STS on STS: A Perspective of Science and Technology Studies on the STS Field Itself.

(1)

1

STS

on

STS

– A Perspective of Science and Technology Studies on the STS Field Itself

Gabriella Hammarin 2011–05-30

Bachelor thesis

Department of Economic History Uppsala University

Supervised by Magnus Eklund, PhD, Department of Economic History

(2)

2

Abstract: STS, today the abbreviation for Science and Technology Studies (formerly Science, Technology and Society), is an elusive field characterized by widely varying applications and intents, highly dependent on individual people and facets, yet sharing some common aims and practices. STS has risen since the 1960s and this empirical study presents a view on STS today and a discussion on how it has developed by the analysis of five different representatives from different locations in the field of STS.

(3)

3

Introduction and background of this study

STS [Science and Technology Studies or Sociotechnical Studies or Science, Technology and Society] has grown from an idea pursued by only a few people in the 1960s into a discipline practiced at a great number of universities around the world. Today, STS is a full-blown international research track with its own institutions, educational programs, conferences and journals.¹

STS could be described as a meta-field since its intent is to study the origin and practice of knowledge production, as science and technology, as the long and the short of it, research on research.

STS’s main concern is the practice of knowledge production within the realm of science and technology, but few have performed corresponding studies on STS itself. In this thesis, opinions and thoughts from five representatives of three different facets of STS are heard concerning the importance, constitution, identity and emergence of STS as they know it.

Views about STS differ to some extent according to local sites and aims, yet the field appears to be held together by a set of characteristics, values, difficulties, and to some extent methodology and literature, as visible in the empirical review further on. It’s often not applicable to talk about

“institutions of STS”, since this field is rarely having formal institutions at universities, rather research centers, seminars and similar.

Sheila Jasanoff explains the scholarly world as an archipelago of large and small islands rather than as one of a continuous landmass, which is to say that academic fields continue to remain separate from one another rather than act as one. STS, in the archipelago, consists either of many separate islands, rocks and reefs or is possibly one connected island².

Adding to this metaphor, Boel Berner envisions STS as a central island, which many scholars with neo-disciplinary ambitions wish to colonize, but also consists of other islands at different distances, which are connected to the main island by more or less significant connections of bridges and boats.

These outlying islands are other disciplines or research areas. STS, therefore, is the network of all these interconnected groups³.

1 Berner, 2011

2 As described by Boel Berner, Berner 2011

3 Berner, 2011

(5)

5

This thesis intends to explore the multiple fields of STS in order to see their interconnectivity not only at Uppsala University but also at other institutions in Sweden and the Netherlands, which should be of interest to all members of STS as we are studying precisely wider interactions in society. In other words, STS will be put into a larger context.

Objectives

This study is meant to partially create an individual- and location-oriented map of the STS field at universities today. Its focus lies heavily on representatives of STS-activities and their institutions’

views on STS, both today and in its beginnings, to illustrate how STS has developed.

These representatives were provided with a specific set of questions during interviews to bring forth their impressions about STS as STS is an especially elusive field due to its sprawling nature, which is to a considerable degree shaped by the interests of individuals and the goals they wish to accomplish.

To provide a background for the following discussion, one chapter of historical review and one of selected literature review follow below. In addition to the methodology chapter, there is a brief presentation of the representatives and their local STS-facets

Background – the STS Society from the 1960s to the Present

To be able to put the appearance of the STS of today in a historical context, this background chapter is intended to provide a review on its development.

Timeline

This timeline is a brief presentation of some of the most significant landmarks in the development of STS as we know it today, together with some other relevant events pertaining to this study. The landmarks are further introduced and explained in the following text.

1960s

 1962 -- Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is first published

 1969 -- Cornell University and Pennsylvania State University establish formal programs of Science, Technology and Society⁴

4 Cutcliffe, 1996

(6)

6

 Late 1960s -- The University of Sussex establishes a degree course in the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, which is also done by the Science Policy Research Unit⁵

 Several universities in the USA, including Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Penn State, and Stanford also form programs in Science, Technology and Society ⁶

 The “Strong programme” is initiated at the University of Edinburgh⁷

 Concepts forming the “Bath school ” originated at this time⁸

1970s

 STS became established as a field of specialization in the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom⁹

 1975 -- The 4S [The Society for Social Studies of Science] is formed

 1977 -- Ina Spiegel-Rösing and Derek J de Solla Price organized and edited The Handbook of Science Technology and Society because they felt “a strong need for some sort of cross- disciplinary mode of access to this entire spectrum of scholarship”, and also wanted to contribute to the intellectual integration of the emergent field¹⁰.

 1979 -- Latour and Woolgar’s Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts is first published

1980s

 STS is commonly referred to as Science and Technology Studies

 The “Turn to Technology”

 1980: Institution of Tema is founded at the Linköping University

 1981 -- EASST [The European Association for the Study of Science and Technology] is formed

 Founding of the Department of STePS, Twente University

5 Rip, 2004

6 Jasanoff, page 8

7 Berner,2011, page36

8 Berner, 2011, page 36

9 Jasanoff, page 17

10 Hackett et al, 2008

(7)

7

 Addition of anthropological and sociological methods¹¹

 STS enters research labs and construction sites¹²

 Addition of elements of feminism¹³

 Analysis of commonplace interpretations and reconstructions of scientific knowledge as well as technical artifacts.¹⁴

 Mid-1980s -- Many STS programs in the United States, such as Harvard’s and Cornell’s, either die a quiet death or substantially lose momentum¹⁵

 The Actor-Network Theory is introduced by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and others

 1987 -- Social Construction of Technology Theory (SCOT) is introduced¹⁶

1990s

 Departments at USCD, Cornell, and Minnesota are subsequently formed after an initiative from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to open a nationwide competition to support interdisciplinary graduate training in Science and Technology Studies¹⁷

 ”The Science Wars”

 1993 -- Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: the Coming of Science and Technology Studies, by Steven Fuller, is first published

 1995 – The handbook of Science and Technology Studies was published, “providing ‘a map of a half-seen world’ characterized by ‘excitement and unpredictability’”¹⁸

2000s

 2000: STS appears in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (IESBS)

 2001: The STS Centre at Uppsala University is founded

15 Jasanoff, page10

16 Bijker, 1987

17 Jasanoff, page 15

18 Hackett et al, 2008

(8)

8

During the development of what is now known as STS, its abbreviations, approaches and focuses have changed, for example, from Science, Technology and Society during the 1970s and 1980s to Science and Technology Studies as it is today. Thus, the focus has shifted from being centered on society to being concerned with many science and technology development processes, and how they are shaped.

This change could be described as STS in its formative days thought of science and technology as consisting of discursive, social and material activities, which was then considered a philosophically radical project. Thirty years later, STS has focused instead on understanding social issues linked to developments in science and technology, and how those developments could be harnessed for democratic and egalitarian ideals¹⁹. The society is no longer regarded as an independent actor in the interaction, but as a factor among others that are taken into account for affecting knowledge production.

STS as a whole is said to have expanded so rapidly that these two epitomes blended together. These two different approaches and conceptions widened and were found to be applicable to joint issues.

For example, one approach originated from issues about the legitimate place of expertise and science in public spheres as well as the place of public interests in scientific decision making. On the other hand, the second approach was concerned with understanding the dynamics of science, technology and medicine. These two sides were approaching each other all along until they eventually were indistinguishable.²⁰

The Beginnings – 1960s and 1970s

Science and Technology Studies emerged in Europe and the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Already during the interwar period, some scientists, mostly sociologists and historians but also scientists and engineers,²¹ took an interest in studying the relations between the practice of science and its products. This development was reinforced by some especially notable researchers, who were publishing books and articles concerning these meta-like views on science and knowledge production itself. One of the most significant authors was Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) who in 1962 published his work Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which became one of the trend-setting works of STS at that time due to his theories on the analysis of history of science and triggered reactions from many other scientists, which later led to a paradigm shift in the practice of science.

19 Sismondo, 2010

20 Sismondo, 2010

21 Jasanoff,page 4

(9)

9

In the following years, these kinds of topics became established at different institutions around the world. In 1969, the antecedent of STS had reached the USA by way of Cornell and Pennsylvania University, both of which established formal STS programs. Even Harvard, MIT and Stanford formed some kind of similar program²². Meanwhile, in Europe, the University of Sussex established a degree program in the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, which was paralleled by the Science Policy Research Unit.²³

An important landmark of the 1960s for the promotion of STS was the initiation of the “Strong programme” at the University of Edinburgh, which consisted of researchers aiming to study science in a “symmetrical” manner, implying that both accepted and rejected results from research would need to be explained socially and by the same theoretical premises, both of them being produced in the same political and cultural manner.²⁴At the same time in England, the “Bath School” originated with the ambition of studying argumentation and power plays in correlation with scientific controversies. ²⁵ These two doctrines share an interest in how social interaction and cultural prejudice within researchers affect the processes of how conflicts originate and are resolved, especially concerning putative disinterested explanation of natural phenomenon.

The Strong programme and the Bath School had a great impact on STS since these were among the first initiatives to problematize the practice of science in its social context affecting the perception of

“true” or “rational” results.

Altogether, this era introduced new viewpoints on science, which somewhat emerged in relation to contemporary political reforms. Karl Marx and Friedriech Engels already in the second half of the 19^th century understood the great importance that science and technology would come to have on the changing society of their time. In the 1960s, tenets of Marxism used to analyze science and technology was considered part of social criticism. Concurrently, international joint committees and governments discovered science and technology were important sources of financial growth. During this decade, queries about how to steer and exploit these potential resources, but also their consequences, were posed which increased the interest of studying these matters in academia, inter alia STS. ²⁶

22 Jasanoff, page 8

23 Rip, 2004

24 Berner 2011, page 36

26 Berner, 2011, pages 29-31

(10)

10 STS during the 1980s – Adolescence and Crisis

Ergo, the movement coincided with the rise of Science and Technology Studies (formerly not equal to Science, Technology and Society). This was the beginning of the modern STS, with the fusion of these two approaches, claimed not to be accidental. The differences between them are said to be that the former were linked to scholarly disciplines, while the latter was an initiative to widen the considerations of the university education of scientists and engineers.

STS was now more widely accepted, but the political sting that had reinforced and pushed STS was not as substantial anymore.²⁷ The society and researchers were not the same as the ones that had been standing on the barricades, and scholarly achievements had become important in order to maintain STS’s position in the university. This led to the withering of some STS programs but also to emphasizing some characteristics of the movement: the interest in the democratization of science, in technology assessment and control, and in emancipation.²⁸

The new blood that was transferred to STS with the new generation of researchers carried the addition of some new elements that became assimilated, such as the addition of anthropological, sociological and feminist methods.²⁹

During this decade, methodical development occurred within Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), which became popular among STS-practitioners and is widely used for analysis in STS-related cases even today.

1990-2011- STS Rises from the Ashes and Prospers

A field of study can be said to have fully matured with the establishment of professional societies and journals for the exchange of scholarly and educational pursuits, which describes the field of STS during the past two decades. The STS-field seems to have developed into at least three different research and educational approaches describing different ways of striving towards similar goals even though they diverge³⁰:

1. Science, technology and public policy: a professionally oriented track generally focusing on the analysis of large-scale socio-technical interactions and their management. This has strong scientific and technical orientation and stresses the need for training in appropriate policy and management fields.

27 Rip, 2004

28 Rip, 2004

29 Berner,2011, page 38

30 Cutcliffe, 1996

(11)

11

2. Science and technology studies: a track that involves more theoretical investigations into the social and cultural context of science and technology and their functioning as social processes.

3. Science, technology and society: similar to the previous, but with a more pronounced focus on the societal context.

Today, STS seems to be concerned with altruism and social benefits by promoting socially responsible science³¹ and use of technology. It is now considered that academia and industry share the mass of researchers, knowledge and tools, which raises issues about controlling the quality of science, social systems, knowledge properties and pragmatics.

During the 1990s, theories on local and national innovation systems were developed and implicated as an effect of specific research on politics and financial aspects concerning innovation progress.³² The researcher was now, to some extent, expected to solve financial and political issues, and to also provide expertise and guidelines for society in order to promote innovations, and efficiently frame research and politics on technology.

The Science Wars

The Science Wars were, and are in some senses, an episode of more or less heated debate concerning the use of “science” as an etiquette on any knowledge product, and on how science should be excluded from “anti-science”. This war was not an opposition between scientists and science studies scholars, but rather a disagreement between science and the “social constructivist”

and relativist type of sociology³³, which was fought with pencils over the world in journals and books.

A particular school within STS, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), was already highly involved about twenty years before the Science Wars with its aim of social constructivist and relativist orientations. The Science Wars became visible during the early 1990s and by that time, there also existed an internal intellectual opposition to precisely that social constructivism within STS itself.³⁴ The work of Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is said to have been one of the opposition’s great inspirations. New minorities had taken form during the latest decades and were now on both sides of the battlefield, all with new views on the world of science, and among

31 Cutcliffe, 1996

32 Cutcliffe, 1996

33 Segerstråle, 2001, page 2

(12)

12

them, the new sociologists of science took their chance to introduce social, rather than philosophical, explanations for scientific change, which is the exact message Kuhn suggested³⁵.

One of the core issues of the Science Wars was the constructivist assertion that scientific facts themselves were socially constructed, which caused some parts of the scientific world to fall into pieces. Some people on the “scientist side” (in opposite to the side of science studies) began to refer to an “academic left”, consisting of different groups of academic endeavors bunched together.

The essence of the Science Wars concerned who had the right to criticize science, whether it was those within or outside of the field, and which originated from a dissatisfaction concerning existing paradigms for explaining science, resulting in both sides accusing the other to be “unscientific”. At the end of the decade, STS had come into the line of fire, instead of the “academic left”³⁶. Another issue that now entered the stage was the one concerning the relationship between science and society, since society was no longer the same after the world wars and the Cold War.

(13)

13

Literature Review

In this section, theoretical background is presented to serve as support for the framing of the topics for the interviews and also for the analysis of the received answers. First, the fairly new field of Innovation Studies is presented. As it coincides with STS, it provides an example of what STS is not, something that dwells outside its boundaries. The two fields of IS and STS are, in fact, somewhat overlapping yet still different due to their separate identities.

Second, interdisciplinary science is a versatile term, which might involve many different kinds of collaboration-oriented activities. STS-activities are typically interdisciplinary, and to examine the different environments in this study, a framework by Boel Berner is used, determining three types of such activities: multidisciplinary, interdiciplinary and transdisciplinary.

Third, the theories of knowledge interests by Jürgen Habermas will provide a foundation on which to build the discussion on the rise of disciplines and the relations between society and STS.

Finally, the appreciation of new practices on knowledge production is brought forth by Gibbons et al.

If the world of science and knowledge production has gone through a mode change in the latest half- century, STS should probably be affected by it, or, has been affecting it. Further, many of the characteristics of STS-environments correspond to the set of characteristics that is set up to depict activities of knowledge production subsequent to the mode change, which is apparent in both questions and responses from the interviews, implicitly and explicitly.

Concerning Innovation Studies

³⁷

Innovation Studies it yet another field of research that has arisen during the 20^th century, subsequent to the suggested demand for new types of knowledge. Its main concern regards entrepreneurs within the scientific world and aims to advise governments to design innovation policies and steer the national innovation processes.

The field is said to have originated from the work of Josef Schumpeter in the 1960s, whose ideas started to gain currency at the same time as he “combined insights from economics, sociology and history into a highly original approach to the study of long run economic and social change, focusing in particular on the crucial role played by innovation and the factors influencing it”³⁸.

Since then, the field has grown to roughly several thousands of scholars worldwide as followers.

Innovation Studies as an academic field increased particularly rapidly since the early 1990s, but is still not a scientific discipline in the sense that is used throughout this thesis. Fagerberg & Verspagen

37 Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009

38 Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009, page 8

(14)

14

claim that “the development of innovation studies as a scientific field is part of a broader trend towards increased diversification and specialization of knowledge that blurs traditional boundaries and challenges existing patterns of organization within science (including social science)”.³⁹

The overall concept of Innovation Studies generally adopts a system-oriented approach, whereas Innovation Systems relies on the different historical trajectories of innovation thinking. The innovation system concept was first established in policy and academic circles around 1990, and has developed since, in different directions. One of the directions taken is the one featured by the already visible, strong national focus being increasingly complemented “by alternative delimitations of the relevant innovation environment”. Subsequent to this path, many scholars made use the concept, “directing their interest to the regional environment supporting innovative activities, or the environment surrounding innovation in certain economic sectors or for different technologies”⁴⁰.

Concerning Interdisciplinary Science

⁴¹

Interdisciplinary collaborations could be considered as rhetorically more adaptable to fulfill the demands of society on relevance in comparison to the more traditional disciplinary research. This concept is suggested by Boel Berner, who presents a discussion on the view of the narrow-minded and less society-relevant disciplinary research, which is sometimes featured. It’s presented that studies have shown that at least some disciplines have had quite a lot of dealings with each other, and the rate is increasing as well. This could be made visible by the way publications are made, who is cited, joint theories and methodology, and organizational co-operations, mostly between closely related disciplines. These co-operations are creating networks or clusters, consisting of contacts and cross-references. Additionally, there have for long time existed dense network between researchers at universities, government and industry to develop new technology or new medications; it’s not a 1990s phenomenon.

The differentiation by disciplines is kept at most universities though, which is shaping research identities and careers, is manifested in educations, journals, scientific alignments and conferences and is visible in councils and boards of important decision-making organs. The view of differentiation as fair and necessary is shared by many researchers, according to Berner. The disciplines are needed for development of theories and method, and for maintaining the depth and quality of research, according to their supporters, but are seen as obsolete by others.

39 Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009, page 3

40 Eklund, 2007

41 Berner, 2011, pages 15-27

(15)

15

Berner intends to loosen up that binary view by sorting out three grades of collaborative work between disciplines: as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary.

Multidisciplinarity

Multidisciplinary research is characterized by researchers from different subjects collaborating to understand a specific problem, an issue too big or too complex to be properly covered by experts from only one or a few disciplines. Each subject is contributing, but the ambition is not to integrate or change the original perspectives. A common example of this is using each other’s methods, concepts or theories.

Rather than affecting the organizational structure of disciplines in research, multidisciplinary science generates a hierarchal division of labor that emphasizes the boundaries between disciplines, e. g. a subject is used by another as a kind of service discipline.

Interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinary work aims to integrate theories, methods and results of different disciplines, on an equal basis. The objective could be concerning the solution of the own issues, creating innovations or solving urgent problems in society, in alles most heterogeneous in interdisciplinary goals.

Transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity is the most far-reaching form of collaborative work, implying the development of new topics and stances without any obvious basis in a certain discipline. The aim is to create new fields of research on new scientific objects. These kinds of new fields arise and consolidate themselves in different manners, such as identifying a new societal problem area, and often have political premises. If the origin is more of an internal academic kind, another shape of transdisciplinarity is provided, framed as scientific combinations or hybrids. A third option to claim a new field of study is based on wider theoretical models with claims on a new conception of the world or mankind, or a new epistemological credo. This is an attempt to behold new phenomena in divergent manners from traditional disciplinary thinking. The new field of study is not fueled by the issues, but a consequence of the new way of addressing the issues.

Some trans- or interdisciplinary research has given rise to new and autonomous fields, which have become established as new subjects or neo-disciplines. However, there is no consensus whether this is a natural or a problematical development, possibly leading to territoriality and an obstruction of perspectives. It’s said to be a concern that some suspect a disciplinary-like organization would imply a reliable route to academic recognition, funding and careers.

(16)

16

Jürgen Habermas on Knowledge Interests

Professor Jürgen Habermas presents in his work, Knowledge and human interest, theories on the significant factors impacting the production of knowledge, and introduces a number of objectives that are assumed to be of importance when evaluating scientific surroundings, scientists and products. The three fundamental aims for the workings of a scientific discipline are the technical interest, the hermeneutic interest and the emancipatoric interest. These three are summarized and explained by Professor Aant Elzinga as:

- The technical (instrumental) interest: with the primary goal to gain control over nature and human behavior. It is concerned with empirical and analytical science and will mainly study the nature or society as it is and the most common critique is on elements of positivism. The typical science of this interest is natural sciences(including technology and medicine)

- The hermeneutic (interpretative) interest: with emphasis on the interaction and communication between humans. The understanding is gained by reaching beyond the apparent and that could be manifested as service disciplines for political aims. The characteristic science of this interest is cultural sciences or humanities.

- The emancipatoric interest: with orientation to the upheaval of social structures, obstacles and boundaries, towards a liberation of the man from suppression within or on the without of herself. The characteristic science of these values are critical social sciences.

Elzinga is suggesting the use for this schema as a general view on the classical scientific theoretical disciplines, which should be used with the background to Habermas assumptions on the modern society, characterized by a significant division of global domains with internal goals and criteria, or game rules – moral (the good), art (the beautiful), justice (the right) and science (the true)⁴².

The New Production of Knowledge

⁴³

This book is intended to explore the changes in knowledge production of different disciplines by presenting a number of characteristics to define the activities and the actors. The theories of Gibbon et al state that a transformation in the mode of knowledge production occurred at some time during the 20^th century. The manners thought of as traditional are referred to as Mode 1 and the contrasting manners as Mode 2. Together, these two modes constitute the research society of similarities and differences.

42 Elzinga, 2009, page 17

43 Gibbons et al, 1994, pages 1-15

(17)

17

Mode 1 is said to coincide with the idea of ideal knowledge production for many people, typically Newtonian models like empirical and mathematical physics. This affects what are concerned as significant problems, who a scientist is, and distinguishing scientific from non-scientific forms of knowledge. Mode 2, on the other hand, is describing knowledge and practitioners that are not behaving according to the norms of Mode 1.

The set of characteristics of Mode 1 include:

- Problems are set and solved in a context governed by the interests of a specific community, basic research, or academic science.

- Traditional discipline structure

- Homogeneity

- Preserves its form in an hierarchal manner

- Quality control is determined essentially through the paper review judgments about the contributions made by individuals. Control is maintained by the careful selection of those judged competent to act as peers, which is in part determined by their previous contributions to their discipline.

The set of characteristics of Mode 2 include:

- The context of application is always present in knowledge production and the results are intended to be useful for someone or society as a whole. The interest of various actors is also present and the production is performed under an aspect of continuous negotiation, and is also the outcome of supply and demand, intellectual and social. The product is then diffused throughout the society.

- Transdisciplinarity: The contributing disciplines will all add elements of their knowledge into production and the resulting solution will be beyond that of any single contributing discipline; and once attained, it cannot easily be reduced to disciplinary parts. Diffusion occurs as the practitioners move to a new problem context, rather than through reporting results in professional journals or conferences. Communication, through formal and informal channels, is crucial.

- Heterogeneity, in terms of skills and the experience people bring to it. Compositions of teams evolve without being planned or centrally coordinated.

(18)

18

- Flexibility and response time are crucial, leading to heterarchial and transient processing.

- Quality control is of a composite, multidimensional kind.

- Socially accountable and reflexive with a growing awareness about the variety of ways in which advances in science and technology can affect the public interest, which will also increase the number of groups that wish to influence the outcome of the research process.

- A wider, more temporary and heterogeneous set of practitioners, collaborating on a problem defined in a specific and localized context. The problem is often not possible to solve without involving expertise from different disciplines or instances in society, and the individuals will affect both the outcome and the performance of the solution.

Methodology

The study will assimilate an understanding on the STS field by letting representatives speak about it and present their views on certain topics concerning STS. The number of representative will be limited to five due to the restriction of time and the extent of the study.

The spokespersons of the STS facets will be chosen to:

- Reflect activities of research as well as education

- Describe, discuss and speculate on the development of STS, globally and local.

- Be connected to a university that has a formally consolidated institutionalization of STS.

- Define themselves and their work with STS

To create a representative view of STS, certain factors must be considered from many angles:

- Representatives of different types of institutionalizations of STS - Different levels of connection to STS – native discipline

- Nationality and/or experience of other STS environments - “Native” disciplines

To investigate the place of STS in scientific society, a set of interview questions were posed to the representatives. The questions touched upon topics such as:

(19)

19

- The importance of STS’s history on current activities and where the development of STS takes place (from grass roots or at higher levels?)

- The identity of STS as a field, locally and globally

- Relations to other fields and contexts and whether the increasing importance of STS in scientific society may be described by the widened interfaces between disciplines

These five STS narratives will help compose a review about STS today. The goal is to emphasize insights that are relevant to apply on the fields of STS as a whole.

Inquiry Form

The inquiry form was designed to cover three areas: the history of local STS-environment, identity, and relations to society and politics and other disciplines (complete inquiry form in Appendix).

Concerning topics on local history, information was requested about foundations or establishments, and subsequently how such descriptions differ from the present. The circumstances of the birth of the local STS were determined by questions concerning which disciplines STS arose from, if any of them were especially motivated, which university demands helped shape a new “discipline,” and why and if the local STS-environment arose from grass-roots efforts or from above (a university board or similar). An establishment on demands from society or industry was suggested, especially in regards to the final question. These questions together chart influential factors, which defined the local STS, its original objectives, and who set them up.

Currently, the local STS has moved away from its origins. To clarify the differences, interviewees were asked to describe contemporary STS in terms of its abbreviation, composition of people from different disciplines, the degree which STS is institutionalized (both with respect to benefits and disadvantages), and whether they consider the present STS to be the same as the American and British originals of the 1960s.

Concerning the identity of the present STS, both implicit and explicit aims are assumed to contribute to the apprehension, both within practitioners and externals. The interviewees were asked to provide both official motivations for the existence and objective(s) of their local environments and also the perceived views of the STSers themselves, their personal objectives. Objectives and interests of science practice could be compared to Habarmas’ theories, so the interviewees were asked if STS would fit into any of the three suggested classifications.

STS is said to be a sprawling field, and it is not readily apparent who consider herself to be an STSer.

The interviewees were allowed to determine whether they and their colleagues are active primarily

(20)

20

in STS or in their respective original discipline. Since the origins and practices of STS are quite varied, this project tries to discern common aims and practices. For example, what is it that STSers have in common and what unites them as a collective? Such a division is an opening for questions about whether one can truly be considered an STSer at all and if their work belongs to the field of STS.

There is of course no absolute answer, but certainly there are certain elements that STSers are disaffiliated from.

The identity of local STS groups will also take shape in relation to its apprehension by others, which makes it important to be able to explain/legitimate one’s existence. The importance of the local STS is questioned at three instances: for the respective university in official and tacit terms, for the local society, and for the STS-people themselves.

STS consists to a great measure of inheritances from other pre-existing disciplines, which of course color its activities. The local composition of different disciplines that build up a foundation for STS can appear in many different ways, which is why the representatives are to present a sketch of the division of labor.

Some of the reference literature suggests that STS has a “leftish” identity, which is an interesting part of the local identity since it can be more or less visible, or it might even be inaccurate. The question is posed whether it is possible at all to place STS in the left-right political spectrum. Independently, the local STS might as well be influenced by the local political context, which is partly why its representatives tell how they look upon how it has come to affect their specific facet.

Society itself has gone through a lot of changes since the rise of STS, in regards to higher education, governance and law, requests for new knowledge and educations, and technology. The degree to which these changes have influenced STS is fluid, especially at the local level. This is also connected to the idea of a mode change in knowledge production, since it argues for the existence and reason for these types of changes in society and science, as each affects the other. The interviewees now have an opening to reflect on which of these factors have been visible (if at all) at their university.

The issue of prestige and what legitimizes a group’s existence and practices is important for any field and certainly STS as it plays a major role in funding and attention or publication in journals, both institutional and public-oriented. As a fairly new field, STS should be especially keen on gaining such assets. There is no historical background to build upon. Therefore, the present status of STS requires effort to penetrate these areas.

One of the more significant characteristics of STS is the interdisciplinary collaborations. The request for combined knowledge/education might have risen from the society, eventually subsequent to a

(21)

21

mode change. This topic is introduced together with a follow-up question concerning if it, if so, is local or global needs.

The overlapping field of Innovation studies seems to have a lot in common with STS, which is probably already known by the interviewees, so it is suggested that there exists a relation between them. If so, it should consist of elements which they have in common and which elements distinguish them from one another, which the inquiry form seeks to define.

Interviews

The representatives were interviewed at their respective university, if possible, and the utilized language was either English (Arie Rip) or Swedish (the others). The interviews were conducted with only a representative and the interviewer present, were recorded, transcribed and translated into English, when needed. Each interview lasted between 1.5-2.5 hours and was, in some cases, followed up with further questions by e-mail.

The representatives were provided with the questions for the initial interview beforehand, if requested.

All of the representatives answered the same questions, but were encouraged to speak freely. The inquiry form was principally pursued, except in cases when they were either irrelevant, since an answer was already provided, or obsolete, due to the specific person or site. In a few cases, the order of the questions was rearranged, when a reply touched upon another, not immediately subsequent question. The same form was used for every (initial) interview.

Some of the interviewees also provided writings of their own for further response to the topics; in these cases, I have also let the text speak for the respective person in addition to the information gathered during the interviews.

Interviewees

Boel Berner (BB)^{is a}Professor at the Department of Technology and Social Change at Linköping University since 1991 and has a degree in sociology. Berner is currently responsible for the research program on “Technology, practice, identity”. Her research interests concern medical technology and practices, the characteristics and social roles of technical knowledge, gender and technology, and factors regarding risk and uncertainty. She has ongoing projects concerning blood donation, distance health-care, professional identities, and learning processes in technology. ⁴⁴

44 Website of Linköping University, http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/berner-boel?l=en

(22)

22

Mats Bladh (MB) is a Senior lecturer at the Department of Technology and Social Change at Linköping University and has a degree in economic history. His current publications concern topics such as deregulation of electricity in Sweden, electricity and lightning in homes, path dependency, issues concerning the building of accommodations, criticism of capitalism, environmental labeling in Sweden, Large Technical Systems and housing policies.⁴⁵

Arie Rip (AR) is a professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology in the School of Management and Governance at the University of Twente with great STS experience, but a background in physical chemistry. He is also stated as “key figure in the Center for Studies of Science, Technology and Society, which comprises studies of new technology and users, long-term developments of technology and consumer society, technology assessment, especially constructive technology policy instrumentation, national systems of research and innovation and their evolution”⁴⁶. He is also a member of the editorial boards of: Social Studies of Science , Journal of Risk Research , New Genetics and Society , Science, Technology and Society , International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy , Genomics, Society and Policy , Science Studies . ⁴⁷

Alexandra Waluszewski (AW) is Research Leader of Science, Technology, Business and a professor at the Department of Economic History at Uppsala University. Her research areas are within STS, with a focus on interaction between science, technology and industrial development and economic science and society. She works in projects concerning Life Science with the emergence of a biotech valley in Uppsala, the creation of economic values in Life Science/Biotech in Uppsala and Economic Science and Society – how the understanding of an economic world is colored by our research tools.⁴⁸

Sven Widmalm (SW), is a professor in history of ideas at Uppsala University, a member of the board of Uppsala STS and a professor at Tema T: technology and social change in Linköping. He has worked with technological, social, political and industrial aspects of the history of science after 1700, especially the history of astronomy, physics and biology.⁴⁹

Short presentations of the three facets of STS that are represented in this study follow below:

45 Website of Linköping University, http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/bladh-mats?l=sv

46 Website of STePS, University of Twente

47 Website of University of Twente, http://www.utwente.nl/mb/steps/people/adjoined/rip/

48 Website of Uppsala University, http://www.sts.uu.se/profileShow.php?profile=AWaluszewski

49 Website of Uppsala University, http://www.vethist.idehist.uu.se/Personal/Sven_Widmalm.html

(23)

23

Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Uppsala University

The Research Center of Science and Technology Studies at Uppsala University was first seriously considered by Vice-chancellor Bo Sundqvist with an initiative for investigation on March 13, 2001 and was formally given funding on June 14, 2002 after it was found to be an interesting concept with great potential. A prerequisite was that the center was to be run by means from contributing departments⁵⁰.

Today, it is an interdisciplinary research center located at the Faculty of Social Sciences, led by director Ylva Hasselberg, with research leaders Alexandra Waluzsewski and Sharon Rider along with a board of seven people, which represents researchers, doctoral students and undergraduates. 22 researchers of different “native” disciplines are working with projects carried out in co-operation with the center. Two courses are given for students, both on undergraduate and graduate level, and the center is also responsible for elements in the education of civil engineers at the master’s program in Sociotechnical Systems Engineering⁵¹.

The webpage of the center has a presentation of its aim:

“As the scientific and social context changes and as research policy emerges as a central concern in national as well as trans-national politics, critical analyses of the relationship between science, technology and society are more salient than ever. The aim of Uppsala STS is to initiate and support such research, as well as contribute to educational programs in the field”⁵².

Uppsala is explicitly critical, which probably contributes to the fact that the center is not recognized as a service discipline or for providing direct support to the commercial sector. It’s stated to be a multidisciplinary research center, but by the definitions of Boel Berner, it’s more of an interdisciplinary one because of the integration of staff and methods on an equal basis rather than mere borrowing.

Uppsala STS has its roots in a multidisciplinary research project, though, which is further explained in the empirical review.

Institution of Tema: Technology and Social Change, Linköping University

Linköping University is unique in Sweden for its organization of transdisciplinary research, gathered in departments with different focuses, such as Child studies, Gender Studies, Water and

50 Remittance document concerning Science and technology studies in Uppsala, 2003-10-14

51 Webpage of Uppsala STS

52 Webpage of Uppsala STS

(24)

24

Environmental Studies, and Technology and Social Change. All of these departments are housed at the Institution of Tema (English: Theme), founded in 1980⁵³.

This framework is meant to provide a favorable environment for research between and beyond disciplinary boundaries, and to be of vital social and environmental importance to the named fields of knowledge. Research excellences should thereby meld together with educational pursuits. In addition to two engaged administrators, there are 22 researchers and teachers, and 32 PhD students, who hail from different “native” disciplines, such as the humanities, social sciences and technology.

Tema T also offers an international Master’s program and several undergraduate courses⁵⁴.

In Boel Berner’s definition, this is an example of true transdisciplinarity, since it has left the standard division of disciplines and is now an institution of its own, intended to form solutions to problems that require more than an ordinary, single-disciplinary approach. However, it is neither claiming to be a new discipline nor rejecting the traditional ones.

Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente

According to its webpage,⁵⁵ the Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies is an

“interdisciplinary group that combines input from a number of social sciences, history and other humanities”. The current staff represents a wide range of origins: sociology, history, political science, policy studies, science and technology studies, and it is said to have expertise in substantial areas of science, technology and innovation.

The scientific staff consists of 15 people in addition to 9 research associates/adjoined staff, 3 administrators, and 12 PhD students and postdocs.

The research program is said to focus on the dynamics and governance of Science, Technology and Innovation, and the study of the nature and actual dynamics of the processes of STI is considered “a goal in itself and also an important prerequisite to investigate the governance of STI”⁵⁶. There is also a statement that the view that STI should be considered as social processes underlies the design of their research program. The program aims to “cover the whole spectrum of the ‘life trajectory’ of techno-scientific developments, ranging from historical to forecast and policy studies”.

53 Webpage of Tema T

54 Webpage of Tema T

55 Webpage of the Department for Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente

56 Webpage of the Department for Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente

(25)

25

Before STS had its own institution, it was a part of Philosophy. By certain initiatives from department staff, people devoted for empirical studies in science and technology in society were requested. The STS unit grew and became as big as the general philosophy unit and it became independent, keeping the title of STS and moved into the faculty of management and governance. Along with the original STS were the adjacent fields of history of science and technology and policy studies⁵⁷.

So, the name of Science, Technology and Policy Studies houses somewhat differing activities but adjacent enough to be able to collaborate and gather around joint interest and topics.

57 Interview with Arie Rip

(26)

26

Empirical Review

The three different environments of STS-activities that the representatives are representing have, of course, their own history and present cast. Even though we all could speak of STS as what the respective researcher and university is practicing, the abbreviation or local label on it is differing between the sites. In Uppsala, SW suggests Science and Technology Studies and AW underscores that it’s not the abbreviation that explains the activities but rather the actual intellectual contents, whatever they might be named. The naming is a label on a set of people and activities, which is chosen as something that is appropriate for gaining acceptance at the moment, but is not what determines the outcome. In Linköping, STS-people are working under the flag of the Department of Thematic Studies – Technology and Social Change and internally speak of STS as Science and Technology Studies, according to BB and MB. In Twente, the department has taken the name of Science, Technology and Policy Studies (STePS), after the merging of the departments of Philosophy of Science and Technology and Policy Studies.

History: How did we get here?

The history and local composition of STS is shaping the view that people have on their different environments and upon their roles (to some extent) as STS-people. Also, the shaping of activities is highly framed at the individual level, which happens to be in the place of development and what one’s personal interests are. The STS of Uppsala has, since the beginning, had an inclination toward economic history and business studies, which is not in accordance with the international norm, but has, according to AW, been luckily blessed with researchers from a range of disciplines covering the area from science studies to knowledge using practices in firms⁵⁸. Both AW and SW also imply the importance of individuals, which is assumed to have a great impact on the local activities, depending on who happens to be engaged in that specific site. STS-people of Uppsala are an elusive group, since a lot of the practitioners might use STS as a framework for research on their relevant areas, rather than using the research center itself⁵⁹. The origin of the interest among a certain group of researchers was of a research program on science, technological development and industrial renewal, which also acted as a source of inspiration⁶⁰. People at Uppsala STS still don’t primarily define themselves as STSers to the extent of using the label on their respective “native” disciplines, which is suggested to be due to the boundary-crossing nature of the STS-activities. No one can claim they only work in their native discipline; the common view keeping the group together in the

58 Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski

59 Interview with Sven Widmalm

(27)

27

figurative sense, is the one of a critical attitude towards the relation between science, technology and social or industrial development, a system approach on technology and knowledge⁶¹.

At Tema T in Linköping, there are a range of people with a different devotion to STS, according to BB.

Due to the (comparatively) long history and consolidation of the Institution of Tema, is has an identity of its own that probably is more commonly adopted than the one of STS⁶². MB describes the addition of STS as a later-introduced concept by individuals who found it at external conferences and in writings. Each person shares both the role of Tema T (technology and social change) and the native discipline (and eventually STS), which MB believes to depend on the individual and her personal background, which are merged at Tema T because of the collaboration with other disciplines, and provides the researcher with a new identity, the one of Tema T, which might be hard to reverse once taken on⁶³. BB suggests that the label of STS was easier to use for universities without any precedent activities of that kind, providing a new identity, some prestige and a link to an international movement, which provided an accepted field with possibilities of career, international acceptance, and solid theoretical substance. BB also interjects that introducing oneself as STSer has no valid meaning, since it’s only a minority that will associate anything with the abbreviation⁶⁴.

The University of Twente was earlier going under the device of being a “two core university” with technical sciences and social sciences, implying a need for people or groups that could bridge the gap, which what was later what STS came to fulfill. AR explains that historically, 80% of the people in STS in the 1970s came from science and engineering, the rest from philosophy, and circumscribes the heart of STS as “pragmatic constructivism”. He tells of an aggregation process that is something of a mutual process, mostly not pre-determined. From the 1980s onward, the combinations of people involved in STS became more varied, so the percentage of 80% decreased as there was quite a lot of entrants from social sciences, like sociology, critical science and anthropology doing STS recognizably because of the freedom to choose one’s own directions. But yet, many of the entrants into STS never had to leave their original disciplines, because this pragmatic constructivism approach was also becoming more popular there⁶⁵.

The importance of individuals is again pointed out by AR, in two particular ways. First, when you have people interested in STS and they can do it in different places where there is no STS in the description

62 Interview with Boel Berner

63 Interview with Mats Bladh

(28)

28

or a title, one can identify these people and create collaborations with the lack of institutional space;

the importance of people is because the presence of the informal network, which comes in use when new opportunities arise, demands the advantages of the network of interested people, which is not always a visible resource. In another way, when there is a chair or a name on a department, the direction may change when the people change⁶⁶.

While at the recently gained room at the university, the empirical review suggests that STS has to conform and submit to the same requirements as any other field by teaching, doing research and publishing in the right journals. AR tells about big debates concerning this issue in the Netherlands in the 1980s in the world of STS movement about whether to accommodate these demands. MB points out the bibliometrical issue, the pressure to write articles, which is a challenged issue, but is not yet an actuality.⁶⁷

According to the responses, Being a STSer today seems to be concerning some central activities, such as reading specific literature, visiting STS conferences, having the knowledge of the most popular STS-methodology and concepts such as ANT and SCOT. What STSers have in common is depicted as something mobile, somewhat sprawling but yet moving in one direction, as a flock, according to the change of context and research initiatives. What is solid is the kernel of the critical review and the interest for the use of technology and science and of not being technological-deterministic.

AR speaks of it thusly:

“What is common for STS people is that they will relate to science and technology in society and there is a sort of implicit enlightenment idea. This notion of science and technology is very important in modern and late relate problem in societies and that’s why you want to look at science in technology and society. You could argue that property and perhaps social welfare is much more important topics, concerned about society, but STS people don’t go there, they go to science and technology in society. So there is a sort of conviction, which is not left or right, it’s across the border and the idea that science and technology are important. It’s a bit like Bernal but more sophisticated.”⁶⁸

Altogether according to the gathered replies, STS seems to be a vaguely institutionalized field, with different locations handling the formalization in different ways, typically as research centers, networks, interdisciplinary units, or educational programs. The drawbacks are about succession, how

(29)

29

to make additions to present knowledge, advancement in research, vulnerability for quick changes, its loose affiliations, recruitment and keeping the knowledge alive.

However, the benefits are flexibility and the possibility to change direction depending on news in research, education or interest.

Identity: Who are we today?

The local sites have both official and visionary aims with their practice of STS. In some cases, this is something that has grown together with the field; in other cases, it is something that was stated from the very beginning. SW has describes the aim of Uppsala STS:

“ To be a forum and a platform for people involved in research on science and technology studies, in a wider sense in society and humanities featured by the interest for science and technology. And to be a critical instance reflecting and analyzing the role and function of science and technology in society and culture, without any directing from financial instances or politicians. The professional, scholarly identity of STS has become stronger, adjoined by the interest for analyzing technology, science and society. That’s how interdisciplinary areas arise, when people originating from different disciplines share the same interests.”⁶⁹

In addition to the above, AW accentuates the personal aim of the individuals involved “to work with the topics that engages us”⁷⁰, which formulates something that is to be read between the lines in all five of the interviews.

Tema T in Linköping, has, according to BB, the aim to study technology both from a present and historical perspective and try to sort out how it’s interweaved with social, cultural and financial aspects in society⁷¹. This aim is somewhat similar to the aim of Twente, as formulated by AR on the topic of the importance of STS in society to be a critical view on establishment practices. AR also accentuates that modern societies need STS as a scholarly discipline or as a quality control, but also because it actually trains people in the service of teaching scientists and engineers to competently look at their fields when graduate students⁷².

The objective for STS’s role in society is also suggested by AR to be one of new ideals:

69 Interview with Sven Widmalm