microscope,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 24, 227-265.
- Peter Galison and Alexi Assmus (1989), “Artificial Clouds, Real Particles,” in David Gooding et al., eds., The Uses of Experiment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225-274.
- Jed Z. Buchwald (1992), “Kinds and the Wave Theory of Light,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23, 39-74.
- Davis Baird (2002), “Thing Knowledge: Function and Truth,” Techne 6:2, 13-27.
12. Gender and Animal Studies (11월 23일)
- 앤 마리 발사모 저, 김경례 역, 『젠더화된 몸의 기술』 (아르케, 2012) 혹은 주디 와이즈먼 저, 박진희, 이현숙 역, 『테크노 페미니즘』 (궁리, 2009) 중 한 권을 읽을 것.
- 홍성욱, 『인간의 얼굴을 한 과학』 중에서 “과학과 젠더” 챕터를 볼 것.
- Jessika van Kammen (1999), “Representing Users’ Bodies: The Gendered Development of Anti-Fertility Vaccines,” STHV 24, 307-337.
- H. Ford, and J. Wajcman (2017), “‘Anyone can edit’, not everyone does: Wikipedia’s infrastructure and the gender gap”, Social Studies of Science 47, 1-17.
- R. Kirk (2010), “A Brave New Animal for a Brave New World: The British Laboratory Animals Bureau and the Constitution of International Standards of Laboratory Animal Production and Use, circa 1947–1968”, Isis 101, 62-94.
- N. Nelson (2013), “Modeling mouse, human, and discipline: Epistemic scaffolds in animal behavior genetics,” Social Studies of Science 43, 3-29.
∎ Optional readings
- Joel Mokyr (2000), “Why ‘More Work for Mother?’ Knowledge and Household Behavior, 1870-1945,” Journal of Economic History 60, 1-41.
- Emma Whelan (2001), “Politics by Other Means: Feminism and Mainstream Science Studies,” Canadian Journal of Sociology 26, 535-581.
- Wendy Faulkner (2000), “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering,” SSS 30, 759-792.
- Maria Lohan (2000), “Constructive Tensions in Feminist Technology Studies,” SSS 30, 895-916.
- Tine Klief and Wendy Faulkner (2003), “‘I'm No Athlete [but] I Can Make This Thing Dance!’ Men's Pleasures in Technology,” STHV 28, 296-325.
- Judy Wajcman (2000), “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State is the Art?”, SSS 30, 447-464.
- De Laet M and Mol A (2000), “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology,” Social Studies of Science 30: 225–263.
- I. Braverman (2011), “Looking at zoos”, Cultural Studies 25, 809-842.
13. 불확실성, 위험, 전문성 (11월 30일)
- Brian Wynne (1992), “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm,” Global Environmental Change 2, 111-127.
- Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch (1998), The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 30-56.
- Joseph Masco (2010), “Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis,” SSS 40, 7-40.
- Mark Carey (2007), “The History of Ice: How Glaciers Became an Endangered Species,” Environmental History 12: 497-527.
- H. M. Collins and Robert Evans (2002), “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” SSS 32, 235-296.
- Arie Rip (2002), “Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies?” Ibid, 419-34.
∎ Optional readings
- Schinkel, W. (2016), “Making climates comparable: Comparison in paleoclimatology”, Social Studies of Science, 46(3): 374-395.
- Lisa M. Mitchell and Alberto Cambrosio (1997), “The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment,” SSS 27, 221-271.
- Simon Shackley and Brian Wynne (1996), “Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority,” STHV 21, 275-302.
- David Mercer (1996), “Understanding Scientific/Technical Controversy” at www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/research/STPPapers/Occpaper-1.html
- Judith A. Bradbury (1989), “The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk,” STHV 14 No. 4, 380-399.
- Kim Fortun (2004), “From Bhopal to the Informating of
Environmentalism: Risk Communication in Historical Perspective,” Osiris 19, 283-296.
- Brian Wynne (1988), “Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public Understanding,” SSS 18, 147-167.
- Brian Wynne (1992), “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science 1, 281-304.
- Duster, Troy. (2015), “A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine”, British Journal of Sociology, 66(1): 1-27.
- MacKenzie D. (2009), “Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets”, Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(3–4): 440-455.
- Brian Wynne (1996), “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay. Divide,” in Scott Lash, Bron Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity (London: Sage), pp. 44-83.
- Steven Epstein (1995), “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 20, 408-437.
- Brian Wynne (2002), “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans,” Ibid 401-17
- Collins and Evans’s response: “King Canute Meets the Beach Boys: Responses to the Third Wave,” Ibid., 33 (2003), 435-52.
- Michael E. Gorman (2002), “Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration,” SSS 32, 933-938.
- Stephen Turner (2001), “What is the Problem with Experts?”, SSS 31, 123-149.
- Brian Wynne (1989), “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information,” Environment 31 no. 2, 10-39.
- Roger Smith (1985), “Expertise and Causal Attribution in Deciding between Crime and Mental Disorder,” SSS 15, 67-98.
- Bernward Joerges (1994), “Expertise Lost: An Early Case of Technology Assessment,” SSS 24, 96-104.
- James Fleck (1998), “Expertise: Knowledge, Power and Tradeability,” in Robin Williams, Wendy Faulkner and James Fleck (eds.), Exploring Expertise: Issues and Perspectives (London: Macmillan), pp. 143-171.
14. representation and visualization (12월 7일)
- https://sites.google.com/site/visualisationnerlich/resources/some-sts-literature
여기에 나와 있는 참고문헌들을 훑어볼 것.
- Michael Lynch (1985), “Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visibility,” SSS 15, 37-66.
- Bruno Latour (1986), “Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with the Eyes and Hands,” Knowledge and Society 6, 1-40.
- David Kaiser (2000), “Stick-Figure Realism: Convention, Reification, and the Persistence of Feynman Diagrams, 1948-1964,” Representations 70, 49-86.
- Anne Beaulieu (2002), “Images Are Not the (Only) Truth: Brain Mapping, Visual Knowledge, and Iconoclasm,” STHV 27, 53-86.
- Ellen B. Koch (1993), “In the Image of Science? Negotiating the Development of Diagnostic Ultrasound in the Cultures of Surgery and Radiology,” Technology and Culture 34, pp. 858-893.
- David S. Jones (2000), “Visions of a Cure: Visualization, Clinical Trials, and Controversies in Cardiac Therapeutics, 1968-1998,” Isis 91, pp.504-541.
∎ Optional readings
- Janet Vertesi (2012), “Seeing like a Rover: Visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission,” SSS 42: 393-414.
- Natasha Myers (2008), “Molecular Embodiments and the Body-work of Modeling in Protein Crystallography,” SSS 38, 163-199.
- Alex Soojung-Kim Pang (1997), “Visual Representation and Post-constructivist History of Science,” HSPS 28:1, 139-171.
- Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison (1992). “The Image of Objectivity,” Representations 40, 81-128.
- Martin J. S. Rudwick (1976), “The Emergence of a Visual Language for Geology, 1760-1840,” History of Science 14, 149-195.
(2018.09.24.)
